Sitting of 12 May 1999

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

  Prison Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The purpose of this debate is to raise in the House some of the wide concerns about the management of the Prison Service, especially those concerns highlighted in the reports of the chief inspector of prisons. I seek a response from the Government to those concerns and to some of the ideas that I will advance.
  As of last Friday, the Prison Service held 64,238 prisoners in 127 directly managed establishments and in seven prisons run by private sector companies. I have chosen not to debate the issue of private prisons on this occasion, but we believe strongly, on principle, that the state should not deprive people of liberty and then hand the key to the private sector. However, that does not mean that private sector prisons cannot be managed well, and we can learn some lessons from them. I shall briefly explore that issue later.
  The Prison Service employs about 40,000 staff in the prisons that it manages directly and the operating costs of the service total about £1.7 billion. A service of that size must be managed as effectively as possible and must achieve its stated purposes, giving value for money.
  I do not believe that the Prison Service is in decline. It has made considerable achievements in recent years under particularly stressful conditions, most notably—although not exclusively—in prison security and in reducing the number of escapes. That is not surprising, as all efforts have been directed at those areas. The chief inspector pays a particularly warm tribute to the work of the former director, Richard Tilt, who was the first director appointed from within the Prison Service. He took control of the service in difficult circumstances when morale had been damaged dramatically and made significant improvements.
  While criticising the management of the Prison Service, I acknowledge that friends and people whom I respect work at every level of the service, from prison officers to top management. I know the dedication and commitment that they demonstrate. However, the fact remains that there are significant problems and that something is seriously wrong with the management of the service.
  Members of Parliament tend to know when something is wrong with organisations from the way in which individual cases are handled. I have had problems with the Prison Service over the years. While trying recently to secure the transfer of a prison officer from Scotland to
  234
  England, I discovered that the England and Wales Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service have been in dispute over transfers since 1995, and that that dispute remains unresolved.
  While pursuing another case involving a prison officer who I believe was wrongly dismissed and unjustly treated, I discovered that Prison Service headquarters had told a local authority inquiring about his reference that that man had never worked for the service. When such things happen, one begins to explore the situation more deeply. Those painful individual matters—the first has been resolved satisfactorily, but the second has not—cause concern, but I have many other reasons to be worried about the management of the Prison Service.
  Many of my greatest and most obvious concerns date back to the closing years of the previous Government. The Prison Service will never forget the years when it was run "Howard's way". His was an era when the Home Secretary interfered in all aspects of the service, but was never prepared to take responsibility for it, especially if something went wrong—as it often did. The revelations of the then outgoing Minister of State, now the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), confirmed all our worst fears about the then Home Secretary's approach to the management of the service.
  However, the problems had begun even before that. The Woodcock report on the Whitemoor escapes stated:
  "There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and … Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies."
  The report made the further crushing observation:
  "Any organisation which boasts one Statement of Purpose, one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight KPIs"—
  key performance indicators—
  "without any clear correlation between them, is producing a recipe for total confusion and exasperation amongst those undertaking a most difficult and dangerous task on behalf of the general public."
  The new Home Secretary has rightly changed the management style that he inherited from his predecessor. He has stated clearly that he takes responsibility for the service, but his style is not one of constant and detailed interference. That is very welcome. It would be easy to assume that all the deficiencies in Prison Service management have been remedied, but the chief inspector's annual report makes it clear that serious long-term problems remain.
  A major theme of the report is the lack of consistency within the Prison Service. Service standards and conditions identified by the chief inspector vary greatly and include variations within the same category of prison establishment. With the exception of dispersal prisons, there appears to be considerable inconsistency of standards within each category of prison. Factors such as whether a prisoner's offending behaviour will be challenged through education, work or offending behaviour programmes, how much time prisoners spend locked in their cells and whether those cells are overcrowded depend upon which prison an offender is sent to.

  235
  Referring to young offender institutions, the chief inspector's report states:
  "We have continued to find some disgraceful examples of unacceptable treatment and conditions of children under the age of 18 and other young offenders, as well as some outstanding examples of good practice."
  The reports on Feltham and Werrington understandably caused considerable alarm. The inspector also pointed out that Prison Service management is failing to identify the problems within prisons. He stated:
  "Time and time again, my Inspectorate and I find ourselves reporting on matters that I believe should have been resolved by line management as a matter of course."
  He continues:
  "Unless senior management is ruthless in insisting on the maintenance of standards, never tolerating anything less than what is required, while recognising and enthusing over what is good, or better, no operational organisation can hope to succeed."
  The chief inspector's conclusion is that the fundamental cause of those failures is that
  "this organisation is inefficient, because it appears to be more about the management of financial resources than the oversight of operational delivery".
  There must be something wrong with the management of a national service in which such contrasting results are achieved and significant problems are not identified by line management. That would not be acceptable in any other national service, and it should not be accepted in the Prison Service. There are varying circumstances for each Prison Service establishment, but that does not justify the results, which seem to be due to a failure in the organisation of line management.
  The chief inspector suggests that the problem might have originated from the abolition of the Prison Commission in 1962 and the consequent Whitehall takeover of the management of prisons. He believes that from that point, the ethos has been wrong. The emphasis has been on a service to Ministers, rather than the delivery of required operational outcomes. I have always suspected that the Home Office's tendency to second-guess Prison Service decisions, or the fear that it will do so, blurs management responsibility and weakens managers.
  The chief inspector does not blame individual operational directors, area managers or governors, but argues that the organisational structure needs reform. He contrasts the experience of dispersal prisons with the rest of the prison service. Dispersal prisons are under a single director with financial authority, so there is much greater direction and consistency, which contrasts with the geographically organised management of the rest of the Prison Service. He concludes that there should be much greater functional management of the service.
  Recent changes have addressed some of those issues, but I share the chief inspector's concern that those reforms may not have gone far enough, and some aspects of them may create new problems. A positive step is the creation of a new position of director of regimes, as well as assistant directors for adult training, women prisoners and young offenders. However, the concern remains that, because there is not direct authority over all aspects in each of those areas, the necessary improvements will not be made.
  236
  The failure within young offenders' institutions is an example. Despite the Home Secretary's statements on improving the juvenile secure estate, senior operational managers were found to be failing to achieve their targets. The chief inspector said that, at Werrington, operational managers were sanctioning extensive doubling up in single cells and young people were being required to share cells with strangers on their first night in prison. At Feltham, conditions were even worse than when he had inspected the establishment two years earlier. He said:
  "That senior line management in the Prison Service should even think that such conditions and treatment are appropriate, confirmed my fear that the Assistant Director of Regimes would be powerless to influence the day to day routines that are currently not her responsibility to fund, however much she might be able to design appropriate offending behaviour programmes."
  The chief inspector gives the shocking example of HMP Brockhill, where, he says,
  "disgracefully, we found that 80 per cent. of the uniformed staff were male, over a year after it had been converted to a women's prison."
  He says that Holloway remains virtually unmanageable.
  The chief inspector has therefore repeated his call for greater direct functional management for aspects of the Prison Service, including making one person responsible for all aspects of individual functions, with the authority to allocate resources. The priority areas are women and young offenders, with one overall director needing to be responsible for all day-to-day activities in any prison in each of those categories. The Government have so far resisted that call, and I should like to know what their latest thinking is.
  The chief inspector has also drawn attention to the fact that prison governors have extensive delegated powers over the budgets for their establishments, but also face a heavy bureaucratic load, which inhibits their ability to exercise leadership and remain in close contact with the prison. He says:
  "To bog governors down in bureaucratic detail shows a lack of awareness of the load on them, and the fact that it is inhibiting their ability to walk their prisons is bound to have an effect on the operational performance of staff, which in turn affects the delivery of the operational aim."
  There have been other recent reforms of the management system. The quinquennial review of the Prison Service has confirmed its agency status, which we have supported, but there have been further changes. A new strategy board is to be chaired by a Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with the director general as his deputy, but there is also a separate Prison Service management board, which is chaired by the director general. There is concern that this unusual system of two overlapping boards will again blur the lines of responsibility in the Prison Service between operational and policy matters. How will that system work?
  Part of the answer to improving management may be the extension of service delivery agreements within the Prison Service. We welcome that approach, which makes clear what is expected and how it is to be achieved, and that oversight of outcomes is needed. This is not, as I have said, the occasion for a debate on the ethics of the private management of prisons, about which we have concerns, but it is relevant to note private prisons' clear advantage, which we can learn from, which is that they are told precisely what is expected of them.

  237
  The Prison Service has a key regulatory role for private prisons, which do not always achieve their targets, as the long list of reduced contract payments demonstrates, but there are lessons to be learned from private management and the system by which those prisons' requirements are set. In the public sector, there needs to be proper assessment of the needs of each individual prison. Funding should follow needs more effectively, and reform should be based on that concept.
  The biggest problem that the Prison Service faces is overcrowding. Excessive numbers not only lead to unacceptable conditions but undermine the work of the service. The focus becomes containment and security—keeping prisoners inside—instead of the more positive work that can be done. Overcrowding drains resources, reduces morale and undermines the capacity to undertake constructive work with offenders. It is understandably difficult to manage a service in which demands constantly outweigh resources. Overcrowding is a theme to which the chief inspector returns every year.
  Overcrowding jams up the prison system. In theory, prisoners should move through categories of prisons by completing the required parts of their sentence at each level. However, the chief inspector points out that
  "this sensible procedure has been severely disrupted by the effects of overcrowding, the Prison Service having to operate at over capacity the whole time to ensure that every available bed-space is occupied."
  It is welcome that the recent rapid rise in the prison population has decreased in the past year, but at more than 64,000 prisoners, it is stabilising at an overcrowded level. That is like saying to the inhabitants of various midlands towns, "It is all right, the floods will stay at about their present level, and they won't go up much more." The prison population is at a level above the Home Office's projection for this period.
  According to the chief inspector, in the past year, local prisons were, on average, holding 26 per cent. more prisoners than they are resourced to hold. That category of prison is the greatest cause for anxiety because they are centres of inactivity and idleness. They have by far the highest suicide rate. Suicide is a major problem in the service. The figures for the first quarter of this year suggest that record numbers last year may be matched this year.
  This country has 122 prisoners for every 100,000 people, compared with 110 in Spain, 90 in France and Germany, 85 in Italy and Holland, 80 in Belgium, 65 in Denmark, 60 in Sweden, 55 in Norway and 50 in Greece. Our prison population is well over double those of Greece and Norway. In the whole of western Europe, only Portugal jails a higher proportion of its population. We are similar to ex-communist countries in our rate of imprisonment.
  Liberal Democrats have continually challenged the false argument that excessive use of prison sentences makes communities safer; it has the opposite effect because it maximises reoffending and consumes huge resources that could be used more effectively to protect the public. There seems to be a belief in the Home Office that the new community sentences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the introduction of home detention curfews and some lessening of the "lock 'em up" rhetoric will reduce the prison population to a more reasonable level, but there is no guarantee of that. We have yet to see
  238
  the results for the prison population of the Government's adoption of the previous Government's policy of mandatory sentencing.
  Mandatory sentencing will not only affect those convicted of offences with mandatory sentences, but will almost certainly ratchet up other sentences when comparisons begin to be made between someone who gets a defined, mandatory sentence and someone whose offence seems to the courts and the public to be worse and more violent and therefore to demand a sentence greater than that for an offence carrying a mandatory sentence.
  Overcrowding and excessive demands on the Prison Service have probably been directly responsible for the provisional figures for the results achieved against the key performance indicators, which were published in a parliamentary answer to me this week. Those figures demonstrate that the service has failed on five of the 11 targets. The areas where the Prison Service failed to meet the set targets were assaults, time out of cells, purposeful activity, completion of the sex offender treatment programme and cost per prisoner. Those are key areas. If we want to cut reoffending, good work now—in the provision of effective treatment for sex offenders and of constructive activity, and in cutting violence and bullying in prisons—is essential to help to protect the public in future.
  Time does not allow for a detailed analysis of key performance indicators, although the chief inspector demonstrates that many of them are either false or misleading. He suggests that they would be more meaningful if, for example, they measured such things as the number of prisoners who have learned to read by the time that they are released.
  Following the comprehensive spending review, the Government have allocated more money to the Prison Service, which is undoubtedly needed to sustain present demand. The figures that the Government use perhaps exaggerate the amount of extra money that the service will receive in real terms. Although the Home Office report refers to £49 million extra this year, £55 million next year and £56 million the following year, in real-term 1997–98 prices, we are talking about £3 million, £8 million and £7 million extra respectively. Having said that, the money is welcome in the Prison Service, and I see indications already of where it has been committed to valuable improvements.
  Overcrowding in recent years has led to significant cuts. The objectives of the Prison Service—rightly—are twofold: to protect the public by holding safely those whom the courts have committed, and to reduce crime by providing constructive regimes which promote law-abiding behaviour both in custody and on release.
  The second objective has particularly suffered from overcrowding and tight resources. Between April 1995 and the end of this new Government's first year, there was a fall in the amount of education undertaken in 72 per cent. of prison establishments. In 63 per cent. of them, there was a decline in the amount of work undertaken, and in 49 per cent. a decrease in both education and work. That trend is in exactly the wrong direction.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem not only with

  239
  overstretch but because the Prison Officers Association is not allowed to operate in private prisons? Different rules and standards of employment are leading to difficulties. I do not know whether he is aware that people in charge of escorts do not recognise the POA. Market testing of training is another problem. I have two prisons in my constituency, and those are the issues that are raised with me. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman hears the same problems. The staff are of a good calibre, but morale needs to be lifted. The only way to do that is to stop overstretch and more prisoners entering prisons.
  Mr. Beith: As I have two prisons in my constituency and a responsibility in the House that leads me to visit many others, I echo the fact that there are just such problems. I have a great deal of sympathy for prison officers, who are at the sharp end of all the problems and must deal with cuts. Such officers are very often not available in sufficient numbers to enable the provision of education. Why are evening educational activities frequently cancelled? It is not because there is no education officer; it is because there are no prison officers to accompany prisoners on such activity.
  The chief inspector has expressed quite strongly the need for a change in the culture of the Prison Service, involving both management and the Prison Officers Association. Such a change, away from the confrontation of the past toward a much more co-operative approach, began some time ago. Because private prisons began operation without some of that history, they have enjoyed some advantages. However, the POA would quickly point out that such staff are at some disadvantage in that they lack the association's strong support in some of the difficulties in which they may find themselves. We are in an era of significant change in how people who work in prisons work together with a common purpose.
  When 53 per cent. of released offenders, including 75 per cent. of young offenders and 89 per cent. of juveniles, reoffend within two years of release, it is disastrous that we should be losing work and educational activities. There is a real chance that the Government's new money will simply plug the gaps that have grown over the past four years rather than achieve a net improvement. The key performance indicators that were published this week show that the level of purposeful activity has fallen for four years in a row. The Minister should be embarrassed that the figures are as bad as that, and should recognise the need for some urgent action.
  The chief inspector points out that work and education are seen as the soft target for cuts. Without guidance to the contrary, one can understand why governors make such decisions; there is very little else that they can cut in the short term. That approach must be reformed. In the section on training prisons, the chief inspector makes a significant remark:
  "When Governors suggest to me that their prison is the cheapest in the system, I ask them what they are not doing in order to achieve that 'distinction'. Invariably the answer is in regime activities, which means that they have idle and unemployed prisoners, the antithesis of a training prison."
  We must end the absurdity under which cuts in the very programmes that have been shown to help to reduce reoffending are regarded as efficiency gains. It is
  240
  nonsense to regard taking out the very thing that can make prison do its jobs properly as an improvement in efficiency.
  Prisons are there to protect the public by safeguarding those whom the courts have committed, and by ensuring that, when such people return to society, they are less likely to commit further crimes. To achieve that, the Prison Service must be resourced to meet the demands that are placed on it. However, it must also be managed in a way that delivers outcomes as effectively as possible. I do not think that there could have been more compelling testimony that that is not so than that provided by the chief inspector. I hope that the Government are taking it very seriously indeed.
  9.56 am
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been able to secure this debate. I shall raise three issues: the self-harm of prisoners, work and active prison regimes and the relationship between prisons and the probation service.
  The incidence of self-harm in prison is worrying. We know that suicide in prisons is a major problem. Between 1990 and March 1997, 516 people took their lives in British prisons, which must be a major cause of concern. In addition to those who go so far as to take their own lives, a significant number carry out other acts of self-harm. In a written answer that I received yesterday, I was given some disturbing figures. Between September 1997 and October 1998—the last 12-month period for which complete statistics are available—the number of reported incidents of self-harm among male prisoners was 5,963, and among female prisoners, 1,052.
  The figure for female prisoners is particularly worrying. For men, the 6,000-odd incidents can be set against 60,000 prisoners, giving a ratio of approximately one incident per 10 prisoners a year. But for the 3,000 women prisoners, there is approximately one incident per three prisoners a year. That must be a major source of concern in the management of care of female prisoners.
  Although self-harm, by definition, is not wholly under the control of prison management, the regime must be a material factor in deciding self-harm rates. We believe that overcrowding, in particular, causes problems because it increases tension in prisons and reduces opportunities for supervision, especially of those who are vulnerable and liable to self-harm.
  In that respect, the dramatic increase in the number of women prisoners who harm themselves must be noted: from 1,353 at the end of 1992 to 3,189 by the end of July 1998. That is a 136 per cent. increase, compared with a 64 per cent. increase over the same period for male prisoners. Concern about that is reflected in the chief inspector's description of the situation in Holloway as "appalling". Although women prisoners who harm themselves are of particular concern, the problem extends to prisoners in general.
  On issues of work and active regimes, on which my right hon. Friend touched, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that prison works best when prisoners work. The figures for weekly hours spent on purposeful activity are deeply worrying. As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a reduction in hours of purposeful activity in most prisons. The figures seem to show a trend of hours falling year on year.

  241
  In the year 1994–95. the average number of hours spent weekly on purposeful activities was 26.2; in 1995–96, it was 25.2; in 1996–97, it was 23.8; in 1997–98, it was 23.2; and in 1998–99, it was 22.8. That last figure was set against a declared target of 24 hours. There is an incontrovertible trend in the wrong direction, which we would wish to be dramatically reversed as a key way of reducing reoffending, which must be one of the primary goals of the Prison Service.
  Prisoners need a purposeful regime if they are to be prepared for release. That must be a particular concern in respect of young offenders, who we hope have a useful future before them and will not return to the prison system or the criminal justice system.
  The chief inspector's report on the young offenders institution and remand centre at Feltham causes particular concern in this respect. After visiting Feltham on an unannounced inspection, the chief inspector said that he had to disclose to the public not only that the conditions and treatment of the 922 children and young prisoners confined in HMYOI and RC Feltham were
  "in many instances, totally unacceptable",
  but that they were some of the worst things that he had seen in the prison regime and in many ways worse than when he reported on them two years previously.
  There was particular cause for concern in the figures that he reported on opportunities for employment at Feltham. When the children and young offenders who were held there were asked whether they had done any work that would help them to get a job on release, only 8 per cent. thought that it would help them. Twenty-five per cent. were uncertain. Six per cent. thought that it was too far in the future to say. Nine per cent. did not comment. Very worryingly, 52 per cent. thought that the work
  "would not be helpful to them on release".
  That is set against the background of the chief inspector's deep concern about Feltham in general. Those youngsters have their whole life ahead of them, and we must hope that they will find their way into purposeful employment as a major way of preventing them from having any further contact with the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: There are in my constituency a remand prison and a senior prison—Strangeways and Hindley. I remember discussing with a prison governor, who ultimately moved very high in the prison ranks, the question of what we considered to be purposeful training in the true sense. I am glad to say that half the young remand prisoners were doing purposeful training on such things as brick making, concrete work and car maintenance. They were a bit reluctant about car maintenance. There was always a problem attached—there was some temptation there.
  The first thing that the governor said to me was, "If I could, I would ensure that all my prison staff got involved in this type of thing, but I have to make cuts according to the scale of tenders that are coming in for particular jobs." To cut a long story short, I believe that work is the answer to 80 per cent. of our crime problems. No one commits a crime believing that they will be caught. Fully employing people in useful occupations is the best form of therapy that one can give prison detainees.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes a significant and important point. It is useful to hear that those running
  242
  another institution feel that the cuts that they have been expected to make are causing problems. Liberal Democrats believe that investment in confronting offending behaviour and dealing with some of the social and educational issues that have led people into crime is a very good investment for the taxpayer, and produces a far better return than making a short-term cut in an annual prison budget. If the money is used in the former way, we shall save significantly in the long term because people will not re-enter the criminal justice system.
  The other side of the work coin must be education. It is well acknowledged that many of those who end up in the prison system have had bad educational experiences. Frequently, they are people who find work very difficult because they have not reached the first rung of the ladder—people with literacy problems, for example.
  Seventy-one per cent. of the people who arrived at Feltham had been assessed for their educational needs, but, when asked about opportunities for education in the prison, a majority of them said that they were not good. Only a small number felt that the opportunities that they had had were sufficient for their needs, and 81 per cent. of those who responded said that they would like there to be far more educational classes.
  There we have a group of youngsters who probably have deficient educational experiences, who have committed offences for which they are rightly being punished, but 81 per cent. of whom wish to enter some form of education and obviously desire to move forward. They wanted things such as NVQs in mechanics, engineering, catering and food hygiene, which would help them to find employment on leaving the institution. The desire is there, but there must be major concerns about whether those courses are being delivered in sufficient numbers.
  I hope that the Minister will talk about the relationship between prisons and probation services. I know that that is a key policy area for the Government. In his 1996–97 report, the chief inspector of prisons reported on the probation services in worrying terms:
  "Probation services have been cut. both in the number of seconded staff working in prisons, and staff to supervise prisoners on release."
  I trust that the Minister will say whether she believes that the cuts in probation staff who are seconded to prisons and those working at the area of release are being reversed.
  The cuts have been especially difficult for probation services at a time when many of them are reporting that they are fully stretched in trying to implement national standards. They are doing their best to meet national standards, but some of the other work in relation to their own targets sometimes falls off the priority list. Some of that interface between the Prison Service and the probation service, where the Prison Service has one set of targets and the probation service has another, can suffer as a result. I hope that the Government will consider that.
  Local probation services have reported to me that they naturally find it very difficult to work with local offenders, who will be coming home, and who are held in distant prisons. They simply do not have the resources to send probation officers to the other end of the country to work with the prisoner before release, and they often fail to do so simply on resource grounds. I wonder whether more could be done within the management of the Prison Service to ensure that prisoners have more

  243
  contact with their home probation service before they are released, so that when they are released there is already a firm foundation for the probation work that will follow.
  Finally, there has been a small reduction in the number of people held in prison as a result of the home detention curfew scheme. Will the Minister say something on how well she considers the Prison Service to be managing the release of people into home detention curfew? How will the scheme be assessed and reported on? It is a novel scheme and it would be useful to see how it has panned out, especially in respect of the crucial interface between Prison Service and probation service, where we are effectively transferring a responsibility; the probation services are obliged to pick up new responsibilities and set up new systems for managing the tagging schemes.
  I hope that the Minister can use her response to say that the Government share many of my concerns and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that she can give us some prospect of a reversal in the worrying trends of reduction in purposeful activity and of failure to deliver the types of education, confronting offending schemes and work experience that we believe would make prison as effective as it could possibly be in reducing reoffending.
  10.9 am
  Mr. James Clappison: This has been a useful debate on an important subject. I sometimes think that we do not debate prisons sufficiently in the House, and I welcome any opportunity to debate prisons and prison management.
  I listened with great interest to the detailed speech by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who made some important points. At the outset, he said that his party had a principled objection to privatised prisons. That is fair enough. However, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to concede that many advances have been made in the Prison Service through the introduction of private prisons, and that many lessons can be learned from the way in which they have been managed.
  When privatised prisons were introduced under the previous Government, we heard similar objections of principle from the then Opposition. There was a long campaign of attacks on private prisons and privately managed custody services. There was a time when every escape from privatised custody services and court transfers was reported with great glee from the then Opposition Benches, but we do not hear so much about that now. There seems to have been a conversion, which we welcome.
  There are ever increasing examples of the extension of private management. In another part of the House we are debating a Bill that applies privatisation to immigration detention centres. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised important issues of detail, which must be answered.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who rightly mentioned the case of Feltham. I visited Feltham fairly recently. The institution has a long and difficult history. We need to pay attention to the views of the chief inspector of prisons on Feltham and the rate of progress, or lack of progress, there.
  244
  One of the problems is the physical structure of Feltham and the way in which the units are divided up. Another problem is the mixing of prisoners across age groups and categories–15 and 16-year-olds sometimes mix with older youths, 17 and 18-year-olds, and remanded prisoners mix with sentenced prisoners. It is better to keep the categories separate and Feltham does try to do that, but when I visited the prison it was apparent that that was not always being achieved, because of the pressures under which the system operated. I make no criticism of the prison staff, as I know that there are many caring prison staff at Feltham and at other prisons.
  The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about education and training opportunities for young people in prison. That is an important subject. The best management of education and training for young people that I have seen in my visits to prisons was at an institution that has, sadly, been closed by the Government. That was the military correctional facility at Colchester—the so-called boot camp.
  The term "boot camp" may have put an unfortunate complexion on that institution. In my experience, it had the most caring staff of all and more was being achieved with the young people at that institution, which was set up by the previous Government, than at any other institution that I have seen. Its training produced extremely good results, measured by certificates and recognition of achievement, in fields such as those mentioned during the debate—motor mechanics, brick laying and painting. The young people who went there received good instruction from trained instructors, under the watchful eye of the non-commissioned officers of the military correctional facility.
  There was a good record of achievement. We look forward to the results of the independent research that has been carried out by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology into the performance of the military correctional facility, particularly its record of reconvictions. If young people who have been in trouble and spent time in custody receive good training and education and later have a lower rate of reconviction, we will study the results from the military correctional facility with great interest. It is a shame that when those results become available and the good practice there comes to light, the facility will no longer be open. Its premature closure is a matter of regret to us.
  Prison management is a large subject. The aspect that I shall briefly explore is the management of prisons so as to ensure that the prisoners who present the greatest security risks are held in the most secure conditions and the public are given the greatest possible protection from them, and that other prisoners who do not present such a great risk to the public are not wrongly held in secure conditions.
  With regard to the most serious offenders—those who are serving life sentences for the gravest offences—I am worried by a written answer received yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about a case in his constituency, which throws light on the management of prisons, particularly the temporary release of life-sentenced prisoners. I understand from the written answer that there has been a recent history of life-sentenced prisoners absconding from Sudbury prison in my hon. Friend's constituency, and that in the past two months two life-sentenced prisoners failed

  245
  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.
  It may be difficult for the Minister to respond on individual cases, but I look to her for some reassurance about the policy of holding life-sentenced prisoners in relaxed conditions, and particularly temporary release for such prisoners. In the light of the information concerning Sudbury prison, and of the understandable concern of my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire, we are owed an assurance from the Minister.
  Mr. Beith: I agree that the cases quoted by the hon. Gentleman give rise to questions about why particular prisoners are allocated to particular prisons, especially when one hears the police say that someone who is dangerous and whom the public should not approach has absconded from an open prison. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that to refer to life sentences in general implies that all life-sentenced prisoners need to held securely. That is manifestly not the case, as a life sentence is often a mandatory sentence and is sometimes applied to people with a very low likelihood of absconding or reoffending.
  Mr. Clappison: That is right, but we must recognise that life-sentenced prisoners will include those who are the most dangerous to the public and who must be managed with the greatest care. That is the point on which I am pressing the Minister.
  Moving down a notch on the scale of seriousness, the issue of prisoners released on home detention curfew was touched on by the hon. Member for Hallam. The Minister knows our view on the use of tagging—home detention curfew—for the early release of prisoners. We have no problem with the use of home detention curfew as such or as a sentence in its own right. It was pioneered by the previous Government, again in the face of opposition from the present Government. Every technical problem was highlighted, and at one time as a point of principle the then Opposition disagreed with the use of tagging in any circumstances—but I shall draw a veil over that.
  The Minister knows our principles with regard to honesty in sentencing. The early release of these prisoners makes a mockery of the sentences handed down by the courts, at least as far as public and victims are concerned. A sentence of six months' imprisonment may mean only six weeks spent in custody.
  On the management of prisoners who are to be released subject to home detention curfew, I was concerned by written answers that I recently received from the Department showing the extent to which prisoners with convictions for violence have been released on home detention curfew since the new system began on 28 January. Between that date and 19 April, 617 offenders who were serving sentences for offences of violence were released on home detention curfew.
  Many members of the public would find that a striking figure. They and the courts have long recognised that violent offenders present the greatest danger to the public. Statutes going back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have recognised the need for violent offenders to receive longer sentences of imprisonment. It is thus surprising that so many of them are being released on home detention curfew.
  246
  When home detention curfew was introduced, we were assured that it would be managed in such a way that there would not be quota for such prisoner releases. I do not know how that is working out in practice, but we question whether it is right that so many prisoners with convictions for violence should be released.
  If the Government have taken such a course in respect of early release through home detention curfew—we have made our views known on that—and instead of releasing so many violent offenders, can the system be managed in such a way that non-violent prisoners, who pose less threat to the public, are released? Many members of the public—not to mention victims who are concerned about early releases—will find it striking that violent offenders should be released in this way.
  I turn from those who require secure conditions and who should serve out their sentences in prison to those who may not necessarily need to be in prison at all. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Hallam said about women prisoners. He is right that there has been a noticeable increase in their numbers in recent times; indeed, there has been a 20 per cent. increase since the Government came to office.
  Sad to say, women sometimes need to go to prison—they commit serious offences, alongside men—but we wonder what lies behind such a disproportionate growth in the women's prison population, which is growing faster than the men's. We will be holding more and more women in prison, which I do not find a particularly inspiring prospect, and if there is a way of avoiding that I should like to explore it.
  Members of the public will recently have seen the interesting television series featuring life inside New Hall prison. People would be concerned if we had to have more and more institutions such as New Hall to hold women prisoners, so I wonder whether imprisoning more women is justified.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one area that we need to explore is better community sentences for women offenders so that we have non-custodial alternatives? Some probation services have reported that community sentences, and community service in particular, are often designed for men; it is a hard-labour situation. A lot of advances could be made so that courts have a genuine alternative to custody.
  Mr. Clappison: It would be a shame if a court imposed a custodial sentence on a woman convicted of a serious offence because there was no appropriate non-custodial sentence, even though she was a borderline case. Many members of the public would rather she received a non-custodial sentence, especially if she had a family—she would be able to keep in contact with them.
  I listened to the comments on Holloway made by the hon. Member for Hallam. I had not visited that prison until fairly recently, and one of the most striking experiences of an interesting visit was meeting a 16-year-old girl who was there. I asked to see the youngest prisoner, but I never expected to meet a 16-year-old girl. That meeting made me think about the public policy involved in a fresh-faced 16-year-old girl ending up in Holloway to serve a short sentence.
  It is sometimes said that holding younger people in local adult prisons is justified because that enables them to be nearer their families—there are more prisons than

  247
  specialised institutions—but I have to report that the girl in question came from Southampton and the distance between Southampton and Holloway made it difficult for her family to visit. She told me that the thing that she looked forward to most in life was visits from her mum, and she had not been having enough of them. I could not think of any adequate justification for that and I wonder whether there might be a better alternative.
  The Government have recently made announcements on young people in prison; I am prepared to give them credit for that, but I have some more critical comments to make on the question of boys in men's prisons. On the management of prisons holding girls, the Government have announced in a written answer that they intend to make use of the detention and training order
  "by placing sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation, when the detention and training order is in force. The first priority will be to place the youngest and most vulnerable young women outside the Prison Service. In the short term, arrangements within the Prison Service for holding 17-year-old women, and other young women for whom other accommodation is not available, will be improved by establishing discrete units for young women under the age of 21, with enhanced regimes within these."
  That is one of those written answers that needs reading carefully, so I read it carefully to see whether there is what we might term a seamless safety net to prevent young girls from ending up in women's prisons. The more I read the answer, the more I was worried by some of the terminology, particularly the words
  "other young women for whom other accommodation is not available".—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 29.]
  Does that mean that young girls will still be held in prison accommodation when other accommodation is not available?
  Would not it be better if we simply stopped holding 15 and 16-year-old girls in women's prisons in such circumstances? I would be prepared to give the Government a plaudit if they made such an announcement, but I would be cautious about a policy that appeared to be moving towards ending the holding of sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in women's prisons, but did not achieve that. We have had experience of that nature with the Government's proposals for the remand of 15 and 16-year-old boys, and I now move on to that unhappy subject.
  As the Minister will know, Labour Members made a great song and dance in opposition about the holding of 15 and 16-year-old boys in adult prisons. It is surprising that such boys are held in adult prisons up and down the country, sometimes in the oldest prisons. They are often held in the oldest parts of those prisons and, although they are separated from the older offenders, the context and setting are very much those of an adult prison.
  The previous Government set an objective of ending altogether the remanding of 15 and 16-year-old boys to adult prisons. I should make it clear that such boys have been charged with an offence, but not convicted, although it is the view of a magistrates court that they need to be held in secure conditions. I am not disputing that they may need to be held securely, but the question is which secure conditions they should be held in.
  The previous Government set in place a plan for providing local authority secure accommodation as an alternative to holding 15 and 16-year-old boys in adult
  248
  prisons. Many people agreed that local authority secure accommodation would be a much better way of holding such boys than putting them in adult prisons, and they could certainly be given much more appropriate care and education. The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about the difficulty of providing education for young people in custody, and that is all the more difficult when they are being held in adult prisons.
  Small numbers of such boys—one 15-year-old and a handful of 16-year-olds, for example—may be held in adult prisons scattered across the country. It is the responsibility of the prison authorities to deliver the national curriculum to under-16s, which would be difficult if there was only one person in that category in an adult prison. It would be much easier if that person was held in local authority secure accommodation with other young people. That is one reason, and there are many others, why local authority secure accommodation is so much more appropriate for such young people—certainly more appropriate than adult prisons and, I would venture, than young offender or remand institutions.
  Local authority secure accommodation is the best option for those young people. The previous Government set in place a programme for creating 170 places in such accommodation, to remove the need for these boys to be held in adult prisons. The last time I asked the Government about this problem, I was told that they had provided six places in local authority secure accommodation. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether there has been any advance on six since then. How many places have been created in local authority secure accommodation since 1 May 1997?
  This subject is of interest to me, and it was of great interest to the Labour party before the last general election. It campaigned strongly on this issue, as did the then shadow Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994. He highlighted the problem on the Floor of the House, and said that more local authority secure accommodation should be provided without delay. He said that 170 places were not enough, and that places were not being provided quickly enough. We should like to know how many places the Government have provided.
  Given that commitment by the then shadow Home Secretary to create more local authority secure accommodation, and to put into it the 15 and 16-year-olds who are being held on remand in adult prisons, I am concerned about the announcement on the direction of Government policy in this regard. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 allowed for the continued remand of 15 and 16-year-olds in adult prisons subject to a screening for vulnerability. We were told on 8 March 1999:
  "The Prison Service is finalising its plans for a distinct estate within its accommodation for 15 to 17-year-old boys remanded or sentenced to custody, with improved levels of care and regimes delivered within it."—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 29.]
  Are we to take it from that that the Government's policy is to hold those 15 and 16-year-old boys in other parts of the prison estate? Is the intention to move them from adult prisons into other young offender institutions or parts of the prison estate as opposed to local authority secure accommodation?
  If that is now the direction of Government policy, they are short-changing us on the commitments that were given by the former shadow Home Secretary, now the

  249
  Prime Minister. The Government are short-changing us on their commitment to put 15 and 16-year-old boys remanded in custody into local authority secure accommodation. We are concerned about the management of the Prison Service in this respect. I look to the Minister for an answer on that issue.
  Young people in trouble and in custody are of great concern to us. We should take care to ensure that the Prison Service is managed so as to provide appropriate alternatives to custody whenever possible, including local authority secure accommodation. If young people have been sentenced to custody and are held in young offender institutions or in detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, they should receive appropriate training and care.
  We should devote our attention to the care of young people in those circumstances. This debate on the management of the Prison Service has afforded us an opportunity to discuss some of its aspects, and it is a subject in which we shall continue to have a strong interest. We expect the commitments that have been given to be fully honoured, and we do not want to be short-changed in the way I have described.
  10.34 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for securing this debate on the management of the Prison Service in England and Wales. I am pleased that even though there were only a few contributions, they showed that hon. Members take a close interest in this issue. It must be reassuring for people in prison to know that what is happening to them is discussed in Parliament.
  Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is scope to improve our prisons and their management. I shall try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. The 1997-98 annual report of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, has been used as a reference point. It is an important and extremely useful report. As the Home Secretary said in his speech to the Prison Reform Trust last year, which is quoted in the introduction to the report:
  "The inspection of prisons should continue to be both independent and rigorous".
  It is important that we consider carefully what the chief inspector has said. In an Adjournment debate, the more negative aspects tend to be highlighted, although the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made some positive points. In the report, the chief inspector says that when he took up the job he was advised that progress would be made only following disasters, and he quoted the various reports that had led to changes being made. What he goes on to say is interesting, however:
  "That may or may not be so, but my optimism, and gut feeling that the Prison Service has been presented with another window of opportunity, is, this time, not based on a particular disaster, but on a situation that has been created by the very deliberate programme embarked upon by the Government in general and the Home Secretary in particular, which I hope that I have interpreted correctly."
  I am pleased that the chief inspector recognises that the Government are trying to approach the management of prisons in a different way.
  The two key themes of the report are that our prison system needs improved direction, leadership and management; and that standards set should be met better
  250
  and more consistently—that word comes through in everything that has been said this morning—across the system. I should like to address those issues before I deal with particular points.
  The Government are committed to ensuring proper ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service. That was an important element of the recent quinquennial review of the Prison Service and its status as an agency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 1 February his conclusion that the Prison Service should remain an agency of the Home Office. That followed two reports which, together with the writing of a new framework document, comprised the quinquennial review of the agency.
  A report on evaluation of performance had concluded that the Prison Service, in the context of a rising prison population, had achieved a remarkable turnaround in performance over the first five years of agency status. That was partly because of a clear focus on outputs and service delivery as measured in key performance indicators. A prior options report studied the organisational options for the Prison Service and concluded that agency status should be reaffirmed. It is interesting that that was virtually the unanimous view of a wide range of internal and external prison interests.
  The Prison Service can, in some respects, be regarded as under new management. It now has a new director general, Martin Narey, a new deputy director general, Phil Wheatley, several new directors, a new board structure with my noble Friend Lord Williams at its apex, and a more streamlined approach with a clearer focus on performance management. Much of that is tied together by a new framework document, announced by the Home Secretary and issued at the end of March, which sets out the up-to-date relationship between the Prison Service, Ministers and the core Home Office.
  The new framework document proposes significant changes to meet the Government's commitment to ministerial control. It integrates the aims of the Prison Service within new planning arrangements for the wider criminal justice system. That is important, because for too long the prisons have been separate and isolated. We intend to ensure that everything that goes on in prisons is directly related to what is going on in the rest of the criminal justice system. The document focuses on management, responsibility and accountability issues with greater clarity for the roles of principal players, and in particular it provides for a new Prison Service strategy board and a Prison Service management board.
  The Prison Service is also streamlining its structure and its approach to managing the service's performance. The 12 area managers are now managed directly by a new full-time deputy director general. There is a strong focus on performance management with 15 service delivery agreements between headquarters and establishments in place or planned from April 2000. Three-year improvement plans for particular establishments where appropriate will be rigorously managed. These arrangements build on a strong internal auditing structure through the standards audit unit, whereby operating and security standards are audited in every establishment at least once every two years.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Prison Service management board and the Prison Service strategy board. He felt that there might be some confusion

  251
  about what each would do, and asked for clarification. I assure him that this has been carefully thought out. The newly formed management board deals with immediate issues and meets regularly, addressing a wide range of day-to-day matters such as monitoring plans, deciding on priorities and expenditure, authorising projects and initiatives, approving internal communications—that is very important—and deciding what the strategy board should discuss.
  The membership of the management board has been broadened to reflect our wish for a more outward-looking Prison Service. It includes a new director for corporate affairs, who will be a focal point for the service's modernisation programme. Those attending the board will include a racial equality adviser, who is yet to be appointed.
  The Prison Service strategy board provides a forum for discussion of the strategic direction of the service. The board, chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams, the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, will concentrate on long-term strategy and high-level monitoring of the service's performance. Generally, the board will discuss major strategic policy matters such as personnel and industrial relations, and the extent to which the service is looking outwards and contributing to the more co-ordinated criminal justice system that the Government are trying to facilitate. The board's membership includes a Home Office director responsible for sentencing and correctional policy, and, among its non-executive directors, a current chief constable. The director general will still have delegated authority over day-to-day management of the service, and will be directly accountable to the Home Secretary for its performance. He is the Home Secretary's principal adviser on matters relating to its activity.
  It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminding us of what we did or did not say when we were in opposition. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman of plenty of things that the Conservatives said when they were in government—things that they said they would do, and then did not do—but I feel that, when we are debating prisons, we should be looking forward and asking how we can improve things generally. [Interruption.] That means that I am not prepared to engage in a debate about what was and was not said, even by former shadow Home Secretaries.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked why governors were allowed to cut regimes, thus making it less likely that we would cut reoffending. We are shifting the focus on to what works, and trying to develop measures of effectiveness rather than concentrating on the amount of time that is spent outside the cell. What happens when prisoners are out of their cells is extremely important, and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out, it is essential for the Prison Service to work closely with the probation service in that context.
  We are appointing a joint independent panel of experts to accredit prisons' probation programmes, developing a joint assessment tool and improving joint planning and training. As the hon. Gentleman said, a close working relationship between the Prison Service and the probation service is vital to the securing of a regime that will help to prevent prisoners from reoffending.
  252
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the cuts in probation services would be reversed. It is true that in some prisons probation involvement has declined in recent years; we are committed to reversing that by refocusing on constructive regimes to reduce the amount of reoffending. The ambitious programme of joint work by the Prison Service and the probation service is set out in the Government's 1998 consultation paper on the future management of probation. All the Prison Service's work on resettlement and reducing reoffending must be linked with the work of the statutory and voluntary agencies. We know that improvements can be made, and we are committed to making them.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked whether we were focusing adequately on the need to reduce reoffending, given that we had failed to meet the year's key performance indicator for the treatment of sex offenders. The extra money from the comprehensive spending review is being carefully targeted to reduce reoffending. Over three years, it will allow us to double the number of offending behaviour programmes. It will help us to improve prisoners' basic skills: we have set a target of 15 per cent., exactly the target set by the chief inspector. It will also allow us to implement a comprehensive drugs strategy, and to transform the care of juveniles to meet the expectations of the new youth justice board.
  The hon. Member for Hallam spoke of the importance of work. People coming out of prison need to be prepared to get work, which will require the basic qualifications that many currently do not possess. We are working hard to improve that.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked whether we were considering functional management for women and juveniles. That important matter is currently being discussed. The new director general is—I think the word is "actively"—considering whether it would be right to move to functional management for women and those under 18. Obviously, any decision will have to be made after careful consultation both inside and outside the service, and I am sure that the director general will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said today; but significant improvements are already being made as new investment comes on stream.
  The hon. Member for Hallam asked whether we were committed to reversing the decline in the number of hours spent on purposeful activity. That decline is not acceptable, and we are committed to reversing it, but, as I have said, we are also determined that time should be used more effectively. That is not straightforward: not everything works, which is why we must focus on basic skills, employment and accommodation needs, the problem of drug misuse and running offending behaviour programmes that work. The money for the new regime, and the new director of regimes, will enable us to make progress.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that there was not as much new money, in real terms, as had been suggested. The additional £226 million over three years is a real increase in terms of 1998–99 prices. The programme for access to drugs testing and treatment is to receive £76 million; £79 million is being provided for additional regimes for engagement in constructive activity; and £51 million is being provided for the juvenile estate and regimes. All those amounts are tied to specific

  253
  improvement targets: the new money will be specifically geared to the raising of standards and the reduction of reoffending.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what we meant by efficiency. Of course, no sensible person would define efficiency as the meeting of targets through the reducing of regimes. The service has been set challenging targets: as the right hon. Gentleman said, it aims to save £18 million, then £36 million and then £55 million over the next three years. We have a programme that we believe can deliver those savings through, for instance, energy efficiency, new procurement procedures and contract escorts. There will be no impact on regimes.
  We all know from our visits to prisons that improvements could be made. Prison officers and governors need to develop methods of management that do not affect services that are vital to prisoners. On overcrowding, clearly, prisons must take all the prisoners that are sent to them by the courts. Average capacity will be increased by 2,400 places between this year and 2001. As hon. Members will know, four new prisons are to open. Overcrowding is not expected to rise over that period. We will introduce a new KPI for this year to measure doubling, so that it will not exceed 18 per cent. The figure for 1998–99 was 18.4 per cent., a slight reduction. Nevertheless, we aim to improve on it.
  Self-harm is a serious question for every institution. It is dealt with by the suicide awareness team. It is often inflicted by prisoners with psychiatric illness. Often, it is evidence of frustration and replicates behaviour before the person went into prison. It is especially worrying among women. We are aware of the problem.
  A priority for the Prison Service is to reduce self-harm by better diagnosis and identification of risk, focusing attention on counselling, treatment and advice. It needs to be constantly monitored. There has to be a balance between allowing reasonable freedom and access to things that can cause self-harm—materials, pens, cutlery and clothing—and preserving decency and dignity. That is the sort of difficult day-to-day decision that has to be taken by those working in our prisons. As hon. Members have said, we know the difficult job that prison officers have.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere was worried about lifers in open prisons and those who might be being allowed out under home detention curfews. Management of lifers is undertaken with great care. The overwhelming majority of lifers will be released in due course. Releasing them safely requires us to test them out in lower-security conditions. Once lifers have shown they can be trusted, temporary release may be appropriate for some.
  Of course, where there is a failure, it is a matter of great concern, but the chief inspector himself acknowledged that the service's record on the safe release of lifers is very impressive.
  There were a number of questions on home detention curfews. It is still early days, but, as of 28 April, 2,035 offenders were subject to the HDC scheme. Since the beginning of the scheme, 4,274 offenders have been placed on HDC and only 184— 1 per cent.—have had their licences revoked. The number placed so far in curfew demonstrates that the scheme has been handled sensitively and cautiously—the approach adopted by the governors, which we have encouraged.
  Clearly, disparity of sentencing throughout the country is something about which we are all concerned. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will know that
  254
  the sentencing advisory board has been set up, which will look at why sentences are different in different parts of the country, and how we can ensure that we get a sensible balance and that the public feel that people are being sentenced appropriately. We will keep a careful watch on that. There will be regular reports on the numbers involved. What we do not want is sentencing becoming an issue only when something goes wrong. It is important that we regularly look at what is happening.
  Several hon. Members mentioned Feltham, about which I feel strongly myself. We accept that there are fundamental problems at Feltham. I found the report that was published on 26 March pretty horrifying. It is particularly horrifying that so many things seem not to have happened following the previous recommendations after the full inspection in 1996. Clearly, that is not acceptable, but there are some good things happening at Feltham.
  The Prison Service obviously shares many of the chief inspector's concerns about Feltham. Again, the opportunity exists to tackle some of the underlying problems there so that managers and staff can work together to create a prison of which they and the service can be proud. A task force has been set up to remedy the shortcomings; it is led by a senior governor. It has chartered a plan for improvement, which will be implemented over the next six months. There are serious issues to be tackled—some 39 issues for immediate action. The remainder are being taken forward by headquarters.
  In addition, 10 new officers started training in April. The problems have been due mainly to population pressures. We are aware of the problem. I would hate the hon. Member for Hallam to come back in a year's time with conditions still the same at Feltham. That would be a real indictment of our attempt to change what is happening there.
  I am aware that I have perhaps not raised a number of other points. Hon. Members will be written to if anything has not been raised.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said earlier. On the question that I raised about Sudbury, will she write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) about that matter, saying as much as possible, because I know that my hon. Friend is worried about what has taken place there?
  Kate Hoey: Of course we will. We will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a full report of what is happening.
  We have spent a useful hour and a half this morning during which we have aired a number of concerns and issues. I do not wish to underestimate their importance, or skate over failures, but the recent security record of the service has been good. There has been a 74 per cent. reduction in the rate of escapes and a 23.5 per cent. reduction in assaults.
  The service came out well from the recent review. Ministers have taken responsibility for the service within a framework that allows the director general the necessary scope and freedoms to run what is a large and unique organisation. We are investing around £226 million of additional money to help to develop constructive regimes that help prisoners to avoid returning to crime following

  255
  their release. Together, those changes should help to address the concerns that have been raised by Sir David Ramsbotham.
  Vivien Stern, former head of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, recently praised the Prison Service of England and Wales for its culture of knowing the difference between right and wrong, for its willingness to admit its mistakes and to strive to put things right, and for the courage and independence of prison governors in fighting for improvements in conditions. No one denies that there are difficulties and challenges to overcome, but the Government believe that the Prison Service and the arrangements for its higher management are broadly in good health as the millennium approaches.
  We know that hon. Members will continue to voice their views and to press for those improvements. We will continue to respond.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  10.58 am
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am pleased to have secured the debate. I look forward to Members' contributions and to the Minister's response on a complex and often controversial subject.
  I know from my many conversations with Members on both sides of the House that many in the Chamber today have had first-hand experience of myalgic encephalomyelitis—or ME as it is more commonly known—either as sufferers or through the suffering of relatives or close friends. I am especially pleased that the debate is taking place today as it is national ME awareness day.
  Many Members will know that I have been active in reforming the all-party group on ME. I was pleased to be elected as its chair. One of the crucial tasks of those who campaign on the issue is to raise awareness of ME and its effects among the general public. One of the stated aims of all-party group is to raise awareness of the issues at Westminster. I am pleased that, to date, it has a membership of 134, as well as a number from another place.
  My main focus since entering the House has been on the needs of my constituents, so Members will not surprised to hear that it was through meeting an extraordinary young woman in Great Yarmouth that I became involved in the ME campaign. My first experience of the hardship caused by ME came some years ago, when I met Tanya Harrison, who lives in Great Yarmouth. She is 23, and has had ME for at least the past 13 years. She experienced a gradual and continual deterioration in her health until she became so severely ill that she was referred, and subsequently admitted, to Great Yarmouth's James Paget hospital.
  After months of intensive treatment, varying diagnoses and consultations with specialists, Tanya was eventually diagnosed as suffering from severe and chronic ME. For the subsequent seven years, she has been bedridden for most of the time and has continued to experience additional symptoms. At the beginning of last year, at the age of 22, she developed osteoporosis of the hips and osteopaenia of the spine—yet another consequence of living with severe and chronic ME.
  Despite all the setbacks in her life, Tanya's determination has shone through and she grasps with admirable zeal every opportunity to highlight the plight of fellow ME sufferers. To that end, she launched the blue ribbon for awareness of ME campaign in April 1995. Her efforts culminated in the meeting in the Grand Committee Room on 14 May 1998, at which an international line-up of experts on ME addressed an audience of sufferers, along with many Members of Parliament. I am pleased to see that some hon. Members—including the Minister—are wearing the blue ribbon today.
  What exactly is the disease? The literal definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis is inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, but that definition does not have the universal support of the medical establishment, because it almost implies brain pathology, which has not yet been clearly established for the condition. Post-viral fatigue syndrome, or post-infectious fatigue syndrome are other terms used when ME-like symptoms appear after viral infection.

  257
  From those terms, the hybrid definition of chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, has appeared. The term encompasses all the previously mentioned syndromes and has been used increasingly over recent years because of its neutrality: it does not imply a specific cause and accepts that there may be a variety of causes, some physiological, some psychiatric and some involving an amalgam of factors.
  The difficulty that the medical profession has with a common definition is an appropriate microcosm of the whole ME debate. That is all very disconcerting for the sufferer, whose main concerns are, "What is wrong with me?" and "What can I, or my doctor, do to make me better?" The confusion and fragmentation of approach are well summed up by the title of a book written in 1991 by David Bell: "The Disease of a Thousand Names".
  Perhaps more alarming still is the significant weight of evidence to suggest that inappropriate treatments have been prescribed, as exemplified in a letter that appeared in the British Medical Journal of October 1997, from Dr. Alan Franklin, medical adviser on ME to several of the country's leading ME organisations. The letter, which seems to sum up the feelings of many sufferers, says:
  "Unfortunately, some doctors have trivialised this illness; ridiculed patients and their supporters and subjected a few of them, including children, to oppressive, perhaps even abusive forms of treatment."
  Indeed, in the 1980s, ME attracted the most derogatory of labels, "yuppie flu", even though there is no evidence to suggest that it is more prevalent in one social class or grouping than another. We hope that such thinking can be consigned to history. I am optimistic that our debate today will make a contribution, however small, to a more considered approach to the disease, which is estimated to affect between 5,000 and 10,000 sufferers per 500,000 people in the United Kingdom, according to controversial figures produced by the royal colleges of medicine.
  Unfortunately, it is difficult to escape the impression that the disease has split the medical and scientific communities into two major factions: those who believe that the root cause is psychological and those who support an organic causation. Medicine and science do not always provide clear-cut answers, and that was reflected in the observations in the report of the national task force on CFS/ME, which was produced in 1994.
  On causation, the report says:
  "The distinction between physical illness and psychological illness is becoming progressively more blurred. For instance, many psychiatric diseases, including depression, have been shown to have demonstrable physiological and neuro-chemical disturbances. In addition we are gaining an understanding of the influence of psychosocial factors on the development and cause of physical diseases."
  The report goes on:
  "However we live in a society which is used to thinking of illnesses as physical or psychological and which harbours differing attitudes towards these. For example, a number of patients with CFS are denied financial benefits on the grounds that these illnesses have been perceived as psychological."
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I have apologised to my hon. Friend for the fact that I will be unable to attend the whole of this debate.
  I was very sceptical about ME until 1992, when I suddenly discovered that I had it. I was told by the doctor in the House and by my consultant in general medicine at
  258
  Monklands hospital, Dr. Harrower, that in my case, as with about 80 or 90 per cent. of ME sufferers, the condition would probably go after about two years, and indeed it went after 20 months. I am very grateful for the remarkable sensitivity that John Smith showed at the time, when I was in the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that not all employers are so enlightened.
  My hon. Friend has done us a great service by bringing the issue to the House. It has an impact on the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. By bringing the issue into the public domain, he has done a great service to a cause that calls for much more research, much more understanding and a more positive approach from people who, like me, were once sceptical.
  Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed. I am sure that he deems himself fortunate to have recovered from ME; many are not so fortunate.
  The report continues:
  "Since our understanding and management of diseases must take place within such a society, the debate about whether CFS is physical or psychological cannot be totally ignored. This debate has been based on three erroneous premises:
  1. 'Because a physical illness exists therefore no psychological illness exists, or vice versa.' This either/or approach is wrong. Both types of illness may co-exist within the same person.
  2. 'Because there is no evidence available to confirm a physical cause for an illness therefore the illness must have a psychological cause.' It may be psychological. Alternatively, it may be physical, and the absence of evidence to confirm this may be the result of limitations of current medical knowledge. For example, consumption was believed to be a psychological disorder before the discovery of the tubercle bacillus.
  3. 'Because an illness has a psychological origin it is not disabling or not real.' This is not true."
  The national task force report goes on to say:
  "Whatever the origin of the disease, or the views of their doctors, people with chronic fatigue syndromes are disabled. They need and deserve help and support".
  On most aspects, the task force report is open minded, objective and balanced, and it appears to provide a good basis for advancing the cause in an all-embracing fashion. It certainly does not rule out an organic root to the problem of ME and it is honest in admitting the limits of current medical knowledge.
  Anyone reading the document would be surprised to learn that the medical research establishment in the UK is not acting on one important element of the findings: the need for research into the organic causation of ME. The report is unambiguous about the need for a balanced and all-inclusive research programme, including both psychiatric and non-psychiatric disciplines.
  Unfortunately, the report from the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners, on which so much emphasis has been placed, does not seem to give much, if any, support to research into organic causation. It recommends research into the neurobiological aspects of CFS; randomised controlled trials of treatment, especially in primary care; and management of CFS in children.
  The report, which came out in October 1996, was commissioned by the previous Government's chief medical officer and compiled by a panel of 16 experts that

  259
  was top-heavy with psychiatrists or physicians believed by many to be biased towards a psychiatric diagnosis of ME.
  Unsurprisingly, great emphasis is given to several studies indicating psychiatric disorder in CFS patients and the report concludes that about half the patients fulfilled the criteria for affective disorder and a further quarter had other psychiatric illnesses, primarily anxiety and sleep disorders. How many of us in the Chamber today can say we have not suffered from anxiety and sleep disorders at some time in our lives, especially during elections? Does that mean that we are suffering from a psychiatric disorder? I shall not ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule on that question. The expert committee rejects, for lack of evidence, any major role for a viral cause of CFS or for structural or functional abnormalities in muscle or the brain.
  Many of the report's findings have been criticised by ME charities and associations, leading medical experts and medical journals. In a statement to The Lancet, Dr. Charles Shepherd, medical director of the ME Association, said:
  "the committee was rigged, with dissenting voices excluded".
  That view was echoed by the lead author of a major physiological study, Durval Costa of University college, London, who told The Lancet:
  "The committee was too quick to reject his work because members had 'technical difficulty' with understanding whole-volume, single-photon emission tomography, the technique he used in his research."
  Furthermore, in its editorial appraisal, entitled "Frustrating survey of chronic fatigue", The Lancet concluded:
  "We believe that the report was haphazardly set-up, biased, inconclusive, and is of little help to patients or their physicians."
  There are numerous problems arising from the adoption of the findings of the royal colleges' report, but for the sake of brevity I shall concentrate on a few areas of particular concern, including the consequences for research into the disorder. Since the release of the report in October 1996, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council have not financed any research into the physical causes of ME. That has dismayed many doctors and scientists who believe that more research is required in the areas of virology, muscle dysfunction, energy production, and abnormalities in the immune system and several other neurological aspects.
  Perhaps of even greater concern is the potential physical and psychological damage to patients, especially children, who are receiving the wrong treatment. In her appraisal of the royal colleges' report, Dr Terry Hedrick, who is an internationally respected expert in the evaluation of research and methodology, said:
  "Several clinicians I spoke with expressed concern about the child with CFS who unsuccessfully participates in a poorly developed program of cognitive behavioural therapy, or CBT, and/or graduated exercise and feels like a failure because he or she is not able to resume normal activities within a few weeks or months. We need to remember that unproven treatments, whether pharmacological or psychological, are capable of having negative side-effects".
  Dr Hedrick is not alone in believing that psychiatrists are not always the best people to be treating ME patients and there is little doubt that her views have the backing
  260
  of most of the support groups and many thousands of patients who believe that they are receiving inappropriate treatment. However, busy GPs can hardly be blamed for recommending a particular course of treatment, if they are doing so on what they believe to be sound advice from a prestigious body of experts.
  Although there are certain cardinal features for doctors to look for, diagnosis of ME can be difficult, as it is what some practitioners call a hidden illness. Indeed, there are a number of cases of erroneous diagnosis, which on occasions have been quite serious. Recent examples of incorrect diagnosis, which have appeared in medical journals, show that ME has been confused with cancers in some patients. Unfortunately, a significant minority of GPs still refuse to accept that ME exists as a clinical entity, and consequently treats those patients in an unsympathetic or, in some cases, hostile manner.
  Furthermore, insurance companies could use the report as evidence for placing time limits on financial support, which could lead sufferers into severe financial difficulties at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. Government policy on welfare benefits could also be influenced by such reports. What impact did the report have on the perception of the illness by people at the Benefits Agency making decisions on sufferers' welfare payments? Sadly, employers do not always look favourably on employees who are diagnosed as suffering from psychological disorders and are very often likely to view physical illness with greater sympathy.
  Mr. John McDonnell: There are numerous cases of people being hounded out of work by unsympathetic employers. I wish to cite the example in my constituency of Andrea Morgan. She was hounded out of work, and eventually won compensation at an industrial tribunal against the London borough of Hillingdon. She also suffered two years of hounding by benefits officers and having to undergo numerous medical tests to demonstrate that she was suffering from the disease. There is not only a lack of sympathy, but an active programme of employers hounding people out of work if they have the illness.
  Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend—and I am sure that most hon. Members could probably tell similar stories from their constituencies. The stress that people experience when they fear that they will lose their jobs or may be forced to fight for their rights to benefit adds to the debilitating effect of ME.
  There is little room for doubt that in a patient in whom the primary cause for ME is a psychiatric condition, benefit can be derived from the various courses of treatment recommended by the royal colleges. However, that has to be set against the negative consequences that I outlined earlier in my speech. If the balance is heavily tilted in favour of psychiatric causation, the objectivity of any diagnosis, and hence the exact definition of a patient's disorder, becomes more questionable. Not only does that have consequences for the patient: it makes accurate epidemiological studies much less valid, as such studies are likely to be based on bogus information.
  The progress made in AIDS treatment should act as an example of what can be achieved by robust, correctly targeted and well-funded medical research. Although the miracle cure is not yet on the market, drugs have been

  261
  developed that are already available and producing encouraging results. Indeed, the American Food and Drug Administration has recently approved final-phase clinical trials for the world's first AIDS vaccine. However, Members with long memories will recall the early problems that the medical profession had with diagnosis, and that it was only through concerted medical research that a method of detecting the HIV virus in the blood was developed. While I accept that the two diseases may be different in the way they are transmitted and in various other respects, some useful lessons could be learned in comparing the approach of the medical research establishments to the two syndromes.
  The pro-psychology bias of the UK's research effort has already been brought to the attention of the House in an early-day motion, submitted during ME awareness week last year, which stated:
  "That between 1996 and 1998 no resources were allocated by the Department of Health or the Medical Research Council to investigate the physical cause of ME."
  In an answer to a parliamentary question asked on 27 April 1998, the Department of Health's funding of four research projects was revealed: two on the management of ME, one on cognitive behavioural therapy and a fourth on the neuropsychological pathogenesis of CFS. Those projects represent a total Government spending of £285,467 but not a penny of that money was allocated to finding a physical explanation for ME. I am sure many hon. Members feel, as I do, that there is a need for the balance of our research effort to be adjusted, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that imbalance. I should like to see the Government encouraging a number of other initiatives that would take the issue forward and enhance the knowledge base of the medical establishment.
  First, there is an obvious need for an exhaustive and extensive epidemiological study of ME to discover just how widespread the disease has become and unlock more of the vital information that medics require if they are to diagnose and treat the disease successfully.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my constituents, Mrs. Baxter, who is a member of the Tendring ME support group, has written to me about a young man in Clacton who has to travel some 80 miles to London for treatment from a specialist consultant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an unreasonable distance to have to travel? The other point that has emerged from my support group in Tendring is that some of the research is into managing the illness, instead of treatment or a cure for the illness. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Wright: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Probably one of the greatest problems for ME sufferers depends on where they live. If they live in an area where doctors understand the problems of ME sufferers, they are fortunate indeed. Having to travel to London, as my hon. Friend's constituent does, adds to the stress. I also agree that insufficient funding has been made available for research into ME.
  Such a study would need to address the duration of the illness, identify vulnerable age groups and examine the life styles of sufferers. It would also have to consider the variability of the disease according to gender, assess environmental factors, and gather a great deal of other invaluable data. A number of epidemiological studies and surveys have already been undertaken, but they have been on a small scale.
  262
  Perhaps the most cited study is the "Case History Research on ME", or the Chrome survey, set up in July 1995. Its purpose is to identify as many severely disabled ME sufferers as possible and to monitor and update, on an annual basis, the course of their illness over a 10-year period. That survey might provide a useful starting point for the broad-based study for which many medics, researchers and ME sufferers have called.
  Secondly, great benefit could be gained from co-ordinating the data from all the information that has been gathered and creating a national database. For researchers and doctors to gain the maximum benefit from epidemiological data, a well-funded and expertly run information unit or centre would be an invaluable asset. An information centre would act not just as a data gatherer, but could also give advice on best practice.
  In addition, it could support GPs in a number of different ways, such as by providing detailed information to aid accurate diagnosis. The close monitoring of treatments could also provide a useful function for the unit, as at present exercise regimes are often too harsh, or in some cases totally inappropriate. Using the information collated, it should be possible to produce a management manual for all those involved in the treatment of ME patients.
  Perhaps such an initiative could be funded by a partnership of private and public funds. That would seem a logical step, as both the private sector and public services are victims of a disease that leads to the loss of millions of working days every year. Indeed, with so many children and young people such as Tanya growing up with the disease, and possibly never able to work, the work force of the future will be denied many talented people. That, in turn, will undoubtedly have implications for the economy.
  Thirdly, I believe that there is some resonance between this debate and last year's debate on cancer, instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). That debate called for the creation of a national cancer institute to act as an umbrella organisation for clinicians, researchers, carers, voluntary organisations and other interested parties sharing the common cause of treating and curing cancer. The disease ME could lend itself to that approach equally well.
  There is always room for healthy competition in any sphere of life, but it is important that we pool our knowledge for the overall good. Nowhere can that be more important than in the pursuit of cures and treatments to the major diseases that threaten the quality of our lives—and life itself.
  As with AIDS and cancer, there is unlikely to be one single research project that produces a miracle cure to ME. Answers will emerge through the slow and painstaking research of many thousands of people working on the numerous different facets of the disease. There is a definite need for a fresh look at the way in which the medical profession approaches ME, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will leave the debate with that point in her thoughts.
  With that in mind, I very much welcome the remarks made last year by the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, when he said that the disorder
  "is a real entity, distressing, debilitating",
  and affecting many people.

  263
  That statement, together with the news that the Government have set up a working group to look at the disease, represents the best news for ME sufferers in many years and has been broadly welcomed. My only concern is that the working group should contain a broad cross-section of thinking and have an open mind on all aspects of the disease. If it does, we may have reached the turning point in the ME debate that Tanya, and the thousands like her, have been seeking for so many years.
  11.23 am
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on his initiative in seeking this debate, especially as today is the ME awareness day. I am a member of the all-party group that the hon. Gentleman has done so much to bring back to life. He is to be congratulated also on his efforts to raise awareness in the House about ME, and I hope that today's debate will go some way towards raising that awareness further.
  My interest in ME began not all that long ago. At the Sutton carers centre in my constituency, I was invited to meet a group of parents whose children suffer from ME. It proved a very useful lesson. I was asked a series of questions about the way in which various public services cut the parents out when it came to dealing with their children. To be honest, I had no adequate answers to the questions that were put to me. I started to make inquires about ME and about how Governments—Labour and Conservative—had dealt with it over a period of years. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions last year, culminating in the early-day motion to which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth referred.
  Moreover, as part of that awareness-raising exercise, I attended the meeting organised last year by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. I had the good fortune then to meet Mr. Graham Baker, the co-ordinator of the local support group in my constituency. Last Saturday, I was pleased to attend an event in my constituency that was part of the launch of the awareness week now taking place across the country. Despite the weather, that event succeeded in getting the message across to more people. There is no doubt that ME is the subject of too much misinformation, prejudice and ignorance. Anything that can be done to change that will go a long way towards helping sufferers.
  The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth ended his speech with a quotation from Sir Kenneth Caiman, the chief medical officer. He said:
  "ME is a reality. It affects large numbers of people and poses a significant challenge to the medical profession."
  I want to deal with three matters in this speech, which stem from my correspondence and the reading that I have done. They are the definition of ME, the overwhelming need for research, and the way in which different public services have different approaches and agendas when dealing with ME sufferers and their carers.
  First, there is the question of definition. The material that I read made it clear that the sensitivities involved with ME are a minefield. For example, is the disease to be called ME, or chronic fatigue syndrome? Different terms can cause great offence to sufferers. There is no doubt that the use of words can provoke strong feelings.
  264
  In 1992, the World Health Organisation listed ME as a neurological brain disorder, but many people have expressed concern—outrage, even—at the 1996 report from the Royal College of Physicians. That attempted to define ME out of existence by lumping it in with a more generic term, chronic fatigue syndrome. As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth rightly noted, The Lancet was critical of the report, on the ground that it was too ready to dismiss viral causes of CFS in favour of structural and functional abnormalities in muscle or brain. In its editorial, The Lancet concluded that the report from the Royal College of Physicians was biased and inconclusive.
  That report has fuelled the debate and, in some ways, caused further misconception. As a consequence, severe ME sufferers especially have been offered inappropriate treatments. They include cognitive behaviour therapy, which may be suitable for other categories of chronic fatigue syndrome, and graded exercise. The latter, again, may be appropriate in some cases, but, in others, can give rise to serious concern.
  As I studied the question of definition, I began to realise how difficult the problem is. Even so, the national task force on CFS/ME concluded last year that, perhaps as a result of some the misconceptions and misunderstandings in the medical profession and of the pursuit of psychological rather than neurological explanations, the overall cost to the United Kingdom of the mismanagement of ME patients came to about £1 billion a year.
  The same task force also identified an urgent need for training and the raising of awareness in the medical profession. It would be useful to know what role the working group is playing in that. The fact that the group was set up by the chief medical officer last year is welcome, but there is understandable cynicism among some of those who suffer ME and some carers about what the group will achieve. Can the Minister tell us something about the timetable and progress of the group, and when it might produce some tangible results for Members and for ME sufferers?
  The group must lay the ground for new research into ME so that we may better understand its causes, prevalence and treatment. It is disappointing that neither the Department of Health nor the Medical Research Council has spent anything on identifying the physical or organic causes of ME. We must look to Australia or the United States of America to see any lead being given by Governments. A couple of years ago, the United States Government voted $11.8 million for ME research, and classed it as a priority one illness for research.
  Several Members, including me, have tabled written questions on ME, and the Government have been reluctant to commit themselves to such research. I have some sympathy with the reason for their reluctance—the problem of definition and the lack of agreement among medical professionals. What role will the working group have in breaking that definitional logjam? In particular, what role will it play in commissioning future research? There would be some sense of purpose and direction if we could hear what progress is being made, if not on securing consensus, at least on deciding what definition will apply for an epidemiological survey.
  On the matter of public services and benefits, I have received a vast number of e-mails over the past few days from people who suffer ME. They are concerned about

  265
  how the benefits system discriminates against them, and how advice to medical officers and adjudication officers is out of date, ill-informed and inadequate. All too often, poorly informed adjudication officers take appalling decisions which disadvantage many of our constituents, leading them to the trauma of the appeal process before they can receive the living allowance, incapacity benefit and other benefits to which they are entitled and which go some way towards meeting their needs. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) spoke persuasively on the way in which the system works.
  All too often, people find themselves being labelled by the benefits system as malingerers. I did not choose that word: it was used in letters to me by sufferers of ME. That attitude is hardly surprising, given the advice offered in the "Handbook for Medical Service Doctors". It states:
  "There is no firm evidence to suggest that CFS is a physical disease. If you do not complete a mental health assessment, you must explain your reasons for not doing so."
  The handbook continues in similar vein, giving adjudication officers almost no guidance and containing nothing that would allow them to help people suffering from impairment. As a consequence, our benefits system is disabling those people still further.
  That problem goes further than the benefits system, reaching into education, social services and other areas. We need to know the roles of the working group, the Minister and the Department of Health in co-ordinating an approach that will ensure that the Government are consistent in their attitude towards ME. Consistency is needed in advice to education authorities, social services departments and so on.
  As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth rightly said, the national task force, which reported in 1994 and 1998, provided a good basis for progress. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what will be done to deal swiftly with the recommendations of the 1998 report. Clarity is required in definitions of ME. Research is needed to determine the organic or physical causes, and we need more sympathetic and co-ordinated approaches across health, social care, education and all parts of the public service.
  11.35 am
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). It is still my family's delight to go to Great Yarmouth to sample fish and chip suppers in the market. They are much to be preferred to Delia Smith's boiled eggs and stuffed canaries.
  Myalgic encephalomyelitis first came to my attention in the 1980s, when the phrase "yuppie flu" came attached. Coming from Norfolk and Norwich, I had no idea what yuppies were, and it is only since I came to London to work that I have seen yuppies going home on the No. 11 bus from Sloane square down the Kings road, Chelsea. I do not see much flu among them, but they certainly have other habits.
  There has been much scepticism about whether ME exists. It is claimed that it is non-specific in its symptoms. It has no specific physical signs, and no consistent blood, pathological or radiological abnormalities are associated with it. It seems to be confined to some populations and not others, although that point is disputed. Published
  266
  evidence from randomised trials suggests that intervention with cognitive therapy and similar psychiatric intervention significantly affect its outcome.
  There has been a tendency in the medical profession, which is still persistent, to dismiss ME. With their usual delicacy, members of the profession tend to tell patients to pull themselves together. They associate ME with patients whom they often see as being not quite the ticket. Their delicacy manifests itself similarly in other aspects of medical assessment such as the all-work test for welfare benefits. Again, people are told to pull themselves together, and a job will come easily to them.
  On the other hand, a large and growing lobby believes strongly in the physical existence of the disease, and that lobby is supported by research. Various treatments have been espoused by sufferers. The existence of the condition is recognised by the British Medical Journal, and the Royal College of Physicians has given the disease cautious recognition, despite dubbing it chronic fatigue syndrome and alluding to its obscure cause and nature.
  Despite the often polarised arguments about the subject, I have no doubt that the many of my constituents who suffer are desperately ill and feel let down by modern medicine. The name ME has been dubbed inappropriate by some, as the disease is sometimes not myalgic and there is often little evidence of encephalitis or myelitis. Argument still rages over whether it is physiological or psychological, with a psychiatric component.
  I have conducted a web search country by country on ME, and there are many more hits from the United States than from anywhere else. However, the number for the USA is only double that from the United Kingdom, and the figures need to be adjusted for web use and population. Britain has far more hits than Australia and Canada, and there is little evidence of ME in continental Europe, including France, Italy and Germany. There is nothing from Africa, Asia or south America. This provides an illustration of how seriously the problem is taken across the world.
  A recent survey of senior house officers in my local hospital, the Norfolk and Norwich, asked whether they had come across ME in their experiences around the world. A Malaysian said that it did not exist as far as he knew, and a Romanian said the same. The German SHO was certain that it did not exist in Germany. We shall publish that survey soon in the British Medical Journal.
  Those SHOs may be right to say that ME does not exist, but it is very real to the sufferers whom I meet in my surgeries and in clinics. ME is a prime case for the evidence-based medical approach of which we have heard so much in the House over the past couple of years. Evidence-based medicine is a conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. That approach would lead to evidence-based health care and to clinical practice based on the best available evidence, using strategies derived from clinical epidemiology and medical information. ME requires exactly such a thorough approach.
  There is no diagnostic test for ME and no known cause. There may be several causes, which is not unknown in medicine. There may even be one cause that manifests itself as several symptoms. There are interesting overlapping symptoms with Gulf war syndrome and glandular fever, which makes it difficult for general

  267
  practitioners to diagnose. Much more research is needed on such stress-related illnesses. As the human genome project comes on stream in the next few years, a diagnostic procedure at DNA level may unravel some of the conflicting syndromes and stress-related illnesses. There may be a common factor through which we can categorise them together.
  The patients are definitely suffering and, sadly, there is no coherent approach to understanding the causes—be they viruses, hormones, chemicals or whatever—or developing a better diagnosis. The contrast with cancer research is amazing.
  Mr. Andy King: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest battle for ME sufferers is getting people to believe that they truly suffer from the symptoms and the disabilities that they feel that they have? The medical profession is unsympathetic. I have come across ME since the 1980s in my work in social services and as chair of social services. The debate about psychological against physiological causes means that it is little wonder that people with ME suffer stress and depression, because they make no headway in getting recognition of their situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that more sympathy and understanding are required from the medical profession?
  Dr. Gibson: I agree, but the hardest thing for GPs or medically trained people is to admit that they do not know. It is a comedown that they cannot handle. It is a training problem, which is why the Government are right to consider training medical people in a way that is more socially active, more interactive with the patient and less dismissive. It is a major problem.
  It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of ME. The best studies have been done in the United States in four large cities where it is estimated that about eight in 100,000 people aged 18 or more have ME and are under medical care. A more recent study in Seattle, where they do these things in a big way, shows a figure of 265 people per 100,000. The figures vary dramatically where the problem is taken seriously. It is estimated that 500,000 or more people in the United States suffer from the condition. It affects all racial and ethnic groups and both genders, although there is some evidence that it is more prevalent among young women.
  There is a paucity of study with adolescents. All my constituents who have seen me on this are adolescents, mostly women. It is important that the unique problems of chronically ill adolescents, such as family problems, social and health interactions, education and social interaction with peers, should be considered part of their care. That is too radical for the medical fraternity to handle. The dissemination of information to parents, families and school authorities is essential. The National Institutes of Health in Washington, DC has started to consider the issue, but it is the only place that I know that takes that approach, and the problem of ME, seriously.
  The question whether ME is contagious is often raised. Original studies in Nevada and Florida suggested that there were ME clusters, but subsequent results have not substantiated that. That does not mean that we can rule out the possibility of an infectious agent associated with
  268
  the condition that reflects the development of the illness. Important questions remain to be answered on the possible reactivation of latent viruses, such as herpes viruses, in people's bodies and the possible role of infectious agents in some cases. That cannot be ruled out yet.
  If we are to develop political and medical approaches to ME, we need to understand its clinical course. That would help to facilitate communication between physicians, doctors and patients, to evaluate new treatments and to address insurance and disability issues. The clinical course varies between patients. Recovery rates are unknown. There can be wholesale recovery, whatever that means—for instance, does it mean going back to work? Most often, people suffer periodic lapses. The disease is usually cyclical. Some people grow worse and never completely recover. There is a spectrum of problems.
  We must do more to treat ME seriously, and to ensure that the medical profession does. We must eliminate the scepticism associated with the illness. There is an unmet need for ME treatment and a dearth of resources for patients and research. Suspicion of its authenticity remains. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government accept the validity of the disease and ensure that sufferers will not be prejudiced in welfare benefit reforms.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on introducing the debate. I am glad to speak because I am aware of the experience of constituents suffering from ME who have approached me. I first raised the issue in the House about eight years ago, since when more and more men and women have approached me about the serious problems that they encounter. They are such that we must bring them to the attention of the House.
  People have problems in following employment. Some have left employment through sickness, but they are denied their pension rights because the illness has not been established. Superannuation funds, particularly public ones, will not accept that they had to cease work because of ill health. I have a case involving a young woman who worked for a national bank. The stress of her employment led her to develop ME, as has been certified by her medical practitioner and a specialist. She went before the all-work test panel and was successful in that it has been accepted that she suffers from ME, but the superannuation fund will not pay her the sickness pension to which she is entitled. I hope that this debate will mean that some of the people who are responsible for denying benefit to many of our constituents will realise that any benefit of the doubt should be given to ME sufferers.
  The payment of social benefits is a further problem. People have explained to me that on some days they feel good, but they then go downhill. Adjudication officers and others from the Benefits Agency cannot accept that such people have days where they feel good and then days when they feel that they cannot put one foot in front of the other. The Minister must take note of our concerns.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth because of his knowledge and technical expertise. Voluminous information has been presented today that should help to create a situation whereby

  269
  people certified as suffering from ME will have no problem in having the illness identified or in getting benefits paid. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take serious note of what we are saying in the Chamber today. I ask that other Departments, such as the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment, should also take note of what we are saying on behalf of the many people whom we represent. Many forms of hardship are created for many ME sufferers: they are unable to continue their employment; they are unable to receive the appropriate benefits; and they feel that they are socially excluded from their communities, because other people do not understand that they suffer from the stress of employment.
  The constituent who visited me recently made it clear that she would have preferred to continue her employment. When her ME was certified, she was advised, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), that it could clear up within two years. She hoped, therefore, that she would be able to return to work. Sadly, that did not happen. However, because she could not return to work within two years, she has been informed that the superannuation fund cannot consider her claim as she should have made it earlier. That person was doing her level best to return to work, but, because her condition deteriorated, she was unable to do so. Her condition is still not recognised by those people who decide whether pensions or benefits payments should be made to her.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: One of my constituents, Mrs. Baxter, who is involved with a support group, has written to me about a similar case. She was a teacher. She has not been able to teach for the past 11 years, but she really tries to work because she loves her job. Her case offers a prime example. Some weeks, she can work for one hour, or possibly two, but she then has no further energy to cope with more work. Such people want to work, but are unable to because of this disease.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend and me can be mirrored a hundred times in each of our constituencies. We all know of people who do not want to remain on benefit; they want to return to work, but find it impossible because of their physical and mental condition.
  I realise that other Members want to take part in the debate. I wanted only to make those points on behalf of my constituents. We need to record such serious matters in the House and my right hon. Friend the Minister should take them seriously. I put it to her that the time has now come for us to give serious consideration to identifying and accepting ME. More research must be carried out so that we can prevent the disease, but, in the meantime, ME sufferers should not be denied recognition of their illness, or the benefits to which they are entitled. We talk about reducing social exclusion; this is one way in which we could start to do so. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister to go back to her colleagues and consider the serious issues that have been presented to the House today, and to ensure that the people whom we represent receive the fairness and justice to which they are entitled.
  11.54 am
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on initiating the debate and on affording us the opportunity
  270
  to discuss this important subject. I also congratulate him and his colleagues on the all-party group on the tremendously good work that they are doing.
  I have a slight feeling of deja vu, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth will be aware, I was the founder chairman of the all-party group on ME. I started it when I was a newly elected Member of Parliament in 1987. I want to share with the House the experiences that were brought to my attention. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is not an easy word to say, but at that time 1 had never heard of myalgic encephalomyelitis at all. I heard some insulting expressions, such as "yuppie flu", but was not too sure what that meant; it seemed to be a rude description that people used for something that they knew nothing about.
  In late 1987, there was a message on the answering machine in my constituency office from a constituent who was obviously distressed. I realised that that lady was ill and needed my help, but the tape on the machine ran out during her call and she did not leave her name or her telephone number. I could only hope that she would call back. Ten days later, I received a letter from her; that was when I was introduced to myalgic encephalomyelitis. It is a horror.
  I do not want to go over the ground that has been gone over so excellently this morning, but will make some points based on my experience. My constituent was involved with the charity organisation, the ME action campaign—that is how I got to know Clare Francis, who was herself a sufferer from the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) will remember that Brynmor John—formerly the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd—suffered from ME. He helped me to prepare one of the two private Member's Bills on ME, which I presented during the early part of my parliamentary career. That is where my feeling of deja vu comes in, because that took place 11 years ago. My ten-minute Bill asked for research into diagnostic tests, because the disease could not be diagnosed and still cannot be diagnosed. It proposed that there should be an epidemiological study—epidemiological is another difficult word which I learned to pronounce.
  I shall never forget that, while I was preparing some press releases before the presentation of my Bill—on 23 February 1988—the BBC in Northern Ireland asked me to do a live telephone interview for their morning programme. I was telephoned at my flat, and I explained the purpose of my Bill. The press releases went out and I presented my Bill to the House. A few days later, I received a phone call at the House from a woman in Northern Ireland who had heard my radio interview. She had been in the process of committing suicide because although she knew that she was ill, no one would listen her. She was trying to commit suicide when she heard an interview with a Member of Parliament—someone she had never heard of—who was talking about myalgic encephalomyelitis and what we were trying to do about it. She told me that hearing that interview had given her some hope and had stopped her from committing suicide on that morning.
  A tragic aspect that we have not discussed is the high incidence of suicide among ME sufferers. The woman did not leave her name or telephone number, but that experience has stayed with me because, although I was

  271
  delighted that she rescued herself that time, little has been done to help ME sufferers since 1988 and I do not know what has happened to her since.
  An estimated 150,000 people suffer from ME, and I suspect that the true incidence is significantly greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was right to mention stress in relation to ME, but the impact of stress more commonly arises from misdiagnosis or from people denying that someone is ill—saying there is nothing wrong. Clare Francis was told, "There is something wrong with your sex life—give yourself a shake, woman, there's nothing wrong with you." Such remarks come from snobbery or ignorance on the part of the medical profession. As has been said, doctors do not like to say that they do not know and, sooner than say that, they will say that there is nothing wrong or that something they do know about is wrong.
  Most of the GPs working in the national health service are excellent providers of health care, but there are a few who, if they cannot tell a patient to stop smoking, stop drinking or go on a diet, will send that person to a psychiatrist. That is part of the problem: if doctors cannot understand the illness, they say that it is psychosomatic, with the result that 16 per cent. of the NHS budget is spent on psychosomatic illnesses. That is a fantastic sum of money, and I have to ask how much of that expenditure arises from misdiagnosis or from people being referred to psychiatrists or psychologists because doctors do not understand or do not want to understand their condition.
  Having said that, I do not want to be unfair to the medical profession, for, thanks to certain doctors, an increasing number of GPs now recognise ME as an illness. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for ME sufferers, but only we in Parliament can bring that light closer. I ask the Minister to tell her advisers, some of whom will be sympathetic and others less so, to press on and to commission proper research and epidemiological studies so as to help ME sufferers. She should invite Treasury Ministers' support by directing their attention to ME and the financial costs relating to misdiagnosis, because they might be able to save money. Let us get proper diagnostic tests and research to help the many sufferers from ME.
  Because we lack hard information, there are many opinions as to what causes ME and what its nature is. My lay experience suggests that ME is an environmental illness, and that stress is not a cause but a result of the illness. Those of us who have met people who suffer badly from ME and are disabled by it will know that they often have multiple allergies, but that aspect has not yet been properly explored. I always ask ME sufferers who write to me or come to my surgeries whether they have had any allergy tests; invariably, the answer is no. Some of the doctors who understand the illness direct patients to get allergy tests, but the link should be explored in greater depth.
  Some years ago, I heard the immune system and the impact of stress on it described as the pail under the dripping tap. People who are healthy and fit can cope with a little stress in their life, but the impact of stress on someone who is ill can take that person over the edge—the pail overflows. ME sufferers' pails are brimming with their illness and related experiences, but often the thing
  272
  that pushes them over the top is for them to go to a doctor and ask for help, only to be told that there is nothing wrong with them.
  We show deference to our doctors—when we send for a doctor in the middle of the night because we are ill, the first thing that we do when he arrives is apologise for being ill and for disturbing him. When a doctor says that there is nothing wrong, but the person concerned knows that there is something wrong, it can cause great problems. If the doctor tells a family that the illness suffered by their son, daughter, wife or husband is all in his or her own mind, however much the family loves that person, they will trust the doctor—the professional—in the belief that he must know what he is talking about. However, the truth is that, all too often, the doctor does not know, and such misdiagnoses cause stresses within the family that add to the burden on the patient of the stress caused by ME.
  I ask the Minister to keep an open mind and to listen to what we have said today. This Government, more than any other, have to offer the helping hand to ME sufferers. Let us have proper research, let us go out and look for a proper diagnostic test, let us commission that epidemiological study, and let us give the tens of thousands of sufferers of ME the help that they need.
  12.8 pm
  Liz Blackman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on having secured this important debate. I shall focus on the group of ME sufferers whom the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) cites as the reason for his becoming interested in the subject—children, who are isolated from support systems. I should also like to amplify the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) about the paucity of research into young people who suffer from ME.
  A study conducted in 1997 estimated that as many as 25,000 children suffer from ME. There is no identifiable cause of the condition, but, according to the 1994 national task force report on ME, one of the most common triggers appears to be viral infection. If so, it is hardly surprising that so many children suffer from ME, as I should imagine that their immune systems are less robust than those of adults. The same study described children's symptoms as severe shaking, difficulty in swallowing and mental confusion. That would be frightening to anyone, but doubly so to children.
  It is obvious that the schooling of children with such symptoms will be affected. Therefore, it is not surprising that the 1997 study to which I referred identified ME as the most common cause of long-term absence from school. That is enormously worrying. The Government place great emphasis on, and have targeted significant resources at, children's learning. We recognise that the acquisition of good skills equips children for life.
  The education system has always been quite good at supporting off-site learning for children with medical problems so long as those problems have a clear label and are specifically identified. Resources are triggered by medical diagnosis. If that diagnosis cannot be made, children are denied vital teaching, learning and medical support, and untold damage is done to them now and in the future. Early intervention and diagnosis triggers those resources and leads to a much speedier recovery.

  273
  I refer the House to dyslexia and its history. At one time, dyslexia was not recognised by many sceptical professionals. Diagnosis did not occur and support was poor and haphazard—or, in many cases, non-existent. That is no longer the case: diagnosis is now speedy, resources are available and our children are far better served as a result. We can apply to ME the lessons we have learned from the dyslexia experience. I am delighted that the Department of Health chief medical officer has described ME as a "real entity". However, there is still a lack of research into ME, a lack of understanding about its causes, a lack of skill in diagnosis, a disparity of services, patient mismanagement, a lack of appropriate medical training and a degree of prejudice—although that is diminishing.
  I am interested to hear how the Minister will respond to the issues that we have flagged today. How are the Government addressing them and what are their plans for the future?
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I shall not detain the House for long as we want to hear the Minister's response to the debate. All hon. Members are forced to admit that this is pretty mysterious territory, and we join in condemning those who are tempted to mock ME because it cannot be readily diagnosed or explained. I infer from the excellent contributions this morning that the medical establishment is too often inclined to take the view that what it cannot explain, it will not recognise. That prejudice must be overcome.
  Conservative Members fully support ME awareness day—although I must confess that it is slightly disorienting to see so many Labour Members sporting blue ribbons on their lapels. Perhaps there is a deeper message about new Labour—although it does not apply to the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) or for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
  Several points have emerged upon which I shall dwell briefly. We clearly need uniform ME diagnosis criteria. It appears that those criteria will be difficult to establish, but we must try to achieve that goal. There is a shortage of medical expertise in diagnosing ME and a shortage of consultants who can accept referrals for the condition. In treating ME, the national health service must adapt and learn to accept that a multi-disciplinary approach is necessary. Carers can also play an important role. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that point, which is not addressed in the Government's carers strategy.
  The main theme that has emerged from this morning's debate is the need for research. Everyone is struggling for information and both those who suffer from the illness and those who treat it are calling for more research. That would also appear to be Labour Members' main plea. I also sense that ME sufferers face an absolute minefield when claiming benefit. Will the Minister outline what criteria she thinks should apply to those who qualify for benefit so that there may be clear guidelines—if that is possible—and no argument about whether people are genuine sufferers?
  Many hon. Members have pleaded this morning for more research into ME. Sympathy for ME sufferers binds hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is all very well our being terribly sympathetic and wearing blue ribbons, but we must ask whether the Government intend
  274
  to do anything about it. Our concern will not add up to a row of beans if the Government do not act. As a significant number of Labour Members are calling for more research into ME, will the Minister announce today what the Government's policy in this area is and will be?
  12.16 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for introducing this important debate. I pay tribute to him both for his contribution today and for his tireless work on behalf of ME sufferers through the all-party group. I also pay tribute to my many hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to highlight, through the painful experiences of their constituents, the need for action and the need to do much more for ME sufferers. That task will not be easy, and I shall set out where we are in relation to Government action and where we need to go.
  I recognise the important work of the ME Association, made possible by grant aid and the Department of Health's section 64 programme. This is a major area of health policy which is changing and progressing—although perhaps not as quickly as we should like. We are engaged in a process of discovery and will apply our conclusions to the provision of support for ME sufferers through the national health service.
  I want to pick up the point about carers and ME sufferers. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to their constituents who suffer from ME and who have taught them about the seriousness of the condition. It is essential that we convey our willingness to learn about, and to act upon, the experience of ME sufferers. We know very little about the causes of ME and we are groping to establish a proper framework for treatment. Therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to those ME sufferers who are prepared to share their experiences with us. In the absence of a clear understanding about causes, we can make at least some progress by learning more about the condition and by applying the painful lessons of what it is like to live with ME.
  Uncertainty about causation means that, certainly departmentally, the condition is referred to by two names: chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS; and myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME.
  As we have heard this morning, CFS/ME is a distressing, debilitating and disabling condition, possibly initiated by viral infection. It is complex and difficult, and poses a challenge to medicine and the NHS. I accept that medicine is not always sufficiently humble when presented with a challenge, the origins of which it does not fully understand. Despite a great deal of commitment from professionals and voluntary organisations, enormous gaps remain in our knowledge about the cause, diagnosis and treatment for some conditions, of which CFS/ME is a prime example.
  That is why the previous chief medical officer, with strong ministerial support, set up a working group to take the first steps towards improving the quality of understanding, support and care for patients with this distressing and debilitating condition. Although we do not understand its causes, we know that the condition is real for those who suffer from it and for their families. I hope that we can make a fresh start in our work on CFS/ME.

  275
  Tanya Harrison, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth referred, is a member of the chief medical officer's working group.
  I turn now to what we know about the incidence and prevalence of CFS/ME. It affects many people and their families in Britain and elsewhere. Information about actual numbers of people with the condition is hard to establish because of the problems in producing a precise definition of the illness. It is thought that as many as one or two people in every thousand may have the illness, with numbers peaking in the 20 to 40 age group.
  We know that the condition is more prevalent among women and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) made clear, it can, distressingly, affect children as young as five. More recently, we have become aware that CFS/ME is becoming increasingly common among school-age children. For that reason, we have established, as part of the CMO's working group, a sub-group that will specifically examine children's needs. Representatives of the Department for Education and Employment and social services will sit on that sub-group.
  Differences in age and sex distribution, social conditions and, possibly, genetic composition probably also affect the frequency of CFS/ME. There is probably under-reporting of the illness in some social groups. Defining the condition is fraught with difficulties. A definition of CFS/ME has been the subject of much debate, inside and outside the medical profession. It is more often defined by what it is not than by what it is. Those difficulties are compounded by the way in which the condition has been given different names.
  Terminology is important, but we need to move beyond the rather doctrinaire debate about names to tackle the yawning gap in our understanding about causation, provide better care and support and concentrate on treatment and rehabilitation. If the exact cause of the condition were known, as well as the method of acquiring it and its pathophysiology, I am sure that there would be less focus on what the illness is called.
  There is a great deal of debate about the causes of CFS/ME. As hon. Members have said this morning, some doctors believe that the cause is primarily psychological, but others are equally vociferous in saying that there is an entirely organic basis to the illness. No one has yet been able to provide conclusive evidence to support either view, although research is now increasingly concentrated on the organic aspects of the illness. As one of my hon. Friends said, there is a great deal of research in the United States on the organic origins of CFS/ME and the physiological changes that it creates. We hope to learn from research in this country, but fortunately such learning knows no international boundaries.
  Mr. Duncan: I apologise for intervening because I do not want to take up the Minister's time, but, in the
  276
  remaining minutes of the debate, will she announce positive action that the Government will take in response to the requests of her hon. Friends?
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman should contain his impatience because I shall certainly set out what action the Government will take.
  The Department of Health funds research through different sources, and has recently funded research on CFS/ME at the university of Manchester on "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome." We look forward to the results of that research being made available.
  I underline the fact that the Medical Research Council is always willing to consider new ideas for research and will judge applications on their scientific merits. Everything that we have heard this morning demonstrates that there is a need to prod scientists with an interest and competence in the condition to consider submitting proposals so that we can close some of the gaps in our knowledge.
  Important research is being carried out in related areas, including the study of molecules and cells, and genetics and infections and immunity, which will inform our understanding of the causes of CFS/ME.
  The Department of Health has been funding, through its own research and development programme, a research project called "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial", which has recently reported. Unfortunately, its results were inconclusive. In addition, the NHS standing group on health technology has recently identified the latest series of priority areas for which it anticipates commissioning primary research or systematic reviews. One of the topics identified is management strategies for chronic fatigue syndrome.
  In all cases, priorities for our research budgets reflect analysis of the burden of disease, potential benefits and broader Government priorities. I hope that the message will go out to those with an interest in pursuing research on CFS/ME.
  The difficulties of defining a cause for CFS/ME mean that there is no single diagnostic test for the condition. Diagnosis hinges largely on the elimination of other possible conditions through a series of specific tests. Treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that patients can experience is, therefore, a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients. That causes problems of inconsistency and creates difficulties in developing the evidence-based protocol that we want increasingly to be applied in the NHS. Treatment is largely focused on the relief of symptoms rather than on curing the condition, which should clearly be the aim.
  The working group is due to report in summer 2000. There is wide representation in the group so that we can look beyond the medical issues to consider management, care and support for carers. The group includes representatives of carers and voluntary groups. We shall, on the basis of the chief medical officer's report, issue practical advice to the NHS to improve support and, in turn, the quality of life of people who suffer from this awful and debilitating condition.

  A63 (Melton Junction)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. David Davis: Before I begin what I promise the Minister will be a very brief speech on this matter, I should like to put on record, and communicate through him, my gratitude to the Deputy Prime Minister, who, despite the pressure on his time, has afforded me a meeting and paid a great deal of attention to this essentially local issue. I hope that the Minister will pass on that compliment.
  I shall first describe the nature and location of the road and the junction. The House will know that the ports of Liverpool and Hull are joined by the M62—part of the great motorway network covering the country. The last 25 miles, or thereabouts, of the road into Hull is not motorway but dual carriageway—the A63, which, apart from some long, sweeping curves, is a very fast road in every respect.
  At the Melton junction on this fast road, there is a set of traffic lights which, due to the road's sweeping curves, are virtually invisible to on-coming traffic until a few hundred metres away. They are the only lights between Liverpool and Hull. Indeed, in terms of the motorway network, they are the only lights between London and Hull, Bristol and Hull or Birmingham and Hull, for that matter. Because the lights are almost invisible until traffic is nearly upon them, reacting to them is very difficult, particularly if, for any reason, there is a tailback.
  Psychologically, the road is a motorway, but physically it is virtually a country road, with crossings, very complex five-phase traffic lights and, just a little further along from the junction, a right turning into a village road. That is not at all what one would expect of a road on which traffic travels at such speed.
  As a result, there have been many accidents over the past five years. There were fatal vehicle accidents in 1994 and 1996, and a double fatality in March this year. A pedestrian was killed near the lights, and a further double fatality occurred at the Colby Park crossing, just a short distance from the junction. It is only by the grace of God that there was not yet another fatality when a small girl on a bicycle was narrowly missed by three cars and hit by a fourth. She was badly hurt, but, thank God, survived. In the past decade, there have been 40 accidents involving injury, in which almost 60 people have been hurt. Of course, many other accidents have not been reported because they involve only damage, not injury.
  This is the worst traffic blackspot in the Humberside police area. Indeed, it is the worst within a 50-mile radius of the Deputy Prime Minister's constituency and, of course, mine, as we are near neighbours. Why?
  Police statistics tell us a great deal. The problem is not weather-driven: 90 per cent. of accidents have occurred when there has been perfectly good visibility. Nor, despite what I said earlier, is the problem due to people not knowing the road. Some 70 per cent. of accidents occur on the westbound carriageway that leaves Hull. Almost by definition, therefore, drivers are local or have been through the junction before. In addition, in the majority of accidents where there has been some identifiable driver error—a blameworthy component, as it were—the blameworthy driver is local. It is therefore not just a case of people being surprised by road conditions.
  278
  The problem is the design of Melton junction and the associated Colby Park crossing further up the road. The crossing is appropriate to an earlier era. It is appropriate to a low-speed, low-intensity road, not—psychologically—a motorway that carries 40,000 vehicles a day. I shall be blunt: I do not think that my constituents should face the fatal consequences of 1950s road design as we enter a new century. Nor do my constituents think they should.
  The matter is one of enormous local concern. A large campaign to solve the problem has attracted the support of many local individuals and businesses, all local parish councils, the local authority, the local police force and our much-respected local newspaper the Hull Daily Mail.
  What can we do? Clearly, a new road junction is needed. We need a junction that is capable of dealing with traffic growth of at least 4 per cent. per annum, as well as with increases as a result of local development. I shall return to that. Meanwhile, it is immediately necessary somehow to tackle the cause of the accidents: the speed of the traffic going through the junction. Until we have a new junction, I want the speed limit on a one-mile stretch either side of the Melton junction to be cut to 50 mph. To enforce that, I want traffic cameras and active policing, and I want to ensure that everybody understands that exceeding the speed limit will lead to certain conviction. I want the Minister to tell me today that the Government intend to issue orders to achieve that end, and that they will ensure that resources are available.
  Given the sort of problems thrown up by traffic cameras, a solution is not as simple as it looks. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. I stress that it is important that such action is taken virtually immediately.
  More important in the longer term, there must be a new junction. There is a grade-separated junction in the road expenditure plans of the Department and the Highways Agency, which is rather inaccurately described as a private finance initiative project—the Minister may want to tell us about that—but the projections for it seem to assume, as do Highways Agency responses to local developers and the council, a completion date of 2006. In other words, the junction will be completed in seven years' time. How many lives that will cost I do not know. I know that it will be too many. One death is too many; if we do not act, there will be more.
  The Minister knows that I have been a member of the Cabinet and have served in Departments. I do not therefore subscribe to the Whitehall economics of death, if I may put it quite so starkly—the idea that one can value loss of life in economic terms. Every death is a tragedy and a mortal loss to the wives, husbands, children, mothers, fathers and loved ones of those who die. I do not want there to be one more death on the road. I want the new junction to be built as soon as is physically possible.
  East Riding of Yorkshire unitary council and the local developer involved believe that, with reasonable good fortune, the project could be completed by 2002 or 2003 and that, even if there were a public inquiry, it should be achievable before 2004. Indeed, so confident is the council of that timetable that one of its officers told me that it is willing to act as the agency for completing the project. In order to achieve it, the necessary funding must be available, obviously. In addition, however, there must be the political will to give the project its proper priority and, if I may be blunt, the Highways Agency must get its finger out and get on with it.

  279
  I am not interested in scoring political points. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister drives through the junction regularly, and he has made it clear to me that he understands the problem only too well and wants it to be solved—for which, as I have said, I am grateful. So this is not a political battle. If anything, it is a battle with bureaucracy.
  We all know the problem: capable and well-meaning civil servants and Government agencies face competing demands from all over the country for money, time and scarce resources. The understandable human response is to deal with such demands in turn, carefully and at a steady pace. I am afraid that Whitehall has a tendency to gold-plate and to be over-cautious in its approach. That, in turn, slows things down even more. Such an approach is no doubt entirely rational, but, in the meantime, this stretch of road is killing people. It is doing so with inexorable regularity and, as traffic flows inevitably increase, the problem will inevitably get worse. The project therefore needs to be given high priority and needs to be approached with a sense of urgency and a determination to complete by 2002–03, not 2006. I ask the Minister to ensure that his colleagues devote every effort to achieving that target.
  I shall conclude my speech so that the Minister may have his say and respond positively. In summary, in the immediate term, I want a new 50 mph speed limit. I want it to be strictly policed, with speed cameras and full enforcement. I want a new junction, to be as fast as possible within the law. That is what I ask of the Government, and that is what I ask the Minister to comment on today.
  I know that that involves numerous agencies, national and local, government and quasi-independent, public and private; and I know from ministerial experience that that often involves knocking heads together to get people to agree. If it would advance my constituents' cause, I should be happy to convene a meeting of all the relevant parties to hammer out a solution to the problem once and for all, and I should be delighted to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to chair it. I can think of no one better on the Labour Benches to knock heads together—he has a reputation for it. Whatever it takes, I will support.
  In the first years of the new millennium, the people of Yorkshire deserve better than a dangerous 1950s road on a major route. I hope and trust that the Government will do all in their power to help me get them a better road and a safer future.
  12.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on securing the debate. I well understand his arguments and the strength of feeling in the locality about the junction. Although I am not familiar with the junction, I do, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, work very closely with a colleague who is extremely familiar with it.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, yesterday evening to discuss the issue. I thank him on
  280
  their behalf for the very constructive approach that he took in the meeting and the important and significant suggestions that he made, some of which he has mentioned today. I shall pass on his kind comments of appreciation for the interest that the Deputy Prime Minister has taken in the subject.
  I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take road safety issues very seriously indeed. That concern is not an add-on to our transport policy but an integral part of everything that we do.
  It may be appropriate to put the matter into the national context before I discuss the specific subject to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention.
  We are fortunate in having one of the best all-round road safety records in the world. Much of that is due to the high standard of road engineering and to significant advances in vehicle design and standards. Although major road improvement schemes contribute to our safety record, our attention to detail also contributes to it. Some of the most cost-effective measures for reducing casualties are fairly modest road improvements.
  In the past two years alone, more than £100 million has been allocated—as part of the annual, long-term local capital expenditure round—to small-scale engineering measures specifically designed to reduce accidents and casualties. But however good our roads are, and however safe our vehicles, we must recognise that human error is one of the major contributory factors. In fact, it is a key factor in about 95 per cent. of road accidents. This is at least as much a question of attitude as of lack of driving skill.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on a long-term road safety strategy, with targets for reducing casualties by 2010. It is taking a little longer than we had expected because we are also carrying out the speed policy review promised in last year's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone".
  It will obviously be sensible to synchronise the new road safety strategy and the speed review. The right hon. Gentleman's comments about the junction amply show the relevance of linking the two issues. Excessive or inappropriate speed is a factor in a third of road casualties, and persuading drivers to keep to a safe speed is likely to be our biggest challenge in the next decade.
  Our current aim is to publish the strategy in the autumn. It will cover a range of road safety issues, including driver training; child safety; pedestrians and cyclists; impairment through drink, drugs or fatigue; vehicle standards; enforcement of penalties; and, of course, speed.
  The strategy will set a target for reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured. As previously announced, the target will be no less demanding than the 1987 target of a one-third reduction in all casualties by 2000. We are also considering a target to prevent any increase in casualties, including relatively minor injuries.
  We also recognise the need to ensure that safety is at the heart of our developing integrated transport policy. We have agreed exactly that approach with the Highways Agency, which looks after the motorways and trunk roads for which Ministers are directly responsible. The agency's business plan for 1999–2000 contains proposals to invest £78 million in improving road safety on the trunk road network.

  281
  The guidance that we have issued to local authorities for putting together their local transport plans says that we expect them to consider road safety issues in all relevant policies, including social policies and measures to encourage walking and cycling. We shall be looking to local authorities to establish a strategic approach to their road safety problems, and to work in partnership with others to develop local solutions to local problems.
  For example, it can take many years to deliver expensive engineering work. In the meantime, there is scope for local authorities, the Highways Agency and other partners—such as the police—to introduce short-term measures to minimise accidents until the long-term answer can be delivered. These new arrangements for local transport plans offer the flexibility to tackle problems with imagination and to develop alternative solutions.
  We run highly successful advertising campaigns and road safety initiatives such as the drink drive campaign, the campaign to persuade everyone to wear seat belts in the back of the car as well as in the front, and the campaign to rehabilitate drink drivers and to get reoffending rates down. All those national initiatives will help road safety generally, not excluding on the A63 at Melton, but I recognise that the accident record there is a cause for special concern, as the right hon. Gentleman highlighted in his speech.
  For the three years prior to 1997, the accident record near the traffic-signal-controlled junction at Melton increased from nine personal injury accidents in 1994 to 15 in 1996. There was an encouraging drop in accidents in 1997, after some low-cost improvements had been undertaken—mainly to the road surface—but that trend was reversed in 1998.
  Although we do not have full details of the accident record in 1999 to date, I am fully aware of the fatal accident in March that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I know about the two damage-only accidents in the area on 30 April, which would not feature in the statistics usually kept by the Department.
  The need for a significant improvement at Melton has long been recognised. A scheme for a two-level junction was introduced into the roads programme in 1987. That scheme has had a chequered history, with significant local debate about its layout and its impact in the intervening period. A preferred route was announced as long ago as September 1991. Progress was then stalled as a result of decisions in 1994 to seek a lower-cost solution. Alternatives at that stage again attracted local opposition. Those were overcome by 1995, and a different preferred solution was published. Further progress was suspended on that scheme following the review of the roads programme in 1995.
  On coming to office, the Labour Government had to undertake a full and comprehensive review of the roads programme that we inherited, to assess its affordability and its contribution to the integrated transport policies that we intend to develop. That detailed and comprehensive assessment was undertaken during 1997 and the early part of 1998. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", was published in July 1998 and was immediately followed by our report on our review of the roads programme, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England".

  282
  I am very pleased that, in that reassessment, we were able to recognise the importance of the scheme at Melton. However, because of the lack of progress with the scheme prior to 1997, it was not sufficiently developed to be available to be included in our targeted programme of improvements for schemes for which we had secured funding. However, recognising its importance, we included it in a very restricted list of only seven exceptionally important schemes in the whole of England. All those schemes must have road-based solutions, and we intend to make progress with them as swiftly as possible. I shall return to timing issues in a moment. Schemes will be progressed through their preparatory stages so that if, after full appraisal and statutory procedure, they are endorsed, they can be taken forward without delay.
  On 10 December last year, Lord Whitty announced the timing of the schemes included in our programme. It was announced that the next step for the Melton interchange is the publication of draft orders in 2000-01. Those orders will cover matters such as the positions of slip roads, alterations to side roads and, possibly, the compulsory acquisition of land. People will have the right to comment or object, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a public inquiry may be necessary.
  I have already said that we will take the scheme forward as quickly as possible, subject to the views of the regional planning conference at the appropriate time. I hope that it will be possible to complete the project, assuming that it receives the necessary approvals, well before the 2006 date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Were a public inquiry to be necessary following public objections, that would impact on the time scale, so he will understand why I cannot give a more precise indication. However, I can assure him that we intend to proceed urgently with the project, even though we cannot deliver it immediately, for the reasons that I have outlined.
  In the meantime, we shall not ignore the serious problems at the site. The Highways Agency and the police will continue to work to identify small-scale measures that can be introduced quickly to improve safety at the junction. I have already mentioned that work undertaken in 1997 had an immediate effect on the safety record, albeit only for a short time. That work improved the skid resistance of the approaches to the junction, and other measures were introduced to raise driver awareness. It is extremely disappointing that the effectiveness of those measures seems to have been so short-lived.
  The Highways Agency has taken immediate steps to address the deterioration since then and the consequences of the recent fatal accident in March, which highlighted the continuing problem. The agency has increased the length of time at which all signals at the junction show a red light, giving more time for traffic to clear the junction before other streams of traffic receive a green light. This measure could increase the length of queues at the junction, but, in similar situations elsewhere, it has improved safety and reduced the type of accidents that occur at Melton.
  The right hon. Gentleman commented that traffic accidents were not related to climatic conditions. That is also my understanding, which is why the wider measures are necessary. He highlighted the problem of speed. I am pleased to confirm that we agree with him that a 50 mph speed limit would improve the situation on the main road

  283
  approaches to the junction. The Highways Agency will take the necessary steps to introduce this measure. The local police have already undertaken to enforce the limit through the use of speed cameras. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that could make a significant difference in the short term, although it is accepted that a longer-term solution is necessary.
  Mr. Davis: I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for those two announcements. I know that, for reasons that he touched on, he cannot be as explicit as I would like on the timetable for the longer-term measures. However, his announcements today may well save my constituents' lives, and for that I express my gratitude to him and his Department.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am extremely grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We are all deeply concerned about the situation at the junction. The Deputy Prime Minister made his concerns known yesterday evening, and we are determined to do all that we can in the short term. The measure that we propose could make a real difference.
  Moreover, some small extensions of the right-turning lanes in the central reserve will be provided to give additional room for waiting traffic, as problems can be caused if traffic backs up while waiting to turn right off the main road. Further signing measures will be introduced to emphasise the presence of the signal-controlled junction and the likelihood of stationary traffic, to give advance warning to approaching vehicles.
  The Highways Agency will continue to review the traffic conditions at the junction with the police and the local authority, and will introduce further measures if those will be of benefit in the period pending the provision of the grade-separated junction.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of cutting through red tape and knocking heads together. He paid a great tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that he could not think of anyone in Government more capable of doing that. I am happy to confirm that my right hon. Friend proposes to meet the right hon. Gentleman and other interested parties to consider the various issues on site at Melton as soon as that can be arranged.
  In summary, we acknowledge the safety concerns there and recognise the importance of taking forward a scheme to provide the long-term solution as swiftly as possible. In the meantime, we will do all that we can to improve the safety record at the site and to prevent a repetition of the tragic accidents that have occurred in recent years, which occasioned the right hon. Gentleman's speech and this debate.

  Body Piercing
  12.55 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise in the House the subject of body piercing. Many of us recognise that body piercing is a fashion and perhaps makes a generational point. There may be those who consider it a trivial matter, but I hope to make it clear that the repercussions of body piercing can be serious.
  My attention was first drawn to the matter by my local newspaper, the South Shields Gazette, which is proud to be the oldest provincial daily newspaper in the country. It celebrates its 150th year of publication this year. It is a campaigning newspaper, and body piercing has been the subject of one of its campaigns.
  My original concern related to the body piercing of minors. I was aware that under the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 it was illegal to tattoo young people, but that apparently does not apply to body piercing. The matter was drawn to my attention by the case of a constituent whose daughter, aged 13, had returned home with her nipples pierced. To put it mildly, my constituent was not pleased when he found out.
  I started to pursue the matter and found that apart, perhaps, from recourse to the common law and to assault, there was probably little that could be done in that case. I originally thought that the problem of body piercing could be overcome by extending the provisions of the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, but that would not solve the problem. The matter is not so simple. One immediately thinks of the practice of ear piercing, which has gone on for centuries in this country. It would be draconian for legislation to ban ear piercing for people under 18.
  I generally take the view that the fewer restrictions and regulations we impose, the better, so I am not keen to overregulate society. However, there is a case for us to examine the need for the regulation of body piercing. The more I have investigated the problem, the clearer it has become that it does not affect only young people.
  What people decide to do with their body is entirely a matter for them, but the House has a responsibility to protect minors. We also have some responsibility to guarantee to our citizens that if they decide to have their bodies pierced, they can do so in safe and hygienic conditions. That is certainly not the case at present.
  The Sunday People picked up on a series of parliamentary questions that I tabled on 20 April. It held random tests in various parts of the country, sending young people to body piercing establishments to see whether the practitioners would carry through a body piercing. I am sad to report that body piercing is widely available in Bristol, the west midlands and Merseyside—and on Tyneside as well—to young people aged 13 or 14.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Or younger.
  Dr. Clark: Or younger, as the hon. Gentleman says, but in this case the young people were 13 or 14-year-olds.
  The general problem is not as acute in London because, under the London Local Authorities Act 1991, the local authorities in London can act in a more stringent manner than local authorities outwith the capital. The Sunday

  285
  People discovered that none of the young people it sent out in London—minors who were under 16—were able to have their bodies pierced. Perhaps there is a lesson in that.
  Outside London there is a major problem, as certain environmental health officers, medical practitioners and health authorities have recognised. Foremost among those, I must pay tribute to the Bury and Rochdale environmental health departments, which got together and wondered what they could do to address this problem. They also had meetings with the respective health authorities. At the end of last year, they decided to survey the general practitioners in their areas to discover the extent of the problem, and the results are revealing.
  Over three weeks, the departments surveyed 209 GPs in the Bury and Rochdale areas and 113 replied, saying that they had had to treat patients as a result of inadequate and unsuccessful body piercing. Treatment varied according to the type of piercing and cases involving the navel were the most difficult to treat. The GPs reported 191 cases involving infection of the navel and, although I suspect that there will have been many more, 167 cases involving ear piercing. There were 57 cases involving nose piercing, 23 involving nipple piercing and 17 involving tongue piercing.

  Although I emphasise and admit that only one survey has been carried out, I have no reason to think that the situation in other parts of the country would be substantially different from that pertaining in Rochdale and in Bury. The figures for the two authorities were almost identical; there was some variation, but not much.
  We have evidence that a problem exists—not only a problem with minors, but a problem with the way in which body piercing is undertaken. There is a lack of action, and local authorities lack the powers to try to ensure that they can provide some protection to their citizens who decide, quite legitimately and quite understandably, to have their bodies pierced.
  To support the need for action, I cite the excellent work of Professor Norman Noah, one of the foremost experts in the world on the issues affecting body piercing. He works in the communicable disease surveillance centre of the Public Health Laboratory Service, which is based at Colindale avenue in London. Over the years, he has done a great deal of work on tattooing and on body piercing. He has drawn up the guidelines for a number of professional tattooing and body piercing organisations and believes that, if those guidelines could be extended and were adhered to, we could probably overcome some of the more routine problems.
  I have mentioned the effect of piercing on parts of people's bodies, but it has been put to me that we cannot ignore viral infections such as AIDS—acquired immune deficiency syndrome—which could be spread by body piercing. It does not take a great deal of imagination to realise that a needle could be used, perhaps innocently, on someone who is HIV positive and then on someone else, transmitting the disease.
  There are major problems and Professor Noah identifies five. The first is body piercing of minors. Although I am open to listening to other opinions, I take the view that body piercing other than ear piercing—although it should perhaps not be illegal for under-16s—should not be undertaken without parental consent. Other Members of the House may want to pursue that debate at some other
  286
  time. It would be tidiest if we transferred the regulations on tattooing across to body piercing, but my instinct is that that would probably be too draconian.
  Secondly, Professor Noah raises the valid issue of the use of local anaesthetic by non-medical personnel. Clearly one can imagine that that could cause all sorts of difficulties. The third problem, which was highlighted by the survey in Rochdale and in Bury, is the incidence and the effect of local infections and other complications arising from body piercing.
  The fourth problem, which is a more complicated socio-medical issue, is the incidence of side effects of body piercing, such as scar tissue resulting from nipple piercing and the effect that that could have subsequently on breast feeding. Body piercers have said that such piercing has no effect whatever, but I suspect that we do not know sufficient to be so categoric about that.
  The final issue is the training of body piercers themselves. There are professional associations—professional may not be the right term, but I concede that point—connected with body piercing. They have all told me that they would welcome guidance and some regulation. They are concerned that there are cowboys out there who are quite prepared to charge £20, £30 or £40 to pierce the body of any person without any regard for the outcome. The training and the qualifications of body piercers must be examined to find a way forward.
  I concede that we are perhaps at an early stage of the debate. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to the Home Office Minister responsible for overall regulation on 20 April and he conceded that the previous Government had been concerned about body piercing and had established a working party, conducted a survey and concluded that there was a need for legislation. I know that this Government take a similar view, but, equally, I know that a great deal of other legislation is vying for time in the House.
  We may have to wait some time before we can expect legislation to be discussed on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, so we must take some action. I suggest that the work conducted in Rochdale and in Bury should be extended to other parts of the country to discover whether the problem is as serious as the survey suggested. If the problems are as acute and serious as that, we should consider taking action even outside the realms of formal regulations.
  I know that the Department of Health is aware of Professor Noah's research. Could it study his work to find ways of extending, on a voluntary basis to begin with, the code of practice that he devised? That could be done with the agreement of the Department of Health, and after consultation with local authorities and the professional associations of body piercers. It would be a positive way forward while we are waiting for legislation. There is a great willingness to do that. We could also consult the local environmental health authorities on the extent of the problem and on ways of making progress on this matter.
  This issue is of concern to Labour Members, and I know that Opposition Members have some sympathy with my arguments. The Minister is aware of the problem, and I know that she and Ministers at the Home Office want to make some progress. I hope that this short debate is only the first step, because if we make some real progress, we can allow our citizens to follow the fashion of body piercing and at the same time guarantee that if young

  287
  people—it is mainly young people who have this done—go to a body piercing establishment they can expect the highest standards of hygiene, and that the body piercing will be performed as safely as possible.
  1.12 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on his success in securing the debate, and on the energy that he has expended in recent weeks to raise the profile of concern about the possible risks of body piercing. I am grateful to have the opportunity to set out the Government's position on the regulation of body piercing, which, as my right hon. Friend has rightly explained, spans the Department of Health and the Home Office, as the Home Secretary has important enforcement and legislative responsibilities.
  The key issue is the need to address the possible health risks of body piercing, and to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of the measures in place to minimise those risks. We shall examine the points made by my right hon. Friend about the consent for and the safety of the body piercing of children. These issues must be considered against the background of the increasing fashion for body piercing in recent years. We show our age when we say that we can barely understand the appeal of body piercing. Parents are concerned, and I am anxious that body piercing should be performed in a safe and hygienic manner, so that young people, who are most at risk if it goes wrong, get the protection to which they are entitled.
  I shall begin by considering the possible health risks and the measures in place to minimise them. If carried out incorrectly and unhygienically, cosmetic body piercing can cause a variety of problems. They are usually local and trivial, and arise from wound infections. However, body piercing can also result in the transmission of serious blood-borne viral infections, such as hepatitis B. There may also be other non-infectious complications directly resulting from the procedure, such as swelling around the piercing and allergic reactions to jewellery metal and antiseptics. It is essential, therefore, that we have the right measures in place to ensure public protection from such risks.
  It may be helpful if I explain briefly the legislative framework that is already in place to regulate these businesses, and how that facilitates the promotion of safe and hygienic practice with the express aim of minimising the health risks. Local authorities have powers under specific and general legislation to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. In London, local authorities may regulate these businesses by licensing and inspection, or by registration, byelaws and inspection, depending on which legislation they have adopted. The majority of London local authorities use licensing powers.
  Under the licensing provisions, local authorities in London may set conditions under which a licence is granted to body piercing businesses. The freedom to set conditions is an important leverage. The licence conditions may cover matters such as the cleanliness and hygiene of the premises and equipment, and the safety of equipment. Local authorities may refuse to grant, renew
  288
  or transfer a licence, or they may revoke a licence, if they are not satisfied that the business will provide a safe and hygienic service.
  Local authorities outside London do not have specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses. That is because when the legislation governing skin piercing businesses outside London was introduced in 1982, cosmetic body piercing was not included as it was not widely known about or practised. I suspect that some people could hardly believe that such practices took place. However, many, perhaps most, cosmetic body piercing businesses also carry out tattooing or ear piercing, which local authorities outside London have powers to regulate by registration and byelaws. Local authorities will, therefore, have the opportunity to work with businesses offering cosmetic body piercing to promote safe and hygienic practices, which will be to the benefit of all customers, including those who go for body piercing.
  In addition, local authorities are able to use general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation. That allows them to use improvement and prohibition notices, and ultimately to prosecute cosmetic body piercing businesses, if they judge that there is a risk to customers' health and safety.
  Following a consultation exercise under the previous Government in 1996, we concluded that primary legislation should be introduced to give local authorities outside London specific powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses, when parliamentary time allows—a point made by my right hon. Friend.
  We are aware that there is support from local authorities and businesses themselves for legislation to control cosmetic body piercing outside London, and our decision on the consultation results is a clear indication of our continuing commitment to protect the public from potential risks. There is heavy pressure on parliamentary time from a wide range of Government priorities. It is not possible, at this point, to be more precise about when such legislation might be introduced.
  However, as I have already explained, that does not mean that we have left cosmetic body piercing businesses outside London completely unregulated. Local authorities outside London are able to inspect, advise and, if necessary, use enforcement powers for cosmetic body piercing businesses through a combination of existing specific legislation and health and safety at work legislation.
  The legislative framework enables local authorities to play a key role in ensuring quality and driving up standards. Local authorities can also be effective in promoting good practice by building constructive partnerships with body piercing businesses and organisations.
  I am aware that local authorities and body piercing organisations are seeking to promote safe and hygienic practices through good-practice guidelines, training courses and conferences. For example, local authorities in Oxford, Brighton, Norwich, Tameside and south Somerset have produced, or are producing, guidelines for body piercers, or the public, on cosmetic body piercing. Moreover, last September Doncaster metropolitan borough council held a conference on body piercing for local authorities, body piercers and the medical profession.

  289
  The European Professional Piercers Association and the Association of Professional Piercers produce guidelines on safe and hygienic body-piercing techniques. Government can also play a role. The Public Health Laboratory Service has issued guidelines on skin piercing, which give detailed advice on matters such as infection control, surface anaesthesia and after-care, and the Medical Devices Agency has issued guidelines on sterilising equipment. All those measures should help to drive up standards, and, most important, to protect the public.
  I know that my right hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the body piercing of young children without parental consent, both in regard to whether it is appropriate and because of the possible health risks. As he will know, Government policy on the age of consent is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; but let me explain the position as it relates to skin piercing.
  Only the tattooing of minors is controlled by specific legislation—the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969. Currently, there are no plans to introduce legislation to make the body piercing of minors a criminal offence, but, without a valid consent, the piercing of one person's body by another person could be held to be an assault. In English law, the age of majority is 18, but, in the case of most forms of skin piercing other than tattooing, the question of what is a valid consent is governed by common law, which means that whether an offence has been committed depends on the circumstances of each case. The degree of competence that can be exercised by children will depend in each case on the relative maturity of the child concerned, as well as on his or her age. If a person under 18 is capable of understanding the nature of the act that is performed, he or she is capable of giving a valid consent to it unless statute provides otherwise.
  Some types of body piercing, however, are not necessarily subject to those provisions. For example, children under 16 may not consent to what would be an indecent assault. Whether an indecent assault had taken place would depend on the facts of the individual case. Neither the Government nor the Crown Prosecution Service know of any prosecutions arising from body-piercing incidents.
  As for the issue of the age of consent, I hope that I can give my right hon. Friend some reassurance by telling him that I understand it to be recommended good practice in the industry for body piercing not to be carried out on children without parental consent. The European Professional Piercers Association says that it should not be carried out on anyone under 16 without parental consent, and the Association of Professional Piercers
  290
  suggests a minimum age of 18 without such consent. I have also heard of individual businesses taking a similar line on the cosmetic body piercing of children. One body piercing business that responded to the 1996 consultation exercise said that it turned down business amounting to between £120 and £150 each week in refusing to pierce the bodies of children who did not have parental consent.
  As far as I can tell, and given the advice that is available, the industry appears generally to treat the piercing of children's bodies in a responsible way, and—as it should—to err on the side of caution. Nevertheless, parents feel concerned when their children have body piercing done without their consent, and they are right to feel concern. I have therefore asked officials to monitor reports of problems arising from the piercing of children, and the extent of public concern. If there is evidence of widespread concern and a widespread failure to adhere to the good practice set out in the recommendations for self-regulation, we will not hesitate to consider the need for further controls.
  Dr. Clark: I am grateful for the information that my right hon. Friend has just given, which constitutes a considerable step forward; but would it be possible for her to extend the good work that has already been done—the voluntary work, and the establishment of a code of practice—to ensure that the professional associations have an interchange with local authorities outside London, and best practice can be observed?
  My hon. Friend will have noted the evidence from Bury and Rochdale health authority. Could she use her good offices to ensure that other health authorities conduct similar surveys to measure the extent of the problems?
  Ms Jowell: I should be happy to implement my right hon. Friend's proposals for the strengthening of public protection through the mechanism of self-regulation. I shall explore the options that he has suggested, as well as investigating the case for further dissemination of Professor Noah's guidelines, which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, provide a standard for good practice.
  The Government's primary concern is for cosmetic body piercing to be done in a safe and hygienic manner, so that the public are protected from possible risks to their health. I have described the legislative controls that currently exist and those that are planned, as well as measures taken by local authorities and the industry to protect those who choose to have their bodies pierced. Our strong preference is for good practice to be spread by means of self-regulation, and we intend to work with the industry to secure that objective. Let me also signal our intention to take further steps if there is evidence of abuse or negligence that puts the health of the public at risk.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  1.28 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Opening the rural health forum conference on 26 October last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that the Government had looked at the special needs of each area, including the particular features of rural areas, and that the major factor in addition to low density of population and correspondingly fewer services was the distance to travel. There is now less public transport in rural areas, and there has been a tendency for care and treatment delivered by both health and social services departments to be concentrated on particular centres. That has made the position much worse. Moreover, those who are least likely to have their own transport are likely to be those with the greatest health needs: the less well off, the elderly, women and children.
  That makes the case for retaining the full range of services at Kidderminster very eloquently. The Secretary of State's words could scarcely be improved on: they reflect the sentiments of my constituents, and people living in other parts of the country—particularly those in Worcestershire—who are served by this fine hospital.
  In the same opening address to the conference, the Secretary of State pointed out some of the effects of the changes and developments in the national health service and in medicine generally:
  "There are still major pressures for concentration of services and the needs of local communities must be represented to the Royal Colleges involved in these proposals. Short-term considerations now should not leave us with having to rebuild small hospitals in a few years time when the new technology takes effect."
  Again, he got it absolutely right, but unfortunately his words have not been translated into deeds.
  Members do not have to take my word for that. I draw the House's attention to the headlines that appeared in the Shropshire Star last Friday:
  "Poll backing for NHS fight.
  Hospital campaigners get vote of confidence with elections triumph."
  People living in the area that is served by Kidderminster district general hospital are so incensed about what the Government are doing with the hospital that 15 people stood for election at last Thursday's district council elections on a "Save Kidderminster hospital" ticket. Of those 15, 11 were elected, six of them knocking out Labour councillors on Wyre Forest district council.
  What is interesting is that, after those results were announced, the Secretary of State was interviewed on television. I did not see him myself, but I am reliably informed that he said that the council elections would make no difference. What arrogance to say that the expression through the ballot box of an enormous number of people's concern for the future of the hospital that serves their area will make no difference, notwithstanding the fact that six Labour councillors were voted out in Wyre Forest district. One can perhaps look forward to the next general election. It looks likely that the strength of feeling on the issue will mean that there will be a change of Member of Parliament as well.
  I see the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) in the Chamber. I gave him notice of the debate, so that, if I say anything about him, he will not be unprepared.
  292
  I remind him of what he was telling the electorate of Wyre Forest before the general election. He was saying that it was a question simply of money and that the future of Kidderminster district general hospital could be assured if money were forthcoming.
  Mr. David Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gill: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that, when I wanted to intervene on him on the question of Kidderminster district general hospital in a similar debate in June, he would not give way, so I will not give way to him. If he wants to intervene on the Minister, I am sure that the Minister will be more understanding.
  Under the Conservative Government, in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, £25 million of capital was spent on Kidderminster district general hospital: £20 million on a building programme; £5 million on equipment. Those of my colleagues who know the area—I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in the Chamber—will know that Kidderminster is a fine hospital. It enjoys a fine reputation. It is successful on every count. It is popular. It has conducted its affairs within its budget. In 1997, it attracted a charter mark for excellence, yet the Government want to downgrade it and to remove its accident and emergency facilities.
  I remind the Minister that hospital admissions via the accident and emergency department at Kidderminster have increased every year for the past five years. If he looks at the statistics relating to 1998, he will find that the number of admissions via Kidderminster's A and E department increased in each quarter of that year.
  I was speaking about money. I was explaining that the Conservative Government had spent an enormous amount on Kidderminster district general hospital. In a speech in the House on 15 March, the Secretary of State was bragging at column 708 about the fact that, under the new Labour Government, £1 million had been spent on the accident and emergency department at Portsmouth. He clearly thinks that £1 million is a lot of money. By anyone's standards, it is, but the point is that the Conservative Government spent £25 million on Kidderminster hospital and now the Labour Government are prepared to see it downgraded, the accident and emergency department closed and many of the services removed to Worcester.
  I remind the House of what else the new Labour Government have said in terms of finance. On 16 February, the Prime Minister announced that £30 million from the NHS modernisation fund would be spent on improving England's accident and emergency services. Not to be outdone, the following month the Secretary of State for Health announced an additional £100 million, again to modernise A and E departments. What is going on? How can it possibly be right that the Government are prepared to close a modern A and E department, on which £25 million has recently been spent, at the same time as they boast about modernising 50 A and E departments in other hospitals in other parts of the country?
  While I am talking about the hypocrisy of what the Government are proposing, let me remind the House that, today, in the Worcester and Kidderminster hospitals

  293
  combined, there are more than 800 beds. In three years' time, when the Government's plan is fully implemented, there will be fewer than 600 beds; but the House does not need me to remind it that, for the whole of the current Administration and indeed in the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party was saying that the health service would be improved, and that there would be better facilities and better services for all our constituents.
  I am sorry, but the Government would have a job to sell that idea now in south Shropshire and Wyre Forest. We have a saying in the country: "If you want to meet a fool in the country, you have to take him with you." The people will not be fooled by all the words of the Secretary of State and Government generally when they see for themselves that the hospital that they love, the hospital that has served their area so well for so long—incidentally, the hospital to which so many of my constituents have contributed through their generosity to the league of friends, which has provided so much additional equipment—is being downgraded, with many of its services transferred to other hospitals. How can they possibly believe all the words and fine sentiments that the Government keep propounding?
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point: what is wrong with the people of Worcestershire; why have the Government broken their promises to them? When discussing the electoral consequences of those broken promises, will he bear in mind the fantastic results that we achieved in the local elections in Bromsgrove, which were the result partly of the closure of Kidderminster hospital, which serves a third of my constituency, and partly of the closure of the accident and emergency department at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, which is also to be downgraded to a local emergency centre? The people of Worcestershire, and of Bromsgrove in particular, are most concerned about that.
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for her constituents and has been a staunch ally in the fight to preserve Kidderminster hospital. That must be an object lesson to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who should have fought harder for his constituents; his party might then have done much better in the local elections.
  Mr. Lock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gill: No. The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say on the subject. Had he been generous in giving way to me in earlier debates, of course I would have given way, because I like debate; I like to be able to answer his arguments, but he has had time enough in previous debates.
  The pressure to keep Kidderminster hospital going on the present basis comes not only from me and my constituents or my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and her constituents but from right inside the constituency of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. The Kidderminster and district community health council continues to be totally opposed to the plans, but it is getting nowhere with the Government, who appear impervious to local opinion.
  It might interest the Minister to know that a formidable action group fighting for the retention of Kidderminster district general hospital is to go to the High Court at the
  294
  end of this month to seek permission for judicial review. That is how strongly my constituents and others feel about the issue. One does not seek judicial review lightly. That is the action of an enormous number of people in desperation at the Government's insouciance in the face of their representations.
  I invite the Minister to comment on the fact that, whereas Worcestershire health authority says that the downgrading of Kidderminster hospital will save £4 million a year, the finance director of Kidderminster hospital trust, who should know something about it because he is employed at the hospital, says that the savings will be at best only £300,000 a year.
  Which of the figures is correct? My constituents want to know, because one of the figures must, obviously, be wrong. Major decisions are being made on the strength of the figures provided, and it behoves the Minister to tell the House exactly what figures are being used in the considerations.
  Worcestershire health authority has a preponderance of representatives from the south and east of Worcestershire, who have clearly voted against the minority of representatives from the north-west of the county, where the Kidderminster hospital is. My constituents feel very sore about the fact that the future of our area is being decided by people from an entirely different part of the country, who have a vested interest in the new hospital that is proposed for Worcester.
  We have seen the arrogance of a Secretary of State who is totally dismissive of public opinion and the hypocrisy of the new Labour Government, who say one thing and do something entirely different. He says that he has considered the special needs of every area; that he recognises the problems of low population density; and that the distance to travel is an important factor—but he does absolutely nothing about it. My constituents look to the Government to review the decision and allow the district general hospital at Kidderminster to continue with a full range of services.
  1.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on securing time to debate a subject that I know is important both to him and some of his constituents and to the people of Kidderminster and all who value the services provided by Kidderminster district general hospital. It is customary on these occasions to congratulate both Opposition and Government Members on their thoughtful and positive remarks; sadly, on this occasion I will not be able to do that.
  I would like to state clearly from the outset that the Government see a very clear and positive future for Kidderminster hospital in the context of our decision on Worcestershire health authority's strategic review of services. That view has been echoed by the health authority.
  In the months since the ministerial decision last December, we have made strenuous efforts, with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), to explain that the solution that we have arrived at for Kidderminster is not a closure but a positive change reflecting the needs of a modern health service. I am sad to say that both the hon. Members who have

  295
  spoken in this debate have given the false impression that we are closing the hospital. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made that allegation, which is untrue. Such misleading statements do nothing whatever—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would like to think that we could continue this debate without sedentary interventions from any part of the House.
  Mr. Hutton: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Both hon. Members have misled their constituents about the Government's intentions. We have no plans whatever to close Kidderminster hospital.
  Mr. Lock: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, in stark contrast to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I welcome the cast iron, on the record assurance that Kidderminster hospital will not close. May I also have an assurance that 24-hour emergency services, led by a consultant, will remain at Kidderminster, and that the driving force behind the changes, as recognised by the "Save Kidderminster Hospital" campaign's own experts, is strictly medical, and not party political? Will my hon. Friend come to Kidderminster to repeat those assurances and to discuss issues surrounding the implementation of these difficult decisions?
  Mr. Hutton: I can give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks, and I will be happy to go to Kidderminster to explain the situation to his constituents.
  The change is not a ruling from on high, but is based on expert clinical advice, sound financial judgment and a spirit of compromise and listening to local views. Let me explain briefly the background to the strategic review in Worcestershire and what it set out to achieve. The Government's White Paper on the future of the national health service emphasised the need for health services to be able to respond effectively to change. The NHS is moving towards modernisation of services provided by hospitals that may serve relatively small local populations.
  Current and future medical developments require a complex, modern and comprehensive model of health care. The health service is responding to demands from doctors and other health professionals for the skills and experience that come from greater specialisation. This approach, known as centres of excellence, is aimed at providing patients with the very best that medical science and technology can offer, delivered in well-equipped hospitals with appropriate staffing levels. That was very much the backdrop for Worcestershire's strategic review—the need to secure clinical services that are safe for patients, of high quality, and sustainable in the long term.
  Some have suggested, wrongly, that the review was driven by the need for financial cuts in the face of increasing deficits. It is the responsibility of every public organisation to balance its books, and Worcestershire health authority is no exception. On its formation in April 1996, under the previous Administration, the health
  296
  authority inherited from North Worcestershire health authority an accumulated deficit of £3.8 million. The health authority has worked hard to contain that position, but overspends by GP fundholders and local costs pressures, especially at Kidderminster health care trust, have worsened the situation. The duplication of services at each 'of the acute trusts in Worcester has made the delivery of efficiency savings a difficult task in the county, and one certainly cannot sustain a pattern of services that will bankrupt a health authority. However, money was merely one factor in the decision, not a driver.
  In reaching the decision, our primary consideration has always been the need to ensure access to clinically safe and viable services for the whole county of Worcestershire and its catchment area beyond the county, including the 12,000 south Shropshire people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who are currently served by Kidderminster general hospital. I am conscious of his concerns about increased travel times and I will, therefore, ask Worcestershire health authority to investigate the possibility of providing regular services to take visitors from Kidderminster to the Worcester royal infirmary during visiting hours.
  The decision on Worcestershire was based on a very complex process of option evaluation and consultation. Locally, the health authority has been discussing the future of its health services with stakeholders since 1995. That culminated in early 1998 in the consultation document "Investing In Excellence", which evaluated seven options for change. During the extended consultation exercise, the health authority held 13 public meetings and received more than 1,500 written responses. Those were carefully evaluated by the health authority, and, following the formal objection of the local community health council, were fully and properly reviewed by Ministers.
  In arriving at our decision, Ministers took the advice of clinical professionals, both nationally and locally, and we took seriously the issue of local access to services, which I know is very important in rural areas such as north Worcestershire. In short, everything was done to consult properly and fully with the public and local health professionals. We were satisfied that it was not possible to sustain three centres for emergency medicine and surgery in Worcestershire and that the accident and emergency service should be countywide. Some saw that, erroneously, as the end of all A and E services at Kidderminster. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Even now, the health authority is actively involving the local community in implementing the decision. Through the newly formed primary care groups, it has established local reference groups—including users and carers, patient groups and local authorities—to act as a proper sounding board as implementation proceeds. The fact is that, after three years of uncertainty, the service in Worcestershire can now move forward, with a critical, continuing and important role for Kidderminster.
  So that we can be clear, let me remind the hon. Member for Ludlow of exactly what was decided by the Government last December. Kidderminster will continue to have a consultant-led emergency service. Major trauma cases will no longer go to Kidderminster and the emphasis there will be on care provided by nurses, backed up by an effective telemedicine link to the countywide A and E service. However, the designated consultant, the post that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did so much

  297
  to secure, will be responsible for training and clinical standards at the new emergency centre at Kidderminster, and will spend a substantial proportion of his or her time at the hospital.
  Our current best estimate is that nearly half the patients who currently use Kidderminster's A and E department will continue to use Kidderminster's emergency centre, but that figure does not take into account the expected advances in telemedicine before the changes at Kidderminster are implemented. Furthermore, all out-patient appointments will continue to be provided at Kidderminster hospital. That represents a much improved out-patient service because specialties currently only available at Worcester royal infirmary will now be available in Kidderminster.
  We expect Kidderminster hospital to be a leading light nationally in the development of telemedicine. We have doubled investment in equipment to reflect that desire, enabling local clinicians working at the hospital to treat as many patients there as possible. Further announcements about additional investment will be made in the near future.
  There are already some exciting local models of closer working between acute hospitals and primary care, for example, in east Worcestershire and south Shropshire, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Ludlow. With the continuing development of primary care groups, I expect the number of those initiatives to increase. I hope that the extra 35 GP-designated beds at Kidderminster hospital—another improvement that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest did much to secure—will be taken up by local GPs.
  We also expect around 70 per cent. of elective cases to continue to be treated at Kidderminster hospital, along with most out-patient services. Furthermore, we expect Kidderminster to keep its one-stop clinics, specialist follow-up clinics, diagnostic testing and out-patient based treatments. Its rehabilitation facilities and cancer resource centre will continue to be developed and improved over the next few years. Indeed, the rehabilitation facilities will be used by patients returning from major surgery in Worcester. In all those areas, services will continue to be provided at Kidderminster hospital.
  I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. As a direct result of his strong and effective representations, the health authority's plans for Kidderminster hospital were amended to ensure the provision of safe local services, including, for example, a consultant-led emergency centre at the hospital; the doubling of the amount being spent on refurbishing and improving the hospital, including an extra £750,000 which the hon. Member for Ludlow conveniently forgot to mention; and making provision for 35 GP-designated beds at the hospital. Unlike the hon. Member for Ludlow, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest has done an excellent job on behalf of local people.
  That is the framework that we have laid down for the health authority. Although the changes will by no means be introduced overnight, it has already begun work on the detailed implementation. Since the announcement on
  298
  Worcestershire, the Government have signed up to the brand new £116 million private finance initiative hospital at Worcester, which was promised by the previous Administration but not delivered. If the hon. Member for Ludlow believes that his party's record of expenditure on the NHS was so magnificent, he might wish to offer an explanation of why the Conservatives suffered their worst ever election defeat in 1997. The truth is that people do not trust the Conservatives on the NHS.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began the commissioning work for the new hospital on 19 March. The new facilities at Worcester have been planned to take account of the changes at Kidderminster hospital. There will be sufficient capacity in 2002, when the hospital is opened, to accommodate the anticipated number of emergency and elective patients. The new hospital will enable services to be configured in a way that is clinically and financially acceptable. In the interim, there will be moves towards implementation of some of the service changes agreed on—for example, the development of the ambulatory care centre in Kidderminster.
  As part of the consultation, the issue of trust reconfiguration was raised and those consultations are proceeding. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that Ministers will be vigilant in ensuring that the health authority is mindful of its responsibilities to consider the implications of its proposals for out-of-county patients and will work with neighbouring health authorities, including Shropshire, to ensure continuity and equity of access to services.
  There are often strong feelings expressed when local institutions of any sort need to undergo change. I understand those concerns, but we have to make a balanced and soundly based clinical judgment about how best we can provide a safe and sustainable local health service in the long term. The Government believe strongly that we have made the right decisions about the future of Kidderminster hospital, on behalf of the population that it serves.
  I hope now that we can begin to look forward to the opportunities to develop the service at Kidderminster and to discussing the changes in a realistic and sensible manner. Sadly, the hon. Member for Ludlow has not contributed today to that serious debate.
  Miss Kirkbride: Shame!
  Mr. Hutton: It is interesting that the Opposition like to dish it out, but they cannot take it back. That says something about the modern Conservative party.
  The health authority has a difficult task ahead of it, but a task to which it is fully committed within the boundaries the Government has laid down. Kidderminster hospital has a secure future and it can be a pioneer for modern health services. That is particularly true of telemedicine. The decisions that we have taken are the right ones for the future development of the NHS in Worcestershire.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    EU Banana Regime
    Mr. Robert Walter: What assessment she has made of the likely impact on Caribbean economies of United States demands for changes to the EU banana regime. [82947]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): May I explain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is at the annual meeting of the Caribbean development bank, so I am here on my own today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."J I hope that I can manage.
    The World Trade Organisation arbitration panel has concluded that the European Union's new banana regime is not compatible with World Trade Organisation rules. Its report made some suggestions as to how the Caribbean banana trade can be supported within the rules. We are undertaking detailed work on the best possible banana regime for the Caribbean that is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.
    Mr. Walter: One third of the Windward islands work force—about 70,000 people—is involved in the banana trade, and the United States enjoys a very favourable trade balance in other food products with similar economies. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions she has had with her counterparts in Washington about how the United States plans to aid such economies if their trade negotiators are successful?
    Clare Short: I have not discussed these matters with representatives of the United States Government, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has. The President of the United States has said that his Government would be anxious to provide some help to the Caribbean. This morning, I met high commissioners and ambassadors from the Caribbean.
    What we have to do, despite the bruised feelings, is find a good regime that is World Trade Organisation compatible, so that we can drive on with assisting the Caribbean and especially the Windward islands which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are highly dependent. They need reform to be more effective, and people's livelihoods will be at risk if we do not succeed in finding a suitable regime. What would be dangerous to us all would be a rise in drug smuggling in the Caribbean.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many Labour Members believe that the United States has behaved disgracefully over the legitimate concern raised by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The head of the Chiquita Banana Company has made huge contributions to President Clinton and others. Do not the Americans, in their attitude to the interests of the people of the Windward islands, come out of this very badly?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes his own point. The World Trade Organisation is a rules-based organisation to
    300
    which we have all signed up. Caribbean member states have decided to join it for their own benefit. The United States, for whatever reason, has invoked the rules and, disappointingly, the arbitration panel has said that the new EU regime has to be modified. So, despite all the bruised feelings, we have to find a way forward that is compatible with the World Trade Organisation. That is what we are working on now.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment she has made of the effect of British development assistance on the promotion of good governance in Pakistan. [82948]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As the White Paper on international development makes clear, equitable and effective government is essential to the economic and social policies that are crucial for the reduction of poverty. We are currently reviewing the strategy that underpins our work in Pakistan. Governance must be improved—and corruption reduced—to achieve economic and social development and the reduction of poverty in Pakistan.
    Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for that answer, but will the right hon. Lady bear in mind, as she reviews the policy towards Pakistan, the fact that Pakistan is involved, as reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, in procuring missile technology from North Korea? Not only that, but Pakistan is also believed to be passing nuclear technology to North Korea, and to be involved in the state sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. Moreover, as the right hon. Lady has mentioned, Pakistan has perhaps the most corrupt Government and administration in the world. For years, Britain has devoted substantial assistance to Pakistan, but it appears to have had no effect on the behaviour of its Government or on the quality of its administration. Will she therefore consider how our development assistance programme should be taken forward in the future?
    Clare Short: We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about nuclear development in both India and Pakistan, which is a danger both to that region and to the whole world. It is also a tragedy that the two countries have both high defence spending and high levels of poverty. The hon. Gentleman would agree that although we must take action, it should not be the poor of Pakistan who pay the price. It was not they who were responsible for the decision to go nuclear. In all humility, I should add that the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported worked for nearly 20 years on Pakistan without having much effect on corruption. I am reviewing our policy, and I hope to do better.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend made it clear to the Government of Pakistan and their neighbours that the generous British public will find it hard to understand why substantial aid should go to Pakistan when it can seemingly find all the money that it needs to develop nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery?
    Clare Short: I have made it absolutely clear to the Governments of both India and Pakistan that everything that we do will be reviewed in the light of the

    301
    nuclear tests. None the less, it would be wrong to hurt the poor of those countries because the elites decided to engage in a nuclear programme. We have reviewed and scrutinised all that we do to make sure that the poor are protected but that there is no benefit to those responsible for the nuclear decisions.
    Mr. David Heath: The human and political rights of women are a key element of good governance. Given the stress placed on those rights in some neighbouring states in the region, will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to ensuring that Pakistan adheres to best practice on human rights for women?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some 70 per cent. of the poor of the world are women, and the poorest children in the world tend to come from households headed by women. Without empowering women and educating girls, we will never make progress on poverty. The position in Pakistan is particularly worrying, and we are doing all in our power to improve matters for women there and to prevent the deterioration that could result from some proposals currently on the table.

    Funds Disbursement
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment she has made of the roles of (a) advisers and (b) deliverers in the disbursement of development assistance funds. [82949]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In its latest review of the United Kingdom development programme in November 1997, the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development praised the UK for its
    "strong multidisciplinary skills and innovative aid management approaches".
    It added that those make us
    "one of the most professional and innovative aid agencies in either bilateral or multilateral sectors".
    I have said before that I am very proud of my staff, but that is praise indeed. Our running costs are modest—currently about 2.5 per cent. of total programme expenditure—but we have committed ourselves publicly to reducing them further.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that value for money and the reduction of overheads are important, particularly in the international development business? Notwithstanding the record of the Department for International Development, does she agree that there is room for improvement in other organisations, both multilateral and non-governmental? What will she do to encourage use of DFID' s best practice measures among those organisations to strengthen the international development delivery system?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend in two ways. First, since aid began, there has been an obsession with input measures, such as how much is being spent, with absolutely no measurement of output and effectiveness. We are trying to have the international system turned
    302
    around so that it is driven by output—by international poverty eradication targets, statistics that show progress in one country as opposed to another and effectiveness.
    Secondly, the international system is full of agencies—the World bank, United Nations agencies, bilateral donors and regional development banks—and we need much more collaboration to prevent agencies from tripping over each other as they duplicate each other's work. Much more effectiveness could be achieved in the international system by rationalising provision, and we are working on it.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Following endorsements of the highly effective United Kingdom aid programme, is it not the case that we need neither the advice of the Commission of the European Union nor its intervention to secure the best value for British taxpayers' money from the development of the poorest countries of the world? Will the right hon. Lady redress the imbalance that exists to ensure that our funds are better spent to alleviate poverty?
    Clare Short: As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, the Government whom he sometimes supported committed a third of the development budget to be spent through the European Commission. Much of that spending and its management is very ineffective. The needs of the poorest are not prioritised. I am desperately trying to remedy the faults of that Government. We are working hard at it and have a published programme for improvement. The Select Committee on International Development, chaired by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), has made an important contribution. The criticism is right, but, because the money is already committed, the answer is to make the institution effective, or the money will be wasted.

    Sustainable Development
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If she will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development. [82950]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, with my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, attended the Commission on Sustainable Development in New York last month. The meeting discussed oceans and seas, tourism, sustainable consumption and production, and preparations for the United Nations General Assembly special session on small island developing states. The United Kingdom emphasised the need to drive forward environmental and developmental issues together and was re-elected to the commission.
    Mr. Savidge: As one of the major themes of the meeting was tourism, can the Secretary of State inform the House about the discussions on it and say how it can both benefit communities and contribute to environmentally friendly sustainable development?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Tourism is one of the biggest industries in the world and is growing faster than most other sectors. It is concentrated in some of the poorest countries, but tends to be organised in a way that brings investment from

    303
    outside and that means that food and produce are sourced from outside. Few local people are employed and the environment is often damaged. We are now attending to those questions to get tourism to source locally, to train local people and to be more environmentally sensitive. That can bring big benefits to poor countries.
    Mr. John Bercow: As a senior member of a new Labour Government, will the Secretary of State confirm her belief that sustainable development must be set in the context of a free market economy?
    Clare Short: Labour has always believed in a mixed economy. The communist bloc demonstrated that a completely statist economy was a disastrous model. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported demonstrated the error of believing only in markets, minimising the state and allowing inequality to flourish. We believe in a mixed economy that uses the strength of the state to provide for all and regulate properly, and the creativity of the market to produce economic benefit for all. That is the right way forward. We are trying to correct the mistakes of the hon. Gentleman's Government.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment her Department has made of the aid which will be required (a) for Serbia following the cessation of military action and (b) for Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. [82951]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with the European Commission, member states, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and regional banks to determine the development needs of the region after the conflict. It is too soon to assess the situation of Serbia and our likely involvement with that country. We continue to support the economic reform efforts in Romania and Bulgaria and take account of the effects of the Kosovo crisis. Hungary has not been significantly affected by the conflict.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who is going to pay for cleaning up and clearing up the Danube?
    Clare Short: The organisations that I listed. This morning, I met the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, who said that this was a war about decent human standards. It is a tragedy, of course, but it gives the region a real chance to go forward without ethnic hatred and on the basis of decent human standards. We must ensure that good comes out of bad and that those values prevail after the conflict is over.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: The Secretary of State relies on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide the bulk of the organisation, management and co-ordination of efforts in Macedonia and Albania to assist refugees, as she presumably will in Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary. When will she personally take on the UNHCR to make it an effective body, instead of leaving the refugees to the tender mercies of the winter weather and the likelihood of cholera and other diseases spreading in the camps, and to make the camps suitable for reasonable human existence?
    Clare Short: It was not me who decided to rely on the UNHCR to be the lead agency dealing with the refugees;
    304
    it was a matter for our international system. That is how the duties were allocated by the UN. We must all work through the UNHCR. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been much criticism, but it is best to hold back such criticism until later on, and to do all that is in our power to make the arrangements more efficient. That is why we engaged NATO to build camps at an early stage and why non-governmental organisations have been helping the UNHCR to improve the running of the camps. Plans will also have to be made for the return of the refugees to Kosovo and we are trying to ensure that we strengthen the UNHCR' s capacity to carry out that job. I understand the frustration behind the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not useful to criticise the UNHCR at present. We must make up for the deficiencies and do a good job on behalf of the refugees.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: I understand that a plethora of European and world agencies are considering the future and how we should tackle it. Presumably, however, there will be a holding committee that will act as a decision maker. Will my right hon. Friend advise us whether that will be the case? Will such a committee include Albania and Macedonia in its considerations?
    Clare Short: It would be impossible to handle the refugee crisis or to plan for the future without making Albania or Macedonia a key part of the process. There are 400,000 refugees in Albania and about 200,000 in Macedonia. At the meeting that took place at the margins of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund spring meetings, the international community agreed that the EU—assisted by the bank and the fund, which bring to bear a great deal of analytical capacity—will prepare for the economic reconstruction of the region. The refugee effort must be led by the UNHCR, supported by the rest of us. NATO has to plan militarily for the return of the refugees and we must all get behind a UN effort for the immediate return of refugees and for the protection of those who have been displaced internally. We must then bring in the bank and the fund in relation to the reconstruction of Kosovo. That work is going on.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that, at this time, it is necessary to protect the budget of her Department, so that she can fulfil the aims of the White Paper and help the very poorest people of the world? Will she therefore confirm that any further financial aid to the Balkans in the short, medium or long term will come from Treasury contingency reserves and not the budgets of the Department for International Development?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady's point is well made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha."] Well, it would be profoundly wrong for the poorest people in the world to pay for the refugees of Kosovo. I agree with the hon. Lady on that point. As she is aware, the first £10 million that we found was money that we had allocated to the region and to humanitarian catastrophes; the second £10 million came from the contingency reserves; and the further £20 million, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, came from the Treasury's contingency reserves—not my contingency reserves. Furthermore,

    305
    I shall be meeting my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary this afternoon; I might draw the hon. Lady's words to his attention.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: As the Secretary of State well knows, in four months' time the severe Serbian winter will fall. Vulnerable people living in tents will die. Will she assure the House that plans are already in place to provide adequate shelter to get the Kosovar Albanians through the winter?
    Clare Short: That is a strange point. As I said, I saw the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria this morning; she told me that the Bulgarians have a great deal of contact with people in Serbia, who know that it is inevitable that NATO will win—the question is how fast. Yet the hon. Gentleman says, "will die." We hope that we shall be returning refugees to Kosovo; that is likely to happen by winter time. Of course contingency plans are being made.
    Mr. Streeter: I cannot say that I am wholly reassured by that reply. Of course, we want to win the conflict and of course we want the Kosovar Albanians to go home. However, the Secretary of State will understand that time is running out and that, whether the refugees are in Macedonia and Albania or return to their former homes in Kosovo, adequate shelter will be required. Will she assure the House that, although we were caught napping when air strikes began, we shall not be caught napping again and that adequate plans will be put in place and implemented?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Front Bench claim to support the action but constantly try to undermine it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."1 I am sorry, but that is my view: I am shocked by the behaviour of the British Conservative party. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that plans for the winter are being made.

    War Children
    6. Dr. Doug Naysmith: What measures her Department is taking to protect children's rights in areas affected by war. [82952]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative for children and armed conflict, key United Nations agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross to protect the rights of children affected by armed conflict. The important task now is to get beyond general declarations of good intent and to take practical measures better to protect children affected by war, especially child soldiers and abducted children.
    Dr. Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that international pressure should be brought to bear on Governments who employ child soldiers; and that that pressure may usefully come from other Governments, NGOs and Churches?
    Clare Short: I agree very much. However, in the list of countries that have child soldiers, which includes Angola, Afghanistan and Sudan, we see some of the most
    306
    intractable conflicts in the world, so we have to get more specific and unite in putting pressure on individual Governments. I invite my hon. Friend and the House to put pressure on the Government of Sudan over their disgraceful support for the Lord's Resistance Army, which captures and abducts children from northern Uganda: the girls are abused sexually and the boys are forced to kill members of their own families. The Government of Sudan should be denounced by every decent person in the world—they must stop supporting the Lord's Resistance Army and return every one of those children to their families.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I do not know whether, in her busy day, the Secretary of State has had time to look at the UNHCR website, where it was reported this morning that children were arriving in Albania with gunshot wounds. There is increasing concern about the Albanian families—about 500,000 of them—who remain in Kosovo, but have been displaced from their homes and are desperate for supplies. In the United States, Julia Taft has announced that from about 27 May, the US is to start air drops, having overcome the Pentagon's objections. However, Bill Frelick of the US Committee for Refugees has said that
    "Air drops indicate the level of desperation we're in".
    He believes that the only reliable way of getting food where it is needed is through the use of ground troops. Does the Secretary of State agree with him?
    Clare Short: I had not heard about children with gunshot wounds, but I shall make inquiries. We are extremely worried about displaced families in Kosovo, and we and others have been doing all in our power to get information about their condition: for example, we monitor carefully the state of refugees coming across the border, because that tells us something about levels of nutrition and so on. We have considered the use of air drops from the beginning, but they can be disastrous: for example, when they were tried in northern Iraq we learned that they sometimes kill people, feed aggressor forces or cause people to come out of hiding with the result that they are shot and killed. We do not judge that air drops should be used now, but we are monitoring the situation carefully. Refugees coming over the border are still in relatively good shape, but we are worried and we are watching very closely indeed. The real answer is to defeat Serb aggression, get the refugees home and get humanitarian help into Kosovo.

    Refugees and Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Andrew George: If she will make a statement on her Department's support for refugees and asylum seekers. [82954]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are now some 22 million refugees in the world, which is the greatest number ever recorded. My Department provides support to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to non-governmental organisations to help refugees across the world. Of course, the Home Office is responsible for refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. George: In the light of the recent atrocities in Kosovo, does the right hon. Lady agree that beside the inevitability of armchair generals having the benefit of hindsight, there is an opportunity to reap the benefit of foresight by recognising the problems created for her Department by the Immigration and Asylum Bill? Following her work with the UNHCR, which has been critical of that Bill, what representations has she made to her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?
    Clare Short: I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman is asking that question of the wrong Department. The previous Government took an exemption—that is not the correct word, but the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—on the convention on the rights of the child in relation to child refugees. The UNHCR has written to me about the matter, and I have written to the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman might wish to follow up the issue with him.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State knows that the vast majority of the 22 million refugees to whom she referred are in the poorest countries of the world. What can the richer countries do to support those refugees and prevent the sorts of crises that create refugees?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I visited Tanzania briefly last week. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and is hosting 330,000 refugees—which is more than in Macedonia—who are mostly from Burundi. Our task is twofold: first, we must help the poorest countries to develop; and, secondly and more important, we must prevent and resolve conflicts so that refugees may return home—which is the overwhelming wish of all refugees.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the most distressing features of our short visit to Albania and Macedonia was meeting refugees who had sponsors to take them to Germany, the United Kingdom or elsewhere, but were unable to take up those offers because they did not have sufficient identification. Is the Secretary of State prepared to throw her weight against the UNHCR's incompetence and ensure that, when refugees have no papers, they speedily receive sufficient identification so that those who wish to befriend them can take them home?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Apart from killing, raping and displacing people, the Serbian aggressors in Kosovo have destroyed passports and records of birth and death in an attempt to obliterate the record of a people and thus take away their identity. It is the duty of the UNHCR to record every refugee and to supply documentation. I am afraid that that process has been slow, but there is now a concerted international effort in that regard. A new computer program—let us hope it works—aims to give people the identity documents that they will need in order to exercise their right to travel to other countries and be reunited with family members.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: One recognises the Secretary of State's concern about refugees worldwide and one is also aware of the pressure to remove many refugees from northern Macedonia. Is it not possible to allow those refugees who have been in Albania for five weeks and have friends in the United Kingdom with refugee status to come to this country much sooner so that other refugees in Albania may move south?
    Clare Short: There are more than 800,000 refugees in Albania and Macedonia, and large numbers are crossing the border into Albania every day. The Macedonian border has been closed. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and to the community at large not to suggest that somehow bringing a small number of refugees to Britain will solve the problem. We must care for people in the region, although those with medical or other special needs, or with family members in other countries, may be cared for elsewhere. If we do not follow that course, we will be doing Milosevic's work for him: he would love to see the refugees dispersed across the world. It has taken time to gear up the number of flights into Britain, but they are now increasing and there will be more under the criteria that I have outlined.

    Regional Development Banks
    Mrs. Christine Butler: What actions she is taking to increase the focus on poverty of the work of regional development banks. [82955]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since May 1997, we have been working to persuade all the regional development banks that poverty eradication must be their overarching objective. I am very pleased that the new president of the Asian development bank is refocusing the bank's attention on poverty eradication, and the African development bank has also given new emphasis to its poverty focus. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is currently attending the annual meeting of the Caribbean development bank, will emphasise the same message.
    Mrs. Butler: What steps is the Department taking to encourage further collaboration between the regional agencies and the international financial institutions to reduce poverty?
    Clare Short: As I said earlier, there are so many actors in the field of development—the United Nations agencies, bilateral donors, the regional development banks and the World bank—that there is a danger of reinventing the wheel and funding separate projects instead of working on a coherent proposal to strengthen government and economic management and achieve the kind of economic growth and social policy improvements that will lead to sustainable benefits in the lives of the poor. We are working very hard to achieve more international collaboration on international development targets, and the regional banks need to change to achieve that.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the impact of the damage to (a) the water supply and (b) oil facilities in Iraq as a result of bombing since 23 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Patrols of the no-fly zones remain a vital humanitarian task to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south of Iraq. Since 23 March, our aircraft have been shot at or threatened some 75 times. Iraqi facilities that pose a threat may be targeted in self-defence; there is, however, no question of our targeting oil facilities or water supplies. Iraq has claimed that one such strike on part of its air defence network temporarily disrupted oil supplies, although no oil pipeline was damaged. We are unaware of any disruption to water supplies.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the assessment of the effect of depleted uranium on the water supply and on the health of the civilian population?
    The Prime Minister: We have no such assessment, but we take the utmost care in what we do to make sure that we do not attach ourselves to the water or oil supplies. Indeed, as I said, there is evidence that, as a result of the action, one oil pipeline was damaged, but there is no evidence of damage to water supplies.
    I point out to my hon. Friend that we have the no-fly zones to protect the Iraqi people from the Iraqi leader; otherwise, he would be free to do as he did, for example, when he used chemical weapons to kill 5,000 Kurds in the north of Iraq. This is a mission of protection—protection of the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I give notice that I hope to raise this matter on a motion for the Adjournment.

    Engagements
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and gave a speech in memory of John Smith, my predecessor as leader of the Labour party. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Brake: According to Chantrey Vellacott, which was recently described by a Minister as a leading UK accountancy firm, the Government's public-private partnership for the partial privatisation of London Underground will cost the taxpayer another £8 billion in
    310
    extra financing costs. Can the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime not think of better things on which to spend their money?
    The Prime Minister: First, the figures are nonsense. Secondly, we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of privatisation that were made by the previous Government. Thirdly, I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of partnership between the public and private sectors, since we are most definitely in favour of it.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Scottish Labour on achieving equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament, which is now level with legislatures in Scandinavian countries in its representation of women?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that devolution to Scotland and Wales—and, we hope, to Northern Ireland—gives us the best chance of a modern partnership in the UK for the 21st century.
    Mr. William Hague: Today is the 50th day of NATO's air campaign in Yugoslavia. We support the Government in their aims of getting the Serbs out of—[Interruption.] We have always supported the Government in their aims of getting the Serbs out of Kosovo and getting the refugees home and, like the Prime Minister, we want the air strikes to succeed. Does he believe that the air campaign as currently conducted will achieve in full the five specific objectives that he set out in the House on 23 March and again at the NATO summit in April?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. Secondly, yes, I believe that it will succeed, but I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, as the Secretary-General of NATO said, we must plan for all contingencies.
    In respect of the air campaign, I can give the right hon. Gentleman some of the news of the damage that has been done: 70 per cent. of Serbia's military oil has gone; over half its usable aircraft have been destroyed; more than a fifth of the armoured units inside Kosovo are down; yesterday was the most successful allied day yet in hits on targets and artillery in Kosovo; and 40 per cent. of surface-to-air missiles have gone. There has been massive damage to Milosevic's infrastructure, but we must carry on and, if necessary, intensify.
    Mr. Hague: These statistics are testimony to the professionalism of our forces and those of our allies, but the Chief of the Defence Staff said yesterday that NATO's air assault had "not stopped" the killings—understandably, it has not been able to stop them—and added that that was
    "extremely difficult to do with the air campaign we have".
    Yet stopping the killings—we have heard the most horrific accounts of killings in recent days—is, of course, the most important of all the objectives. Despite all our hopes for the air strikes, might not NATO soon confront a difficult choice—either to accept a compromise, which the Prime Minister has already rightly said he would regard as failure, or to pursue a different military course which will achieve these objectives?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is true that many thousands of people have died in Kosovo; it is true that

    311
    the humanitarian suffering of those people has been enormous. That makes me all the more determined to reverse this policy of ethnic cleansing, and to allow these refugees back home. As far as I am concerned, there will be no compromise in NATO's demands; there must be no compromise. It is not simply a question of defeating this policy of ethnic cleansing. It is not simply a question either of NATO's credibility. If we allow, right in the heart of Europe, a policy—effectively—of racial genocide to succeed, we will pay the price of it for many, many years to come.
    Mr. Hague: Across this House we agree that failure is not an option; this must be seen through to success. The future of hundreds of thousands of people and the lives of tens of thousands depend on it. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that General Guthrie and his fellow officers in NATO have the men, equipment and freedom of action to pursue a strategy that they believe will succeed?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, throughout, we have worked extremely closely with our armed forces. I pay personal tribute to Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, for his magnificent work.
    It is important always—perhaps especially at this time when, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, we are 50 days into this campaign—to go back to the fundamentals of why we are doing this. It is for the reasons that I have given: the appalling suffering, the thousands who have died and the hundreds of thousands who have been displaced. But let us remember something else. In Bosnia, where there was a strong case for saying that we acted too late—for understandable reasons, but we did—250,000 people died. Three and a quarter million refugees are still dispersed in various parts of the world, including 1.25 million in the European Union, as a result. That happened because we did not stop Milosevic then. We must stop him now.
    Mr. Hague: There remains a major concern about timing. The Prime Minister will have seen the comments of Lieutenant-General Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of NATO troops in Macedonia. He said that winter in Kosovo is
    "a severe several months. I see a very, very miserable and hard winter if we have refugees in tents over that period."
    Given that assessment, does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that NATO's objectives are not just achieved, but achieved before the first snows of the Balkan winter in October?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our constant preoccupation that everything we do, including the planning that we undertake, bears in mind when winter in the Balkans comes. Our aims are perfectly clear and they will be met. The aims can be very simply summarised: Milosevic gets his troops out, we get our forces in, and the refugees go back home. That has been the bottom line from the beginning of this campaign, and it remains the case.
    Mr. Hague: These are the objectives, but may I press the Prime Minister once more on the question of timing? The Opposition support the objectives of NATO and we
    312
    applaud the efforts of our forces, but we are concerned—as are many people in this country—that the air campaign has not succeeded so far, that preparation has not always been adequate and that time may be running out. Is it not the case that, if we wish to assemble and deploy troops in order to allow the refugees to return home before the winter, NATO needs to take any decision on ground troops in the very near future?
    The Prime Minister: I will not remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said about ground forces some time ago. I will simply point out to the Opposition that these issues of planning are in our mind constantly. We understand exactly the point that is being made here.
    I do not think that it is right to say that the air campaign is not succeeding. It is right to say that it has not yet succeeded in delivering our demands. However, we should look at what has happened to the military infrastructure in Serbia, and at what is happening on the ground in Kosovo, where, over the past two weeks, our efforts have intensified—and the weather in June is better than that in May, and that in July is better than that in June. I believe that it is important that we have a balanced picture.
    I have already said that Milosevic does not have a veto on our options. He does not, and he never will. However, it is important that we carry on with the air campaign, and intensify it. The demands that we have set out have been very clearly held to. I am not the only one who is saying that there will be no compromise on those demands. I have a long list of quotations from every single Head of Government or Head of State of all the allied members, and they are all to exactly the same effect: there will be no compromise on our basic demands.
    Mr. Marsha Singh: I am sorry to change the sombre mood of the House, but other life does go on. Will the Prime Minister, given his interest in football, join me in congratulating Bradford City football club on achieving promotion to the premier league after being out of the top flight for 77 years? Does he share my pride, and the pride of the Bradford people, in that great achievement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I look forward to Bradford playing Newcastle next season.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I draw the Prime Minister back to the central question of timing? After 50 days of conflict, time is beginning to press hard on the Kosovo situation. The coming heat of the summer months will create a breeding ground for despair, if not disease, in the refugee camps and, if we are required to use troops to get the refugees back home before the winter, a decision on deployment must probably be made within a fortnight or so. President Milosevic may not be limiting our options, but does the Prime Minister realise that delay could close off our options for us?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the leader of the Conservative party a moment ago, I am acutely aware of the issue of time, the issue of the winter and the need to plan for all contingencies. As for the refugees, it is worth pointing out that something miraculous has been achieved, mainly—or at least to a very considerable

    313
    extent—as a result of the work of British troops in Macedonia and in Albania. We can be immensely proud of what they have done. As a result, we are able to cope with the refugees now.
    However, when one of the refugees, who came to Oldham a few days ago, was asked whether the refugees were pleased to be in this country, that person said that they were very happy to be here, but they wanted to go back home. That is why the refugees are our main concern, and we must not let up for an instant until they are allowed back home.
    Mr. Ashdown: It is precisely for that reason that I addressed that question. The Prime Minister is well aware that we have resolutely supported this operation, and he can count on our continuing support. He is aware, too, that although we hope that the bombing succeeds, we have always rather doubted that it would. Is it not the case that if, in the end, bombing proves insufficient, our will to deploy troops on the ground will determine whether the end of this is victory or compromise? I simply say to The Prime Minister: I think that we have two weeks to make that choice.
    The Prime Minister: I cannot do much more than repeat what I have said. There is no veto by Milosevic on how we use ground forces. It has always been anticipated that we would use ground forces; the question is the circumstances in which we do so. We plan for all contingencies. It is important, however, that we recognise the success that the air campaign has had. We should continue it and intensify it; we should make sure that it is as effective as possible; and, as I said a moment or two ago, we should carry on planning for all contingencies.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: After my right hon. Friend's huge success in delivering on his election promises, will he consider a new pledge to introduce a £5 television licence for all pensioners? Such a pledge would be welcomed by old-age pensioners in Chorley and all over the country, and we could look forward to it.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that would make me immensely popular with our pensioners, but it would probably make me less popular with the Chancellor. In the end, such pledges must be paid for, and the cost would run into several hundred million pounds. I am well aware that many pensioners feel aggrieved that there are different television licence rates for two groups of pensioners—those who are in sheltered accommodation and those who are not. I remember raising the matter as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament in 1983. The problem has always been the cost, and I am afraid that it will remain so.

    Devolution
    Mr. Peter Luff: If, following the election of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales, he will review the organisation of government as regards matters relating exclusively to England.
    The Prime Minister: The interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Luff: After last week's elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the single most
    314
    important constitutional question facing the House is how to strengthen the Union, while making England's treatment within the Union fairer. Does the Prime Minister intend to give to the regional assemblies that he plans for England the power to pass primary legislation?
    The Prime Minister: No, we have not said that. We have said that if there is a demand for regional assemblies, we will listen to it. I gather that, earlier today, the hon. Gentleman asked that we create a federal system inside the United Kingdom. I believe that the UK is best served by ensuring that we have a different way between separatism on the one hand and the status quo on the other. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of all the money that goes to Scotland and to Wales, all Members of Parliament, including English Members, vote on it. As for the system of election in the United Kingdom, I am still pondering the consequences of my own generosity for his party. I believe that we will have strong, stable government in Scotland and Wales, but within the UK.

    Engagements
    Mr. Fraser Kemp: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last Thursday's elections produced two amazing results for the Labour party? One was that we demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that we were the most popular mid-term Government this century. The second amazing result to benefit the Labour party was that the Leader of the Opposition just managed to hang on to his job.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted if members of the Conservative party think that they did extremely well last Thursday. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that he has wide support in every part of the House.
    Mr. Tom King: May I confirm to the Prime Minister that I continue to believe that he is entitled to the widest support in the House in the tragically difficult undertaking on which the country has embarked with the other members of NATO? During the process, which is likely to be long, people in this country will ask tough and difficult questions about the conduct of affairs. I believe that the Prime Minister's approach today is the right way to respond to those questions—not the approach of someone who appears to be in his office, who suggests that, if questions are asked about the conduct of the campaign, that somehow calls into question the basic loyalty of the House. If that approach is adopted and criticism is delivered in that way, it will only undermine the cross-party support that I am sure the Prime Minister is seeking to maintain.
    The Prime Minister: First, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. One of the strengths of our democracy is that people are able to ask questions about the conduct of the war. I ask only that, in giving us that support, people recognise that, from time to time, there are extremely difficult decisions to make and that, particularly in a situation such as this, there are no easy options. I believe that the vast majority of Members of the House recognise that.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Prime Minister knows that I support the

    315
    bombing of military targets in Yugoslavia, for exactly the reasons that he has set out once more today, but could we not avoid undue civilian casualties by following the principle propounded by Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who asked us to err on the side of proportionality? In particular, cluster bombs should not be dropped in civilian areas, the Vinca nuclear research institute near Belgrade should not be attacked and we should contact the Americans to stop them using depleted uranium.
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the air campaign. We, of course, try to make sure that we avoid civilian casualties as much as we possibly can. In respect of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in particular, we have made it clear—and I make it clear again now—that we profoundly apologise, both to the Chinese people and to the Chinese Government, for what has happened. It was a tragic accident, but it should never have happened.
    We do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties; I only ask people to bear it in mind that we are engaged in this air campaign because the dictator in Serbia is perfectly happy, as an act of deliberate policy, to butcher and murder ordinary civilian people. I know that those people who are planning this campaign and taking those decisions do so with the heaviest sense of responsibility. Indeed, the first thing that strikes anyone who has talked to British pilots engaged in action is their sense of responsibility. There is nothing gung-ho about them and nothing macho about the way in which they go about things. They recognise that they have this power for a purpose and they try to use it in a way that minimises civilian casualties.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: On 20 May last year, in column 952 of Hansard, the Prime Minister promised to review the way in which war widows pensions relate to housing benefit. A year has passed, and nothing has happened. This is not a very complicated matter and it surely does not take 12 months to review. The right hon. Gentleman has made a promise, but he has not delivered. Why not?
    The Prime Minister: We have explained constantly that the problem is cost, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he supported a Government who were in power for 18 years and never did that. I appreciate that we now have the responsibility for those decisions. We have said that we will look at it, and we will do that, but the problem is simply one of cost.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tory gain."]—that we owe an enormous debt to our fanning community for producing high-quality food and maintaining our countryside? Will he do all in his power to ensure that there is a future for small family farms and for young farmers who enter the industry, and support for agri-environmental schemes and conversion to organic farming, in which there is tremendous interest in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I love the way that the Tories celebrate their Scottish and Welsh election results; it is a marvellous thing to behold. In relation to—[Interruption.] The more they think it is a good result, the better we are.
    316
    In relation to farming support, it is correct that we have announced an aid package of over £120 million. Obviously, we recognise the difficult circumstances that farmers have been in, but I want to pick up one particular point on organic farming. Since coming to power, we have increased by eight times the support that we give to organic farming. There is now five times as much land in production for organic farming as there was when we came to office. I hope that we are trying our best to support the farming industry, but are also trying to invest in environmentally friendly forms of modern farming.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Prime Minister will be aware that we are within one week of the first anniversary of the Belfast agreement. People voted by a large majority for a democratic way of government in Northern Ireland, and for guns and bombs to be a thing of the past. Will the Prime Minister unequivocally reassure the House and the people of Northern Ireland in particular that, at a time when the godfather of terrorist godfathers, Martin McGuinness, has been nominated as a potential member of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he will stick to the promise that he and his Government made that illegal guns and bombs cannot be a part of a democratic process, and that there will be no question of forcing Sinn Fein into an Executive until it has met its obligations in that respect?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that it is a term of taking office in the Executive that people forswear violence. Should they go back to violence, there are provisions to expel them from the Executive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Good Friday agreement—which, according to a recent poll, is still supported by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—offers the only right way forward. We are looking at how to ensure that both sides of the community—obviously, in the hon. Gentleman's case, it is the Unionist community—have the trust and the confidence that violence has been given up for good, allowing people to go into government together. I hope that that occurs, because easily the best thing that could happen to the politics of Northern Ireland is that devolution takes place on the basis of a universal commitment to peace and democracy. Northern Ireland politics should debate not the sectarian issues that it has debated for so many years, but the ordinary issues of schools, hospitals, ordinary crime in our streets, local government—the issues that are the bread and butter of everyday politics here.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in three years' time—the Queen's golden jubilee year—Manchester will host the 17th Commonwealth games. They will be the biggest yet, and will provide a huge opportunity for the city, the country and the international sporting community. Now that the site for the stadium is being cleared for construction, will the Prime Minister continue to ensure the full support of the Government for the games, so that in 2002 we can all enjoy a celebration of Commonwealth friendship and sporting achievement?
    The Prime Minister: The games in Manchester in 2002 will be the biggest multi-sporting event in Britain since the 1948 Olympic games. More than 5,000 athletes from some 70 countries will compete, and we have earmarked £112 million of lottery money for the building of the new facilities. I am sure that it will be a tremendous showcase not just for Manchester, but for the whole of Britain.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: In opposition, the right hon. Gentleman often accused the Conservative Government of selling off the family silver. Will he now tell the House and the country why he and his Government are selling off the family gold?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, it was actually Harold Macmillan who used the phrase "selling off the family silver". Secondly, I assume that the hon. Lady's remarks mean that the Conservative party is now against privatisation in addition to its commitment to public spending. Thirdly, as for gold, I have never come across so much nonsense as that talked by the Conservative party. It talks as if this was some stealthy plan to get us into the euro. Countries all around the world diversify so that some parts of their reserves are in
    318
    currency and some in gold. That is entirely sensible. Only today's Conservative party could be ideologically opposed to it.
    Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the submission made by representatives of rural South Derbyshire at a packed meeting in Melbourne on the rural White Paper consultation? Many issues were raised at that vibrant meeting, and one of the suggestions made was that we should tackle the issue of how to encourage rural enterprise that is sustainable in a rural area, so that we move away from the dormitory culture of car-borne commuting in rural England and towards genuinely sustainable communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that suggestion?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that the role of small businesses, in particular, will feature largely in the White Paper that will be published shortly. That, of course, comes on top of the new rate relief for village shops, the financial support for farmers and the creation of the new Countryside Agency.
    As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, this side of the House of Commons now represents more rural constituencies than the other side. Long may that continue.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, there has recently been some discussion in the House about the broadcasting of "Yesterday in Parliament". Can you tell us whether you have received any more recent communication from the BBC?
I ask this question on a point of order because it has been reported that, apparently, the BBC is now seriously considering putting "Yesterday in Parliament" back on FM. That would be welcome, and I hope that it happens; but it seems that the BBC is also considering broadcasting the item very early, which would mean that many people who would like to hear it—much of the public, indeed—would probably not be able to do so.
I hope—as, no doubt, do you, Madam Speaker—that, in considering where and how "Yesterday in Parliament" should be broadcast, the BBC will recognise its responsibilities, and will allow those who want to listen to what is happening in Parliament to do so.
Madam Speaker: I have had no recent exchange of correspondence on the issue, but the House will know of my robust views. I have made them clear in the House, as well as to the chairman of the BBC: the correspondence that I have had is in the Library for all to see. As far as I am concerned, "Yesterday in Parliament" should be returned to its former slot, on FM and at 8.40 am—and the sooner that is done, the better.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you noted and were concerned by—as you have been in the past—
320
reports in the press of a matter that has not yet been announced to the House. Several newspapers, over several days, have referred to ministerial and departmental sources in giving a full account of the planned sell-off of the Tote, which is due to be announced in the House today.
I know that you want announcements to be made to the House first, so I wonder whether you want to make a statement about that. I also wonder whether you have received a request from the Home Secretary to make a statement—or, for that matter, a request from the Foreign Secretary, who is known to be wholly opposed to the idea.
Madam Speaker: I have received no request from any Minister to make a statement on the matter. As a long-standing Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers make announcements to the House by two methods—an oral statement at the Dispatch Box, and written answers. I understand that the Home Secretary has answered a question on this very issue, and that his answer was released about three minutes ago.

Points of Order
  Bill Presented
    REFERENDUM (ENGLISH PARLIAMENT)
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman, supported by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. James Gray, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. David Amess and Mr. Howard Flight, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in England on the establishment and tax-varying powers of an English Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 98].

Country Lanes and Villages
3.34 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable traffic authorities to make provision in rural areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders have priority on the carriageway over mechanically propelled vehicles for the purpose of improving safety and protecting the character of the countryside; to make provision for reduction of the national speed limit for certain rural roads; and for related purposes.
The Bill would give local authorities power to designate any rural roads in their areas for which they are the traffic authorities as quiet lanes, where pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists would have priority over motor vehicles. There would be a speed limit of 20 mph. Such designations would follow consultation with any affected parish or community council, other bodies or persons concerned with the protection of the environment, and representatives of road user groups or local businesses.
By amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Bill would give the Secretary of State power to set a national speed limit for motor vehicles on all roads classified C and on all unclassified roads, of no more than 40 mph—at present, the limit is 60 mph; of no more than 20 mph on designated quiet lanes; and of no more than 20 mph through villages. A village would be a group of dwellings exceeding 50 per cent. of frontages on both sides of a road.
I am sure that the purposes of the Bill are clear. Its measures would improve safety on rural roads, encourage the enjoyment of the countryside and protect its character and distinctiveness from damage by unsuitable traffic and traffic speeds. The Bill will help to tackle issues such as traffic intimidation, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions drew attention in last summer's transport White Paper.
That document spelt out the need and desirability of creating an integrated transport system, of encouraging forms of transport other than the car and of the greater use of 20 mph zones by local authorities. As it pointed out, in areas with such a speed limit, the frequency of accidents has been reduced by about 60 per cent. and accidents involving children have fallen by 67 per cent.
In 1997, 10 times more people were killed in accidents on rural roads than on motorways. Seventy per cent. of fatal car accidents occur on rural roads. While only 9 per cent. of all cyclist casualties occur on rural roads, those account for 45 per cent. of cycle deaths from road accidents. Those figures highlight the importance of the Government's national speed policy review to address the problems of rural roads through measures of the sort that are contained in the Bill.
In the previous Session, I obtained leave to introduce a Bill for "home zones"—zones in residential areas that have much lower speed limits, more pedestrian areas and design features that emphasise the change in priority from motor vehicles to people. I was delighted that home zones received several mentions in the White Paper and that the Department is working with local authorities that want to design pilot zones within current legislation. The Department is committed to a formal evaluation of those after a period.
322
The proposed quiet lanes and villages with lower speed limits are clearly parallel measures for the countryside. However, as the White Paper said:
"Traditional traffic management measures can have an urban look and can be even more damaging in the countryside than on the appearance of our towns. We will therefore encourage the continued development of new and imaginative ways of designing local traffic schemes to make them more sensitive to their surroundings."
The Bill follows early-day motion 348 of the same title, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), and which has, so far, attracted more than 150 signatures; I hope that it will gain even more. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, appreciate his excellent and continuing work, which is part of the year-long campaign "Safer Country Lanes for All", which is organised by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I hope that the House will agree that the measure is an essential part of that campaign.
I note that the recent report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the transport White Paper stated that
"the fear of traffic on country lanes has discouraged other users, such as walkers and cyclists…speeding traffic blights the lives of those living in villages and creates a perception that roads are no longer safe for all".
The report recommended a national speed limit of 30 mph or less through all villages, including those on main roads. I am sure that we all know of rural areas that were, even until very recently, safe enough for walkers, cyclists and children to play in, which are now too dangerous because of increased traffic. I know of two examples in East Anglia: lanes around the village of Thornage in Norfolk, where the closure of the village shop and school have meant that residents have to drive elsewhere for those services; and Blackhills corner to Primrose corner near Norwich, where the lane has become a rat run for traffic wanting to avoid a longer link road to the west.
It is apparent from those examples that the causes of increased traffic in rural areas are very complex. Rural residents have to use their cars, if they own them, because of the lack of adequate local facilities and public transport. Traffic in rural areas is forecast to rise even faster than that in urban areas.
There are more cars on our roads in general, giving town dwellers greater access to remote areas than ever before. It is surely true to say that more people today can enjoy the relative peace and beauty of the countryside than at any time since the industrial revolution removed them for large sections of the population. In those days, the wealthy could of course continue to drive in and out of towns in their carriages.
It is apparent, however, that the quality of rural life, and even in some cases the survival of its distinctive character, are being fatally prejudiced by road traffic changes. The CPRE estimates the tranquil countryside lost in England in the past 30 years to be of an area the size of Wales. A lot of that is due to road traffic.
A survey in Shropshire found that 110 parish councils had approached the county council or local police over the previous 10 years because of problems of excessive speed. Another survey, in 1996, by the then Countryside Commission, showed that people in both town and country care about the countryside: 91 per cent. thought that
"society has a moral duty to protect the countryside."

323
The Government have promised a rural White Paper later this year. It should address in an integrated way the issues surrounding the decline in quality of our rural areas. I believe that the measures in the Bill are an essential part of any attempt to reverse that decline. There is a need for new legislation to reduce speed limits and give local authorities new powers to designate rural roads where motor traffic will not have priority.
There are serious flaws in the current approach to managing speeding traffic, deriving from the self-fulfilling nature of the dangers: people increasingly avoid what they perceive to be dangerous roads and—surprise, surprise—local authorities then find that those roads are not much used by non-motor traffic, so higher speed limits seem appropriate.
I do not have time to expand on the technical points, but I am sure that Ministers and officials will be aware of the problems associated with the current approach to speed management. I hope that quiet lanes and reduced speed limits on country lanes and in villages will become part of Government policy.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. Peter Bradley, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. David Drew, Mr. John Mc William, Dr. Ian Gibson and Ms Joan Walley.

Country Lanes and Villages
  COUNTRY LANES AND VILLAGES
  Mrs. Helen Brinton accordingly presented a Bill to enable traffic authorities to make provision in rural areas for the designation of highways where pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders have priority on the carriageway over mechanically propelled vehicles for the purpose of improving safety and protecting the character of the countryside; to make provision for reduction of the national speed limit for certain rural roads; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 99].
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
    Clause 1

      DEFINITIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      3.45 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before clause 1 becomes part of the Bill, I wish to refer the Committee to subsection (4), which starts with the words, "Victim of violence", and continues with a definition of that term. It had been my intention to be here on Monday to take part in the Second Reading, but for reasons that I conveyed to Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present. However, I read the Minister's speech carefully and with some interest, and he referred repeatedly to "The Disappeared".
      It is important, as we pass this nasty little Bill, that at least we are not taken in by our own rhetoric. It was, I believe, Lenin who used to say that the whole point of terrorism was to terrorise people. That was also a favourite phrase of Michael Collins. What we are talking about in the Bill is terrorising people—cold-blooded acts by people who set out to abduct, torture and kill, probably in the most unpleasant ways. They do so not just for the sake of killing, although that was part of the very nature of the IRA, but to terrorise not just families but communities. The Bill will allow some degree of excuse for that terrorism.
      I understand the background to the Bill, and the Minister will know that when I held the post that he now holds I was the first Minister who started the peace talks that culminated 10 years later in the Good Friday agreement. He also knows that everything that I have said since the agreement has broadly been in support of the Government and what they seek to do, so we do not have to have a debate about whether I am in favour of the Government's objectives. I shall not sit quietly by, however, and allow the Bill to pass without helping people to understand that the Minister was so generous as to be unbelievable when he said on Second Reading that this is a humanitarian Bill. This is not a humanitarian Bill: it is a piece of cynicism, driven by the IRA, derived from a propaganda need to take some of the pressure off it at the time of the Hillsborough talks. The Bill is deplored by some of those at the heart of the benefit that may accrue from its passage.
      We all know that after up to 30 years there are a number of families in Northern Ireland who still sorrow and grieve, and who have not had the opportunity to give to their loved ones the dignity of a proper, Christian burial. That instinct is very strong among hon. Members of all parties in this House, but the IRA does not begin to understand it.
      This Bill is a nasty, cynical piece of manipulation which the Governments of Great Britain and of the Irish Republic have felt compelled to introduce to their

      325
      legislatures for reasons of the greater good. All hon. Members support the families and sympathise with them, but we must proceed honestly and recognise the Bill for what it is. Today, we are recognising the terrorism, awfulness and cynicism of an organisation that still exists to terrorise for its own purposes.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I well understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about his past record and his on-going support as we go down the difficult road towards achieving our ultimate objective of a peaceful Northern Ireland. When he held my office, he had to take part in some difficult decisions. However, he said that this was a nasty little Bill. Does he hold the same opinion of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which he supported? That contained many of the same precepts that appear in this Bill. He said that the Bill is not a humanitarian measure, but how does he address the concerns of the families?
      In my speech on Second Reading, which the right hon. Gentleman said that he read in detail, I did not talk about terrorism in any sympathetic way. He will know that I condemned unreservedly terrorism and the barbarism associated with the acts leading up to the disappearance of these people. I said that they were probably beaten and tortured, that they had had no right to a proper trial or to an appeal, and that their fundamental human rights had been taken away. I gave not an inch on that.
      On 29 March, the Provisional IRA announced that it was prepared to provide information about some of the people who had been disappeared. The two Governments therefore had to act, or decide not to act. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that we should not have acted, but instead should have put pressure on the Provisional IRA—in ways that he has not defined—and thereby somehow turn up the information that we are seeking to obtain on behalf of the families. However, the pressure exerted over 30 years did not bring one iota of comfort to some of the families involved.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ingram: No.
      The difficulty and dilemma with which the Government were faced in dealing with the information from the Provisional IRA lay in how to put it into effect. The Provisional IRA's announcement contained no absolutes or guarantees that the information would be released.
      On Second Reading, I asked the House a question to which I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) will give consideration. If not through this Bill, by what other means does the right hon. Gentleman expect the information to come from the Provisional IRA? We must think all the time of those families, and the trauma with which they have lived for 30 years. Those who argue against this Bill cast them aside and do them no service at all.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Better than most, I understand the dilemma that the Minister faces. I shall not vote against the clause standing part of the Bill: in these circumstances, as I have already said, the Government have to do what they have to do. However, I ask the
      326
      Minister to recognise that the Bill is a reflection of the terrorising and cynical manipulation practised by the people with whom we are seeking to do business in a bid to bring peace to the 1.5 million decent, law-abiding people in the Province.
      I ask that the Minister does not use the sort of language that might be used in other circumstances when there have been unavoidable tragedies. As I said earlier, the hearts of every hon. Member in the Chamber, irrespective of party, go out to the families.
      I have had to announce enough bloody deaths in Northern Ireland to be sure that no one can accuse me of having no sensitivity for or sympathy with the bereaved. But I do not want the message to go to Northern Ireland that the House used the civilised language employed for normal tragedies to make rosy a determined and deliberate attempt to terrorise by using this sort of mechanism in the knowledge that the Minister's good instincts and those of the rest of the House would respond to it.
      In Ulster terms, let us call a spade—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was intervening, not making a second speech?
      Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention was worth while because of its length. He addressed several points that needed to be made, and we shall debate them now and on other parts of the Bill. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not opposing the Bill, merely highlighting its enormity and the difficulties associated with it. To those who do oppose the Bill, however, I have to ask a question: if not this Bill, what?
      One of the jobs with which I am tasked is that of being the Minister for victims. On coming into Government, I was amazed to find out how blank the sheet was on that subject. That was true not only of the previous Administration, and I do not seek to overstress that point, by and large, of the wider community in Northern Ireland no one had begun to address the complexity, enormity and depth of trauma within that society. Many individuals—including politicians—used victims as political footballs. They were brought out when there was a point to be scored, but no one gave support, encouragement or hope.
      It was largely left to voluntary organisations to provide that support, although many were supported by public money. No coherent way was developed for dealing with issues connected with victims. We have begun to address the problem, but have begun only to touch on its extent. The more we do, the more we shall expose the deep difficulties in Northern Ireland, and no one—certainly no politician—has all the answers to the problems.
      My central point is that the Bill begins to address a fundamental problem, but it is not easy to do so. We have made no apology for the actions of terrorists and paramilitaries, and nothing in the language of my Second Reading speech could be deemed to have given any word of comfort to terrorists. No one who spoke in that debate gave a word of comfort to those who carried out the actions addressed by the Bill.
      I hope that the message of that debate has been absorbed in the wider republican and loyalist communities that support the people of violence. Now is the time to stop and to search for new ways forward.

      327
      It might benefit the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to read debates on similar legislation in the Dail in which there was strong condemnation of the Provisional IRA and explanation of why the Bill was necessary.
      Nothing was given away in our debate, a sombre debate that addressed the issue properly. I commend the clause.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that the members of the terrorist IRA had no clear understanding of the grief and legitimate expectations of the families of victims. The brutal fact, as he acknowledged in his later intervention, is that the IRA has made a harsh analysis of the expectations of those who grieve, and it seeks to manipulate the people so tragically involved. That sickens me to the stomach. Hon. Members will concede that I have repeatedly said that these people are engaged not in a military campaign or guerrilla warfare, but in the most brutal form of terrorism in a mature parliamentary democracy. I have some sympathy for what the right hon. Gentleman said, but having met some of the families concerned, their interests, concerns and legitimate demands should override all else.
      4 pm
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: I do not like being in conflict with the Minister any more than he does, but what he said on Second Reading and reiterated today about no one appearing to care about the victims of violence gives deep offence to ordinary people in Northern Ireland. For 30 years, we have cared for them. They are people among whom we live. They are our friends, people we know. He must recognise that with more than 200 victims of violence in my constituency alone—mostly, but not exclusively, victims of the IRA—there is nothing new in what he says that he wishes to achieve. Rather, what he says that he wishes to achieve is being negated by the way in which he goes about it.
      It is not a question of 15 or 16 families for whom we feel tremendous sympathy, but of more than 3,000 people who have died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. For the Minister to say that only the voluntary organisations appear to care is not a condemnation of ordinary, elected Members from Northern Ireland—whatever their political aspirations—but a reflection on the Northern Ireland Office. It channelled 250 million ecu—more than £200 million—that came to Northern Ireland as a peace and reconciliation package to some very undeserving causes.
      The money did not exclusively go to such causes; I admit that a large part was employed usefully, although I am not sure that much was of long-term benefit. There is a rather sick joke in Northern Ireland that people have to have served a term in prison as terrorists to become community workers. That generalisation is perhaps unfortunate, but I am afraid that much of the money for peace and reconciliation was channelled through organisations that had a short-sighted approach to what victims of violence needed. The police and the security forces were excluded from any part of the money, although they were at the coal face.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's belated sensitivity and
      328
      concern for victims is the result of the outrage expressed by victims' groups about the amount of money given to ex-prisoners, ex-convicts, ex-gangsters, murderers and extortioners to placate their organisations and make them favour the peace process?
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout society in Northern Ireland, horror has been expressed at the way in which money has been expended. I do not doubt that there were good intentions. I do not for one moment suggest that what the Government do is always done for perverse reasons. However, it is wrong for the Minister to point the finger at elected Members from Northern Ireland, who live with the problem, and have lived with the problem every day for 30 years. What concerns me most in all the Minister has said is that he continues to point across the Chamber saying, in effect, "What would you do to recover the bodies of 'The Disappeared'?" The reality is that it is not our responsibility because we have not murdered anyone. We cannot and should not undermine the fundamental law on which our whole society depends in order to make an accommodation for those victims, however deserving they are—and I stress that they are deserving. However, we cannot undermine the fundamentals of the law.
      I want to put the Minister right on another point. He tried to compare this measure, which undermines the principle of the law, with the legislation on disarmament. The circumstances are entirely different, although some people would agree with him that there is no difference. However, I and many other people do see a difference, in so far as legislation to get rid of the weapons of war—the illegal guns and bombs—is honourable. It holds out hope for the future of the people of Northern Ireland, if the opportunity to disarm is grasped by those to whom it is offered. However, this Bill is different. First and foremost, as the Minister has admitted, it does not guarantee that one body will be delivered up, although I hope that that will happen. More importantly, it does not ensure greater safety for society in Northern Ireland as a whole-as the exclusion of illegal guns and bombs would do. Therein lies the folly of the measure.
      Mr. William Thompson: Anyone with any faith in law and order must regard this as a squalid little Bill. Although we understand the humanitarian concerns and the concerns of those whose relatives were murdered, the fact is that the Bill puts humanitarian issues before the rule of law. That should not happen in any democracy. Furthermore, we can see from clause 1 that the Government of the Republic of Ireland is regarded as the Government of Ireland. In legislation, the Government of the Republic of Ireland used to be called the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but now, as a result of the Anglo-Irish agreement and various other agreements, the Government of the Republic of Ireland is designated the Government of Ireland. That is an insult.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: As the Government have used that terminology in the measure, are they not endorsing a territorial claim? The Government of the Irish Republic are claiming to be the Government of Ireland; that is a claim to the territory of

      329
      Northern Ireland. It is bad enough that they should claim that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government should never endorse it?
      Mr. Thompson: I certainly agree. When a previous Bill went through the House, we were told that "the Government of Ireland" was what the Government of the Republic of Ireland wanted to be known as or had designated themselves as. However, the policy of any United Kingdom Government should be not to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as "the Government of Ireland" or to put that phrase in legislation, but to refer to that Government as it stands in relation to the United Kingdom, which is as the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the clause contain a territorial claim in its reference to:
      "Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom"?
      Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so the problem the hon. Gentleman raises does not exist.
      Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not relevant to my argument. I accept that the United Kingdom, as I understand it, includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland; however, the issue is not the term we use for ourselves, but the term we use for the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about the term "United Kingdom" implying a territorial claim. However, several years ago at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Ottawa, the representative from the Dail Eireann moved that the phrase
      "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
      should be deleted. Although representatives of this Parliament opposed the motion, it was passed by a weighted majority of the other nations in order to placate the Irish Republic. In other words, we limit the United Kingdom when we use the phrase "the Government of Ireland" to refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
      Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Ministers hear Unionist objections, but they do not listen to them or care about them; instead, they ignore them. However, if Members of Parliament representing the nationalists were sitting in the Committee today and making objections, Ministers would be doing everything possible to placate and please them. Ministers do not care what Unionists think.
      This squalid little Bill represents an acknowledgement that those who committed the crimes would never be brought to justice. We have been told many times when depredations have occurred that those who have committed the crimes would be brought to justice, but in many cases they never have been. The Bill represents an acknowledgement that the killers in the cases it covers will never be brought to justice. In fact, because of the Bill, it is likely that fewer efforts will be made to investigate those cases and, as a result, the killers will never be brought to justice.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: When responding to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire
      330
      (Sir B. Mawhinney), the Minister remarked that public representatives in Northern Ireland had taken small cognisance of the fate and condition of victims over the years. That remark should be withdrawn, because the truth is that this Government took scarcely any cognisance at all of the condition of victims, especially those in south Armagh, where, in a relatively small community, over a period of years and in circumstances of the utmost barbarity, more than 70 murders took place, of which 58 currently remain unsolved.
      4.15 pm
      Because the victims were murdered one by one and were not part of a single outrage—as had happened in other parts of the Province—they were simply ignored. An organisation was formed only recently in south Armagh to redress the balance. Those victims were ignored because, for many years, it was not fashionable or politically expedient for the Government to acknowledge former reservists, ex-members of the UDR or serving soldiers who had been killed.
      In pursuit of the peace process and under the terms of the Belfast agreement, however, this Government found themselves committed to spending large amounts of public money on the welfare and rehabilitation of former murderers and criminals. That provoked outrage among victims' families and became a very big issue. It became a moral issue: people contrasted the extraordinarily generous treatment afforded to ex-prisoners, many of whom had committed murders, with the treatment afforded to their victims. The victims, who had suffered for so many years in silence because successive Governments did little for their welfare, were outraged at the insensitivity of this Government. That is what motivates the Government, not any sense of public good.
      As in so many other matters, the Government have seized upon an overtly and nakedly emotional, even sentimental, issue: the bodies of "The Disappeared" and the natural grief of their families, who want to give their loved ones a Christian burial. In an attempt to raise public indignation about the victims and to redress the balance regarding their treatment of the prisoners, the Government have converted this into a noble issue involving moral rescue work on behalf of the relatives of "The Disappeared". What is the price of that work? It is not very different from the price that was paid for decommissioning—the terrorists price.
      The Chairman: Order. I have been generous to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I appreciate that he was not present for Second Reading, but I am beginning to feel that he is making the speech that he might have made on that occasion. I cannot allow that as we are considering whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. McCartney: I accept your remarks, Sir Alan, which are entirely justified. I apologise if I have strained your patience.
      It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister to make accusations against representatives from Northern Ireland who not only feel for the victims but, out of long experience and as indigenous people of Northern Ireland, have the capacity to share their grief.
      Mr. Ingram: This has been a useful debate. If some of those Members who have spoken today had turned up for Second Reading, we might have extended that debate.
      Mr. Thompson: If the Government had recognised the ability of Northern Ireland Members to travel to Westminster at short notice, the Minister might have been justified in making that remark.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether that is a demand for home rule for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members seem to think that they are no longer part of the United Kingdom. Every other Member of Parliament had the same notice of the debate, and many of them were here to vote. No complication was put in the hon. Gentleman's way. I appreciate that Northern Ireland Members may have had something more important and pressing to do, but that is a matter for them.
      I shall deal with what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said because he sought to put words into my mouth. I did not say that the people of Northern Ireland do not care; I think they care, but they have been looking for leadership, which they have not had. Only recently have we been able to begin to address some of these issues. I recognise that the Ulster Unionist party made suggestions about how to deal with one aspect of the victims issue. Those suggestions were not comprehensive and did not deal with the whole range of victims, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, but they were none the less helpful. Those suggestions fed into the Good Friday agreement, from which emerged Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's review on victims.
      I say to Members who have spoken in this debate that they all had an opportunity to contribute to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's consultation process, but not one of them did so. No party made its views known to Sir Kenneth. I am not saying that they did not care, but they had an opportunity to try to condition the Government's thinking and they did not avail themselves of it.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone seemed to say, as others do, that this issue is the Government's responsibility and that "The Disappeared" are the responsibility of those who carried out those dreadful murders. The terrorists undoubtedly have a function to perform: they must give information, and we hope that we can bring them to justice. I make no bones about that. The Bill clearly limits our capacity to bring them to justice, but we want to do so, and I am sure that the families of the victims would welcome that, as would society and those involved in the judicial process.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman, who said that this issue is the Government's responsibility, that all politicians have a responsibility to try to find answers. If the Government are not getting it right, hon. Members should tell us where we are going wrong.
      Mr. Maginnis: You have never listened, and you are not listening now.
      The Chairman: Order. We do not want sedentary interventions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
      Mr. Ingram: We are dealing with the specific issue of victims, not the panoply of Government policy. Our document was put out for consultation, but there was
      332
      no response. Well into the implementation of that report, I requested representatives from individual parties to meet me. I did so of my own volition, not because of demands from the parties. It took months to get the parties to provide names of representatives whom they had appointed to talk about the victims issue.
      I make that point because when the Government are accused of doing nothing, hon. Members should look to themselves and consider what they have been doing over the years. Wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is no solution to the trauma of deeply troubled people. I have to deal with those people.
      I am not from Northern Ireland, but that does not mean that I do not care or that any of those who deal with the issue do not care if they do not come from Northern Ireland. Having dealt with individual cases, we shall carry the hurt for a long time afterwards. Many of my officials must have counselling because they are dealing with cases to an even greater extent than I am. Hon. Members should not diminish what we seek to achieve in the Bill and make out that only the Government and those who carried out the violent acts have a responsibility. We all have a responsibility, not only on this issue, but on wider issues.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: On the issue of making contributions and listening, I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of Families Acting for Innocent Relatives. Four weeks later, at a meeting with the Secretary of State that was organised by FAIR, she still had not read the letter that had been sent to her and her secretary.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether that is a fact.
      Mr. McCartney: It is a fact.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. and learned Gentleman may tell me that it is a fact, but it does not relate to the point that I was making about the Bloomfield report. Why did he not respond to that heavyweight document, which endeavoured to deal with a complex issue that has remained forgotten for 30 years? Many people in Northern Ireland fall into the category of victims, and have come forward for help and now work in the various groups, but there are many others—not just those who have seen death in their families, but those who have had to put up with long-term injury in their families—who do not come forward, either as individuals who have suffered or as relatives of those who have been injured. That conveys the enormity of the broader reach of the issue with which we are having to deal.
      This measure deals with just one small category of people. In the arguments deployed in this debate, I have yet to hear a suggestion as to how we should deal with the issue, other than to blame someone else. That does not provide an answer.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the Committee or be inaccurate. He said that none of us had responded to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. If he consults Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, he will discover that at least one did. I speak for myself in that instance. Were not my hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) appointed to deal with the matter, and did not they seek to do so? I want to put

      333
      the record straight. Although we recognise the trauma that has affected English and Scots Members and others, some of us have lived and worked with these victims of tenor over the years. As a minister who knew what it was to fight for proper compensation for them, I will not accept the Minister's allegation from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman made a submission to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, I shall go back and look at it. I apologise if I inadvertently said that he did not, although it is interesting that no one else is standing up to say that they did.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Ingram: May I make this point?
      Mr. Maginnis: I am standing up.
      Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing up, but I am not giving way.
      Mr. Maginnis: You do not want to hear the truth.
      Mr. Ingram: As I said to the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, bullying and shouting might be his way forward, but it is not the way in which we try to address the issue.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I accept that their party has now put forward a group to deal with the issue, for which I am very grateful. It is important that I have points of contact with political parties. That was not the point that I was making. I did not say that there was not anything now, but that when there was a need for something to exist, it did not. Now we are beginning to address the issue. Northern Ireland Members should not accuse the Government of standing back and doing nothing when we have been trying to initiate movement.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) mentioned his engagement with FAIR. Of course, he is not the only Member who has dealings with that organisation. The Secretary of State has met FAIR twice. I have offered to meet representatives of it since, but they have declined because, as 1 understand it, they are keen to meet the Prime Minister. That is a matter for them. Meetings with representatives of FAIR have not taken place not because the Government have not been prepared to meet them. The Secretary of State has met the organisation twice, and my offer remains open.
      The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) raised the question of references to the Government of Ireland. Of course, this is not the first time that the term "Government of Ireland" has been used in legislation. It was also used in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally opposed to that legislation, but none the less it was passed by this House. It is worthwhile putting on record the fact that the Irish Government now refer to the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in their equivalent legislation. Therefore we are using the terminology that has been agreed between the two sovereign Governments, and which does not conflict with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom while the majority of people wish it to be so.
      334
      4.30 pm
      I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised in the debate. I did not anticipate such a long debate on clause stand part, but it is good that some hon. Members have now engaged in the process of debate; they may benefit from that engagement during the rest of the Bill's consideration.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      THE COMMISSION
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 30, leave out from "effect" to end of line 34 and insert "on 30th September 1999".
      The amendment deserves a fair amount of consideration in light of what the Under-Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Monday night. It is intended to time-limit the life of the Bill's provisions. He said on Monday night that the Government were not all that anxious to do that, but I believe that a time provision is embodied in the words that the amendment seeks to remove. The full subsection reads:

      "This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland, may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and an order under this subsection may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient."
      Therefore the Government at least envisage that, at some point in time, they would by order annul the Bill, and it would be swept away.
      It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, it could endure for years. It could sit on the statute book until people had forgotten its existence. It could be there for 100 years before a Secretary of State decided to sweep it away. I therefore believe that it should be time-limited, to a precise date.
      On Monday night, the Under-Secretary said:
      "By way of intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone"—
      my honourable colleague, who has been speaking—
      "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 individual 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."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.80.]
      If that is the Government's reason, it is a mighty poor one.
      I believe that, by leaving the Bill in its present condition, we are leaving the door open to the IRA to twist and turn, and to seek publicity time after time. We are leaving the IRA absolutely free to manipulate—we know how good it is at manipulation—the whole

      335
      community. We should not give the WA that freedom of action. We need a clear cut-off date to stop its nonsense in its tracks. If members of the IRA really want to help, all the information that they have as to the remains of those nine people, and possibly others, can be provided by the end of September.
      In my view, I have been more than generous. The Minister knows that I do not like the Bill. I believe that it is an abomination and should never have been produced because it undermines the rule of law. As everyone else in this place should be, I am familiar with the old saying, "Hard cases make bad law"; the Bill is a classic illustration of the truth of that. There are hard cases here. As I said on Monday night, people's emotions and religious practices are involved. In going down that road, we have made a grave error of judgment. If members of the IRA really want to help, they can.
      We must realise that some of the people who carried out these atrocious crimes are probably dead and buried. They carried their secrets to the grave with them, so there is no chance whatever of recovering the remains of some of the people buried. In other cases, the people who went out and buried the bodies do not know where they are buried. They have forgotten. Many of the bodies were disposed of in the middle of the night. Some, we are told, were destroyed in the most horrific manner.
      All those rumours circulate in Northern Ireland. It matters not which rumours are true and which are not. We can be certain that some bodies are not retrievable. It is likely that some are under road works or buried in the face of a tip of a road embankment and covered over the next day. No one can be sure where such a body may be; it could be anywhere along half a mile of road. We are not going to dig up a road in order to find it.
      There could be bodies under major buildings. Some could be under the Waterfront hall, for all we know. There is no way of finding them. They could be under other building sites. They could be buried in open mountain, in bogs or in any one of a thousand places. The folk who put them there cannot recall where they put them in the dark of night and in their excitement and concern to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Someone carrying a mutilated body around the countryside does not want to run into a bunch of soldiers or policemen.
      The people concerned got rid of the bodies as swiftly as they could. A body may have been buried in the bottom of an open grave in a cemetery somewhere, and a coffin placed on top of it the next day. No one knows where the bodies are, but representatives of the IRA, out of the goodness of their little murderous hearts, have kindly told the Government that they know where nine bodies are. The amendment is intended to ensure that the IRA gives up that information within a short time. It ties the IRA down, which is the one thing that that terrorist organisation does not want. It leaves the IRA no room to come back seeking concessions. If the Bill is left as it is, the IRA will be back for further concessions. Anyone who has anything to do with Northern Ireland knows that those people do not go away. They look for all the room that they can get, and there is far too much room left. Let us pin them into a corner and, if they are genuine, they will come forward with the information.
      336
      I fear that the IRA has no real intention of giving up the bodies. The whole thing is largely, if not wholly, a cruel deception. If the IRA is indeed involved in a cruel deception, the sooner we expose the nature of the people with whom we are dealing, the better. If all the known bodies can be produced, let us have them within the next few weeks. With regard to those that are irretrievable, as some probably are, we will have to be clear that no progress can be made.
      At the very best, we shall recover only a small proportion of the bodies of those who were tortured, in some cases to death, by the IRA, brutally murdered and buried secretly. I have scant regard for murderers. I have scant regard for those who carried out those crimes. If we deal with them, we should be sharp and clear as to what we are about and why we are trying to do it. We should time-limit them firmly, and at the end of that time, the Bill should die. The sun should go down on it on 30 September at the latest. If I had my way, I would have made the time scale rather shorter, but, against my better judgment, I wanted to be generous.
      That is the background to the amendment.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Bill is a little unusual in comparison with related Northern Ireland legislation in that there is no time limit on the life of the commission. The prevention of terrorism Act, for example, has to be renewed every year.
      Would there be any benefit in prescribing the need to renew the commission's existence annually? The default position would then be that the commission would cease to exist and the terms of the Bill would be terminated, rather than the current situation in which the Bill will continue indefinitely unless some other measure comes before the House. I should be interested to hear the Government's reasoning as to why a renewal provision has not been included in the Bill. Perhaps they might want to consider such a provision.
      Dr. Godman: I might have had some sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) if it had read "30 September 2000". This is not a helpful amendment, although I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. These murderous people—these highly skilful negotiators—may deliberately procrastinate and prevaricate in any discussions concerning the location of the remains of those people; nevertheless, I believe that the clause makes much better sense unamended.
      On the other hand, I have a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said about assessing the work of the commission over six months or a year. The hon. Member for East Londonderry is right that such legislation should not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
      I can assure the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that I expressed some reservations about the Bill on Second Reading, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has come up with a useful suggestion here—an assessment or review should be undertaken and we, as Members of this House, should be allowed to assess the effectiveness of and the progress made by the commissioners in this deeply difficult work. I say that because there have been some allegations that one or more of the bodies may be buried in Scotland.

      337
      It may take time to carry out effective searches in Scotland if those allegations have any substance, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take on board what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The cement that holds debates in this Chamber together is our acceptance of the good intentions and the good will of other Members, even if we doubt their judgment. We are in grave danger of attributing to the IRA the same sort of generosity of spirit that normally characterises our debates.
      As the Minister has made clear, the Bill stems from a statement by the IRA that it thinks that it has found nine bodies and it would not mind, under certain circumstances, doing the decent thing. History is replete with examples of people of honesty and integrity being misled by terrorists. That is because those of us who are normal have such difficulty in getting our minds around the idea that there are people out there whose raison d'être is to terrorise. If they are willing to murder and maim and kill, telling the odd lie, even to the Press Association, is not a problem. It is our responsibility to be careful that we do not attribute more strength and importance to the potential lie and to the real lie than it warrants.
      4.45 pm
      Perhaps I may trade on my accent for a moment. What is extremely clear to me from Irish history is the inability of the English to get inside the minds of the Irish. Had they been better able to do so—and vice versa—the history of the past 800 years would be very different, and we probably would not be having this debate.
      A promise has been made by people whose whole purpose in life was to terrorise the whole of Northern Ireland by whatever despicable means they could lay their hands on. They thought not a jot about killing, barbarism, multiple murder—whatever it was, they turned their hands to it with gusto and without a thought for the victims and the victims' families.
      Now those people are saying that they might let us have nine bodies back, but they want us to jump through a number of hoops before that can be achieved. Fine. We are critically examining the Bill—the Government have thus far got their Bill without any Division in Committee. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) was right to say that this open-ended commitment provides multiple opportunities for propaganda over the months and, for all we know, over the years ahead. The instinctive reaction to that comment in the House is, "Don't be silly, Brian, it couldn't be years. That would be too awful for the families of the victims to contemplate."
      That is our decent way of thinking, but those people are terrorists, and they do not think the way we think. The Bill provides at least the opportunity for more and more propaganda. That is not in the Minister's best interests as he seeks to govern in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Barnes: If the Bill is to be an opportunity for propaganda by the IRA, it will have to do better than it did when it issued the initial statement to the Press Association, because it was a public relations disaster for the IRA. It referred to nine bodies, rather than the 14 that we think are buried, and it listed what it claimed were the crimes that it believed those people had committed. I am sure that that badly backfired on them in Northern Ireland
      338
      and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The IRA does not have public relations experts who are able to make use of this new opportunity.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: One of the nice things about the hon. Gentleman and I is that we go back a long way. When he was in opposition and I was in government we, by and large, saw eye to eye on security matters. I understand his point, but if he will forgive me for saying so, he is thinking about this matter as normal, decent people would. According to the Minister—I believe him, I am not questioning him—the IRA statement produced the Bill, which produced this debate, which will produce a debate in the Dail and which will produce open-ended legislation. That powerful message is ringing out around the world. Although I instinctively buy the hon. Gentleman's decent analysis, these people march to the beat of a different drum, and the House must understand that.
      I have some sympathy with the amendment of the hon. Member for East Londonderry because I do not trust terrorists not to pocket what decent people offer them and then look for something more. I suspect—although I do not expect them to say so here—that the Government have already decided that the IRA does not like deadlines, because deadlines mean that what the IRA does or does not do can be measured and assessed in the context of a formal framework. As all hon. Members know, we are currently exploring that very issue in relation to the difficulties over decommissioning.
      It might benefit the Government, acting on behalf of us all, to fix a date. If these people are serious, there is no advantage in stringing out the process. If it were done, 'twere well it were done quickly—and if it is not done quickly, we must ask why not, and what is coming next. A deadline would help to concentrate minds, and would enable the Government to say that they had acted in an humanitarian way on behalf of families, that there was benefit for the IRA, but that there was a line beyond which there was no reasonable excuse for going.
      The Minister may say that we know of only nine graves, and that we should hold out an opportunity in regard to the other five. I could understand that argument if I were still involved in such issues, and I shall not vote for the amendment; but I shall ask the Minister to consider something else.
      Dr. Godman: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be a deadline for a review of the legislation, and an assessment by the House of Commons, or does he think that a deadline such as that suggested by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) should operate?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I was coming to that. First, I was going to ask the Minister to consider the arguments, and then return to them in another place.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that there should be a review. That is one option; another is for the Minister to set a deadline, and to add a clause allowing the Secretary of State to return to the House at some future date to reactivate the legislation if he or she was satisfied, for perfectly legitimate reasons, that some years later information had come to light that had not come to light now.
      I am not trying to bind the Minister to a specific date, because there is an element of uncertainty; but he is being too open-ended, thus allowing for the possibility of

      339
      manipulation. The people with whom he is dealing are not like him, or like me: they are people who have spent their lives terrorising the community. I hope that while—presumably—rejecting the amendment, the Minister will tell us that the Government will at least consider the issues again, with a view to acting when the Bill is in another place.
      Mr. Thompson: I support the amendment, and the imposition of a time limit. I understand that the IRA has announced that it has found, or knows the whereabouts of, these bodies, and is not revealing the whereabouts only because it fears that it might be liable to prosecution were it to do so—or that those who carried out the act would be liable to prosecution. The aim of the Bill is to prevent the prosecution of such people, and the prosecution of those who might be prosecuted as a result of evidence obtained from the bodies.
      It seems to me that, if the people concerned know where the bodies are, once the Bill has been passed there is no reason why they cannot immediately say where the bodies are. Therefore, it will be only a short time before it can be discovered whether the IRA's statement is correct. After the bodies are then exhumed or found, there is no necessity for the Bill to continue. If, at a future date, terrorist organisations indicate that they have discovered other bodies, there will be no reason why the Government cannot bring a fresh Bill to the Commons, to be passed just as quickly as, no doubt, the current one will be.
      Of course, I do not expect the Government to agree to that because although de jure, Northern Ireland is governed by the United Kingdom, there is joint authority. Almost all the major decisions that are taken in Northern Ireland have to be agreed and supported by the Republic of Ireland.
      That is confirmed by the agreement that has been reached between the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland. It says:
      "The agreement shall continue in force until terminated by mutual agreement of the two Governments and shall thereafter cease to have effect in so far and to the extent necessary for meeting any liabilities or disposing in an orderly manner of any remaining assets of the commission."
      The Bill says:
      "This section shall cease to have effect at the end of such day as the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland"
      may appoint. The agreement means that termination has to be by mutual agreement. A member of a Government of a foreign state—the Republic of Ireland—has a veto over the affairs of this part of the United Kingdom, contrary to what is mentioned in the Bill. The Minister should perhaps address that point when he comes to the Dispatch Box. I certainly support the amendment.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The debate has been useful. It has teased out some of the issues. The thrust of the debate is that there should be a time limit to concentrate minds.
      I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has said. He mentioned that the clause relates to the Government of the Republic of Ireland as well. That might be one reason why the Minister is not necessarily able today to accede to the
      340
      request by the Conservative party spokesman. It is joint legislation, possibly because, among other reasons, some of the bodies will be found in the Republic itself.
      The Minister is aware that I have been concerned about the matter for some time. For far too long, the terrorist has been playing ducks and drakes with us. Is it possible to know how much money has been spent already? After information was given, for example, in west Belfast that bodies were buried in such-and-such a place, for days, there was a search to try to find them and nothing was uncovered. I understand that it has been alleged that there are bodies in Paris. Has that been followed through?
      It would be much better if the Minister, having listened to the debate, could assure us that the Government will take on board the points that that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has made some accurate observations, just as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has. Together, we might find some way forward that would impose a time limit. That could be done by review after so many months, but it will not be open ended.
      There is an interesting side effect, in that, if anyone is to be brought to justice when a body is discovered and a murder is confirmed with evidence from another source, the longer the process is spun out, the less time the perpetrators will spend inside because, under an earlier agreement, as I understand it, they will have to be released by June next year.
      5 pm
      Mr. Ingram: The debate has centred on the usefulness of the legislation and how we can give it proper effect. Clearly, the Government had to consult the Irish Government on the parallel legislation going through the Dail and to consider the question of time limitation.
      We are faced with the reality alluded to by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), that only nine of "The Disappeared" have been identified. There are certainly more, and it is interesting to note that two of those listed by the IRA were not on the RUC list. There is always a possibility of more names coming forward, and the legislation encourages people to realise that they can provide information, because it offers some limited protection. That helps the victims' families.
      The Bill would be better without a defined time scale because people might not feel ready to admit their crimes by 30 September 1999. People take a bit of time to own up to terrible crimes. People may be prepared to say that they committed murder and know where the bodies are, but that may not happen within the suggested time scale. If we can encourage more co-operation, to help us to discover the names and locations of others who have disappeared, that would be helpful.
      The core of our debate has been about the need to have an element of review in the legislation. It has been argued that, to ensure that it has an effect, the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise it again. In one sense, that is envisaged by the Government in any case, because clause 2(6) says that the two Governments will consider when it is appropriate to terminate the legislation.
      I refer hon. Members to a document that has not yet been mentioned: the agreement signed on 27 April. It is a

      341
      document to the treaty between the two Governments that gives effect to the legislation. Article 3, paragraph 2(c), says that the commission will
      "report on its activities to both Governments no later than one year after its establishment, and annually thereafter."
      We have already taken account of that. Normal practice, given that the commission is to present an annual report to the Government, would be for the Government to communicate that to the House by parliamentary written answer or by some other means. Scrutiny would be allowed in that way.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Minister and I both know that some reports to Government are more sensitive than others. Officials sometimes say that a report is too sensitive to put in the public domain, so at the very least there would be pressure to produce a safer version. If the Minister is making a commitment to publish the report in full and to make his best endeavours, on behalf of Government, to persuade the Leader of the House to have an annual debate on that report, he has moved some way towards what has been urged on him, and that would be helpful.
      Mr. Ingram: I am not taking criticism of this Government for sanitising reports, although that may have been the practice in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the report could include some very sensitive information that it might not be desirable to bring into the public domain in the interests of the victim. We can speculate what that might be, but I would not wish to try to define it because we might enter a debate about whether it would be a real possibility.
      The agreement is an international treaty and contains a commitment for the commission to report to the Government. That is in the public domain. The Government will also be obliged to review the efficacy of the legislation—has it achieved the desired effect and, if so, should it be removed from the statute book—so it will not be retained indefinitely. The report will be considered by the Government and we will be obliged to report to the House. However, I would not wish to give a commitment to a full debate on the issue, because I cannot tell the business managers what to do. As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) knows, Ministers may want time on the Floor of the House, but it is not always easily obtained if other Departments have pressing demands for legislative time.
      We are willing to be open about the issue and to try to observe the sensitivities of the victims, which is the overriding concern.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the Minister give an assurance that one element in the report will be an assessment of whether the provisions in the Bill are still required?
      Mr. Ingram: That is implicit anyway and would be part of the Government's thought process. We would have to take into account what the legislation had achieved. We hope that it achieves early identification—that is why I used the word "urgency" on Second Reading—of the location of the victims' remains. We hope that others will come forward with information on the same basis at an early stage.
      342
      I believe that within a year—probably within an even shorter time—we will have a good idea of whether the Bill has achieved those objectives. We might not have to come to the House with an annual report, because we might be able to tell the House earlier that we had achieved our objectives and the legislation was no longer required. I do not know whether the possibilities will turn into probabilities. The Bill is a new approach for the Government, as was highlighted on Second Reading. It is a departure from the normal process, like the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
      While the commission—which will be the main channel for any information that people might wish to supply—could be disbanded, the remaining provisions need to stay to keep the protections in place in the criminal justice process. I hope that the provisions that facilitate the supply of information will not be required for very long.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I sympathise with what the Minister said about not always getting enough time on the Floor of the House, but Back Benchers get even less. However, I was concerned when he read out the provision that the agreement would be reviewed in a year's time. We are talking about the bodies of those who disappeared before April 1998. If we are really determined to help the relatives, should not the agreement be reviewed, and a report made to Parliament, every six months? That would keep the pressure on.
      The Minister's example was of a person suffering from a guilt-stricken conscience who needed to relieve himself of that guilt. However, no legislation is required for that, and such a person would come forward in due course. If we are trying to maintain pressure on behalf of families who want to bury their loved ones decently and lay them to rest, we must keep up the pressure on the terrorists. I hope that the Minister will consider a requirement—even if it is not in the Bill—that the commission report every six months, rather than every year.
      Mr. Ingram: Even if I were sympathetic to the proposition, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the agreement is an international treaty, for which the time scale of a year was considered a reasonable period. It was not envisaged that it would necessarily run for that period, but it gave us the opportunity to review it annually.
      It would be very difficult to change the agreement. However, my approach would be to ensure that the maximum amount of information possible is placed in the public domain. We have to prove the effectiveness of the Bill in helping the victims, and thereby encourage people to come forward with information about other victims who have not been identified. Therefore, I do not want time scales to be stipulated in the way suggested: I do not think that my thought processes and my approach would be changed as a result.
      In any event, hon. Members have the right to raise questions at any time to determine the Bill's effectiveness. Developments might take place within a week of the Bill being enacted that might invite such questions, and Ministers will be only too ready to respond. We must try to find the best way to communicate the information, rather than impose arbitrary time scales. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, which I hope, given the assurances that I have given, will be withdrawn.
      Mr. William Ross: I listened to what the Minister said with some interest. I was also interested in the time limits

      343
      suggested by the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has expressed his desire for a six-monthly report. I should not be unhappy with any of those proposals.
      5.15 pm
      The Government have made many concessions to the IRA over this matter. They have even allowed the rule of law and evidence to be overthrown—a serious abomination in my view. All the conditions set out by the IRA have been met, and every concession that it has sought has been agreed. What concessions has the IRA made? There has not been a single dotted i or crossed t, merely a few empty words.
      When we are dealing with such people, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) should be listened to. He is a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, who grew up in Northern Ireland although he has been away from the Province for a long time. He set out the position clearly and adequately: we are dealing with people who do not think as ordinary, law-abiding men and women think. They are prepared to use violence and murder to further their ends, and lies fall lightly from their lips.
      The Minister said that he believes that he is giving some concessions in an attempt to deal with the matter in a certain way. However, my problem with subsection (6) is that, far from having to be kept alive in a year—or five, 10 or 50 years—the provision has to be killed in that time. If the Government had followed the path set out by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I should have been content and the amendment probably would not have been tabled. If there had been a provision that an order—preferably one that could be prayed against—would be placed before the House so that the matter could be discussed, I should have been content and said that the Government really were prepared to put some further pressure on the IRA.
      We let the IRA off the hook far too easily every time. The Minister must go further than he has so far. Subsection (6) is not really concerned with the review. It is concerned with keeping the measure alive until an indeterminate date in the future, when it can be killed. I want a provision that the Bill has to be renewed, after discussion in the House.
      Questions to Ministers very often are met with non-answers. We need to be able to ask the Minister exactly what has happened, to secure facts and figures, and to determine whether the IRA is only playing with us or whether it is prepared to come up with the bones of the unfortunate people whom it murdered. Their bones are probably all that is now left of them.
      Can the Minister go further than he has so far? Can he meet a point that enjoys cross-party support? It is evident from what has been said that a genuine concern exists that we are handing the matter to the IRA on a plate. The IRA does not have to give anything in return, and we are making it easy for it to play with us and practise what has
      344
      already been called a cruel deception. We should not do so: we should put pressure on the IRA. Can the Minister go any further?
      Mr. Ingram: I do not think that we are making it easy for the IRA. The hon. Member does not have to take my word for that: he should read the closing Second Reading speeches by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Monday night. They said that there would be no easy publicity for the IRA, which did not win the publicity battle with the announcement that it made, nor with the details announced about the individuals involved.
      I share the views expressed on Monday night that, once the inquest process has been conducted and the information about how people were murdered and their remains disposed of has emerged, the people responsible are unlikely to achieve a publicity coup. However, my opinion is less important than the impact that the Bill will have on the families. Will the Bill help those families? My answer to that question is yes: the approach has been agreed by the two Governments because of the jurisdiction interest that they share in the matter.
      It is important to review the process after a reasonable period, but I do not accept the limit suggested for that period. Again, I ask the hon. Member for East Londonderry to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I listened to what the Minister said, but I am rather disappointed, as I believe that a fair point has been made about the review period. However, I shall read with great care what the Minister has said today. We shall not complete proceedings tonight on the Bill, as it must go to the House of Lords before returning to this House. In the light of that, I shall withdraw the amendment, although I hope to return to the matter if the Bill is not amended in accordance with what has been expressed today.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Bill has been subject to much discussion between the two Governments and within our Government. None of the major decisions was taken arbitrarily or capriciously. There were reasons for each of them in the minds of Ministers and of the officials who advised them. I am happy to accept that without the Minister's having to stress it.
      I was somewhat surprised, however, by the Minister's response to the short debate that we have just concluded. He was not as convincing as he might have been, given the amount of private discussion that must have taken place before the Bill was produced. We are told that nine bodies have been found and that the remains can be identified. Presumably, when the Bill is enacted, that information will be handed over. The longer that it is delayed, the more suspicious people will become that what 1 said earlier may turn out to be true.
      The Minister is right to say that there may be some doubt about some bodies that have not been found. What surprised me was his statement that some people may take time to bring themselves to the point of giving information to the commission. They have had 20 or 30 years to bring themselves to that point, and I am not sure of the added value of another three, six or 12 months.

      345
      The thrust of the Minister's argument was that to give extra time would encourage people. I hope the Committee will forgive me, but my mind went to Treasury matters. I will go home and check this, but my memory suggests that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Inland Revenue, sends me a note about self-assessment on taxation, he does not say, "By the way, Brian, you can have as much time as you like to think about it, because, the longer you have, the more you may be inclined to send me some money." The note in fact names a certain date by which one must pay, and if one does not pay, consequences follow.
      I was surprised by what the Minister said. Will he reflect further on this matter? I do not make a partisan point, and I have tried to show my understanding of the problems with which the Minister must wrestle. However, there is a mood in the Committee that, whether by review or bi-annual or annual debate, the process should not be open ended in the way that the Bill suggests that it might be.
      I ask the Minister to reflect the spirit as well as the substance of this debate to the Secretary of State and other members of the Government. If he does, when the Bill arrives at the other place, that issue can be addressed. I have been a Minister and I appreciate that it is difficult spontaneously to reply to serious and on-going points raised in mid-debate. By the time that the Bill reaches the other place, the Government will have had time fully to consider those points, and I hope that we might then hear a slightly more definitive response from them.
      Mr. William Ross: Anyone who reads the Bill will note that clause 2 deals with the commission. The commission is created as a body corporate, with all the resulting legal capacities. Clause 2(1)(b) will
      "confer on the Commission, in such cases, to such an extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in … the International Organisations Act 1968".
      What sort of modifications do the Government intend? What is the extent of the commission's powers?
      What is meant by paragraph (c), which will
      "confer on members and servants of the Commission and members of their families who form part of their households, in such cases, to such extent and with such modifications as the order may specify, any of the privileges and immunities set out in Parts II, III and V of that Schedule"?
      And what is meant by paragraph (d), which will
      "make provision about the waiver of privileges and immunities"?
      We seem to be setting up a body with a wide range of privileges, immunities and powers. The Committee needs to be told more than the Bill tells us.
      The final sentence of subsection (1) tells us that
      "'servants of the Commission' includes agents of, and persons carrying out work for or giving advice to, the Commission."
      I can think of circumstances in which that provision would have very wide application. The Government must tell us what sort of agents they are considering. Who are they? How will they be chosen? How will they be remunerated? How will persons who carry out the commission's work be chosen, and how will they be paid? What will their duties be? The Bill contains a hedgehog of problems, and we have not been told all that we need to know.
      346
      The order referred to in subsection (1) will make different provisions for different cases, including different provisions for different persons. We seem to be moving towards making different provisions for each individual. That is most unusual. The Minister cannot expect simply to get away with doing that. If he cannot answer these points tonight, we shall have to come back to them on Report. We need to know the position.
      Will the commission be an all-Ireland body? As I recall from the treaty, it could be comprised of as few as two persons, or could seat a good many more. I do not recall whether any upper limit was specified. The Committee would like to know the nature of the commission. Is it a cross-border body or an all-Ireland body? Where will it be based? What sort of people do we seek to serve on it? What premises and equipment are needed? Is it a big operation or a small one?
      The Secretary of State will make various payments. Will the commission be funded by the United Kingdom Exchequer or by the Northern Ireland Office alone? Will it be jointly funded with the Irish Republic as it sits between the two Governments? Who pays? Those questions require answers.
      I assume that the Government have in mind a date on which the Bill can come into effect. When is it? Is it the end of May, June, or July? If there is such a rush to enact the Bill, the Government must have made up their mind on that. When will the commissioners be appointed? When will they start work? Where will their offices be? All those details must have been sorted out, so may we have the answers to our questions?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Ingram: Let me deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on open-endedness. I thought that we had debated that. We have no guarantee that what we would like to happen will happen, but the strong probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to suggest the likely time scale, because that would build up the hopes of the families, which have been built up so many times before and dashed.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about a recent extensive dig in west Belfast. I did not answer his point, but perhaps I should now. I do not have information on the cost, but if remains had been recovered, the cost would have been worth it for that family and for everyone in Northern Ireland because it would have been a release.
      We do not know whether the process will happen, but the probability is that it will, and quickly. I do not want to set a time scale that would terminate it when we might be encouraging information to come forward. I also distinguished between the information that we now have to hand—the nine listed by the IRA—and the five to seven more that may fall in the same category but have not yet been owned up to by any group or individual. We hope that, if the first movement happens, it will encourage others to come forward.
      On what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked, the order-making power is similar to that relating to decommissioning and protects those who carry out the actions on behalf of the two Governments. It can involve small, detailed issues relating to liability to income tax. It can relate to members of those persons'

      347
      families and give immunities against tort. I could go through the whole of part I of schedule 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968. It is possible that not all of that will be required. We do not envisage an international aspect to the commission. It is likely that there will be two commissioners because we have to act quickly. I announced on Monday the name of the commissioner that the British Government will put forward. I understand that the Irish Government are in the process of identifying theirs. The time scale is determined by getting the business through both Houses. On that basis, I cannot say with certainty when it will be activated because the measure has not yet been passed. We have been telling families, and saying publicly, that it will be in a few weeks.
      As I said on Second Reading, I hope that, once the legislation is on the statute book, both here and in the Republic of Ireland, the information will emerge quickly. We are planning for that eventuality. We have also put in place a detailed approach to handling the matter on an inter-agency basis to bring into play all the Departments that may be involved, together with the RUC and the Churches. We anticipate that the Roman Catholic Church will have the main interest. Our detailed and comprehensive approach will mean that everyone is aware of what they have to do so that we can move immediately the information is given.
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Minister has said more than once, both on Second Reading and tonight, that there is no guarantee that information will be forthcoming. Could he share with the Committee any indication that he or other Ministers have had from the IRA that, once the legislation is in place, it will move in a short time scale? He mentioned weeks.
      Mr. Ingram: The British Government have had no contact with the IRA on this issue, which has been handled through an intermediary with the Irish Government. I do not want to divulge or discuss what has passed between two sovereign Governments. I have said that we expect this to happen early, but we are not speaking only to those in the Chamber; our words go elsewhere. I do not want to dash the hopes of families. That is why, when I meet them, I will have to say that we cannot control whether the information that they need will emerge. We hope that it will, which is why we have advanced legislation to encourage it. I do not want raise false hopes on their part, but such hopes are more realistic than any for the past 30 years.
      If the organisation with the information decides not to bring it forward, I know what statements I will make. I am sure that they would be echoed in the Dail and internationally. It is bad enough that the murders were carried out, but to do that to families would be unforgivable. We are not negotiating in the Committee on this. These are sensitive issues. I am encouraged that we have taken the matter down this road. We hope that what we are trying to achieve will be achieved, but, ultimately, it is not in our hands.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause

      ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I voted against Second Reading, not without some doubt because I recognised that the Bill is designed to address a sensitive and real concern, namely the anxiety of those who have lost friends and relatives to know where the latter have been buried. That is an understandable human emotion, with which I have the utmost sympathy.
      Clause 3 lies at the heart of the Bill. If it is too wide or wrong, the Bill is wrong. Its effect is plain. It will prevent any evidence, other than evidence for the defence, being used or admitted in criminal proceedings resulting from the discovery of the remains or the disclosure of the information. We are giving an amnesty in respect of those who have committed murder in circumstances that are covered by the Bill.
      The matter goes perhaps wider than hon. Members fully appreciate. Under clause 3, where a person makes a disclosure that leads to the finding of remains where there is evidence, the evidence, whether from the disclosure or from the remains, is not admissible against the person who made the disclosure. That is clear, but it is also true that the evidence, whether it takes the form of a disclosure or of the remains, is not admissible in other criminal proceedings against third parties who have not themselves been privy to the disclosure. In fact, it goes further than that. The evidence involved in the disclosure or in the remains is not admissible in respect of offences that might be shown not to be related to the discovery of the particular remains. Therefore, if there was evidence arising from the fact of the disclosure or its circumstances, or from the remains, that showed that some third party had committed some other murder—not itself the subject of the disclosure—such evidence would not be admissible either.
      I am bound to say that I am very uneasy about the principle of this amnesty—that is what it is—and, furthermore, about the scope of what is being proposed. Of course, I understand that, in the context of the agreement in Northern Ireland, it is highly desirable to make progress. I understand, too, the natural anxiety on the part of friends and relatives of those people who were murdered to know where they were buried—I began with that point. At the same time, we are entitled to assert a public interest and I am far from clear that, in principle, such a public interest should be granted by the Committee. The question is not so much whether that is right in principle—we could hold different views as to that—but whether it is right at present. I wonder whether the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, especially the IRA, have done enough to justify the granting of an amnesty of this kind—even assuming that an amnesty should be allowed in principle, if the agreement were making progress. I do not think that that is the case.
      I am someone who has supported the Northern Ireland agreement; I have defended the release of prisoners—sometimes against the views of members of my Front Bench; I have accepted that decommissioning was not an explicit condition precedent of the agreement and I have defended that position. However, the point has now been

      349
      reached when the House of Commons must stand back and ask how much further progress it is proper to make without substantial movement by the IRA or associated terrorist organisations. No explosives or weapons have been delivered. More than 50 per cent. of the prisoners have been released, but we have seen nothing more substantial than a partial cessation of violence. The time has come to say, "No more", until many more positive steps are taken by the IRA. Until there is substantial decommissioning and a total cessation of violence in Northern Ireland on the part of the terrorist organisations, especially the IRA, we should not push forward the peace process. In particular, we should not push forward the amnesty contained in the measure before us today.
      Dr. Godman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the clause offers an amnesty to killers. A friend in Northern Ireland suggested to me that that was an unintentional consequence of the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present earlier when I said that our overriding concern must be to meet and honour our obligations to the families of the victims.
      In my brief intervention in this clause stand part debate, I have one question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Allegations have been made that there may be a body in Scotland. If such a body were uncovered there, would the measure be appropriate in relation to Scots law?
      The Chairman: I call Mr. John McFall. I apologise to the Minister; I thought that he wanted to speak. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was slightly at deep fine leg and I did not quite see him. I call Sir Brian Mawhinney.
      5.45 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before the Minister addresses the points that have been raised during the debate, will he explain in some detail what is meant by subsection (2) of the clause? If I understand the measure correctly, it states that
      "relevant information provided to the Commission"
      cannot be used in evidence against an individual, but that such information can be used in the defence of an individual. I am not at all clear how it is that the defence of an individual comes to know that the commission has relevant information in the first place. Furthermore, I note in subsection (1)(b) that
      "any evidence obtained (directly or indirectly)"—
      presumably by the person to whom the body or the remains are handed over, as provided for in clause 4—cannot be used against an individual. However, the evidence can be used in defence of an individual. I do not understand how the defence is supposed to know how to obtain that information, or even how it could know what information exists.
      Clause 4, which we shall debate in due course, is the part of the Bill that tells everyone, in legal language, that the only thing that can be done in carrying out tests on bodies is to identify the body. One can only identify who the person was so that the remains can be linked up with the family. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, why does he think that it is not acceptable for information to be used against someone, but that the playing field is not level because it is acceptable for the information to be used in defence? Secondly, and much more
      350
      intriguingly, how is the defence supposed to know that such information exists, bearing in mind especially that clause 4 states what the examination of bodies cannot do? What can the defence lay its hands on? For example, is it able to obtain information that may come to light under tests covered by clause 4, even though that information cannot be used more generally?
      Mr. Hogg: I invite my right hon. Friend to put a different question to the Minister. What is the position if someone who has previously been convicted of a murder, but asserts that he or she is not guilty of that murder, believes that the forensic evidence on the body might prove his or her innocence? That person is not an accused, because he or she has already been convicted. Can that person use the now-to-be-discovered evidence to prove his or her innocence under a subsequent review or on appeal?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I could not even put the question as well as my right hon. and learned Friend, much less put it better, so I will allow his question to come, as it were, from my mouth.
      I have one final question. Given that the tests described in the measure are permitted to be used for the defence of individuals, does that mean that an individual's defence team can require certain tests to be carried out on remains, on the ground that the information obtained might be useful for the defence, even though clause 4 suggests that such tests would be prohibited in the first place because they go beyond the scope of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will able to answer those questions in detail and with clarity.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): I shall try as best I can to answer the points that have been made. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will recall that the Conservative Government passed the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. He was a member of that Government and did not vote against the measure. Section 4 of that Act contained an amnesty. The Minister of State at the time, Sir John Wheeler, said that any evidence or information adduced as a result of information given to the commission could not be used in criminal proceedings and that, if there was any information or evidence not gained in that way, that could be used. It is not an easy pill to swallow, but it is for those reasons that we have provided that those who come to the commission with information will not be disadvantaged as a result of coming forward with that information; if we did not, the information would not be forthcoming.
      Mr. Hogg: I understand that point, and it is perfectly fair as far as it goes, but I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making a further observation. If real progress were being made within the peace progress, I would understand that we have to swallow pills that are profoundly disagreeable to swallow. However, if the time comes when one party—in this case, the IRA—has not made what Parliament believes is a sufficient contribution to the peace process by decommissioning, why should Parliament agree to swallow the pill?
      Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman is also a learned Gentleman and he is cleverly trying to take me

      351
      away from the issues contained in the clause, but I shall not budge. However, on the matter of the bitter pill, it is the fervent hope of both the Government and Parliament that progress has been made, and we legislate in that fervent hope. As I said on Second Reading, at the end of the day, we are doing this for the sake of the families.
      The clause relates to the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall that the provision is included to ensure that information is forthcoming. The information given to the commission and evidence obtained as a result will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. That is central to the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission.
      However, subsection (2) ensures that information given to the commission can be adduced when it would be of assistance to a defendant in criminal proceedings. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked about that provision, which must be seen in the context of ensuring that no one is disadvantaged. An example might be a case in which an individual has confessed to a crime, but his defence is that he was not in fact responsible for it: he might have confessed to carrying out the killing in a certain way, but the evidence is such that the victim could not have died in that way. It would be wrong to prevent an individual from adducing those facts.
      The right hon. Gentleman asks how a defence lawyer can know those facts, and that same question crossed my mind when I first read the Bill. The answer is that the commission will receive information and it will then pass that information to the police—the RUC or the Garda. If the police are in possession of information supplied to them by the commission, or of evidence found as a result of a search that would assist the defendant, they are under a duty to make that information or evidence known to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP would inform the defence, who would then be able to request sight of the relevant material.
      Mr. Hogg: May I put the following point, which relates to clauses 3 and 4, to the Minister? He is, in effect, saying that the prosecution authorities might have in their possession information that they are under a duty to disclose to the defence. However, a case might arise in which the defendant believes that forensic examination of, say, a bullet found in the body of the deceased would prove that it could not have been fired from the gun in the possession of the accused. As I read the legislation as it stands, there is no power on the part of the defendant to insist—whether by court order or otherwise—that the bullet be made the subject of forensic examination. Therefore, my question to the Minister is whether we should, either at this juncture or subsequently, amend the Bill so that there is a power to enable the defendant who believes that forensic evidence would be forthcoming from the bullet to apply to the court for the bullet to be tested.
      Mr. McFall: No one has been charged with or made answerable for the crimes to which the Bill relates. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that these issues cause us to stray into
      352
      clause 4, which deals with forensic testing, and I shall deal with those matters when we debate clause 4. In brief, the coroner has responsibilities in that respect and evidence that has come to light through forensic testing will not be shared, but will remain the responsibility of the coroner. I shall elaborate on that later.
      Mr. William Ross: I tried to table one or two amendments on this part of the Bill, but unfortunately they fell outside the rules. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has made me look again at the clause, and I think that he is perfectly correct when he draws attention to the fact that it goes far wider than a layman like myself would think on reading it.
      The clause states that certain information and evidence
      "shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings".
      It would be one thing if that statement continued with the words "related to that death", but it does not and so covers any criminal proceedings whatsoever. The Government must go away, examine that clause extremely carefully and try to narrow it to cover only criminal proceedings relating to the death in question.
      Mr. McFall: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the provision has been trawled over. The same principles were enshrined in the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, for the reason that information had to be forthcoming. The belief is sincerely held that, if information is to be forthcoming, we have to formulate the legislation in a certain way, and clause 3 reflects that. The clause is simple: subsection (1)(a) relates to evidence that is provided, subsection (1)(b) to evidence that comes to light and subsection (2) states that that evidence will be inadmissible. It is all based on the principle that information must be forthcoming.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for the start that he has made on answering the questions that I put to him. If I understand him correctly, the answer to my question of how the defence gets to know of the information is that the commission has to tell the police, the police have to tell the DPP and the DPP has to make the information available to the defendant. May I ask the Minister a straightforward, uncomplicated question? Which line or clause in the Bill requires the commission to give information to the police; and is that an unfettered requirement or a fettered one? I do not see such a provision in the Bill, but, if it is absolutely central to the Minister's answer to my question, he is starting to lose me and, I suspect, the rest of the Committee.
      Mr. McFall: The last thing we want is what should be a serious debate turning into a smart-aleck contest or an academic exercise. Clause 2 relates to the commission and the appointment of commissioners and the explanatory notes refer to provision being made for the commission. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that, if information is provided to the commission, it will be passed on.
      6 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The smart-aleck remark was untypically ungracious of the Minister. The Bill sets up a commission—we are agreed on that. The Minister has told

      353
      me that the commission must give the information to the police. That is how clause 3(2) will work. I am asking a simple question; I am not interested in the explanatory notes because they are not before the Committee. I am not trying to be a smart aleck. We are establishing a commission that must give information to the police if clause 3(2) is to work. I want to know which part of the Bill requires the commission to give that information to the police. That is a perfectly straightforward question, which follows from the Minister's comments. I am not trying to be a smart aleck or to debate the issue; I am simply requesting some information.
      Mr. McFall: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that we did not want to stray into smart-aleck comments, but I did not mean to implicate the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 3(1)(a) refers to any relevant information provided to the commission. The explanatory notes point out that the clause contains the first key protection for relevant information provided to the commission. It provides that information shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings and extends the bar on admissibility to evidence that comes to light as a result of that information being provided. The commission receives the information, which it then passes on.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that point. Having followed all the correct procedures, the commission will receive the information—I have no difficulty with that. However, the Committee has been told that, if clause 3(2) is to work and the defence is to be able to use the commission's information, the commission has to give the information to the police, who then have to give it to the DPP, who then has to provide it to the defence. I do not see the "has to" bit in the legislation. I understand that that is the mechanism, but I ask the Minister whether he has legislated to that effect.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I appeal to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) to keep his interventions brief. They are far too long.
      Mr. McFall: Let us take it to the nth degree. The right hon. Gentleman cannot find the "has to" aspect of the legislation, but I urge him to appreciate the intent of the legislation. We are seeking to establish a commission whose function is to facilitate the location of remains. We have given a commitment that that information will be given to the police, who have a general duty to pass it on if necessary. That is the Bill's intention and the Government have given that commitment at the Dispatch Box. It would be very silly to establish a commission but not require the commissioner to pass on any information when the intention of the Bill is to gather information and locate the bodies.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but he has not yet answered the questions fully. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that. We agree that, as there will be an amnesty, the accused must have access to information that provides a defence. However, there is a problem in relating clause 3(2) to clause 4.
      354
      The forensic evidence found with the remains might provide a defence, but the accused will not know that unless he can cause what is found to be examined. Clause 4 prohibits that. Therefore, will the Minister contemplate giving the accused the right to apply to the court to disapply the prohibition in clause 4 regarding examination so as to enable the accused to use forensic evidence in his defence as clause 3(2) of the Bill provides?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the Minister replies, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to keep their interventions brief.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I do not disagree in any way with your ruling; I simply seek your guidance. Do we have the right to rise again at this stage in the Committee's considerations?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. and learned Member may be called to speak again. I would prefer it if he sought to catch my eye.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin.
      Mr. McFall: I have forgotten the question. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the passage of information. There is a general duty to pass information about the commission of a crime to the police under the Criminal Law Act 1967, and that duty will also apply to the commissioners.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about clauses 3 and 4. If I do not answer his question fully now, I shall return to it when we consider clause 4. He asked whether the accused may seek forensic testing in his defence. There is no ban on testing during the inquest, which may determine how, when and where a person died. As we said on Second Reading, that process will be on the public record. The coroner will hear evidence in public and the defence will know if relevant information is disclosed at an inquest. The inquest verdict and forensic testing may play an essential role in the process and, like all inquest verdicts, they will be a matter of public record. We made that very clear on Second Reading.
      The clause has three relatively simple intentions, and I hope that I have answered the questions about it.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press this point. There is always a risk that one will press a point that is not of real substance, but I believe that this is a substantial issue. In any event, the Minister can seek the views of his advisers. As I have said, I oppose the amnesty. However, we are dealing with the Bill before us, which provides for an amnesty. I am aware that the clause will be passed, so we must try to make it as effective as possible.
      Let us assume that clause 3(2) will be part of the Bill as enacted. I agree that, if we are to proceed in this way, the accused must be able to use the evidence discovered as a result of disclosure of the remains in order to further his defence. However, that information may include forensic material that is discovered from, within or with the remains—for example, a bullet. We might then be able to identify the gun from which that bullet was fired.
      The problem is that clause 4, which relates inevitably to clause 3(2), prohibits the examination of the remains. The commission may discover material and inform the

      355
      prosecution authorities who, in due course, will inform the defence. However, unless some provision enables the defence—or the prosecution, for that matter—to subject the bullet, for example, to forensic examination, no one will know whether it will advance the cause of the defence. I suggest that the accused who wants to use the material in the circumstances postulated by clause 3(2) should have the power to apply to the court for an order allowing the remains or what is found with them to be examined in circumstances otherwise prohibited by clause 4 in order to form a view on whether the material is helpful to the defence and, if so, to use it.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My distaste for clause 3 is not as great as that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but, as I have already demonstrated, I am not much impressed by the clause. I take his view that, if we are to have this clause, we ought at least to get it right so that it works.
      The Minister has been advised that there is a general law that covers the commission. I am not entirely clear about the consequences that flow from that. First, that body is, by definition, different from others because it is being set up by statute under an international agreement. It would be helpful if the Minister agreed to place in the Library legal advice that demonstrated that such a body, set up out of an international agreement relating to two jurisdictions, not just that of the United Kingdom, is covered by UK law. The Minister told us that it is covered by UK law, but I am not sure that, prima facie, it necessarily is, so it would be helpful to have access to the legal advice on that.
      I do not want to take the Minister through all of his earlier reply, but he said that the commission was required to notify the police and then expanded that by saying that the police were to be notified that a crime had been committed. I hope that the commission is required to notify the police of such a crime. Bearing in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said and what I said earlier about clause 4, it is not clear from the Bill what the commission will tell the police about the fact that a crime has been committed.
      I follow the legal requirement on the police to give that information to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who then has to pass it on to the defence in the case. That seems to be normal procedure. However, what will the DPP tell the defence? He cannot tell them about any forensic testing, because that is prohibited under clause 4. My right hon. and learned Friend has suggested that the Bill should make it clear that the defence could request, through the court, certain tests to be taken, but if he is right—I think that he is, because he has forgotten more about the law than I have ever known—the Bill's logic contains a lacuna.
      When the Minister responds to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, will he explain in more detail what evidence the commission is required to give the police that might be helpful to the defendant? The answer to that question is, to state it in generous terms, simply not clear from the Bill.
      Mr. McFall: I shall try my best to respond to those points. First, the right hon. Member for North-West
      356
      Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) referred to legal advice; he does not accept at face value what the Bill says about that. I shall do my best to ensure that information is placed in the Library.
      There was an intensity to the right hon. Gentleman's question about evidence given to the commission. The commission is being established to locate the remains of bodies, and any information given to the commissioners through facilitators will be passed on to the police. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, who has a distinguished public service record, to serve as a commissioner. It is not for me to second-guess every piece of information that he will receive. The right hon. Gentleman should be assured that such an eminent individual will use the sensitive information that he receives in the proper way when passing it on to the Garda and the police. The Bill simply establishes that flow of information.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Thompson: On what grounds will the commission supply information to the police? Clause 5 states:
      "No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person".
      Surely that prevents the commission from giving information to the police.
      Furthermore, the Minister mentioned the appointment of one commissioner. Will there be only one commissioner, or will another be appointed, from the Republic of Ireland?
      Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the proceedings, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned that there would be two commissioners: one, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, will be from Northern Ireland and one, who has still to be announced, will be from the Republic of Ireland.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the information that the commissioner will have. We are only passing the legislation at the moment, so I cannot give him an insight into that.
      Mr. Thompson: I am asking where in the legislation it states that it is incumbent on the commission to supply any information that it has to the police, because clause 5 says:
      "No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person"
      except in special circumstances, but it does not mention the police.
      Mr. McFall: It is implicit in the Bill that the information provided to the commissioners has been provided to ensure the location of remains. That would be relevant information—we have given a definition of that term—that would be passed on by the commissioners. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give him any insight into the nature of the information.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked whether a bullet could be subject to forensic testing and whether a defendant could request forensic testing as part of his defence. The answer is no. Defendants cannot have their own forensic tests carried out, as clause 4 states. I am aware that I am

      357
      in danger, Mr. Martin, of jumping to clause 4 or clause 5, and I realise that we are dealing with clause 3, but I have been asked questions about clause 4, so I ask you to bear with me.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McFall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me the opportunity to answer his question? Defendants cannot carry out their own forensic tests, but they can use the results of tests conducted for the inquest. That may be helpful to their defence and, under clause 3(2), they can adduce that information.
      Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister not realise that the ability of the accused to use that information under clause 3(2) may be nugatory unless the accused has the right to require testing, because the material that is obtained in the course of the inquest may be wholly different from the evidence that the defence may want to call if it is to benefit from the provision in clause 3(2)? I therefore suggest to the Minister that he reflect on the clause and work out whether, to make clause 3(2) effective, it would be right to enable the accused to apply to the court for an appropriate order allowing that testing.
      Mr. McFall: Again, we are getting on to clause 4. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads clause 4(1), he will find the six conditions in paragraphs (a) to (f) under which forensic testing is not allowed by anyone except, as subsection (2) states, the coroner. The coroner will make that information public. The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no, because forensic testing on the part of the defendant is ruled out in clause 4(1)(a) to (f).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      RESTRICTIONS ON FORENSIC TESTING
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from 'person' to end.
      On the face of it, the amendment looks very simple, as all amendments do. The Committee can get the flavour of it by looking at subsection (2), which states:
      "Subsection (1) 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."
      When I read the clause, I must confess that I thought that it would be a good idea to take all of it out of the Bill. Unfortunately, amendment No. 14 did not find favour. Amendment No. 2—which was selected presumably because it was the only one of my amendments to clause 4 which fell within order—draws attention to the fact that subsection (2) seems to contradict earlier parts of the clause.
      Subsection (1) says:
      "the Commission shall not carry out, or cause or permit anyone else to carry out, a test or procedure in relation to the item the purpose of which is—
      (a) to discover information about anything done to any person".
      358
      Surely, finding out, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a person and how, when and where he died flies straight in the face of such a provision. There seems to be a contradiction, which must be resolved.
      The clause allows tests and procedures to discover how, when and where a person died. Once one has discovered where the person died, one might have some idea who was responsible for his death or where he had been tortured. If bones were broken or fingers cut off, which is not unlikely, one would certainly have some understanding of the suffering before the murder. Yet we are told that we are not supposed to know such things. How is the contradiction to be resolved?
      The other interesting matter is that subsection (1) is all about discovering what has happened to the individual:
      "to discover who has been in contact with, or near to, any person or item;
      to discover where any person or item was at any time (including the conditions under which he or it was kept)",
      which would include where the deceased was imprisoned, perhaps for some time. The subsection prohibits tests
      "to discover when any person or item was in contract with, or near to, a particular person",
      which I would have thought would be very useful knowledge if one were to try to prosecute someone for the murder of an important individual. The subsection prohibits tests to discover
      "when he or it was in a particular place or kept under particular conditions"—
      in other words, what sort of imprisonment the individual suffered. A test or procedure cannot be carried out
      "to discover when or where any item was made".
      We know that terrorist organisations manufacture certain items for use in their terrorist campaigns, and something like that could be of great use to the prosecution. We are also prohibited from carrying out tests
      "to discover the composition of any item."
      I have a problem: I want the Government to tell me how they will square knowledge of what is done to a person—the torture or murder—with the scope of subsection ((2). Clearly, the only tests that could be in keeping with subsection (1)(a) are those that will identify the victim. Any other information could be used to prosecute. The Government have clearly decided to avoid that. How on earth are they to resolve that conundrum?
      It is clear to anyone who reads the Bill that the Government have done some deal with the IRA to avoid its members being brought before courts and charged with torture and murder. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary gives his assent to that remark. The Bill was a consequence of discussions with the IRA, which surfaced fully only on 29 March.
      In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who asked about the deal with the IRA and the guarantee for bodies, the Under-Secretary said:
      "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 have responded. We are legislating on the basis of that information in the sincere hope that the agony of the families will end."—[Official Report, 10 May 1999;Vol.331,c.77.]
      Clearly, the Government are saying, "Yes, we believe that there is a hard case and therefore we must make the law fit the line," to which, as I have already said, I object.

      359
      There was a deal, and contact, either directly or at arm's length, was made with the IRA. The IRA gave certain guarantees, which it has not as yet fulfilled—in this or any other piece of legislation that has been drafted to placate it. The Bill flows directly from the commitments given.
      I am also somewhat intrigued by the fact that there is no clause to limit the Bill's powers.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that we are considering not the Bill in its entirety, just his amendment.
      Mr. Ross: If you had just held your hand for a moment, Mr. Martin, you would have realised that I will be staying completely in order. I was simply referring to the absence of a clause that we normally find in Bills that deal with Northern Ireland or a specific region of the United Kingdom. Normally, there is a clause stating that the Bill extends only to Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and Wales. No such clause appears in this Bill and, therefore, this is not a Northern Ireland Bill, but a United Kingdom Bill. Different laws govern inquests throughout the United Kingdom; they are not, as far as I am aware, wholly alike.
      I therefore wonder how a clause will operate when, for example, a body is found in Scotland. Allegations were made at one stage that bodies may have been buried in France. We know that the IRA was active on the continent. There could be a body buried in Germany. Suppose some poor fellow is buried in Germany or France, will this proposed law apply there? Does it apply throughout the United Kingdom? Are the Home Secretary and the Secretary of state for Scotland aboard? Are the new Scottish and Welsh governing bodies aboard? There is a very serious question to be asked on the Bill's extent.
      If individuals are found elsewhere, would the authorities that normally investigate a murder—it may have been committed in their territory or a body may have been transported there illegally—such as the police and coroners be free to do so? Such questions must be explored. As the Minister said, the Bill's provisions are implicit. I await answers that defend them.
      6.30 pm
      Dr. Godman: I do not believe that the amendment is very appropriate. Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I am not a lawyer, Scottish or English, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to confirm that subsection (1) does not in any way restrict the comprehensiveness of a post-mortem or an inquest held in any of our jurisdictions.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is right in one regard. If we are talking about the United Kingdom, we must talk in terms of its different legal systems. Scottish procedures are different from those that pertain in England. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will forgive me, but an allegation was made that a body or a couple of bodies might have been buried outwith Northern Ireland—perhaps in Scotland. I received an assurance from my hon. Friend that every means would be sought to co-operate with the Scottish authorities. I simply ask him to place on the record that no attempt will be made to restrict in any way the holding
      360
      of an inquest, or an examination carried out by a pathologist. I believe that subsection (1) confirms that that will be the case.
      Mr. Öpik: It seems to me that the result of the amendment, with the consequent prohibition on testing, would be that any inquest would be kept open due to lack of evidence. I look to the Minister for guidance on that, but, having listened to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has said, I believe that the amendment would lead to an outcome rather different from that which he intends.
      Mr. McFall: I shall focus on amendment No. 2, and then perhaps any other points can be taken up in the stand part debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked about the situation in Scotland. That is linked to the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised when he asked what would happen if a body was found in Germany. If a body is found in Scotland or England, clause 4 will apply, but if it is found in Germany, it will not apply.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde can see that clause 4(1) provides that there would be restrictions on the actions of people other than the coroner at the inquest, but that subsection (2) contains a qualification to or exemption from that restriction at the inquest.
      I believe that at Second Reading we made things reasonably clear when we said that there would be a full examination as to how, when and where the person died and that it would be a public matter, so there would be no inhibition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will accept that point.
      The amendment would mean that forensic testing, as part of the inquest process, would have to stop at identifying the person. That is a limitation that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is introducing. In other words, he is negating the effect of subsection (2). As a result, tests to establish how the person died and where that happened would not be possible. I do not consider that that would be in the interests of the families, as a coroner has an important role to play with the families by providing reassurance. I know from meetings and contacts that I have had with several coroners in Northern Ireland that the emphasis is placed on the family concerned. I therefore believe that the amendment would place a limitation on their work, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
      I can assure the hon. Member for East Londonderry that the Bill does nothing to affect a normal inquest process. As I said, that is the aim of subsection (2). If the amendment were made, the circumstances in which a person died would not be discovered by forensic testing, and that would be unacceptable for the families. I assume that the hon. Member for East Londonderry is seeking an assurance from the Government that the Bill does nothing to prevent an inquest from taking its usual course. I can unequivocally provide him with that assurance, if that is what he wants.
      Mr. William Ross: In light of the Minister's assurance, and in the hope that we may return to the subject, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to return to the matter that I have already ventilated, but the Minister did say that the points that I raised on clause 3 stand part might be discussed properly—and perhaps even more relevantly—on clause 4 stand part, so I will trouble the Committee on the matter.
      We must return to clause 3. As the Committee knows, I am—broadly speaking—against the amnesty, for that is what the Bill provides. We have already had this exchange, but whether it is an amnesty or not, clause 3(2) provides for a relaxation in its application. I agree with that purpose. It is obviously right that an accused person should be able to use forensic material discovered from the remains, or associated with them, for the purpose of his or her defence. So far, so good.
      The problem is that there is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from a court an order—
      Mr. McFall indicated assent.
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister is agreeing with me. There is nothing in the Bill that enables an accused person to obtain from the court an order which enables that accused person to have the relevant material subjected to forensic testing. Indeed, clause 4 prohibits that very act.
      As a result, an accused person who believes that, within the remains or associated with the remains, there is forensic evidence that will avail the defence, will be unable to subject the relevant material to forensic testing. That being so, the right conferred by clause 3(2) is nugatory. We have given people a right that they cannot enforce. That is dotty.
      Unless I have misunderstood the position, the proper way to proceed is to enlarge the disapplying provision contained in clause 4(2), because at present the ability to carry out tests is confined to the coroner within the inquest. We could very well enlarge subsection (2) so that a test may be carried out on the authority of a court, making an order on the application of an accused person.
      I am not asking the Minister to give an undertaking here and now—of course he will not do so—but I am asking him to reflect on my suggestion with a view to tabling amendments in another place if he agrees with me.
      The matter actually goes a little further than that which I have suggested. I believe that the logic of what I have suggested with regard to an accused person is impeccable, but another situation might arise. A person who is an appellant, or who is seeking a review of a case, may believe that the forensic evidence associated with the remains would enable him or her to get a previous conviction quashed, either by a reference to the Court of Appeal or by some form of review. I should like to think that the Minister would agree to enable an appellant—and therefore, as the case is concluded, probably not an accused person for the purposes of the Bill—to go to a court, probably the Court of Appeal, for an order allowing the forensic material to be the subject of testing.
      362
      That is my suggestion. I do not expect the Minister to say yea or nay now. That would be an absurd proposition, as the point is complicated. However, I hope and expect that he will reflect on the matter and, if he sees substance in my argument, that he will move an amendment on another occasion and probably in another place.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to seek further clarification. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was concerned about protection for the accused. I am looking at the other side of the matter.
      We have been told that the measure does not provide an amnesty. Can the Minister give us guidance? If the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have information that a certain person may have been involved in the death of a body that has been discovered, and in the course of the inquest evidence is produced that ties the event to a particular time and place, can the prosecution use that evidence, or does the measure make it impossible for information that comes from an inquest, not from forensic testing by a prosecuting authority, to be used in prosecutions?
      Mr. McFall: Substantive points have been made in the debate, and I shall try to answer them.
      I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I shall try to clarify the Government's intent in the Bill. We are dealing with relevant information provided to a commissioner. The information will be passed to the police or Garda, and an inquest will take place. We have given protection for information that comes forward. Only the coroner will be able to test how, where and when a person died and put that on the public record. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and I shall reflect on it, but I see an illogicality in his proposition concerning the Bill's intent.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about information forthcoming. With regard to criminal admissibility, once the information that the coroner has is on the public record as a result of an inquest, it can be used by anyone.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that information. If there was no criminal prosecution by the Crown, would the evidence be available for a civil case?
      Mr. McFall: Yes. The information would be a matter of public record. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
      There have been some comments on the coroner's role, and it might be helpful if I described it. The coroner has powers derived from the Coroners (Northern Ireland) Act 1959. He has a duty to hold an inquest if a body found in his jurisdiction has died in suspicious circumstances. That information will have been provided by the relevant police authorities, who inform the coroner where the body is. The coroner directs the police to take possession of the body and orders a post-mortem.
      Paragraphs (a) to (f) in clause 4(1) provide that no one else—for example, a state pathologist—goes into the detail of how, when and where a person died. It is for the coroner to do that. The state pathologist carries out the post-mortem and sends the report to the coroner,

      363
      who arranges for a hearing. The coroner can summon anyone as a witness, other than a person alleged to have caused a death.
      The coroner's duty is to make a finding concerning the identity of the body and how, when and where the person died. To that end, he calls the police, the pathologist and family members. The coroner's role vis-a-vis the family is obviously sensitive. Anyone who is likely to be able to give evidence that bears on who the person was and where and when he or she died can be called.
      The proceedings are entirely a matter for the coroner. He has complete control. His court is a civil court. The ordinary rules of procedure apply regarding evidence given orally or by lay document. The post-mortem report will usually be read out in open court and questions put to the pathologist. After the hearing of all the evidence, the coroner will make a finding as to the identity of the body and when, where and how the person died. That will be made public.
      The question was asked whether information made public after an inquest could be used in criminal proceedings. That can be done only by the defence, not by the prosecution.
      Like clause 3, clause 4 is an essential element of the Bill to ensure that information is forthcoming to the commission. The construction of the clause is similar to the equivalent provision in the decommissioning legislation, as I mentioned. Subsection (2) provides that forensic testing for the purpose of the inquest is allowed. The inquest tests may determine the identity of the deceased, and how, when and where he or she died. Subsection (1) provides that testing for other purposes is not allowed. The other purposes are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f). Subsection (3) allows an item to be tested to determine whether it can be safely removed.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: This will be my final intervention on the point, as I do not seem to have persuaded the Minister as much as I would like. We must focus a little more closely on what is suggested.
      Our purpose in the Bill—much as I disagree with most of it—is to enable an accused person to defend himself or herself by relying on the forensic evidence. However, his or her ability to do that may depend on an ability to test the forensic evidence. That ability is restricted by clause 4, subject to the inquest procedure. The inquest procedure is contained in subsection (2).
      The purpose of an inquest, at least in the present context, is to identify the deceased person and how, when and where he or she died. It is not the purpose of the inquest to identify the killer or to examine the weapon—in this case, the bullet—used. Under the subsection (2) powers, the coroner will not test, for example, the bullet to identify the gun from which it came, but that precise piece of information may be critical to a defendant—an accused—or to an appellant, and it will be denied to him or her because of the provisions of clause 4.
      I am trying to persuade the Government that if it is right to give an accused person the ability to rely on the forensic material, it must be right to give to the accused
      364
      person a right to apply to the court to have the material tested; otherwise it is nugatory. I am asking the Minister to understand that and to reflect on it.
      Mr. McFall: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has made the same point nine or 10 times. It usually takes me two or three times to understand. I have had seven extra opportunities, and I really do understand. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the issue from our point of view. He wants to extend the forensic testing. He wants to make it open season not just for the defence, but for the prosecution.
      The fact of the matter is as laid down in the Bill—there are defined limits to that information, for very good reasons. I come back to the point that relevant information provided to the commissioner is passed on for the simple purpose of locating a body. I well understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reflect on it, but I think that he understands where I am coming from on that issue.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Dr. Godman: I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State my view on the relationship of subsection (2) to subsection (1). I am running the risk of sounding heavy handed in respect of the commissioners, but the provision of information to members of a victim's family must be treated with extreme sensitivity. Subsection (2) states:
      "Subsection (1) does not prohibit the disclosure to members of a victim's family of—
      (a) the fact that relevant information has been provided to the Commission".
      I have no quarrel with that, but it adds:
      "(b) the place where, according to the information, the victim's remains may be found."
      A number of Northern Ireland Members have made the point that the IRA is more than capable of supplying disinformation in such matters. The subsection refers to where
      "the victim's remains may be found."
      It is important that the disclosure of such information is handled with sensitivity so that the hopes of a victim's family are not dashed because the remains of their loved one are not found where the information claimed that they were located.
      The families have a right to such information—that goes without saying—but this whole question must be handled with extreme sensitivity in case the IRA gets up to its vicious games of disinformation. I make that plea to my right hon. Friend on the issue of the location of victims' remains.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because I raised it earlier. The Minister said that the money will have been well spent if

      365
      a body is found, but the harsh reality is that money could be wasted. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that a relative's expectations that a victim's body has been found may be raised, and such information should not be released until we are sure of a body's location.
      Dr. Godman: My concern, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the interests of the families are not damaged. To my mind, the question of cost—speaking as a Back Bencher, not as a Minister—is inappropriate, if not irrelevant, in such cases. I agree with him that, if the family can be contacted only when the evidence is definitive concerning the location of their loved one—
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he may wish to consider a point arising from that. Clause 5 states:
      "No relevant information provided to the Commission shall be disclosed to any person",
      but we should project that proviso to a situation in which information is provided on which action is taken, only to discover that it is inaccurate. Are we not to be told, as members of the public, that the very families for whom the Bill is designed—so we are told—are being held to ransom by the tendering of false information?
      Dr. Godman: That is a fair comment. Given the terrible suffering of the families over many years, they may be willing to gamble, but let me give the hon. Gentleman an example.
      I spoke to a young woman whose father was abducted in Crossmaglen. His car was found south of the border. That young woman told me that neither she nor anyone else in her family has any idea of where her father's body may lie. My suggestion may be entirely inappropriate, but might not it be better to contact the family once the body has been found? That may be difficult—after a few years, the identity of a body may require verification, perhaps through personal possessions such as a wedding ring or a wallet found on it—but, in my view, the family could best be approached when verification was sought through personal possessions found on or near to a body.
      I know that my right hon. Friend will take my views on board as a genuine attempt to help the families in such circumstances. We must avoid, at all times, the raising of their expectations only for them to be dashed by the authorities themselves.
      Mr. Hogg: I should like to explore with the Minister the exact extent of the prohibition on the disclosure of information. I go back to the point on which I have already addressed the Committee—on eight or nine occasions, according to the Under-Secretary. He was exaggerating a trifle, but no matter.
      If we are to have such a procedure, we must safeguard the right of the accused. In the early part of the debate, the Under-Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that the commission would pass information on to the police, or to the prosecution authorities, who would communicate that information to the defence, if they believed that it was of value to the defence.
      I want to be absolutely certain that nothing in clause 5 prohibits the process of communication between the commission, the prosecution and the police, and
      366
      subsequently to an accused person or to an accused person's lawyers. I am perfectly well aware that the phrase "relevant information" is narrowly defined in clause 1(3). On one interpretation of clause 5, there is nothing to prevent the commission from communicating information to the prosecution authorities—whether they be the police or the prosecution services—and thereafter to the defence, if that material is helpful to the defence.
      That is a perfectly proper interpretation of clause 5, but there is another: the commission cannot communicate information to the police or to the prosecution services other than for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains. I suspect that that is the wrong interpretation, but we need the Minister's guidance. We want the commission to be able to give more information than that.
      7 pm>
      If the Under-Secretary's assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is to have any value, the commission must be able to communicate to the prosecution authorities, and then to the defence, material that may be helpful to the defence in asserting the defence. We must be sure that nothing in clause 5 prohibits that. I do not think that there is anything, but we need a specific assurance on that point.
      Mr.Öpik: I am surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern, because the Bill is clear cut. I am not sure why he is concerned because, having read the Bill, I am not. I have tried to understand his concern, as he has expressed it repeatedly. The Bill seems pretty self-explanatory, but then I am not a lawyer.
      I slightly take issue with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). The important point is that, if I were in the position of the families of "The Disappeared", I would want to know that information had been disclosed which could lead to the discovery of a body, even if eventually that hope were dashed. I would feel robbed of that hope if I were not given that information. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point, and it is difficult to empathise with the families given the stress that they are under, but I think that in their position I would ask to be kept informed, even if it turned out that the information was wrong. To that extent, I think that this provision is reasonable.
      Mr. William Ross: The clause provides quite a lot of protection for the murderers, in that it prohibits the disclosure of the identity of the persons who are providing the information. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is so. It also protects those who may have killed, as evidence that may come forward by association with the informant will also not be available. It does not tell us who is to recover the body. It provides that members of the victim's family can be informed of the approximate site of the buried remains. Will the servants of the commission or the police carry out the recovery? We should be told.
      Mr. Ingram: We do not know the extent or the nature of the information that will be given to the commission; that is in the hands of others. We are not in receipt of that information; we have not seen its colour or shape, even at this stage. The commission will take receipt of the information, and its main function will be to facilitate the

      367
      location of the remains. It does not have the means to recover the remains, so it will pass the information to the appropriate authority, which will be the RUC or the Garda Siochana.
      The Garda Siochana may not have the necessary expertise. Specialist excavation equipment may be required, or the use of Army personnel or specialist technicians. We can only speculate on that. That is why the Bill refers to agents, and gives everyone protection. The commission will receive information and pass it to the appropriate authority. The RUC or the Garda Siochana will recover the remains if they have the resources. If they have to call in special expertise, they will do so because the objective is to recover the remains.
      Running parallel with that is the need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, to handle the matter sensitively. We have been closely involved with the families to try to understand what they want, which is early information. It would be wholly wrong if information were leaked and the media were ruthless—although I hesitate to use that word. Their interest is in the dissemination of news, not the sensitivities of the families. If they got hold of the information, they would make it headline news immediately, perhaps before the families received it. The commission must be quick to give the families the information that it has to hand, to tell them what has happened and to keep them up to speed with all the processes.
      The people who will undertake the excavation will also have a responsibility. I can speak only for the RUC, but I know that the Garda Siochana will also operate sensitively and will be aware of the need to assist the families through the process.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will come to the point that I made shortly, so I shall not trouble him with that, but I want to touch on the point that he is making now. For understandable reasons, there is a prohibition on the giving of information that may distress the families. I do not see in the Bill any method for enforcing that prohibition. Disclosure, which is not authorised, but is indeed prohibited, under clause 5, is not an offence. What would happen if it became apparent that a member of the commission or, more likely, a third party communicated to the press information that should not be communicated by reason of the prohibition? There is no means in the Bill to take action against that person.
      Mr. Ingram: That was referred to on Second Reading. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not participate in our examination of that possibility. If it was an agent of the Crown—a police officer or a member of the Ministry of Defence—who revealed the information and we were aware of that, that person would be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen often proudly tell us that they have received leak from Government sources. That is stealing, and if they have received a leak from someone in the Northern Ireland Office or the RUC, that person is in breach of regulations. If the person's identity were made known to the Government, or to the Chief Constable if it was an RUC officer, we would be obliged to act under the disciplinary code.
      368
      We cannot prevent every eventuality. We hope that those who act in the name of the Governments understand the sensitive nature of the information. The prime purpose of the legislation is to protect the interests of the families, and to give then comfort and uccour. If information given by the IRA is used to exploit the situation and to make the RUC or the Garda Siochana look foolish, that would come to light very quickly. What publicity benefit would the IRA gain from that?
      We could spend a long time trying to think of various eventualities. I have not done so, because I do not know what information will be provided. We may not be given any more information than that the remains are at site X. The commission then has an obligation to disclose it. The minute the information is passed to the RUC, if it discovers that it is relevant to a case in which there is a defence interest, under existing legislation it is obliged to make it available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to go through the process that we have discussed at length. That is the chain through which the information will be made available.
      Dr. Godman: My intervention is prompted by the thought that, ideally, it would be better for the authorities to tell a family that they had disinterred a body that they believed to be the remains of their son, father or brother and that they required some form of identification, such as dental records.
      A few years ago, two friends of mine were swept off a trawler in the Arctic and were drowned. Their bodies were eventually dragged up by a Russian trawler. The authorities told my friends' widows, "We believe that we now have the bodies of your husbands, but we require certain identification—for example, dental records." Once that identification was forthcoming, the bodies were returned to the United Kingdom, and the two men were given Christian burials.
      Surely it would be best for the authorities to approach a family saying, "We have found a body, and we genuinely believe, on the basis of information that we have received, that it is the body of your loved one".
      Mr. Ingram: We should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. None of us have really been through the process. I understand my hon. Friend's analogy, but the way in which he says that this should happen could be seen as prescriptive. The commission has already been given an onerous task, as have those working alongside it to help families. I referred earlier to the need for an inter-agency approach. All the necessary agencies are now in place: whatever information is required—social work support, access to dental records or access to DNA testing—all the Northern Ireland departments are there to provide it, and to deal with any eventuality.
      Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister confirm that the commission can give relatives only two pieces of information? It can say that it has received information, but not what that information is; and it can say where a body is located.
      Mr. Ingram: In one sense, that is strictly true. Restrictions are placed on the commission. We must be careful about discussing such matters on the Floor of the House, because families will obviously want to know the

      369
      precise position in relation to certain aspects of the Bill. We do not know what questions those families will raise, and we do not know what demands will be placed on the commission, but the clause restricts the commission by preventing it from giving evidence that would work against other clauses in the Bill. That is specific; and then there is all the handling not just of the commission, but of those involved in working on the site and those—representatives of either the Garda Siochana or the RUC—who are keeping the families closely involved in the process.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is accurate. The prohibition clause refers to "relevant information", which is defined in clause 1(3) as
      "information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim of violence".
      That is what is prohibited. I should have thought that it would be open to the commission to give the family of the deceased information about how the deceased died, because that is not "relevant information" as narrowly defined in clause 1(3). It is possible, however, that the phrase "No relevant information", for the purposes of clause 5, has a meaning different from that defined in clause 1(3). My substantive question is this: can the commission give information to the police and the prosecution authorities on, for instance, the manner of death?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Ingram: I do not know how the commission would have information about the manner of a person's death unless information of that nature was given to it. It would not establish the criteria.
      I may have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope he will forgive me if I have—but he referred to the commission in the context of the manner of death, and the where and the when. That information will emerge from the inquest, which is public, and is not the commission's responsibility. It will emerge later, once the remains have been found. It will then become the property of the family of the deceased, and of anyone else who has a similar interest. All that the commission can impart to families is that it has information, and the place where the victim's remains may be found.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde implied, the sensitivity of the matter means that we should not be too prescriptive or explore the situation too deeply. To do so would place a terrible onus on the commission. It would not want to close the door on families, but I do not think that they should be given more information. There are words of comfort that those who are part of the overall operation may think it helpful to offer, but any provision would have to be very narrow and restrictive. I cannot begin to speculate on what such a provision could be. We must be restrictive about the information that the commission can impart so that our provision does not conflict with other elements of the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: What the Minister has said so far has a good deal of substance, but will he address the point that I put to him earlier? If the commission had information about, for instance, the manner of death which might help the defence, would it have the right to communicate that
      370
      information to the prosecution authorities and, through those authorities, to the accused and the lawyers of the accused? That is the argument that the Under-Secretary presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).
      Mr. Ingram: The commission is different from the RUC. The RUC would know that a court case was in progress, and that relevant information was involved. That is a duty placed on the RUC in this part of the criminal justice process. The knowledge base, as it were, would not necessarily reside with the commission. There might be awareness, in which case the commission would be covered by other legislation. It would then have to examine what it was entitled to do and what it was restricted in doing, and—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—would have to comply with all the law of the land, not just the legislation with which it was having to deal in that instance.
      I do not envisage circumstances in which the commission would necessarily know that a court case was in progress in the High Court, and the information would be relevant. The RUC would quickly become aware of the information, because it would be passed to it so that it could take the necessary action to recover the remains. Let us not discuss whether that would happen within minutes, within hours or within days, but it would happen very quickly. As I said earlier, we must bear in mind the possibility of leaks to the media. The commission must get the whole operation under way quickly, and the victims' families must be notified and advised as soon as possible.
      I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I will read what he said; I do not know whether he said it eight, nine or 10 times, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we would consider it carefully, and that we would return to it if that proved necessary. However, we do not believe that the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman force us to do so.
      Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister agree that, because of the severe limitations, the families are likely to be very disappointed at how little information they receive? Does that not go completely contrary to the recent Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, where the police were severely criticised because they did not feed as much information as possible to the relatives?
      Mr. Ingram: I think that we are chewing over the matter somewhat. The hon. Gentleman is not having to deal with the families—please do not say that the families might be disappointed. They find themselves in traumatic circumstances. Some of them have been subjected to false hopes before.
      I have tried to explain the sensitive way in which the matter will be handled. I have much confidence in those who are acting in the interests of the Governments in this case to deal with all that. The professionalism of those who have to deal with the matter has stood the test of time and should not be subjected to the implied criticism that the families will be disappointed. I ask the hon. Gentleman please not to discourage the families any more than is necessary.
      Mr. Thompson: It is a matter not of questioning anyone's competence, but of the law and of the legal

      371
      requirement as to how much information the families can receive. That is the issue, not whether the people involved are professionals.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has not tried to amend the legislation to increase the amount of information given. Perhaps that is because he accepts the arguments. We now have an argument for argument's sake. The clause specifically deals with the legalities, sensitivities and practicalities of the matter. I have set out how we are handling it, taking an inter-agency approach to try to ensure that we have worked out every possible eventuality, so that, from minute one, we are ready to act to help the families. I have every confidence that that will happen. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      POWERS OF ENTRY
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 43, at end insert—
      '(4) In this section "premises" includes any place.'.
      Clause 6 gives powers to resident magistrates and justices of the peace in Great Britain to issue warrants authorising the police to enter and search premises where there is reason to believe that the remains of a victim might be found. However, the Bill does not contain a definition of "premises". There is a risk that, without a definition, "premises" might be interpreted narrowly as covering only buildings and land with buildings of some type on it.
      It is possible, however, that searches for the remains of victims may have to take place in fields that, while forming part of a farm, are separate from the land on which the farm buildings are situated. Therefore, we want to ensure that the power in clause 6 to grant a warrant in respect of any "premises" is exercisable in respect of land on which there are no structures. The amendment therefore defines "premises" widely, so as to include any place.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister just clarify something? He is obviously right to want to enlarge the meaning of "premises". Would the word "place" include, for example, a ship and an agricultural hopper that is used for the storage of grain? Those are not buildings. They are not land. A ship is a structure. A hopper is a structure on land. Is the word "place" apt to include everything?
      Mr. Ingram: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I am right to introduce the amendment. It is nice to get my score card marked up in that way. My understanding and the advice that I have is that the term—it is a legalistic term—does mean any place; we have broadened the definition to mean any place.
      Knowing lawyers, they may want to chew over all that further. For the sake of argument, they may try to define that further, but I think that we have covered everything.
      372
      I hope that it does not become a matter of dispute because the measure is about trying to ensure that no inhibitions are placed on the recovery of the remains, wherever they may be.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      FUNERAL EXPENSES
      '.—The Secretary of State shall pay the cost of the funeral of any person which arises from the work of the Commission.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr.Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Compensation for families of victims—
      '.—Families of persons whose remains are located through the work of the Commission shall be eligible for compensation under existing schemes operated by the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Öpik: The debate is slightly different from the earlier one, which seemed to be about technical details. The new clauses arise primarily from discussions with my noble Friend Lord Redesdale, who has taken time to approach families of "The Disappeared", to assess their current circumstances and how the Bill might impact on them.
      Under existing legislation, it is clear that victims and families of victims can claim compensation for up to three years after what we may call "the incident"; that is, not the date of death, but the date of the incident. It is an important distinction.
      The families of these victims have been unable to claim compensation because they do not have even the remains of their relatives. Essentially, their deaths are still technically unconfirmed as no bodies have been recovered.
      It is fair to argue that the families of those victims have suffered rather more than many families in the troubles, and that is saying something. As well as suffering the loss of their relatives, they have been unable to bury them and to grieve for them properly. As I said during Second Reading, they have literally been robbed of the opportunity to grieve, to put the issue behind them and to move forward.
      In that context, payments towards the cost of funerals will not bring back the victims of those terrible atrocities, or alleviate any of the pain and anguish that the families have suffered in the past 20 years, but they will go a long way towards giving the families some peace of mind that their relatives will be given a decent and proper burial, without the worry of the financial implications, which can be substantial.
      I tabled new clause 2 to enable families of "The Disappeared" to access the money that they will be denied due to the three-year rule. I have some indication that, from a legal perspective, there may be significant difficulties in providing that compensation. If that is the

      373
      case, I will be grateful for clarification from the Minister. Will he describe as best he can the restrictions and obstacles to enabling the compensation to be available?
      Even if that is the case, I will ask the Government to explore the options. It seems that the families of the victims are effectively being punished twice: on account of what happened to their family member; and on account of the limitations that are technically built into the compensation programme, which deny them the opportunity of compensation because more than three years have passed since the disappearance.
      I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments about new clause 2. I hope that he can give some good news and at the very least explain, or give some reassurance, that the Government take the question of compensation seriously.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the conflict with other legislation? Those who have disposed of and murdered these people have often claimed that it was because they had breached terrorist regulations. As I understand it, there is legislation in place that says that no compensation is payable to those who have been party to terrorism. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Is that one reason why he has tabled the new clause?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up that matter, because I suspect that it is one of the complications involved in setting up a compensation programme. That is why I am asking the Minister to comment. I do not have a legal background, and I have not been able to determine the specific issues of compensation. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some clarification.
      I hope that the Government will go along with the context of new clause l, as it would be tremendously helpful to the families of "The Disappeared" not to have to worry about the big financial burden that a funeral entails. The families have suffered far too much already, and an act of good will, whereby the Government agree to bear the cost of the funerals, would show both compassion and empathy.
      Dr. Godman: I support the new clauses in principle. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. Despite what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said about the alleged terrorist involvement of some of the victims, I would have thought that most of them were entirely innocent. I am thinking about two of the families that I met. I would like confirmation from my right hon. Friend the Minister that some help would be given to families on low incomes.
      I think that the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services would be amenable to applications for assistance, but would that be confined to those on the state pension or income support? The plea of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) should be given a sympathetic hearing.
      I think that access to compensation should be as straightforward as possible and there should not be the usual lengthy legal delays.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I do not think that every victim
      374
      was involved in terrorism, but I am aware that claims have been made by the perpetrators that some of them were. I have been involved over the years in fighting on behalf of victims and I know what the law says and how some people have been victimised again by the law.
      Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is to be complimented on his assiduous campaigning on behalf of the families. The last people whose claims I would believe about some of the victims' involvement in terrorism are members of the IRA. I know that one 20-year-old victim who was alleged to be involved had a mental age of about eight or 10, according to his doctors, so I would treat such claims with scepticism.
      Compensation should not be delayed and we should certainly consider helping victims' families, and especially those on low incomes, with funeral expenses.
      Mr. William Ross: The new clauses are interesting and I hope that the Government will take them on board and try to be helpful. Whether we like it or not, the Compensation Agency is bound by the law and has no discretion whatever. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) drew attention to the existing schemes. I am not sure when the first of the victims disappeared. We have no way of knowing the date of the death caused by the earliest murder—I do not like the term killing, because these were cold-blooded murders, and we should say so bluntly.
      Ministers will be aware that the compensation legislation was updated and greatly improved in 1978. I remember clearly that the relevant order was one of the few to be withdrawn and rewritten, not least because Mr. Enoch Powell was a prominent member of the party at the time and was deeply involved in the arguments on the subject. A scheme was developed that, despite the demerits that it is said to have, has many merits and has been very useful to many people over the years.
      My only significant reservation about the compensation scheme is that people get a lump sum. Sometimes it is a large sum that they are unable to handle and they dissipate it and are left with nothing. Members of the armed forces and the police get most of their compensation in the form of a pension scheme, which is index-linked and gives them a continuing income over a long period. That is a much better system and perhaps it should have been considered for others. Perhaps we should consider that principle right across the law on compensation for injuries.
      I am concerned about the time scale. If the individuals were killed at an early stage, it would be possible to argue that their fate became known only at a late stage, within the time frame that would allow a claim for compensation for murder to be made, but even in those favourable circumstances, that claim might have to be made under the pre-1978 legislation, which was not very good. A long time has elapsed, but some of those individuals might well have been the breadwinners for relatives who are now elderly. There is a real problem.
      We will still be left with a difficulty in regard to those whose bodies are not recovered. I do not know what on earth the Government can do about it if we start paying compensation in respect of those whose bodies are recovered, but have to refuse it in respect of those whose bodies are not. The remains may be completely irretrievable, as we have discussed.

      375
      It appears that most—perhaps all—of the folk who were murdered by the IRA did not have any involvement in terrorism, but some of them may have had, and if that emerges, the relatives will be refused compensation. The same would apply if people had been involved in working for the security forces. Will any cognisance be taken of that? The security forces' records should surely contain that information, if nothing else.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has raised an interesting point, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
      Mr. Ingram: I have much sympathy with the idea of helping with funeral costs. Let me explain how we have handled the matter. I explained earlier about the inter-agency approach and the need to consider all the ways in which we can deal with the sensitivities and ensure maximum protection and support for the families. We have been actively considering how to provide support after the bodies are returned to the families for burial.
      I am in a difficulty, because I have an understanding that the matter will be resolved, but I am not in a position to say exactly how. We may be in a better position to say precisely how the issue has been resolved, to the satisfaction of everyone in the House and of the families, when the Bill is in another place. That deals specifically with the funeral and burial costs, and I am hopeful that the issue will be resolved shortly.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) showed a good knowledge of the compensation system, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). They know the complexities of the legislation, although it has been refined and improved over the years, in 1988 and 1991, to give more flexibility to the payment of compensation in lump sums. Because it was likely that hon. Members would raise the issue, I sought authoritative legal advice, which was that the families of persons whose remains were recovered would not fall within the compensation scheme because of the three-year limit. I could go into further detail, but that would be turgid and I ask hon. Members to accept my assurances on the issue. Having said that, the legal advice is just one opinion and others could reach a different conclusion. However, I believe that the advice is robust.
      We must consider whether to put specific provision for compensation into the Bill, as new clause 2 seeks to do. However, that would affect the underlying principles of the compensation scheme, and we must remember that many people, going back some years, still feel dissatisfied with the compensation that they received. For that reason, we asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to undertake a detailed examination of the compensation scheme and its fitness for its purpose. The review should be ready soon. I had hoped that it would be available even sooner, but Sir Kenneth and those advising him have been given an extension of time because of the complexities of the scheme. However, I do not wish to raise false hopes that the review will produce answers to all the problems with the compensation scheme. At least we have shown a willingness to get to grips with the issue and examine ways to deal with it.
      I concluded that to introduce a one-off approach in the Bill could pre-empt Sir Kenneth's report and might not be the best way to deal with the issue. It could also be
      376
      unfair to the large community of victims who already feel aggrieved. We have to be careful with such sensitivities. We are considering the issue of compensation, but new clause 2 would not be helpful. The families of "The Disappeared" victims have experienced unique circumstances, but the prime motive behind the Bill is the recovery of the remains so that the families can give their loved ones proper burials. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw his new clause.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Öpik: I am satisfied with that reply. The Minister has responded positively to the important question of funeral expenses and I accept his response in good faith. After hearing the Minister's comments and the contributions from other hon. Members, I am even more convinced that the compensation scheme is very complicated. I still hope that the Government will take serious steps—I believe that the Minister said that they would—to explore how to ensure that the particular nature of the suffering of the families of the disappeared victims does not mean that they are excluded from the compensation scheme.
      The Minister is right not to wish to make a complicated system more so with piecemeal solutions, and I hope that a strategic solution to the whole issue can be found, notwithstanding the hope that the situation will be resolved by new peace in Northern Ireland. If the Minister can devise a solution for the funeral expenses problem, he will make a big statement about the Government's genuine commitment to try to ease the suffering of the families. The Minister has given me the assurances that I was seeking and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, with an amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.47 pm
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a detailed examination of the Bill today. Only a few amendments were tabled, but we had a wide-ranging debate from which we have all learned something. We also had a useful debate on Second Reading.
      The Government's position is clear: we want to end the suffering of the families of "The Disappeared". We fully recognise that some right hon. and hon. Members, who are equally concerned about the families, have worries about the protections in the Bill. Some hon. Members are also concerned about the Bill in case no information comes forward and we are duped by those who have promised to provide information. However, we examined that point in considerable detail and discussed at whose door the blame would lie.
      Those hon. Members who are critical of the Bill see it as a risk not worth taking. In answering the points raised by the amendments that were tabled, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have had to strike a delicate balance in reaching judgments on the totality of the Bill. We have tried to supply the facilities and the mechanisms to ensure that if any information is provided, we can act on it.

      377
      The issue is complex and sets new precedents. On Second Reading, we accepted that—as with the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997—the Bill does not sit comfortably alongside other aspects of the upholding of the normal rule of law. However, the circumstances are unique and we are taking a risk to try to alleviate the suffering of the families that has gone on for far too long.
      I also want to point out the Bill's limitations. In many ways it is wide ranging, but it has its limiting aspects. It does not provide an amnesty, or immunity from prosecution. Others may use those words, but that is not what the Bill is about. The protections in the Bill are specific and are triggered only when relevant information is given to the commission. The protections do not set a precedent, but the Bill provides the families with perhaps their only chance of burying their loved ones with dignity. The Government believe that the opportunity for the families to enjoy that basic human right is of immeasurable value when compared with accepting the measures set out in the Bill.
      There is a risk, of course, that those with the information will decide not to come forward. I cannot guarantee that they will come forward, as has been said repeatedly. However, once the mechanism for providing information is in place, the responsibility for choosing to ignore it will be theirs, and theirs alone. That would be a heavy responsibility. If they ignore the mechanism that the Bill puts in place, they will show that they have no humanity and no concern for the families or for the society that they purport to be helping to move to a peaceful environment.
      By passing the Bill this evening, the House has provided an opportunity to bring this painful episode to a close. I hope that the House of Lords will give it a passage as speedy and sympathetic—and a scrutiny as close—as it received in the Chamber today. That will help people to understand the measure, and its importance.
      7.51 pm
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: Conservative Members have never hidden the fact that we find it obnoxious and outrageous that there should ever be a need for a Bill such as this. It is a permanent blot on Irish history that grieving relatives have not been able to bury their dead properly because of the actions of terrorists. The fact that the IRA and other terrorist groups did not have the common humanity to tell the authorities—even anonymously—where the bodies were gives us an insight into their mindset. That information would have put to rest the minds of those grieving relatives.
      The balance is a difficult one to strike, but I agree with the Minister that the views and sensitivities of the victims' relatives are paramount, and more important than legislation which, in other circumstance, no hon. Member would want to be passed in this House.
      In addition, I echo and understand what the Minister said about his inability to guarantee that the terrorist organisations that committed these vile murders will come forward with the appropriate information to the commission. I deeply agree with him that they should: it will be yet another disgrace if they do not. I hope, for the sake of the victims' relatives—whose agonies none of us can begin to imagine—that at last their grief can come to an end.
      378
      In conclusion, I hope that the paramilitaries and their political associates will not use the Bill as a bargaining ploy to be turned to their political advantage in talks, now or in the future. I do not think that the House or the people of Northern Ireland would ever forgive them if they did. I hope that the evidence and information are brought forward in a proper and correct way.
      7.54 pm
      Mr. Roger Stott: First, I apologise to the House for my absence during most of the debate, but my party's Whips saw fit to put me on several Committees considering statutory instruments today, so I have been like a yo-yo, in and out of the Chamber in the fulfilment of my other functions.
      As the House will know, for a long time I was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. I spent much time there, and still do. While I was the Opposition spokesman on these matters, both terrorist organisations were involved in a full-scale war, with each other and with the people of Northern Ireland.
      I do not claim any monopoly on feeling deeply about the pain and suffering of families who had lost loved ones. My feelings were shared by many other Labour Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). All hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have expressed their genuine and specific points of view and concerns.
      From time to time, I recall two appalling atrocities in Northern Ireland. The first took place in a fish shop in the Shankill road, and the second at the Rising Sun bar at Graysteel. I visited both scenes—unsung, and without the presence of television cameras—to talk to the victims and their relatives. At Graysteel, my arrival was a moment of special poignancy. It was a cold November day, with the wind blowing over the Foyle. The bar was boarded up, and I wanted to pay my personal respects to the families who had lost loved ones in that appalling Hallowe'en night atrocity.
      A gentleman came around the corner, and asked if I was all right. When I said that I was fine, and that I had come to pay my respects, he invited me into the bar for a cup of tea. That gentleman owned the bar, and was present when the terrorists came in and shot their victims in cold blood. They murdered that man's 80-year-old father in front of him.
      There is a finality about the fate of the victims of atrocities such as that, in that their loved ones and families can give them a decent, Christian burial. The families will never forget, and their love for their relatives will continue for their rest of their lives, but there is a finality when burials are done properly.
      However, the people who are the subject of the Bill do not know where their loved ones lie. They have not known that for perhaps a quarter of a century. If the Bill gives us an opportunity to try to find the remains of people who suffered at the hands of terrorism, and to restore those remains to their families so that they can be given a decent, Christian burial, I have no problems in supporting it tonight.
      7.58 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I hesitate to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), as in one sense he looked back to the past, in which he had some involvement.

      379
      I began by being very conscious of what the inability to bury the dead means to people. I was a young lad during the war and we got word after Calais that that was the last place that my uncle was seen. My aunt, who had five children, lived through the war hoping that he would return, but my uncle's name is on the Dunkirk memorial. So I have no difficulty in understanding the concerns of the bereaved, nor their desire to bury their loved ones.
      From my experience in Northern Ireland, I also know what it means to bury a lovely young woman, who could be identified only by her wedding ring. She was one of the victims of the atrocity at the Le Mon hotel. I could continue, but tonight we are seeking to achieve something.
      The Government have been pushed into doing something that the terrorists, if they had been treading the path of peace, would have done long since. We should make it abundantly plain that the culprits at the bar of justice are the perpetrators of crimes. It is time that the whole community put more pressure on them to reveal the places where bodies have been buried.
      As an Ulster Scot—what our American cousins call Scotch-Irish—I was interested to hear the Minister dismiss the amount of money being spent on vain searches, because I thought that he looked after the bawbees and that the House was responsible for financial expenditure. We have had both terrorist war and economic war, and I am convinced that further attempts will be made to isolate and disturb the economy by giving false information. I hope that I am wrong, but, if false information is given, we must indict those who offer it.
      I have every sympathy with those who believe that they are entitled to compensation. In my experience, genuine victims—innocent people not involved in any way—have suffered most. I think of a family in my congregation who were put out of their home. The Housing Executive rehoused them, but the compensation that they received for the home that they had owned was just £10.
      I can think of other cases, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind not only compensation to help to bury people, as requested by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), but compensation to people who live in houses that were built over where some bodies lie, if the information that we have received is correct. They should receive compensation for the new houses that they will need. We dare not add to the burdens of people who have genuinely sought to make some sort of life through these tragic years.
      I feel distaste that the High Court of Parliament has—again—been called on to set aside the normal rules of law and justice to satisfy those who claim that they want justice. That is my difficulty in supporting the Bill. However, because I know that the Whips will see the Bill through, I urge the House to double its efforts to help the victims of atrocities who have continued to grieve for their lost ones. We cannot allow the terrorists and their spokespeople to continue to run rings around us or to play ducks and drakes with us. There will be no understanding and peace if we do not win the battle for the bereaved.
      8.4 pm
      Dr. Godman: I compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill before the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked of the High Court of
      380
      Parliament putting aside the rule of law. However, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, our paramount concern is with the families of the victims. The legitimacy of laws passed in this place relies on our having a paramount concern for ordinary individuals over the rules and reservations to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South has referred.
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have sincere reservations, but I hope that they do not transform into outright opposition to the Bill's passage.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House throughout the debate and will therefore have heard at least one criticism by a Minister of people who did not vote against the Bill on an earlier occasion. We must be held accountable by the people whom we represent.
      Dr. Godman: I know that the hon. Gentleman's reservations are sincere and profound. However, I hope, equally sincerely, that he and his hon. Friends will not vote against the Bill. I understand his reservations, and I have voiced some of my own. I have indeed been in the Chamber for almost every minute of the Bill's proceedings, but, following my meeting with two families in the House, all my reservations and doubts were dispelled by their pleas and their profound need to put to rest their loved ones with a Christian funeral service and burial.
      Finding the remains and performing the ritual of burying loved ones will not stop the grieving. Grief continues throughout life, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South and all of us know. However, as I know from the cases of people who have been lost at sea and whose bodies have been recovered months after they were drowned, the return of the loved one's body for Christian burial and internment in sanctified ground brings some peace of mind. The two ladies whom I met made that plea to me and to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who was also at the meeting. In responding positively to that plea, we will bring a touch of comfort and consolation to the families of victims.
      I have absolutely no trust in the terrorists or their spokespersons. I have always said that it is obscene that they call themselves freedom fighters. There cannot be freedom fighters in the mature parliamentary democracy in which we have the luck to live. I trust them not one iota, but if only two or three families are given the supreme consolation of being able to have a funeral service or requiem mass for their loved ones, the Bill will have achieved all that the Government set out to achieve.
      That is why I stand four-square with the Ministers on the passing of the Bill and am only too pleased to compliment the ministerial team on bringing forward a Bill that the Opposition have described as obnoxious, obscene, distasteful and disgusting. I do not see it in that way. I have reservations, but the object is to bring peace of mind to a small number of ordinary people. We cannot aim any higher than bringing such peace of mind to the people whom I have met.
      Again, I hope that the sincerely held reservations of other hon. Members do not transform themselves into opposition to the Bill.
      8.9 pm
      Mr. Öpik: We have had a forensic and legalistic Committee stage debate. Now, as I step back for the Third Reading debate, I can appreciate the human approach that we have taken tonight.
      If the House were a person, it is a person whom I would like to meet because we have had the same debate that people have when they have been terribly wronged by someone else and we have decided to take the compassionate route forward. We have heard about bitterness and doubts about whether the other side will respond in kind, just as we feel those things when we argue with another person. However, at the end of the day, we have said that we are going to have faith in seeing the best in people and take a risk. We might get ripped off, but it is worth the risk. The human compassionate benefit of taking it is so great that it is worth being disappointed if we are wrong.
      We might be wrong. It may be naive to think that the Bill will work. I feel optimistic. I surprise myself by saying this, but I assume that, if we go this far in extending the gesture of good faith, it may evoke some spark of humanity or decency in people whom we have conventionally written off as barbarians. It is a living experiment. Either they will respond in kind and we will find the remains of the people who were killed and taken from their families—in which case we were right to take the risk—or we will not—in which case we must learn from it and behave differently next time.
      I came to the House very much in the spirit that I feel now. We have been human in being willing to do something for relatively few people, but it is a big statement that the House is willing to spend much time to right the grievous wrongs of acts of terrorism. I am proud of our debate and of the fact that we could discuss the matter rationally. Time will tell whether the outcome will justify this as the right thing to do. As a politician who ended up here partly because of what I experienced growing up in Northern Ireland, I am sure that we are right to show that we can make empathic decisions that affect other humans. I hope that people who read this debate, or hear bits on the radio or television, will consider that there may be something in the way in which our democracy operates that gives us some hope in respect of our politicians.
      8.12 pm
      Mr. Thompson: I and my Unionist colleagues will, of course, oppose the Bill. I understand the feelings of those who have lost loved ones and whose relatives were brutally murdered by the IRA and buried in unknown graves. Over the years, there has been pressure on the organisations concerned to say where those people were buried. As a result of that pressure, the IRA claims to have set up an investigation team that has identified the whereabouts of nine bodies. It seems to me that public pressure has forced the IRA to go that far. We must remember that many of the victims belonged to the nationalist community and that the pressure comes from that community. If that pressure continues, the IRA will eventually have to say where the bodies are. This Bill again lets the IRA off the hook.
      The IRA will not announce where the bodies are because it wants to be told that, if any evidence is got from the bodies, its members will not be charged or have
      382
      that evidence used against them in a court of law. They should not be allowed to get away with that because it is not right in a democratic country to amend the criminal law to let such people off the hook. The IRA has only to issue a statement giving the location of the bodies. The security forces and other authorities could then deal with the situation as they normally would. There is no necessity for a Bill.
      The Bill is ill-considered and not fully thought out. The relatives of those who have been murdered will be given less information in the event of the bodies being discovered than they would have got if the normal course of events took place. The Bill is therefore unnecessary.
      I also oppose the Bill because it sets up another all-Ireland implementation body. One member of the commission will be appointed by the United Kingdom and the second by the Republic of Ireland. Why is that necessary? It seems that there is a possibility that a body will be found in the Republic of Ireland. There is sufficient law in the Republic of Ireland, and sufficient communication between it and the United Kingdom, adequately to deal with that without setting up another cross-border implementation body.
      For those of us who are Unionists, this is another clear example of how the Government are not committed, as they should be, to the Union. In Northern Ireland, we have de facto joint authority. Almost any decision of importance must be agreed by Dublin, which has to have its nose in almost everything in Northern Ireland. For all those reasons, I believe that the Bill should not pass. My party will oppose Third Reading.
      8.18 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I used clear, sharp language on Monday night when I spoke on this Bill. I have heard nothing from that moment to this to cause me to alter my opinion.
      We are told about family grief. We have all had that as a result of deaths, some tragic, some natural. Those of us who represent Northern Ireland—none more than the last speaker, who represents the town of Omagh—have seen the consequences of the butchery of bombs, thugs and murderers at close quarters. I will not rehearse the tragedies that I have attended, but there were many. Many good men, decent women and children were killed, and no one ever brought to book for it. Because of the area in which I live and my close relations with the Roman Catholic community, I well understand the importance that they attach to the last rites and the necessity to bury the deceased in sanctified ground. I am also aware that the Bill is a consequence of a deal done with the IRA, which played on the grief of the victims' families.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said earlier that, when members of the IRA behaved in such and such a way, they had no humanity. People could not get inside their minds. However, the truth is that members of terrorist organisations do not exist in the normal democratic world; they exist in a world and in a mental state that they create and that is a consequence of the actions that they undertake. They believe themselves to be a legitimate army and that they are acting for a righteous cause. They believe that the end justifies the means. They do not adhere to those normal thought processes that most people in this House and in this country would apply to political

      383
      situations. As far as members of those organisations are concerned, the majority has no right to be wrong and has no right to disagree with them.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) takes a keen interest in these matters. He knows Northern Ireland well. I point out to him and to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) that the Bill may be built on good intentions, but we know what they say about the road to hell—it is paved with them. The Bill falls firmly and squarely into that category, because the Government have allowed emotion to overrule logic. Hard cases make bad law, and that is so in this case. We are undermining the rule of law. We are giving in to the demands of murderous thugs who have used the common decency of citizens as a weapon, and who have used the normal democratic procedures of this House as a weapon against the House itself.
      This type of legislation is abhorrent to me, because we are allowing the IRA to call the tune, so that its members can exact for themselves the maximum benefit from this whole affair. We are allowing the IRA to call the tune with no danger to its members past or present. Avoiding injury or damage to, or capture of, its members is, of course, always the first priority for a terrorist organisation. The measure will also allow members of the IRA to believe that they can use ruthlessness on every occasion to obtain their way.
      If the IRA really wanted to tell people where those graves were, all that it need do is to go out at night and put a little stake on the graves, if they are in a field. It knows where the graves are. It would be easy to do that if the bodies were recoverable. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention to the fact that bodies could be under a house, or in the foundations of a house. How could one recover a body if that were the case? What would happen if the Government knocked the house down and there was no body?
      The whole matter is open to endless ramifications and to endless exhibitions of evil. Do not worry—those guys will dream it up and they will use it. If we pass this Bill, we shall do no good to justice. Indeed, we shall do great damage to the whole concept of justice and punishment for evils committed. We shall do no good to the democratic principles that we claim to uphold. Responsibility in this matter rests solely with the terrorist organisations; it rests solely with the IRA—not with us and not with the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, pressure would have worked in this instance.
      This case is not the same as the weapons issue. The IRA cannot give up its weapons; it is committed to holding them. Without weapons, the IRA is only another political party. Its members have no desire to be members of only another political party; they see themselves as part of something far greater, something that is beyond the concept of a political party. They see themselves as an army, controlling a political front organisation. They are part of a terrorist organisation controlling what is supposed to be a political organisation, but which is, in practice, only an arm of the terrorism that they have carried out and inflicted on us for three decades.
      To apply the thinking about the IRA giving up its weapons and to say that it will do so on exactly the same footing as the bodies is wrong. Its members cannot give
      384
      up the weapons because they need them to impose their will; they do not need the bodies. The fact that the bodies are out there and the fact that the IRA is under pressure from its own community is damaging to the IRA. My hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone lives in an area that is similar to my own in some ways. He is aware that there are many folk around us with that turn of mind. We can speak with greater authority on their thinking processes than most Members of the House.
      I agree with my hon. Friend that, eventually, pressure from their own community, their own relations, church members and their nationalist political establishment will force members of the IRA to reveal, at some time, where the available bodies are buried. We have not put pressure on them; we have let them off the hook and we shall allow them, through the Bill, to claim that they are reacting to public pressure and that they are acting out of the goodness of their heart. However, they will have forced the British to let them off the hook and they will be believed within their own community. It is for that reason, among the other more gut reactions that I articulated during Second Reading, that I must vote against the Bill.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 5.

      Division No. 172]

      [8.26 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Allen, Graham

      (NE Fife)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashton, Joe

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Casale, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caton, Martin

      Banks, Tony

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Chaytor, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Begg, Miss Anne

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clwyd, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Betts, Clive

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blackman, Liz

      Coleman, Iain

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Colman, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Corbett, Robin

      Borrow, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Crausby, David

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Browne, Desmond

      (Copeland)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burden, Richard

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Burgon, Colin

      Darvill, Keith

      Burnett, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davidson, Ian

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      385

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Denham, John

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drew, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keetch, Paul

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Levitt, Tom

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gardiner, Barry

      Livsey, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lock, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Godman. Dr Norman A

      (Makerfield)

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hain, Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hancock, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Harvey, Nick

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hope, Phil

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mudie, George

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Norris, Dan

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      386

      Pearson, Ian

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Pickthall, Colin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Stevenson, George

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pond, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pope, Greg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Stott, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stringer, Graham

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Primarolo, Dawn

      (Dewsbury)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rapson, Syd

      Tipping, Paddy

      Raynsford, Nick

      Todd, Mark

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Touhig, Don

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Trickett, Jon

      (Hamilton S)

      Truswell, Paul

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruane, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tyler, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Vaz, Keith

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watts, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Webb, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerrnan, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Woolas, Phil

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wyatt, Derek

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

      Snape, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Soley, Clive

      Jane Kennedy and

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. David Hanson.

      NOES

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Maginnis, Ken

      >

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. William Thompson and

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D(Strangford)

      Rev. Martin Smyth.

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

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

    INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Potato Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th April, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

    Compulsory Land Purchase
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    8.38 pm
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have this debate on compensation to be paid on the compulsory acquisition of land. I am sure that the House recognises the growing demand for reform of our system of compulsory purchase and compensation. It is an extremely complicated area of law and, currently, 42 separate Acts of Parliament apply. The system is complex, slow, expensive and inefficient. It is grossly unfair and heavily biased in favour of national companies, such as the National Grid Company, and other powerful bodies. Might is not always right, so I welcome the Government's fundamental review of laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation, and the interim report.
    I should also like to take this opportunity to ask that the Electricity Act 1989 be revised and amended. My particular reason for asking for this debate is the overhead power lines that transmit electricity across the Vale of York and elsewhere in North Yorkshire. A review of both compensation and compulsory purchase and the Electricity Act would help to restore the balance by tilting it more in favour of individual landowners' rights and property interests. It is generally recognised that the Englishman's home is his castle, so how many of us would welcome agents of the National Grid Company entering our property and trampling over our land, often without sufficient warning?
    Problems arise at various stages. There will be blight both before the pylon is in place and following construction. There will be a substantial drop in the value of the properties and in the enjoyment of those who live there, as their view will be impaired and there will be pollution from the lines.
    The first problem is the serious lack of agreement and the inability of landowners and the National Grid to negotiate about the dent in property values. There is a discrepancy of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That problem must be addressed, procedures must be adopted and compensation levels for pylons must be put on the same basis as for road construction and flood defences.
    The second problem is referred to in paragraph 8.5.1 of the interim report commissioned in the Government review. It states:
    "A major source of grievance among property owners is the right of private companies to use compulsory powers to acquire property, paying a form of statutory compensation which is commonly perceived as benefiting shareholders at the expense of landowners."
    Aberdeen university is conducting research into wayleaves. Chapter 9 of the interim report examines the programme of further work, but, surprisingly, does not mention any review of wayleaves once Aberdeen university completes its research. Why not?
    The purpose of this debate is to put before the House and the Minister the real concerns that my constituents have expressed about these problems. Tempers are running high in the Vale of York, and there was nearly an assault prior to Christmas last year because of the failure to reach an agreement. Little notice is given and scant regard is shown for property and for landowners'
    388
    rights. I shall give some examples of unsympathetic, hostile and offensive behaviour, particularly by the National Grid or its contractors.
    Before the wayleave hearings, the National Grid sought to reach agreement with the landowners by offering easements for the overhead line. By offering an easement, as opposed to a wayleave, the National Grid offered a capital payment to reflect the depreciation in the value of the properties, particularly the residential properties, that would be affected by the proximity of the proposed electricity line. Any landowner who did not sign up to the easements before the commencement of the wayleave hearings had the offer withdrawn, with the threat that, once the wayleave hearings were completed and the National Grid had obtained consent for the line, the landowner would receive only an annual wayleave payment that would not reflect the depreciation in capital values suffered. That is a clear abuse of compulsory purchase powers.
    I shall refer briefly to correspondence that I have received from my constituents about this matter. One letter referred to a wayleave pre-hearing meeting at Northallerton in December last year. The inspector was asked about the width of the wayleave required over a particular constituent's land. He was unsure of the answer and referred the question to the National Grid. It declined to state the required width of the wayleave to the inspector, so my constituent's question went unanswered. The National Grid then refused to state the width of the wayleave required; that places my constituent in an unacceptable position, as he is uncertain about the amount of land that will be taken out of production. My constituent believes that withholding such information is an infringement of his rights, and I share that view.
    Another constituent asked that farmers be given reasonable notice—six months' notice—before the commencement of construction in order to assist them in going about their business. That is a perfectly reasonable request, particularly when such a large project is in hand. I ask the Minister why the rights of farmers are not respected in that regard.
    I was struck most by a letter that I received from the Minister for Energy and Industry in February this year, in which he said:
    "I am unable to intervene as questions of compensation for the presence of an electric line are not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who has no powers under Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 to prescribe conditions in any wayleaves he may grant. Compensation falls to be settled by agreement between the parties or, failing agreement, by the Lands Tribunal at the request of either party."
    That is a totally unacceptable response on the part of the Government, and this is an opportunity for the Minister to confirm to the House that the Government will consider that Act and give the Secretary of State the necessary powers.
    Another constituent said that the National Grid
    "have had nine years to plan their proposed development. How do they expect a farmer to adjust his farming activities (cropping and grazing programme) to accommodate a major development with only 28 days' notice?"
    On another occasion, an adviser to that landowner wrote:
    "I appreciate that the Secretary of State believes he does not have the power under Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 to prescribe financial conditions in any wayleave he may grant."

    389
    He continued:
    "The Minister must look again at the Electricity Act 1989. The National Grid Company must look again at its policy for future electric lines."
    I refer in particular to one constituent, Mrs. Hird, who has three young children, whom she has now discovered are on the European at-risk register on possible cancers forming because the children will be brought up under an overhead power line. Because the pylon does not pass across her land, she is not eligible for compensation. She has made a very modest request that the pylon should be moved a further 20 m away from her house. As I speak today, the National Grid has not seen fit to agree to that.
    Another problem is that, where overhead lines pass within 150 m of a residential property, the National Grid does not require a wayleave or easement from the individual property owner. A recent complaint is that the National Grid or the contractors have deliberately entered land when the occupier is absent.
    There is clearly blight on all those properties because of the associated noise and perceived health risk of a property being close to a high-voltage electricity line. Under a highways scheme, property owners would be eligible for generous compensation, but apparently compensation for such property owners is excluded under the Electricity Act.
    Other companies operating in the private sector are known to make more generous payments. For example, payments received as annual rental for mobile phone masts over 15 m high, but substantially lower than the pylons in question, are only a little less than the one-off payment offered by the National Grid in respect of the giant pylons that it seeks to build.
    I urge the Minister to go further in the direction that his Government are taking. They commissioned a publication produced by the Property Industry Group, called "Blight, Might and Rights". That group includes the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Agricultural Law Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and many others. It said:
    "National projects requiring compulsory purchase powers take years to deliver, and leave a trail of disaffected claimants in their wake, and fail to address blight."
    It claimed:
    "Compulsory Purchase Law and procedure should be updated to ensure just and equitable treatment for persons affected, at the same time as ensuring those who need property to modernise and improve the National Infrastructure"—
    such as the grid—
    "are able to proceed more quickly than at present."
    The group's most alarming conclusion was, perhaps, that privatised utilities
    "have inherited the power of the State to compel people to part with or grant rights in land and property for their own benefit. There has been no amendment of the legislation to reflect their commercial interest."
    This is an opportunity for the Government, as part of their review, to amend and update that legislation. "Blight, Might and Rights" points, in particular, at procedures, costs, the blight that I have mentioned, negotiations and a code of practice.
    I turn briefly to flood defences, which raise many concerns and issues similar to those raised by pylons. Coastal property owners and farmers who are faced with
    390
    the potential of managed retreat are disappointed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still unwilling to acknowledge financial loss, even though the Select Committee on Agriculture strongly recommended a compensation mechanism.
    The word "compensation" appears not to be accepted by MAFF, whereas the word "benefit" is. That is the benefit to the country as a result of farmers giving up their land for sustainable flood defences. It is only fair that compensation should be paid in such circumstances, as it is for the building of roads, airports and the like. The Government have clearly recognised that there is an acute problem with laws and procedures relating to the compulsory acquisition of land and compensation.
    I am grateful for this opportunity to raise these concerns on behalf of my constituents. I make a plea to the Minister, the Government and the House to put all forms of compulsory purchase of land on an equal footing, and to make compensation for overhead power lines, flood defences and road construction equally generous and based on the same principles in every case.
    I regret that, with regard to overhead line transmissions and the construction of pylons, the National Grid has clearly and often been seen to act in an arrogant, hostile and insensitive manner, at times causing great offence and concern to landowners who live in the Vale of York. Courtesy and advance notice would be appreciated—particularly more than seven days and possibly as much as six months before pylons are constructed. That is not too great a request.
    The Minister could make the process more democratic. As I said, it is quite wrong that he is unable to intervene on questions of compensation. Clearly, schedule 4 to the Electricity Act should be amended so that parties do not resort to an expensive land tribunal in the event of disagreement. At what stage is the review, and which specific action and reforms are proposed?
    This debate is very timely; it gives the Minister an opportunity to present an update. There is clearly a need for reform, which I think both main parties in the House accept. The Government must proceed and inform the House of such reform. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the reform will be in place before the pylons have been constructed in the Vale of York.
    8.52 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. The House will know that the Government place a high priority on the need to modernise our planning system. As part of that process, we are undertaking a thorough review of compulsory purchase—the most thorough review for a generation—to which the hon. Lady referred.
    The hon. Lady made a number of specific points on compulsory purchase orders and wayleaves in her constituency, which I shall address in turn, although I should point out that responsibility for those matters under the Electricity Act 1989 lies, as she knows—we have debated this previously—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, responsibility for coastal protection and flood defences lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The hon. Lady will understand that I

    391
    cannot comment on the merits of individual cases, but she and the House may find it helpful if, before I address her specific points, I set out briefly the context in which they should be considered.
    It is always agreeable when one secures a consensus. We certainly have a very broad consensus on compulsory purchase and compensation laws: everyone, it seems, is critical of them. The trouble is that the consensus does not extend to agreeing what precisely we should do to make such laws better. Indeed, opinions on the matter are extremely polarised. There are those who maintain that the expropriation of land is draconian; that too many bodies have compulsory purchase powers; that compensation is inadequate; and that acquiring authorities can be heavy handed and inconsiderate in their deployment of such powers. I have some sympathy with those people.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that part of the problem, as he has explained, is that three different Ministries are involved and that there is no co-ordination between them? A landowner in my constituency is attempting to negotiate with the National Grid Company, but he is faced not just with the might of a large company, but with three Departments which each pass responsibility to another.
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall highlight specifically the issues that are relevant, especially to electricity pylons and cables, which are often very different from those that apply to compulsory purchase in an urban context. She will equally appreciate that Departments that have a particular interest in a subject—for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a particular interest in coastal and flood defences—should be involved. However, I shall return to those points.
    I was explaining that some people regard the whole compulsory purchase procedure as draconian. Others view compulsory purchase as an essential tool for the achievement of publicly beneficial work, such as the regeneration of run-down urban areas. They argue that compensation often rewards land or property owners whose neglect has contributed to the very dereliction that the regeneration seeks to reverse, and that the achievement of our target of 60 per cent. of new homes to be built on recycled land can be achieved only if there is wider use of compulsory purchase order-backed land assembly in appropriate development sites in cities. I have some sympathy with those views, too.
    Having set out those two viewpoints, I should say that there is a third viewpoint—that of those who, putting to one side the questions of the adequacy of the powers or the quantum of compensation, point to the mind-boggling complexity of the law. There are hundreds—probably thousands—tutory references to compulsory purchase and compensation, spread through dozens of statutes going back as far as 1845. Add to that the accretion of 150 years of case law, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you have a behemoth of a system.
    The House will readily appreciate that when the lawyers complain that the law is too complex, it is almost certainly too complex, and it is time for action to be taken
    392
    to tackle that. That is what we are seeking to do. The Government are aware of the problems, and our overriding objective is to create a simplified, consolidated and codified law, which is efficient, effective and fairer all round. That is what we are trying to achieve.
    In June 1998, we established a fundamental review of the laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation. Because the system is so convoluted and the opinions of the protagonists are so divided, we constituted an advisory group to help us undertake that task. I place on the record my gratitude for the work that that distinguished group of lawyers, academics, planners, surveyors, landowners, local authority officers and representatives of the major developers has undertaken so far.
    The interim report, presented by that group in December, has been widely welcomed and praised for the thoroughness with which it has approached the issues and for the balance of its conclusions. I am confident that the group's continuing work will deliver the results that we wish.
    My confidence that the review is proceeding along the right track was boosted following the first ever national symposium on compulsory purchase and compensation, which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in partnership with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute, sponsored in February 1999. Discussion at the symposium—was privileged to have the opportunity of attending and speaking at—spondence since then confirms that we are addressing the key issues, and that we are doing so pragmatically.
    Now is not the time for a detailed critique of the group's report nor of its work programme for the months to come, but two linked findings are of particular importance. The first is that, allowing for some exceptions in the detail, the current compulsory purchase order framework is essentially sound and does not need reinventing in its entirety. The second is that the system is not always operated "efficiently, effectively or fairly"—uence, the group believes, of the infrequency with which the powers have been used in recent years. To put matters right, the group recommended—been quick to act on that recommendation—mpulsory purchase guidance and best practice manual be devised, guiding acquiring authorities through all the twists and turns of the process. I might add that this apparently modest initiative has been widely welcomed, even by some authorities that view themselves as highly competent in that area.
    I have given the House a brief overview to demonstrate that we recognise that the current system of compulsory purchase and compensation is widely perceived to be deficient, and that we are actually doing something about it. I have also sought to show that there are no simple solutions to any of the problems—east, that what are sometimes presented as simple solutions are, as often as not, fiercely resisted by those whose perspectives differ.
    The hon. Lady she spoke at length about the electricity pylons in the Vale of York. She will doubtless appreciate that had that featured in the title of the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry would probably have responded, as he is in a far better

    393
    position than I am to give a detailed answer on matters relating to wayleaves and electricity. I shall try to give as helpful a response as I can, albeit from a less authoritative position than my hon. Friend.
    Miss McIntosh: May I put on record the fact that I had a detailed conversation with the Minister's office about the nature of the debate this evening, so I am slightly stunned by that remark?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Lady will recognise, the choice of Minister to respond to the debate had already been made by that time, because the title of the debate related to compulsory purchase and compensation, without reference to electricity. As we established in a previous debate, responsibility under the Electricity Act 1989 lies with the Department of Trade and Industry.
    The hon. Lady spoke about the National Grid Company's proposed electric line from Lackenby, in Cleveland, via Picton to Shipton in North Yorkshire—the North Yorkshire line An electricity Company usually obtains access rights to install a line over or under a particular piece of land by obtaining either a wayleave or a permanent easement from the landowner. If the company is unable to obtain such agreements voluntarily, it may apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the grant of a compulsory wayleave, or to confirm a compulsory purchase order in respect of the required access rights.
    In 1994 and 1995, the National Grid applied to the Secretary of State for the grant of a number of compulsory wayleaves to authorise it to install its proposed North Yorkshire overhead line. Following hearings into the applications, most of the wayleaves applied for were granted in March 1998. Since the Secretary of State's decisions on these matters, further wayleave applications have been confirmed relating to various sites along the route of the power line.
    I know that the hon. Lady has written to DTI Ministers on several occasions on the subject of compensation and access rights granted under a compulsory wayleave. As she will now know, the Secretary of State has no powers to prescribe any financial conditions in any wayleaves that he grants.
    Compensation falls to be settled by agreement between the landowner and the company or, failing agreement, by the Lands Tribunal. However, the industry has agreed with the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union in Wales a scale of compensation for poles, pylons and wires, and I understand that those are accepted in the overwhelming majority of cases.
    The hon. Lady asked why the interests of farmers are not better protected. Clearly, that is a matter that she should take up with the NFU and the CLA, which agreed the scale of compensation for such arrangements.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's generosity in giving way. There has been a clear abuse of compulsory powers. Initially, by offering an easement as opposed to a wayleave, the National Grid was offering a capital payment to reflect the depreciation in the value of the property. To those who did not take up the offer at the time, the National Grid has behaved shoddily. I hoped that the Minister would address the issue this evening.
    Mr. Raynsford: As I have already explained to the hon. Lady, that is specifically a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry. As it is not my responsibility, I am not in a position to respond on the actions of the National Grid in relation to an electricity wayleave.
    I know that a number of landowners who are the subject of compulsory wayleaves have argued that the wayleave grants the company only very limited access to their land, more or less along the route of the proposed line. That is a clear difference from compulsory purchase of a property for development, where the property is acquired to be disposed of. The arrangement necessitates a different regime from that which would apply in the case of compulsory acquisition.
    A wayleave granted by the Secretary of State gives access rights for the purpose of installing and keeping installed the line, and for purposes relating to its maintenance. The access rights do not define particular parts of a plot of land to which access is granted. The wayleave identifies only the land at issue.
    It is therefore necessary to look at the purpose of the wayleave so that access to sufficient land is allowed for installation and maintenance purposes. Obviously, that will involve a particular strip underneath the line, but it will also involve access to other parts of the land—for example, access from an entrance to the land to the strip underneath the line.
    Although the wayleave identifies the line and the land in question, the detailed implementation of these rights—for example, agreeing working areas and access routes— is a matter for discussion and agreement between the landowner and the company. Obviously, given the different circumstances in different areas, there have to be agreements between the parties to ensure the minimum disruption and the most satisfactory arrangement to avoid causing inconvenience to the landowner.
    Miss McIntosh: I think that the Minister, so far as he has responsibility, will accept that this is the crux of the debate. First, there has been an announcement—by either North Yorkshire county council or Hambleton district council—that the Queen's highways may not be used to access the land. The farmers' land will be used in the construction stage in a way that had never been imagined possible before. That has caused difficulties for the parties concerned reaching an agreement.
    Secondly, family businesses are involved. The farmers are concerned that National Grid is unable to say exactly when it is coming in and exactly to what amount of land it wants access. Farmers in North Yorkshire, particularly cereal growers and beef producers, have gone through a record crisis and they need a degree of certainty in planning.
    Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that the company is currently attempting to negotiate on access routes and lines with the landowners. Clearly, if there are problems arising from those negotiations and the hon. Lady believes that this matter is being handled unsatisfactorily by the statutory undertaker, she should certainly take that up with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry.
    I am told that consent was refused for two short stretches of line—at Nunthorpe and near Newby— and so it fell to the company to consider placing those two

    395
    stretches underground. I gather that it is the company's intention to route underground not only those two stretches, but the stretch of line between them.
    The Secretary of State's powers to grant consent for electricity lines do not cover underground cables; accordingly, the company does not need to obtain consent. However, it must ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for access to allow construction and maintenance of the cable. I understand that the company is currently trying to negotiate voluntary agreements with the affected landowners. However, if voluntary agreements cannot be reached, the company may either apply for compulsory wayleaves or for the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders in respect of the access requirements.
    396
    According to the information available to me, the DTI has not received any applications for the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders. However, if any are received, the statutory procedures allow interested parties to make their case to a person appointed by the Secretary of State. Only after receiving the report of the appointed person will the Secretary of State express any view on any such applications.
    I am conscious that I have not answered every last point relating to consents under the 1989 Act, but I have no doubt that my colleagues at the DTI would be happy to advise the hon. Lady further, should she wish to contact them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Nine o'clock.

DEFENCE

  NATO Exercises (Turkey)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the cost of the NATO artillery exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72853]

  (2) how many personnel were deployed on the NATO artillery exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; [72844]

  (3) which countries had armed forces involved in and what assessment he has made of the value of the NATO artillery exercise in Turkey carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76595]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATO artillery exercise Ardent Ground 97, carried out in North West Turkey between 23 April and 19 May 1997, involved the deployment of 2,000 personnel from the following NATO nations; Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain,

  Operation

  Military personnel tasked in the UK

  Civilian personnel tasked in the UK

  Military personnel tasked overseas

  Civilian personnel tasked overseas

  UN missions in former Yugoslavia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN Tribunal in Yugoslavia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN missions in the former Soviet union

  0

  0

  (Georgia) 7

  0

  UN Special Commission on Iraq

  0

  2

  0

  (New York) 2

  UN Iraq/Kuwait Observation Mission

  0

  0

  11

  0

  UN Mission for the Referendum in Western sahara

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN Angola Verification Mission

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN support mission in Haiti

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN observer Mission in Angola

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN Mission in Central African Republic

  0

  0

  0

  0

  UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone

  (on stand-by to deploy) 4

  0

  2

  0

  UN Tribunal in Rwanda

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OSCE in Albania

  0

  0

  0

  0

  WEU police mission in Albania

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the NATO joint exercise in Norway carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998; and what was the cost of the exercise. [72833]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Exercise Strong Resolve, which took place in March 1998 jointly in Norway and Portugal, consisted of two halves; exercise Crisis North, in Norway, and exercise Crisis South, in Portugal. Members of the armed forces of the following nations participated in the Northern half of Strong Resolve, Crisis North; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
  140
  Turkey, the UK and the US. The aim of the exercise was to practise multi-battery, multi-national firing, training and tactics, in conjunction with close air support, and I understand that the exercise succeeded in its objectives. The total cost of the exercise is not held centrally by NATO but the cost of the UK participation was £623,000, excluding the cost of ammunition and spares consumed during the exercise as these costs are not separately identified.

  Departmental Dispositions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of his Department's(a) military and (b) civilian personnel tasked (i) in the UK and (ii) overseas as United Kingdom contributions to (1) UN missions in former Yugoslavia, (2) the UN Tribunal on Yugoslavia, (3) the UN missions in the former Soviet Union, (4) the UN Special Commission on Iraq, (5) the UN Iraq/Kuwait observation mission, (6) the UN mission for the referendum in western Sahara, (7) the UN Angola verification mission, (8) the UN support mission in Haiti, (9) the UN observer mission in Angola, (10) the UN mission in Central African Republic, (11) the UN observer mission in Sierra Leone, (12) the UN tribunal in Rwanda, (13) the OSCE in Albania and (14) the WEU police mission in Albania. [83631]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As at 11 May 1999, the numbers of Ministry of Defence personnel tasked to the various operations were as listed in the following table:

  the United Kingdom and the United States and consisted of some 25,000 NATO personnel. I understand from NATO that the cost to NATO Exercise Funds was £450,000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, and which countries had armed forces involved in, the jungle training exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76606]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of the seven jungle exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 was £1.094 million, excluding the cost of ammunition and of spares consumed during the exercise.
  141
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, what assessment he has made of the value of, and how many personnel were deployed on the infantry exercises in France carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 [76600]

  Mr. Spellar
  Three infantry exercises were carried out in France during this period. Of the first two, Liberty Bell took place between 11 and 25 July 1997, involved 452 personnel, and cost £169,000; Fraternal Front took place between 5 and 19 September 1997, involved 122 personnel and cost £43,000. The exercises were designed to test core infantry skills and the ability to plan and execute an overseas exercise. I understand that the exercises succeeded in their aims. The third exercise, Team Spirit, took place between 7 and 23 November 1997, involved 68 personnel from the Royal Marines and the French 9th Maritime Infantry Division, and cost £5,934. The exercise was designed to enable the participating units to practise small-scale military alliance operations. I understand that this exercise also succeeded in its aim. All of the above costs exclude the costs of ammunition and spares consumed during the exercise as these costs are not separately identified.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, and how many personnel were deployed on the infantry exercise in Botswana carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76607]

  Mr. Spellar
  Exercise Diamond Cutter, which took place in Botswana from 4 February to 20 March 1998, involved 144 personnel from B Company 2 Para and cost £0.324 million, excluding the costs of ammunition and spares consumed during the exercise as these costs are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, which countries had armed forces involved in and how many personnel were deployed on the infantry exercises in the USA carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76598]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of the infantry exercises in the USA carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 was as follows:

  £million

  Exercise

  Cost

  Trumpet Dance 1/98

  0.256

  Trumpet Dance 2/98

  0.696

  The cost of Trumpet Dance 1/98 excludes the cost of movement by RAF transport aircraft to and from the USA, as these figures are no longer available. The costs of ammunition and spares consumed during both exercises are also excluded as these costs are not separately identified.

  Military Headwear
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the policy is on the use of military headwear in Northern Ireland; in what circumstances a local commander would order steel helmets to be worn and on how many occasions such orders have been given since September 1997 broken down by the(a) barracks and (b) regiment from which the patrol was drawn. [83388]
  142
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: In August 1997, Headquarters Northern Ireland announced that, as a matter of policy, troops operating in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) would wear regimental headdress instead of helmets, but that local commanders had the discretion to authorise the wearing of helmets for the personal protection of soldiers under their command, taking into account the threat and local operational circumstances. The decisions taken by local commanders as to when they have ordered the wearing of helmets are not held.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army infantry battalions and companies there were in(a) May 1998 and (b) May 1999. [83625]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently 33 Infantry Battalions and 95 Companies in the Territorial Army. There were also 33 Battalions and 95 Companies in May 1998. However, from 1 July 1999, the date on which converted, reorganised or re-roled units assume their new function and, where applicable, change title following the restructuring of the Territorial Army, the number of Infantry Battalions and Companies will reduce to 15 Battalions and 64 Companies.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army centres there were in(a) May 1998 and (b) May 1999. [83626]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of Territorial Army Centres in the following years were:

  Year

  Number

  May 1998

  452

  May 1999

  454

  TA Centres that were vacant, or that housed only cadet units, have been excluded from these figures. Similarly, Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association (TAVRA) headquarters buildings and stand-alone University Officer Training Corps (UOTC) premises have not been included.

WALES

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82862]

  Mr. Michael
  It will be for the Assembly to consider its own arrangements for the future.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the terms of the performance target for his Department of securing at
  143
  least 250,000 UK jobs from foreign direct investment by March 2002; and what assessment he has made of the present number of UK jobs currently maintained by foreign direct investment. [83736]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry share a Public Service Agreement target to maintain the United Kingdom as the prime location in Europe for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Figures for the number of jobs secured from FDI are recorded by the Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB), which is jointly run by the two departments. The figures, which cover both jobs safeguarded and new jobs created, are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest and are released annually. The IBB recorded 1,057,700 jobs created or safeguarded by FDI between 1979 and 1998.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review diplomatic immunity for serious offences committed by families of staff attached to foreign embassies and high commissions. [83366]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. The recommendations of the Government Report on Review of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Reply to "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges", the First Report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the Session 1984–85, of April 1985, remain valid.

  Mrs. J. Badar-ud-Din
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British High Commission in Pakistan is taking to assist Mrs. J. Badar-ud-Din, a British citizen who is in Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan; how many visits staff from the High Commission have paid her; and what representations he has received from her family. [83596]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  From the time they were told of Mrs. Badar-ud-Din's admission to hospital on 26 February 1999 our consular staff in Lahore and Islamabad were in close touch with her husband. They helped him to arrange for her repatriation to the UK, accompanied by a medical escort, on Saturday 8 May. She is now being cared for in Leicester General hospital.

  SFOR (Banja Luka)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) the British Embassy offices and (b) the SFOR offices in Banja Luka are back in use following their occupation by demonstrators on 25 March; and if he will make a statement. [83628]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The British Embassy office, along with other international buildings in Banja Luka, was seriously damaged by vandals during demonstrations organised by extremists in the Serb Radical Party. The office is no longer in use. The SFOR office for Civil-Military Co-operation was slightly damaged but has now been repaired and is operating normally. The main 144
  SFOR headquarters were not occupied and have been in continuous use. The security situation is now described as calm. We and our international partners made clear in March that the actions of a minority of extremists would not derail the peace implementation agenda in Bosnia.

HEALTH

  Male Health Awareness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase public awareness of health issues affecting men; and if he will make a statement. [83638]

  Ms Jowell
  Specific action has already taken place, such as the introduction of the Campaign Against Living Miserably helpline for younger men, as well as support for initiatives such as last year'sEurope Against Cancer Week which had cancer in men as its theme. In addition, the Department has provided funding for projects that look at the reasons why men are reluctant to take opportunities to improve their health.

  The Government will shortly publish their new strategy for health in England—"Our Healthier Nation"—which will set out how Government, local authorities, health authorities, other local organisations, and individuals can work together in partnership to improve the health of everyone, including men. Reducing health inequalities—including those between men and women—is a key aim in "Our Healthier Nation", and action will focus on heart disease, cancer, accidents and suicides, and particularly opportunities for men's health which has been neglected for too long.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the introduction of a green transport plan for his Department. [82845]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: Since last July's Integrated Transport White Paper, which set targets for the introduction of green transport plans for Government Departments, my Department has completed 2 plans covering all headquarters and main buildings. Plans are being developed for all other key buildings in line with the target of March 2000 set in the White Paper.

  Utility Regulation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what environmental appraisal his Department is undertaking of the review of utility regulation. [82855]

  Mr. Battle
  The review has concluded that Ministers should have powers to give statutory guidance to the regulators on the social and environmental objectives which are relevant to their responsibilities. The Government intend to legislate as necessary on the conclusions of the review as soon as parliamentary
  145
  time can be made available. We also intend that this legislation should provide enabling powers for energy saving obligations in the gas and electricity industries. When the Government put their legislative proposals before Parliament, they will be accompanied by a suitable environmental appraisal.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his estimate is of the numbers and percentages of(a) mothers and (b) fathers who will choose to take their parental leave entitlement. [83808]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 10 May 19991]: We are committed to fostering a workplace culture which recognises the importance of family friendly employment policies, including parental leave, for both men and women in reconciling their work and family commitments. For the purposes of the regulatory impact assessment published with the Employment Relations Bill, we assumed that about 82,000 people would take parental leave each year,

  Table 1

  Percentage of electricity supplied in the UK

  GWh generated

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997

  Onshore wind

  0.07

  0.11

  0.12

  0.15

  0.20

  665

  Small scale hydro1

  0.05

  0.05

  0.05

  0.03

  0.05

  159

  Large scale hydro2

  1.37

  1.62

  1.49

  1.00

  1.22

  3,969

  Landfill gas

  0.15

  0.17

  0.18

  0.22

  0.27

  880

  Sewage sludge digestion

  0.13

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  0.12

  400

  Municipal solid waste combustion3

  0.13

  0.23

  0.24

  0.24

  0.29

  934

  Other4

  0.05

  0.09

  0.11

  0.10

  0.10

  335

  Total renewable sources

  1.95

  2.39

  2.30

  1.85

  2.25

  7,341

  1Electricity generation scheme belonging to companies with an aggregate hydro capacity below 5 MWe are classified as 'small'.

  2Excluding pumped storage stations.

  3Includes combustion of refuse derived fuel pellets and hence some waste of fossil fuel origin.

  4Includes farm waste digestion, waste tyre combustion and poultry litter combustion.

  Source Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1998

  In addition, renewable sources generated heat equal to 0.92 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 1997. Thus, in total, renewables accounted for 1.0 per cent. of the UK's total primary energy requirement in that year.

  Table 2

  Percentage change on previous year

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Onshore wind

  +538.2

  +57.6

  +14.3

  +24.3

  +36.8

  Small scale hydro1

  +6.7

  —

  +4.4

  -48.2

  +84.9

  Large scale hydro2

  -21.6

  +19.1

  +5.3

  +29.9

  +21.2

  Landfill gas

  +18.6

  +15.7

  +9.5

  +24.6

  +24.8

  Sewage sludge digestion

  +15.2

  -4.5

  +1.7

  +9.0

  —

  Municipal solid waste combustion3

  +42.0

  +78.5

  +4.9

  +4.2

  +20.1

  Other4

  +169.2

  +100.0

  +19.3

  -2.4

  +2.8

  Total renewable sources

  -9.6

  +24.2

  -0.9

  -16.4

  +21.2

  1Electricity generation scheme belonging to companies with an aggregate hydro capacity below 5 MWe are classified as 'small'.

  2 Excluding pumped storage stations.

  3Includes combustion of refuse derived fuel pellets and hence some waste of fossil fuel origin.

  4Includes farm waste digestion, waste tyre combustion and poultry litter combustion.

  Source Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1998
  146
  consisting of 6,000 men and 76,000 women. Over a five year period, this is equivalent to about 2 per cent. of eligible fathers and about 35 per cent. of eligible mothers.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list(a) the growth rate in and (b) the percentage of power supplied by each renewable energy source in each of the last five years; [81863]

  (2) if he will list the types of renewable energy sources currently providing power and the contribution in percentage terms each source makes to the United Kingdom's total energy supply in the most recent year for which figures are available. [81784]

  Mr. Battle
  The types of renewable energy sources generating electricity in each of the last five years (1997 is the last year for which data are available) are given in the table. The percentages alongside each are the contribution made to total UK electricity supply. To set the figures in context, actual generation of electricity from each source is also given for 1997:

  The information requested on the growth rate of renewable energy sources used to generate electricity in the United Kingdom is as follows:
  147
  As is said in the discussion paper "New and renewable energy, Prospects for the 21st century", we expect the proportion of electricity from renewable sources to rise to 5 per cent. by 2003. The Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity as soon as possible and hope to achieve this by 2010.

  Trade Ministers Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those subjects(a) which he will raise and (b) which he expects other states to raise at the Trade Ministers Council of 10 and 11 May. [83818]

  Mr. Wilson
  The meeting agreed that the EU's objectives in preparing for the next Round of World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle in November should be to secure agreement to:a new Round of comprehensive multilateral trade negotiations embracing subjects and issues of interest to all WTO members;
  a short, time limited Round to be completed in three years;
  a 'single undertaking' to ensure that all participants accept the outcome of the negotiations as a whole;
  specific issues, which are ready for decision at Seattle, such as a binding commitment to provide duty free access for essentially all products from least developed countries, and steps to improve WTO transparency.

  There was broad agreement among Member States on the EU's priority areas for future negotiations. These include: agriculture, services, investment, trade facilitation, technical standards, electronic commerce, industrial tariffs, trade and the environment, intellectual property rights,

  Inspectors' report

  Date of publication

  Accountancy firm criticised

  Minet Holdings plc

  29 August 1990

  Black Geoghegan & Till

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  Josolyne layton-Bennett

  Arthur young

  Alexander Howden Group plc

  29 August 1990

  Josolyne Layton-Bennett

  Arthur Young de Paula Turner Lake

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  20 March 1991

  Levy Gee Spicer & Pegler

  Sound Diffusion

  1 May 1991

  Arthur Young

  Ernst & Whinney

  Rotaprint plc

  24 July 1991

  Arthur Young

  The Milford Docks Company

  16 January 1992

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Edencorp Leisure plc

  18 February 1993

  Ernst & Young

  Norton Group plc

  11 March 1993

  Hacker Young

  Astra Holdings plc

  17 June 1993

  Stoy Hayward

  London United Investments plc

  23 September 1993

  KPMG peat Marwick

  CR Driver & Co. Ltd

  The Bestwood plc

  20 January 1994

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd.

  Atlantic Computers plc

  21 July 1994

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Atlantic Computer Holdings plc

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  McLintock

  Spicer & Oppenheim

  James Ferguson Holding Plc

  6 July 1995

  Thouche Ross (Jersey)

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd.

  Lindley Adams & Co

  Spicer & Oppenhheim

  Spicer & Oppenheim (Gibraltar)

  Touche Ross

  Chancery Plc

  17 December 1998

  Arthur Anderson

  148
  public procurement and trade defence instruments. The meeting emphasised the importance of ensuring that developing countries should play a full part in the Round and that the outcome should reflect their interests.

  Accountancy Regulation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing his Department's proposals on regulation of accountancy; [82546]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing his Department's proposals for regulating auditing; and what proportion of that cost each of the parties will bear. [82547]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The new framework for the regulation of the accountancy profession is non-statutory and funded by the bodies represented on the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. The Government have not made their own estimate of the costs but the running costs are expected to be of the order of £5 million a year. Since much of the new framework will replace existing regulatory arrangements, the additional costs will be relatively small.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the accountancy firms whose affairs have been investigated following criticisms of their conduct in his Department's inspectors' reports. [82925]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Inspectors' reports published since 1990 which contain criticisms of accountancy firms are set out in the table. Such reports are referred to the recognised professional body of the firm concerned and investigations are a matter for that body.

  Fax Surveys
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to regulate the use of fax surveys in cases where replies are charged at premium rates; and if he will make a statement. [83899]

  Mr. Wills
  Fax surveys where replies are charged at premium rates will frequently constitute unsolicited direct marketing faxes.

  As indicated in my written answer of 27 January 1999, Official Report, column 284, the Government have taken steps to address this issue through the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) (Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998, which came into force on 1 May this year.

  The Regulations prohibit the sending of unsolicited direct marketing faxes to private individuals and sole traders in the UK, as well as to partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Regulations also establish an "opt-out" scheme for corporate subscribers who do not wish to receive such faxes. The Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) is responsible for setting up the opt-out scheme and has appointed the Direct Marketing Association to run the scheme following competitive tender.

  In addition, where unsolicited direct marketing faxes are sent, the Regulations require those sending such faxes to include their name and either an address or Freephone telephone number on which they can be contacted.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what studies his Department has undertaken or evaluated to assess the impact of the Millennium Dome on the localities of(a) Bermondsey tube station and (b) London Bridge tube station, with particular reference to the Shad Thames development; [82428]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Millennium Dome on the localities of (a) Bermondsey tube station and (b) London Bridge tube station, with particular reference to the Shad Thames development. [82429]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  When the Jubilee Line Extension is fully open, it is forecast that 114,590 and 17,102 people per day will use London Bridge and Bermondsey stations respectively. Of these, it is estimated that 2,232 passengers per day will use London Bridge station and 56 passengers per day will use Bermondsey station to travel to the Millennium Dome. Therefore, passengers travelling to and from the Dome will contribute about 2 per cent. of total usage at London Bridge and 0.3 per cent. at Bermondsey.
  150
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what studies his Department has carried out or evaluated to assess the impact of the Millennium Dome on the locality of North Greenwich tube station, with particular reference to parking for local businesses and residents; [82426]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Millennium Dome on the locality of North Greenwich tube station with particular reference to car-parking for local businesses and residents. [82427]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. This is a matter for the London Borough of Greenwich, which is implementing the Greenwich Millennium Controlled Parking Zone, which includes specific provisions to accommodate the parking needs of both residents and businesses. Having carried out extensive public consultation on its CPZ proposals, Greenwich's conclusion is that the scheme provides facilities to meet the majority of local parking demands, whilst safeguarding the area from unrestricted and intrusive parking from commuters and visitors to the Millennium Experience and other developments on the Greenwich Peninsula.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if people who are not visiting the Millennium Dome will be able to drive to North Greenwich tube station to deliver or collect passengers. [82420]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the interests of security and pedestrian/visitor safety London Transport is not proposing to open its "Kiss and Ride" facility at North Greenwich station until 2001.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of people, other than Millennium Dome visitors, who will use the Jubilee line tube stations of(a) Bermondsey, (b) London Bridge, and (c) North Greenwich. [82424]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport estimate that the total number of people, other than those visiting the Millennium Dome, who will use(a) Bermondsey, (b) London Bridge and (c) North Greenwich on a daily basis is as follows:

  Bermondsey: 17,046

  London Bridge: 112,359

  North Greenwich: 30,806.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of people, other than Millennium Dome visitors, who will use the Jubilee line between North Greenwich tube station and(a) Stratford, (b) London Bridge, (c) Waterloo, (d) Westminster, (e) Green Park and (f) Baker Street. [82425]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total number of people, other than Millennium Dome visitors, who London Transport estimate will travel on a daily basis between North
  151
  Greenwich and (a) Stratford (b) London Bridge (c) Waterloo (d) Westminster (e) Green Park and (f) Baker Street, are as follows:

  Station

  To

  From

  (a) Stratford

  4,028

  3,663

  (b) London Bridge

  6,863

  2,260

  (c) Waterloo

  4,890

  1,679

  (d) Westminster

  4,200

  1,298

  (e) Green Park

  3,461

  1,145

  (f) Baker Street

  858

  537

  The figures quoted above are the number of passenger journeys made directly between North Greenwich and the named station, other than those visiting the Millennium Dome, i.e. on a daily basis, 4,028 passengers will travel to Stratford from North Greenwich and 3,663 will travel from Stratford to North Greenwich.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans have been made for the provision of car-parking for non-local commuters using the Jubilee Line. [82421]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No special provision has been made for car-parking spaces for non-local commuters using the Jubilee Line. However, there are car parks on the Jubilee Line at Stanmore, Canons Park, Wembley Park, Queensway and North Greenwich stations.

  GM Crops
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public money will be spent on trial sites for genetically modified crops in 1999. [83258]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not spending any public money on the provision of trial sites of genetically modified crops. The Department is however funding two research programmes that are conducted on such trial sites.

  The farm-scale evaluations investigating the effect of GM crop management on farmland wildlife are being conducted on sites provided by the industry group SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops). The research, costing £233,000 in 1999, is being paid for by DETR with contributions from MAFF and the Scottish Office. Another project, costing £46,353 in 1999, is monitoring for gene flow from GM crops in field trials.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many separate trial sites there will be for genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom in 1999. [83284]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 88.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the scientific design of the field-scale evaluations of the ecological effects of genetically modified crops will be finalised; and if he will make a statement. [83260]
  152
  Mr. Meacher
  The successful contractors for the research have proposed a methodology for the ecological studies and this will be reviewed by the scientific steering committee. Fieldwork carried out this year will further help the contractors and steering committee to refine the methods to be used for subsequent years. It is envisaged that a provisional methodology will be made publicly available by the contractors and the steering committee soon after the steering group has met in early June. The final agreed methodology will be made available in the Autumn following the results of the first year's studies.

  Railtrack
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had about the ability of Railtrack to demonstrate the practicality of its timetable for trains on the slow lines after the Passenger Upgrade II. [83695]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has given an undertaking to the Rail Regulator on the capacity that it is committed to provide following the implementation of the Passenger Upgrade II project. I expect the Rail Regulator to ensure that this undertaking is met.

  West Coast Mainline
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack about its ability to demonstrate that it can meet the requirement set by the regulator to provide an extra 42 paths of the slow line of the West Coast Mainline after Passenger Upgrade II. [83694]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator is discussing with Railtrack what it needs to do to demonstrate that it can meet its commitment to provide the extra 42 paths.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack about its statements relating to the needs of people travelling on the Euston to Rugby stretch of the West Coast Mainline in the company's network management statement and its capacity study. [83693]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator is considering whether the plans in Railtrack's 1999 Network Management Statement adequately reflect the reasonable requirements of train operators and funding bodies, including train operators serving the Euston to Rugby route. In addition, the Franchising Director has launched an extensive consultation exercise with local authorities and other bodies on the level and type of services which the rail network should provide. This will assist the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority in forming a view on how the network should be developed, including the route between Euston and Rugby.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on the West Coast Mainline upgrade; and if the programme is progressing(a) to schedule and (b) to budget. [83696]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Passenger Upgrade II project is a commercial agreement between Railtrack and West Coast Trains Ltd., and as such is a matter for the parties.
  153
  However, the Rail Regulator is monitoring Railtrack's compliance with undertakings it has given as to capacity for other train operators and funding bodies.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publish the timetable for the proposed development of the West Coast Mainline. [83698]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Shadow Strategic Rail Authority will monitor Railtrack's progress with the modernisation of the West Coast Mainline, and the Rail Regulator will monitor compliance by Railtrack with its undertakings to the Regulator on additional capacity and related issues.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that Railtrack considers the reasonable requirements of train operators for growth on the West Coast Mainline. [83697]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has a licence obligation, which is enforced by the Rail Regulator, to meet the reasonable requirements of train operators and funding bodies to the extent reasonably practicable, including those requirements which relate to growth on the West Coast Mainline. I understand that the Rail Regulator is considering whether the plans set out in Railtrack's 1999 Network Management Statement demonstrate compliance with this obligation.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the proposed climate change levy he plans to redirect to develop energy efficiency measures with particular emphasis on small to medium sized enterprises; and what plans he has to extend the option for negotiating tradeable permits. [83704]

  Mr. Meale
  In his Budget Statement on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–190, the Chancellor announced as part of the climate change levy £50 million per annum package to fund schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency directly including energy efficiency audits/advice, mechanisms to promote low carbon technologies, and additional support for renewable sources of energy. Further details will be set out in the draft UK climate change programme later this year.

  The Government recognise that SMEs are a key part of the economy with special needs. They have already therefore designed specific schemes and programmes to help them save energy and money and, importantly from our point of view, do their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My Department's Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme provides independent advice and information on energy efficiency and support for RD&D projects. Non-domestic energy users including SMEs are an important target audience for the programme. The Department also funds grant schemes specifically for SMEs delivered through the Energy Saving Trust. The experience gained from the Energy Efficiency Best practice programme will provide a good basis for developing further energy efficiency schemes as part of the £50 million per annum package.
  154
  On tradeable carbon permits, the Government fully recognise the potential benefits of a carbon emissions trading scheme, particularly in allowing business to deliver greenhouse gas reductions in a cost effective way, and in preparing business and the City for the international emissions trading scheme to be established under the Kyoto Protocol. We also see carbon emissions trading as potentially having a complementary role alongside the climate change levy. We are therefore taking forward the recommendation made by Lord Marshall in his report on "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy", by working with the CBI and ACBE (the Government's Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment) to develop a pilot trading scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the long-term objectives of the proposed climate change levy; and what assessment he has made of the effect the climate change levy will have on non-intensive energy users. [83705]

  Mr. Meale
  The climate change levy is intended to make a significant contribution to meeting our greenhouse gas targets-an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of carbon per annum. It is one of a number of measures being developed as part of a substantial package to help the UK achieve its climate change objectives and enable the Government to continue to play a leading role in international efforts to tackle climate change.

  The climate change levy has been designed to be revenue neutral across the business economy as a whole. Non-intensive energy users will be expected to pay the full rate of climate change levy but, like all sectors of business, they will receive a reduction of 0.5 percentage points in their National Insurance Contributions. In line with the recommendations made by Lord Marshall in his report on "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy", the Government intend to retain an incentive for all users to save energy at the margin. Firms which are non-intensive users of energy but which are labour intensive will tend to be net gainers from the budget package. The accompanying cut in employer National Insurance contributions will encourage employment opportunities, while the additional support for energy efficiency measures will help stimulate the development of new technologies.

  The latest forecasts from the Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre estimate that average temperatures will rise by up to 3.5 per cent. by the end of the next century. As part of the international effort to tackle climate change, the UK has signed up to a legally binding target of 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990 levels by 2008–12. The Government propose to go further than this and have set a domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide—the most significant greenhouse gas—by 2010.

  London Underground
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 212, what has been spent to date on consultancy costs for the London Underground public-private partnership. [84207]
  155
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from London Transport that their expenditure on external consultants, from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 31 March 1999, for work on the PPP and restructuring London Underground was –18.5 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Self-harm)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses to record incidents of self-harm in prison. [83593]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Incidents of self-harm are recorded when prisoners in Prison Service establishments require treatment in a health care centre, and are assessed by the clinician to have deliberately injured themselves.

  Kosovo Refugees
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to respond to UNHCR's request that national Governments keep formalities to a minimum to speed up the evacuation of refugees from Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [83802]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's priority, along with that of our European partners, remains to ensure that as far as possible, Kosovan refugees are cared for within the region so that they can return home when it is safe for them to do so. This is the refugees' overwhelming wish. We have also long made it clear that the United Kingdom stands ready to receive some thousands of refugees from the region on humanitarian grounds and on the basis of criteria agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We received the first formal request from the UNHCR to take refugees on 20 April and agreed it within one hour. I announced in the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 5 May 1999,Official Report, columns 943–52, that we will be building up to taking around 1,000 refugees a week in the next few weeks.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to assist local authorities and other organisations with the funding of services required in relation to the evacuation of refugees from Kosovo to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [83801]

  Mr. Straw
  I made clear in the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 5 May 1999,Official Report, columns 943-52, that local

  Description

  Start Date (Contract award date)

  Company

  Reductions in payment

  IND Casework Programme

  Spring 1996

  Siemens Business Services

  Yes

  Medway Secure Training Centre (STC)

  3 March 1997

  Rebound ECD Limited

  Yes

  Rainsbrook STC

  3July 1998

  Rebound ECD Limited

  No

  Hassockfield STC

  12 November 1998

  Medomsley Training Services Ltd

  No

  Data Capture (United Kingdom Passport Agency

  July 1997

  Siemens Business Service

  Yes

  156
  authorities and the voluntary sector will be reimbursed the additional costs that they incur. The details of that reimbursement are currently being worked out.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for the reception and care of unaccompanied refugee children from Kosovo who arrive in the UK. [83588]

  Mr. Straw
  Unaccompanied minor children are being looked after in the region as far as possible to facilitate family reunion.

  Children who have become separated from their parents have arrived in the United Kingdom in the company of a guardian or close adult relative. Every assistance is given in these cases to trace family in the United Kingdom, and this has been successful in at least one case.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the consultation process in place in relation to the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau; what representations he has received concerning the establishment of the Bureau; and when the Bureau will be operational. [83709]

  Mr. Boateng
  A User Group will be established to enable the views of the users of the Criminal Records Bureau's services to be taken into account in its detailed implementation. Wider consultation on, for example, the content of the Code of Practice for bodies to be registered with the Bureau will also be undertaken.

  Since the Home Secretary announced the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau in December 1998 we have received a number of representations. We estimated at that time that it would take some two years to establish the Bureau.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the impact on the voluntary sector of the proposed charges for criminal record checks at the Criminal Records Bureau. [83572]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 103.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each private finance initiative undertaken with his Department; if he will give the date the initiative started, the companies involved and whether any payments have been reduced to reflect performance against the contract; and if he will make a statement. [83707]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information is as follows:
  157

  Description

  Start Date (Contract award date)

  Company

  Reductions in payment

  Manufacture of Digital Passports (United Kingdom Passport Agency)

  July 1997

  Stationery Office Ltd. (now Security Printing Systems)

  Yes

  Gatwick Detention Facilities (Tinsley House) Immigration Centre

  May 1996

  BAA

  No

  Altcourse Prison

  20 December 1995

  Fazakerley Prison Services Ltd.

  Yes

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  7 November 1996

  Lowdham Grange Prison Services Ltd.

  Yes

  Parc Prison

  4 January 1996

  Bridgend Custodial Services Ltd.

  Yes

  Coldingley Prison Industries Workshop

  1 November 1997

  Wackenhut UK Ltd.

  1No

  Prison PABX System

  December 1995

  Racal Telecommunications Network Ltd.

  Yes

  Forest Bank Prison

  June 1998

  UKDS

  No

  Ashfield Prison

  June 1998

  PPS

  No

  1contract terminated from 31 January 1999

  My Department is also supporting a number of Local Authority Private Finance Initiative Projects as follows:

  Description

  Start Date (Contract award date)

  Company

  Reductions in payment

  Derbyshire Ilkeston Police Station

  13 February 1998

  Perveril Securities

  No

  Derbyshire: Divisional Headquarters and City Section Police Station

  26 February 1999

  Derby SPV Ltd.

  No

  Northumbria Police: Mounted Section

  15 May 1998

  Bowey PFI Ltd.

  No

  Thames Valley Police: Divisional Headquarters

  8 December 1998

  Babcock and Brown Properties Ltd.

  No

  Wiltshire Police: Air Support

  18 December 1997

  Police Aviation Services

  No

  Stretford Divisional Headquarters and Fire Station

  4 December 1998

  PFF (Stretford Ltd.)

  No

  Criminal Conviction Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the use of the criminal conviction certificate to employment purposes; and if he will make a statement on the steps that he is taking to ensure that the availability of criminal conviction certificates will not increase recidivism. [83795]

  Mr. Boateng
  Criminal conviction certificates will be available to individuals only on application and it will be for the individual concerned to decide to whom to provide the information contained in them. Criminal conviction certificates will give details only of unspent convictions. This is information which applicants can be asked to disclose at the moment. The criminal conviction certificate will allow employers to be sure that the information they have been given is full and accurate. We shall be consulting about guidance on the use of the certificates.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if(a) the Security Service has taken over the responsibility of promoting the risk analysis methodology CRAMM from the CCTA and (b) personal data are required to be processed in order to promote the software; and if he will make a statement on how his Department will apply to provisions of the Data Protection Acts to such processing. [83798]

  Mr. Straw
  In 1997, the Security Service took over the management of CRAMM, but the promotion and marketing of the associated software package was undertaken by commercial organisations on its behalf. The Security Service is currently engaged in the transfer of the management responsibilities too, under Government licence, to a commercial consortium. Consequently, the Security Service holds no personal data in connection with the promotion of CRAMM.
  158
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Data Protection Registrar(a) on the application of Sections 28 and 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Security Service and (b) on provisions in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [83791]

  Mr. Straw
  The Data Protection Registrar wrote to me, in February this year, concerning the application of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the security and intelligence agencies when it comes into force. I replied that this was still under consideration and that no decision had been made. I said the same to my hon. Friend in my letter of 31 March. This remains the position although useful discussions between the Registrar's officials and mine have taken place.

  On (b), the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted about clauses 11 and 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. In the light of discussions with her Office, some additional safeguards have been provided.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 on the automatic right of access on request to any recorded material taped in a public place by CCTV. [83570]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have not received any representations on this issues.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 provides a framework for the statutory regulation of public space Close Circuit Television (CCTV) systems. The Act builds upon the regime of the Data Protection Act 1984 but goes further in a number of respects. In particular, it provides enhanced rights for individuals in respect of personal data held about them by data controllers, including rights of subject access.
  159
  The Data Protection Registrar has started to develop a code of practice, to be issued under her new powers as Data Protection Commissioner. This code will provide guidance to CCTV operators on how to comply with the Act's requirement.

  Paedophilia File
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were listed on his Department's paedophilia file on the latest date for which figures are available. [83586]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office does not maintain a "paedophilia file".

  However, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned or convicted of certain sexual offences, including certain sexual offences against children, to notify the police of their name, address and date of birth within 14 days of caution/conviction. The information is provided to the local police and stored in the Police National Computer.

  I understand that, as at 28 February 1999, 8,161 individuals were recorded on the Police National Computer as having notified the police in England and Wales of their details, in accordance with the 1997 Act. A breakdown of the sex of those who have notified the police of their details could, at present, be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tote
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the review of the Tote. [84050]

  Mr. Straw
  The Review of the Tote has been completed. I have considered the Report of the Steering Group which conducted the Review and have accepted the recommendations in it. I am most grateful to Peter Jones, the Chairman of the Tote, who chaired the Steering Group, for his skilful handling of this task. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

  The Tote's status as a non-departmental public body has served it well in the past but has become increasingly anomalous as the Tote has become a more commercial operation and developed its non-pool betting activities through acquisition of licensed betting offices. The Review, therefore, concluded that the commercial freedom now required by the Tote would be best provided by transfer to the private sector. This will require legislation and, in view of the time this is likely to take, the Review has made no recommendation as to the precise method of sale. That will need to be determined at the time.

  Further work will now need to be undertaken on the various sale options, including the possibility of a sale to racing, in consultation with the Tote, the racing industry and others. The Review also recognised the need to have regard to the interests of the taxpayer, as well as other stakeholders. This means that the Government have rejected the possibility of the tote being transferred to racing without consideration.
  160
  Although the Tote's new status will now need to be worked out in detail, the Review has marked out the future path for the Tote which will enable it to develop and operate in a fully commercial way.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Drugs
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role her Department is taking in encouraging developing countries to reduce the production and supply of illegal drugs. [82958]

  Clare Short
  We recently published a strategy paper on illicit drugs and the development assistance programme. It stresses the need to provide effective support to poor communities that grow narcotics so that other crops offer a better life than the proceeds of narcotic production. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House and will send one to the hon. Member.

  Development Projects
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met representatives of UK non-governmental organisations to discuss development projects in the poorest countries. [82959]

  Clare Short
  I met representatives of UK non-governmental organisations (NGO) on 29 April to discuss our proposals for new funding arrangements for UK organisations working to support development. There was a strong welcome for our new proposals which are designed to strengthen support for the development of civil society in the poorest countries, the details of which will be published by the summer.

  Balkans Aid
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she is evaluating for a reconstruction and development package for Balkan countries following the cessation of hostilities. [82961]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),Official Report, column 303.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement concerning UK assistance to Kosovar refugees. [82968]

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the provision of emergency aid to Kosovo. [82975]

  Clare Short
  On his recent visit to Macedonia, the Prime Minister announced an increase in British humanitarian assistance to £40 million. This is being spent on relief supplies, logistics, humanitarian experts, medical care, shelter and services in camps, information provision, and family reunification. UK objectives remain to save lives, protect the rights of refugees, encourage tolerance
  161
  in host countries towards refugees, to plan for new contingencies, including access to Kosovo when the security situation allows, and to plan for refugee return.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's response to the needs of Kosovar refugees in(a) Macedonia, (b) Albania and (c) Montenegro. [82972]

  Clare Short
  We have allocated £40 million since March in response to the needs of Kosovar refugees on relief supplies, logistics, humanitarian experts, medical care, shelter and services in camps, information provision, and family reunification.

  Our objectives are to save lives and reduce suffering, protect the rights of refugees, encourage tolerance in host countries, and to plan for new contingencies, including the return of the refugees to Kosovo.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the preparations being made to provide assistance to Kosovar refugees over the winter. [82965]

  Clare Short
  Shelter and heating will be key issues for refugees during the cold weather, after their return to Kosovo and also for those who remain in neighbouring states. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is responsible for refugee care in this and other areas. We have offered assistance to UNHCR to help make contingency preparation for future refugee needs, and are ready to respond to requests.

  Currency Speculation (Taxation)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assess the benefits for the world's poorest people of the introduction of a tax on currency speculation. [82962]

  Clare Short
  The proposal to tax currency transactions is of considerable interest. It could bring benefits in two ways. It could help reduce short term currency speculation, and it could raise significant resources to reduce poverty. Unfortunately, there are serious practical difficulties which stand in the way of implementation: it is difficult to distinguish between currency speculation and necessary currency transactions, and it would be difficult to agree on a satisfactory distribution of revenues. We will continue to study this and related proposals.

  Amazonian Rain Forest
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department provides for research into the Amazonian rain forest. [82963]

  Clare Short
  We are currently supporting ten projects in the Amazon basin with a significant research component. These cover research into ecosystems, biodiversity, silviculture, forest management, harvesting for timber and non-wood products, and environmental policy.
  162
  The ten projects are:

  Bionte biomass and nutrient research project

  Rain forest silviculture research project

  Central Amazonia flora and vegetation project

  Lake Mamiraua ecological station

  Piper Hispidervium development project

  G7 Pilot Program(G7PP): Science centres of excellence project

  G7PP: Natural resources policy project

  G7PP: Sustainable management of the varzea (flooded forests)

  Ecology and silviculture of Swietenia macrophylla King (mahogany)

  Integrated approach to managing Amazon forest biodiversity.

  The total committed to these projects is some £22.4 million. The amount being spent on research within the projects cannot easily be disaggregated from other expenditure.

  United Nations
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to strengthen the role of the United Nations in development. [82964]

  Clare Short
  Our plans are set out in a recently published paper"Working with the United Nations for International Development: Institutional Strategy Paper", a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House and which I have sent to my hon. Friend.

  MISC 6 Cabinet Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanism exists to ensure that the views of her Department are represented within the MISC 6 Cabinet Committee. [82966]

  Clare Short
  This matter is currently under consideration. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Regional Development Banks
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to strengthen the work of regional development banks. [82967]

  Clare Short
  We are working to ensure that the focus of the work of the Regional Development Banks is on poverty reduction, and we welcome recent progress on this in the Asian and African Development Banks. We are also urging increased effectiveness in the design, implementation and evaluation of their projects and programmes, and the adoption of appropriate pro-poor and financial strategies. We seek to exert influence at all levels including through contact with the Presidents of these institutions, other members of Bank management and country programme managers and their advisers.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to involve the private sector in the promotion of sustainable development. [82969]
  163
  Clare Short
  Globalisation is creating great wealth but its benefits are unevenly spread. The growing gap between rich and poor can create instability which increases risks for us all. It is both morally right and in business' interests that this wealth is spread more fairly.

  Business has a key role to play in helping developing countries achieve the economic growth they need through investment and training. We are working with the private sector to promote a fair and stable operating environment necessary to achieve this. We are also working to promote socially responsible business practice.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received from supporters of the Jubilee 2000 campaign on the relief of international debt. [82970]

  Clare Short
  We are in regular contact with Jubilee 2000. 1 admire the role the churches and NGOs are playing in raising awareness among the public of the effects of high levels of indebtedness on some of the world's poorest people and building support for more debt relief in the run-up to Cologne Summit in June. I receive many letters from members of the public, directly and through their Members of Parliament, indicating their support for cancelling the unpayable debt of the poorest countries.

  Multinationals
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met representatives of multinational companies to discuss the work of her Department. [82971]

  Clare Short
  We are developing working relationships with a wide range of businesses in pursuit of our poverty elimination objectives. On 20 April I spoke at a Symposium organised by the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum and Business in the Community on "Responsible Business in the Global Economy". The Symposium was sponsored by Diageo and BP-Amoco and was attended by over a hundred representatives from blue chip companies and non-governmental organisations. I will send a copy of the speech to my hon. Friend.

  Burma
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards aid to internally displaced persons in Burma. [82973]

  Clare Short
  Since 1996, we have provided almost £1 million of humanitarian assistance for Civil Society and UN agencies working with refugees and internally displaced people along the Burma-Thailand border, the Burma-China border and the Burma-Bangladesh border. We shall continue to respond to appeals for humanitarian assistance where safe and transparent delivery systems are available to ensure that assistance reaches the intended beneficiaries.

  Cuba
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide assistance towards sustaining the Cuban health and education systems. [82974]

  Clare Short
  We contribute to Cuba through the European Commission whose humanitarian office (ECHO), focuses on the health and social sectors.

  We have no plans to introduce a bilateral aid programme.

  Africa
  26. Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many projects are being financed in African countries; and if she will make a statement. [82976]

  Clare Short
  We are currently spending £406 million in African countries. We also contribute to Africa through our work in the World Bank, EU, UN and other multilateral agencies. Our country strategy papers for Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Education
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to press developing countries to increase spending on education, with particular reference to girls. [82960]

  Clare Short
  World Bank analysis demonstrates clearly that educating girls has major development impact. Our White Paper commits us to work to ensure that the international community achieves its agreed objective of securing quality primary education for all girls and boys by 2015. We have committed over £250 million to primary education partnerships with developing countries since 1997. These are designed to support and encourage these governments in prioritising spending on primary education.

  Displaced Persons (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugees and displaced persons have been driven from their homes in (i) Serbia, (ii) Kosovo, (iii) Croatia, (iv) Macedonia, (v) Montenegro, (vi) Bosnia and (vii) Slovenia since 1990 as a result of the civil wars and conflicts in former Yugoslavia; and how much development assistance and humanitarian support has been made available by the British Government to the countries of the regions. [82956]

  Clare Short
  About 2½ million people have been driven from their homes in the former Yugoslavia as a result of the conflicts since 1991 and an additional 800,000 since March this year. In response, the UK Government have provided over £247 million in humanitarian, reconstruction and development support. We have committed £40 million since March for refugees from Kosovo.

  East Timor
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department intends to respond to the signing on 5 May of a tripartite agreement on East Timor by Indonesia, Portugal and the United Nations Organisation. [84031]

  Clare Short
  We will contribute $1 million to the Trust Fund established to enable the United Nations to conduct a popular consultation and ensure an orderly transition to autonomy or independence. We will support a co-ordinated international effort, led by the United Nations, and are exploring how we might also help develop capacity in civil society.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff work for his Department and its agencies; and how many did so in 1990. [82554]

  Mr. Morley
  On 1 April 1990, there were 10,495 staff working in my Department and its agencies. On 1 October 1998 (the latest information available) there were 9,702 staff working in MAFF and its agencies undertaking broadly comparable functions. In addition, there are 1,549 staff working for the Meat Hygiene Service who undertake functions which were the responsibility of local authorities in 1990.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) with the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement. [83400]

  Mr. Morley
  The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is a voluntary instrument which sets out a general framework of principles and standards aimed at ensuring the responsible conservation, management and development of fisheries. It is a wide-ranging document covering the capture, processing and marketing of fish and fish products, aquaculture, fisheries research and the integration of fisheries into coastal state management. The European Community is committed to ensuring that the Common Fisheries Policy, which aims to promote responsible fisheries management and the conservation of fish stocks, is fully compatible with the
  relevant provisions of the Code.

  Open Government
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [83119]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: For monitoring purposes, this information is collected on a calendar year basis. Information for 1997 was published
  166
  last year in the Open Government: Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997 Report. In the year ended 31 December 1998 MAFF and its agencies received 41 applications for information under the Code and granted 32 of them.

TREASURY

  Tax Avoidance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form he proposes to implement his proposals on tax avoidance set out in Inland Revenue Press Release 35. [83371]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The proposals will be legislated in the Finance Bill 2000. They will provide a mechanism for looking through a contractual relationship, where services are provided through an intermediary, such as a company, but the underlying relationship between the worker and the client has the characteristics of employment. In those circumstances, the engagement will be treated as employment for the purpose of tax and National Insurance.

  The Inland Revenue is presently working with interested parties on details of the practical application of the proposals.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much third world debt the UK has written off since May 1997; how much remains due to the UK; to whom this is owed; and if he will make a statement. [82957]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to improve existing debt relief mechanisms since May 1997. The Chancellor has called on his international colleagues to implement faster, wider and deeper debt relief.

  Since 1997, HM Government have written off or committed under existing debt relief mechanisms to write-off around £400 million of debt from developing countries.

  The total developing country debt outstanding under current debt agreements is just under £9 billion.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 10 May; and if he will make a statement. [83973]

  Ms Hewitt
  I attended the Economic and Finance Council-ECOFIN-of the European Union in Brussels on 10 May 1999.
  There was an orientation debate on the Commission's draft 1999 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. The draft was broadly welcomed. ECOFIN will agree a text at the 25 May ECOFIN after further discussion at official level.

  The Presidency's draft European Employment Pact was discussed. The Pact will be discussed further at official level before being adopted by the joint meeting of

  167
  ECOFIN and the Social Affairs Council on 25 May. The Employment Pact was also discussed informally over lunch with the Social Partners.

  The Commission presented to ECOFIN its preliminary draft budget for 2000, which it had adopted on 28 April. Discussion emphasised the need for budget discipline.

  The President of the Economic and Financial Committee proposed a procedure for involving ECOFIN in the formulation of Common Strategies. The proposals were agreed.

  I urged the Commission to speed up the disbursement of already agreed funds for the Federal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the consultation on the national curriculum review will be launched; and if he will make a statement. [84079]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be carrying out the consultation on the proposed revisions to the national curriculum on my behalf. Sir William Stubbs and I will jointly launch the consultation tomorrow, 13 May. The Consultation will last for ten weeks. All schools will receive information about the consultation, and the full consultation package will also be available on the Internet, at http://qca.org.uk/ncr/ from tomorrow morning. Paper copies will also be placed in the Library tomorrow.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Arts Council of England regarding the future of its commissioning budget; and if he will make a statement. [83046]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have regular discussions with the Arts Council of England on a wide range of issues. In the case of new music, I understand that the Arts Council and regional arts boards provided £74,000 and £262,515 respectively in 1998–99 for new music commissions. The Arts Council also funds a number of organisations which support new music (the Society for the Promotion of New Music, Sonic Arts Network, London Sinfonietta and the British Music Information centre) adding a further £619,200 to the above figures. Other regularly funded organisations support new music within their grant in aid allocations, and performing groups and composers have also received support through the Arts For Everyone schemes.

  Museums
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department is providing for local authority administered museums which are seeking to increase and improve their visitor attractions whilst retaining free admission. [83720]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For the first time, my Department is spreading its financial support to museums beyond those which it directly funds by means of a £15 million challenge fund for Designated museums. Of the 43 Designated museums services eligible to apply, 17 are local authority managed. The first awards have also been made from the Heritage Lottery Fund's new £7 million Museums and Galleries Access Fund established to assist Museums and Galleries Commission registered museums with touring exhibitions, transport costs, and other audience development approaches. In addition, a £½ million IT Challenge Fund and a £½ million Education Challenge Fund will be available to Commission registered museums this year and next year to support access, lifelong learning and educational projects.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Planning
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-determination appeals have been made to the Planning Appeals Commission for each district in Northern Ireland; how many were upheld; and in how many cases the Commission disagreed with the main recommendations of the commissioner hearing the appeal in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [82904]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested in relation to non-determination appeals is included in the table. The table covers the last five years, and provides information in the format requested.

  Article 33 (Non-determination) appeal statistics-1994-95
  to 1998-99

  District council

  AL

  DS

  W/D

  N/D

  T

  C

  1994-95

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  169

  District council

  AL

  DS

  W/D

  N/D

  T

  C

  1995–96

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  North Down

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Omagh

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Strabane

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  3

  4

  4

  —

  11

  3

  District council

  AL

  DS

  W/D

  N/D

  T

  C

  1996–97

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Carrickfergus

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  3

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Down

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Strabane

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  8

  4

  4

  —

  16

  2

  District council

  AL

  DS

  W/D

  N/D

  T

  C

  1997–98

  Armagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derry

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  3

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newtownabbey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8

  1

  1

  —

  10

  2

  170

  District council

  AL

  DS

  W/D

  N/D

  T

  C

  1998–99

  Armagh

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Belfast

  3

  —

  3

  —

  6

  —

  Carrickfergus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Craigavon

  4

  —

  2

  —

  6

  1

  Coleraine

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Derry

  2

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lisburn

  2

  1

  1

  1

  5

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Newtownabbey

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  North Down

  4

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17

  4

  7

  8

  36

  1

  Key

  AL = Allow, DS = Dismiss, W/D = Withdrawn/Invalid, N/D = Not Decided, T = Total, C = Decision different from Member's Recommendation

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to make the appointment of the police ombudsman. [81607]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 April 1999]: We intend to re-advertise the post nationally very soon. We hope to appoint a Police Ombudsman designate in late July/early August. Much will depend, however, on the number of applicants, the availability of candidates for interview and the date on which the successful candidate is available to take up post, by Royal Appointment.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the introduction of a green transport plan for her Department. [82843]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: Since last July's Integrated Transport White Paper, which set targets for the introduction of Green Transport Plans for Government Departments, we are working to complete shortly plans covering all our headquarters and main buildings.

  We are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with the target for March 2000 set in the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Police Interview Recordings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers she has to accede to requests from persons interrogated at a holding centre that she listen to RUC recordings of their interrogations; what representations she has received in relation to four men arrested at Drumintee on 13 April; and if she will list the classes of person who may have access to interview recordings, indicating in each case the permission required to effect such access. [83383]
  171
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: The audio recording of police interviews with terrorist suspects is governed by a Code of Practice, laid in Parliament in draft on 23 February 1999 and on course to become operational on 24 May 1999. The Code of Practice makes no provision for the Secretary of State to listen to the audio recordings; nor does the Secretary of State consider it appropriate that she should intervene in any ongoing police investigation.

  On 15 April 1999, representations were received from a firm of solicitors on behalf of three persons arrested on 13 April 1999 under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 that there was no basis for their detention. The representations included a request that the Secretary of State should listen to the audio recordings of the interviews as a means of confirming this. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State and in accordance with S14(5) of the PTA, had earlier approved an application from the police for a two day extension of detention in respect of the persons detained. In light of the solicitors' representations, the Minister further considered the police application and upheld his decision to approve it.

  Access to audio recording is as follows:

  (i) the detained person may listen to the audio recording, on the authority of the Sub-Divisional Commander;

  (ii) a solicitor may listen to the audio recording, on the authority of the Sub-Divisional Commander;

  (iii) if a person is charged or informed that he or she will be prosecuted, a solicitor acting for that person may apply to the Sub-Divisional Commander for a copy of the audio recording;

  (iv) the Director of Public Prosecutions may listen to the audio recording, on his own authority;

  (v) a court may listen to the audio recording, on its own authority;

  (vi) the audio recording may constitute evidence on behalf of a party to civil proceedings, if relevant.

  Forest Service
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Forest Service for the financial year 1999–2000. [84080]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following Key targets have been set for the Forest Service for 1999–2000.

  To achieve 800 hectares of new planting in public and private sectors combined.
  To offer for sale 325,000 m3 of timber.
  To maintain visitor numbers in charged areas at above 90 per cent. of the average level achieved over the last 5 years.
  To maintain the area of forest under sustainable management.
  To respond to 100 per cent. of written correspondence within 15 working days.
  To approve (or reject) 90 per cent. of applications under the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme within 8 weeks of receipt of a properly completed application form.
  To pay, following planting, 90 per cent. of grant claims within 8 weeks of receipt of a properly completed claim form.
  To determine the way forward for long-term partnerships with the wood processing industry (as recommended by the PFI study).
  172
  To market test/contract out 15 per cent, of direct costs of forest operations.
  To achieve an outturn which meets the targeted net cost of the forestry programme.
  To achieve at least 3 per cent. efficiency savings.
  To control DRC and programme expenditure to within 1 per cent. of the final control totals.
  The Forest Service Business Plan for 1999–2000 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at a later date.

  Rivers Agency
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [84081]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for 1999–2000.

  To construct or refurbish 0.63 km of urban flood defences.
  To increase the length of designated sea defences having appropriate standards of protection to 32.5 per cent.
  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 126.5 hectares of development land.
  To replace/refurbish 1.616 km of dangerous culverts.
  To complete maintenance work on 265 km of urban watercourses and 1,203 km of rural watercourses.
  To issue substantive replies to 80 per cent. of written inquiries within 15 working days of receipt.
  To respond to 98 per cent. of Schedule 6 applications within 3 months.
  To control programme expenditure to within 0.5 per cent. shortfall of the final control total.
  To control DRC expenditure to within 1 per cent. shortfall of the final control total.

  To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains in the 1999–2000 financial year.
  The Rivers Agency Business Plan for 1999–2000 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at a later date.

  Social Security Agency
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year. [84082]

  Mr. McFall
  The following targets have been set with the objective of improving the service provided to customers. I am satisfied that the targets represent a demanding challenge for the Agency. The targets will be included in the Agency's 1999–2002 Strategic and Business plan, which is due for publication this month. A copy of the plan will be placed in the Library. The targets are as follows:

  1. Benefit Accuracy

  Disability Living Allowance
  to pay the correct amount in at least 87 per cent. of cases.
  Incapacity Benefit
  to pay the correct amount in at least 94 per cent. of cases.

  Income Support
  to pay the correct amount in at least 88 per cent. of cases.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  to pay the correct amount in at least 90 per cent. of cases.

  2. Customer Satisfaction1
  90 per cent. of customers to regard the Agency's service as satisfactorys or better.
  173
  3. Financial Recovery
  recovery of overpayments-£3.2 million.
  benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud-£22.0 million.

  4. Resource Management
  to achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £1.1 million.
  1 The customer satisfaction target is presently measured by independent survey and usually covers a two year period, in this case 1999–2000 and 2000–01. As such it will be measured again early in the year 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 May. [83630]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and gave a speech in memory of John Smith, my predecessor as leader of the Labour party. In addition to my duties in the House, I have further such meetings later today.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what targets he has set the Government Car and Despatch Agency for 1999–2000. [84172]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set the agency the following targets:Financial
  to break even on an accruals basis;
  to achieve a sales turnover of £11 million;
  to maintain expenditure and receipts within voted provision;

  Efficiency
  to maintain the gross contribution as a percentage of sales at 1998–99 outturn;
  to increase the income per pound for labour cost to £2.04;

  Quality
  to improve customer satisfaction by 2 per cent.

  Environmental
  to convert to alternative environmentally friendly fuels 50 per cent. of the cars purchased and capable of such conversion.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Duke of Rutland—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Balkans: Economic and Political Development
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the economic and political development of the Balkans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom is urgently pursuing, with partners and allies, a range of ideas to promote economic and political development in the Balkan region. The Kosovo crisis has highlighted the need to stabilise the region; to accelerate our existing strategy; and to make it more inclusive.
The EU presidency has proposed a stability pact for the region, and we are working with it on this. At the same time, we are making specific proposals to give this process greater content and impetus.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the task force which has just been established between the World Bank and the European Commission with regard to the reconstruction of the Balkans.
Should we not go well beyond that in terms of the reconstruction of democratic institutions in the whole of the Balkans? Should we not involve the non-governmental organisations, and should we not seek to train the refugees now outside Kosovo to be able to help in their own reconstruction? Today we have learned of a new crisis in Russia. The scale of the need is now far beyond anything we envisaged. I remind the Minister of the Prime Minister's remark about a Marshall Plan and the Foreign Secretary of Germany's remarks about a major Balkan stability pact.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government too welcome the announcement today about the initiative: begun with the World Bank and the European Commission. That follows a decision at the meeting of high-level representatives of government which took place in Washington on 27th April.
We are going further than that, both economically and politically. As well as supporting the work that is being undertaken with our partners in Europe, the Government are working on a range of possibilities to be taken
1194
forward with NATO, the OSCE and the international institutions. We recognise the point that the noble Baroness makes. It is not just a question of economics. It is a question of political stability too. We are in the process of working up our ideas. Meetings are taking place today and they will continue to try to put forward our ideas and discuss them with our partners as quickly as possible.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the co-ordinated and comprehensive response that has been announced today to deal with the post-conflict economic rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Balkan region may be our last chance to bring long-term stability to that historically unstable region? Does my noble friend share my view that it will not just be a last chance but will be a golden opportunity to get it right this time? While the cost will be very high indeed, we must ensure that the member states of NATO, the European Union and the international financial institutions make provision to meet those costs for, if they do not, it is certain that the region will fall back into despair and into renewed conflict.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that today's announcement presents an important opportunity. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that there are a number of different arenas in which that important work is being pursued. The announcement today is one very important part of that but it is not the only initiative. There is that joint responsibility to co-ordinate the work and to assess the needs and mobilise the support for the Balkan regions. The Commission and the World Bank have already co-chaired meetings in relation to Bulgaria and Macedonia. Further meetings are scheduled as regards Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is extremely important work and we support that initiative. But there are other initiatives too and I ask my noble friend not to lose sight of the importance of those further initiatives.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the obvious importance of education and training in economic development, and recalling the speedy generosity with which our universities helped earlier generations of refugees like the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968, will the Government encourage the funding councils to enable our universities and further education colleges to admit relevant young people from among the refugees currently arriving from Kosovo?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, is quite right that the educational future of the young refugees is an important point if we are to ensure that there is a future, not only for those who have left Kosovo and may not see their future there, but those who wish to return. Indeed, we shall encourage them to do so if that is their wish. The work being taken forward in the United Kingdom at present is looking into a

1195
number of different areas, not only on the economic side. As I stressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that includes areas on the political side and areas of good governance. All those issues are being considered at present. We hope to be able to share our thinking on this with our partners within the next couple of weeks or so.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, from these Benches we strongly endorse the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Does the Minister agree that when fighting a war it is right and proper to ensure that defence forces are fully financed, and it will be absolutely essential on this occasion, in making the peace in Kosovo, that full and generous financial support will be needed? Therefore, to what extent have the Government's plans for the post-fighting status of Kosovo, namely a mandate under a UN Security Council resolution for its interim administration, been agreed with other members of the NATO alliance, the OSCE, the European Union and the United Nations in particular?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the position after the fighting is over—let us hope that is soon—is one that has to be discussed not only with our allies in NATO but with other members of the contact group. The noble Lord will know that work is going forward on this very urgently, not only with the contact group but also in the United Nations. We very much hope that we will be able to persuade our friends in China that they can come on board over a United Nations Security Council resolution. The future will depend upon how all the interested parties see the position after the fighting. Among those interested parties will also be the Kosovo people. As we have said, as far as we are concerned, we believe it is important that the Rambouillet Accords form part of the thinking for the re-building of Kosovo after the fighting.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the first need of south-east Europe is for free trade and better transport links? Is it not desirable that there should be some kind of Benelux arrangement stretching the whole way from the Ukraine to Albania?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is sensible for us to look at the situation on the ground when the fighting is over. There is an enormous amount of political and economic uncertainty, not only in Kosovo but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly pointed out, in the whole of the Balkan region. The priorities are to end the violence in the Balkans, to increase prosperity in the region and to have partnership based on core democratic European values. We need to get those things into place and then consider the sort of detail the noble Lord urges us to do.

Written Answers: Publication in Hansard
2.46 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that it is in the interest of open government to place full Answers to Written Questions in the Library of the House. where they are not readily accessible to the public, rather than to publish them in the Official Report.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it is usual practice for departments to consult the office of the Official Report for guidance on handling when Answers to Questions from noble Lords are of significant length. In such cases, the decision to place the Answer in the Library of the House, rather than publish it in Hansard, is made for reasons of cost-effectiveness and practicality. The full text of the Answer is, of course, available to noble Lords and other inquirers on request.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, this is an increasing practice. Is it not extraordinary that the Government adopt it at a time when they are promising, again and again, a freedom of information Bill, a manifesto promise which has not yet been delivered?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we place Answers in the Library rather than publish them in the Official Report only after we have taken the advice of the Editor of the Official Report. It is not a decision for the Government, but for the authorities of this House. It is wrong to criticise the Government rather than others.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that those of us who ask Questions—here I declare an interest as one who asks a number of Written Questions—have a certain responsibility in judging such Questions so as not to produce such voluminous responses as are required to be placed in the Library?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords are always responsible in the Questions they ask. When they ask a Question, they know that it is one which deserves an Answer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that some Answers he has given have referred noble Lords to sites on the world wide web and that for some noble Lords who do not have access to computers that can make for difficulty? Will he guarantee that in future all Answers he gives to noble Lords are available through Hansard whether the Editor wishes it or not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that I have only ever referred to a site on the world wide web when it was appropriate and necessary to do so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the course of his Answer, my noble and learned friend mentioned the

1197
question of cost. Would it not be wiser to look at the form in which government papers are published? At the moment they comprise a glossy cover—sometimes a double cover—and may also be illustrated in colour. Would it not be better to have a rather more impersonal and cheaper presentation of government documents?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is good that attempts are made to make White Papers more interesting to the public. More effort should be made to encourage people to read government documents so that they see what the Government are doing. Therefore I do not agree with my noble friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, continuing the theme of cost, is the Minister aware that in relation to numerous Written Questions I have asked of the Minister of Agriculture, I have had to repeat those Questions because I have not been given a proper Answer? Will the noble and learned Lord contact his colleagues in that office and ask how much it costs to answer my Questions perhaps two or three times before I receive a proper Answer?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, whenever the subject of Written Questions is raised, everyone stands up and complains about specific Questions. I am not in a position to respond to the inquiry about the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Obviously it is better that Questions are answered first time round. If they are not, it will cost more money. However, rather than putting such a question to me, the noble Countess would be better off contacting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Minister answer the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and put a copy of his answer in the Library?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect I have answered the question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was concerned by the noble and learned Lord's original Answer when he said that it was up to Hansard to decide whether a Written Question was published in the Official Report or whether it should go into the Library of the House and that it was not the Government's responsibility. Will the Minister consider the point again? It is surely the Government's responsibility to decide how information is given to the public.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government provide the answer. We take advice, and we comply with the advice.

Scotland: Tuition Fees
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now their policy on the imposition of tuition fees in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the policy on tuition fees announced in July 1997 remains throughout the United Kingdom. It was designed to ensure that only those who could afford to do so would contribute. It is estimated that no more than 30 per cent of students will be required to pay the full amount.
The next part of the Answer will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness. From 1st July education in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the first part of his Answer, which was quite standard and anybody who has followed this matter expected that to be his reply. However, I am sure that the noble Lord values the great fruits that have come from devolution and the second part of his response is more important. It raises a serious issue as to whether or not tuition fees will be introduced at Scottish universities. Will the Minister indicate on behalf of the Government how they view such a situation? Does he recognise that it will have a serious effect on the staff and courses at universities throughout the United Kingdom, quite apart from the effect that it will have on students and their parents? We have a right to expect the Government to have thought through this policy and to tell us who will be paying for it.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as I indicated in my initial reply, education—including the whole business of higher education expenditure and student finance—is a devolved matter. It is therefore open to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to develop policies that they believe suitable in all the circumstances.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I in turn may thank the Minister for the second part of his initial Answer. Is he aware that after 1st July we will have to consider how far Questions such as this will be in order? Does he know whose responsibility it will be to decide that matter? If not, will he make it his business to find out?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I have had enough difficulty coming up with an answer to this question, let alone finding an answer to the second supplementary. However, the noble Earl is quite right. There is an issue at hand on how matters relating to Scotland will be addressed in this House. I am sure that other minds are bending to that matter as we speak.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, will my noble friend pass on to those who will be responsible next year for fees and payments in Scottish universities that on several occasions over the past two years this House has expressed its disgust at the odious act of discrimination which is now the practice under which Scottish and European Union students are exempted from certain fees, whereas English, Welsh and Northern Ireland

1199
students have them imposed upon them? Will he ensure that his right honourable friends in the other place have this drawn to their attention?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is absolutely right and proper that a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Executive should deal with the issue of tuition fees for Scottish universities and for Scottish domiciled students. That is rightly a matter for that Parliament and I do not intend to interfere.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, is it part of the new politics of consensus, compromise and coalition that the least popular party in the new Scottish Parliament should make non-negotiable demands on that Parliament and that the major party in the Scottish Parliament should take its orders from Whitehall? What are the implications for England if the Scottish Parliament decides to use the powers given to it by this Government to ignore the instructions of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and abolishes tuition fees in Scotland? Is it part of the new politics that the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, whether in relation to tuition fees or beef on the bone, should dictate policy to Westminster?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we still have a little to learn about the nature of devolution.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps we could organise special needs classes. The point is that, on an issue affecting education and higher education, there is clearly an English and a Scottish interest. When this House was discussing the Scotland Bill there was not a single dissenting voice either in Committee or on Report saying that any aspect of higher education in Scotland should somehow be reserved. We must accept that, having given responsibility for that area of policy to the Scottish Parliament, it will proceed in what it considers to be an appropriate and responsible way. It is not a matter of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly dictating to anybody.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in my pleasure in the news we have just received that my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood has just been elected as Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament.
The Minister confirmed rightly that the question of who pays the students' tuition fees in Scotland is entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament and I hope he will confirm that his colleagues, like my colleagues, are free to make their own decisions in that Parliament. Does he agree with me that the unfairness that might result from that could be much more easily resolved if this Parliament were to abolish tuition fees in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, no. I ask those who have an interest in tuition fees in Scotland to pay attention to some of the voices that have been heard more recently, particularly from representatives from the Association of
1200
University Teachers in Scotland. Indeed, one of its spokesmen, a former prominent Liberal Democrat, argued against a "quick fix" type of decision in this area.
Similarly, we should all recognise the contribution of Mr. Ian Graham-Bryce, convenor of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, who made clear that the concern of the principals was not with the future of tuition fees as such but with the bigger cause of widening access and ending social exclusion. Those are noble and proper objectives.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister hear, as I do, the sound of chickens coming home to roost here? Further, does he accept that over 60 per cent of the electorate in Scotland, in addition to those who voted for Dennis Canavan (whose overwhelming majority showed the lack of judgment in the Labour Party) voted for parties and people who have pledged to abolish tuition fees in Scotland? Unless a deal has been done to allow the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to become the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament in exchange for the Liberal Democrats backing down on the issue, tuition fees will not be paid in Scotland after 1st July. Can the Minister guarantee that his right honourable friend in Downing Street is not attempting to interfere with what has been devolved to the Scottish people?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is about time that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish, took a deep breath, counted very slowly to 10 and then decided whether or not he is in favour of devolution; and, indeed, whether he is in favour of proportional representation. Only yesterday I heard members of his party denouncing proportional representation. Of course, that would have meant that there would have been no Conservative present in the Scottish Parliament—perhaps an outcome devoutly to be wished. The decision on tuition fees in Scotland will be made by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. We all know that there are quite understandable discussions taking place between the parties. That would be a feature of the new politics in Scotland.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there is obviously great interest in this Question. However, we shall return to Questions on Scotland on many occasions in the future. We have now spent 24 minutes on three Questions, and it is time for the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to ask his Question.

UK Gold Reserves
3.2 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they now intend to sell a substantial part of the United Kingdom's gold reserves and what resources they will hold in their place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the sale of gold announced last week is part of a prudent

1201
restructuring of the reserves to increase the share in foreign currencies and to reduce the share of gold. This will provide a better balance in the portfolio for the UK's net reserves. The increase in currencies will be a mix of dollars, euro and yen, which is how the net currency reserves are presently held.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, If am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that I make no complaint about the restructuring of the reserves? However, given the immediate result of the gold price dropping by five-and-a-half dollars an ounce on Friday afternoon and by a further four-and-a-half dollars since, without a single grain being sold, can the Minister say why on earth this policy was announced in advance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, rather than pleading our own cause, I should refer the noble Lord to the very authoritative leader in the Financial Times, which argued, first, that it made sense, as the noble Lord acknowledged, to restructure our net reserves; and, secondly, that the timing and the method chosen were correct. We are proposing five auctions during the course of this year of as small an amount as 25 tonnes. My understanding is that the gold price has stabilised during the course of today.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, although I agree with my noble friend on the Government's position in the matter, can he tell us what is the case for keeping the remainder of the reserves in gold?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend may be recalling Keynes in the 1930s who described gold as a "barbarous relic". That may indeed be a proper position for the next millennium, but at present what we propose is a very modest change in the balance of our net reserves.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason he has given—if it is a reason at all—is totally unconvincing? Is he further aware that the only genuine reason, the only thing that makes sense, for the action that has been taken is that the Government are looking forward to the time when there will no longer be a pound sterling, only a euro? Therefore, in those circumstances, there will be no need to have reserves at all. I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is sitting behind the Minister, nodding his head. However, on reflection, does the Minister not feel that it is perhaps a trifle rash, not to say contemptuous of the British people, to pre-judge the result of a forthcoming referendum on the euro in this way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was grateful to have advance notice of the noble Lord's views in the press statements that he made earlier this week. I am aware that he is not convinced—but I do not believe that anyone else is not convinced—that this restructuring is entirely a technical matter made, by order, to the Bank of England, after having taken
1202
the advice of the Bank of England. The amount of money involved is not affected by and does not affect any preparations for joining the single currency; indeed, it is done entirely for its own purpose.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was aware that I was nodding my head. I did so simply because I regard gold as an entirely sterile asset, except for a tiny amount used in jewellery. Its value depends entirely on human irrationality, which Keynes. in particular, fully appreciated. Would not the correct next step be to find any mug in the world who is willing to buy it at the world market price and then sell it, using the remainder to hold interest-earning assets or to reduce the national debt? Both would be excellent moves whether or not we enter EMU, although of course I would favour the latter. That is not the essence of the matter; the essence is the complete irrationality of the world which feels that gold is a worthwhile asset.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend said, one of the reasons, although not the only one, for the proposed sale of gold is the fact that currency reserves held in the form of government bonds do attract interest. The level of interest that they attract depends on interest rates in the United States, Japan and in euroland. However, for the sake of completeness, I have to say that we do receive some proceeds from gold by lending it in the London gold market.
Lord Mackay or Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the Minister had an opportunity to read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in which he advocated a determination to continue the policy of Mr. Kenneth Clarke to persuade the IMF to sell at least some of its gold reserves in order to help fund the debt of the third world? In the light of that perfectly reasonable policy, is it not a bit odd that the UK Government should decide to sell their gold thus depressing the gold market? Surely that means that the IMF will receive a lot less money for its gold when it comes to sell it and that the third world will also receive less in debt relief.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord should pay some attention to the different orders of magnitude involved. We are talking about selling 125 tonnes of gold during the course of this year from total net reserves of £9 million (15 billion dollars) in a situation where the production of gold is approximately 4,000 tonnes a year. The use of gold for fabrication, jewellery, and so on, is approximately 4,000 tonnes a year. The effect on any country's balance of payments on its reserves will be minimal. Moreover, the effect on debt relief, on which this country has an exceptionally good record, will not be significant.

Imperial College Bill
3.8 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Hayhoe set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Lord Vinson to three hours. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Referendums
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe Lord Hayhoe rose to call attention to the case for establishing an independent statutory commission responsible for the conduct of referendums, their organisation and administration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to my colleagues for this opportunity to raise matters concerning referendums. Some 30 years ago—I was first elected a Member of Parliament in June 1970—about the one proposition that commanded universal support from all three party leaders was their clear opposition to the holding of a referendum on British membership of the Common Market, or the European Community as it was properly called then. That is not to say that the parties—Conservative, Labour and Liberal—were not deeply suspicious that their opponents would try to pull a fast one by endorsing such a referendum to gain electoral advantage at a late stage in the campaign. But, in the event, principled opposition was maintained.
Indeed, at that time there was greater confidence in parliamentary democracy as such. For example, Edward Heath, when asked by Robin Day on Election Forum about a referendum on the Common Market, replied:
"We have got the oldest parliamentary system in the world. It is still the envy of every other country in the world and my view is that it is right to depend on that parliamentary system".
Harold Wilson's answer, again to Robin Day, was much the same:
"I think it is right that it is parliament which should take the decision with a full sense of responsibility, with a sense that reflects national views and national interests".
And the Liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe, in similar terms, also rejected any idea of a referendum.
How times have changed. Referendums—or "referenda", as some like to say—are now more generally acceptable, if not positively welcomed.
Professor Bognador, in evidence to the Neill Committee, said that they were used,
"to secure legitimacy for decisions when parliament alone could not secure that legitimacy".
He went on to say,
"for that legitimacy to be secured the losers have to feel that the fight was fairly conducted".
I was delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor endorsed that sentiment in his annual Constitutional Unit lecture last December.
But Robert Hodge and his colleagues in the "Just Say No" campaign in Wales certainly did not feel that the fight had been fairly conducted. Neither did the Neill Committee. I remind your Lordships of paragraph 12.32 of its report:
"We were disturbed, in particular, by the evidence we heard in Cardiff to the effect that the referendum campaign in Wales in 1997 was very one-sided with the last minute No organisation seriously under-funded and having to rely for financial support essentially on a single wealthy donor. The outcome of the Welsh referendum was extremely close, and a fairer campaign might well have resulted in a different outcome".
Perhaps the result of the Welsh Assembly elections last week provided some fitting retribution, with the loss of Labour strongholds like Rhondda Valley, not just for the Labour Party's control freak tendency and internal wrangling but also for the very dubious popular support squeezed out by that flawed and biased referendum campaign. Nothing like that should ever be allowed to happen again.
Referendums about the single currency and about our voting system at general elections, if they are to be held, must be transparently fair and even handed. There is plenty of advice about how that can be achieved. We have the authoritative report from the Patrick Nairne Commission on the conduct of referendums. I am delighted that two distinguished members of that commission, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, will be speaking today. Sir Patrick's report spells out 20 guidelines which, while not exclusive and definitive, nevertheless cover essential elements of the arrangements and procedures which, once established and accepted by the main political parties, will ensure consistency and fairness and maximum confidence in the results of any future referendums. Like Sir Patrick and his colleagues, I favour the establishment of an independent statutory commission. But more of that later.
Ground rules are essential to cover the wording of the question in any future referendum that is held. They are absolutely crucial to achieve fairness, as anyone familiar with public opinion polling will testify. Reasonable thresholds must be set. A bare majority on a low turn-out—as, for example, in the Welsh referendum where, of the 25.1 per cent of the electorate who turned out, just over 50 per cent voted in favour of the Assembly—is no way to determine major questions of national importance.
Other issues requiring attention and perhaps prescription in legislation or by the independent commission would include the duration of the campaign and the provision of public information. In that respect,

1205
the exchange at Question Time on Monday between my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the Minister on the Front Bench opposite was pretty gloomy to listen to. Issues such as campaign expenditure and core funding; access to broadcasting; and the role of the Civil Service during a campaign are also relevant and need to be taken into account.
I referred earlier to the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life. Its fifth report is highly relevant to our debate today. It deals in detail with funding issues which go much wider than those concerned only with referendums. It deals also with the dissemination of information, with broadcasting, with umbrella campaigning organisations, and much else besides. There was, however, a lack of clarity in its proposals concerning the role of Ministers and the Civil Service during referendum campaigns. Those who have followed the debates in another place will have noted that my right honourable friend John MacGregor, a member of the Neill Committee, made a statement on 9th November last which, I believe, clarified matters in an acceptable fashion.
The election commission recommended by the Neill Committee would naturally and properly subsume the independent statutory commission, the subject of my Motion today. Pressures for the establishment of an election commission have been mounting over the years. When I was chairman of the Hansard Society, almost 10 years ago, it set up a commission on election campaigns, chaired by Christopher Chataway, which recommended such an election commission with a wide-ranging remit covering the conduct of general elections. Interestingly enough, there was not a single mention of referendums in its report. But, as I indicated, times have moved on, and the proper conduct of any future referendum is of crucial importance.
I should note that in another place my honourable friend the Member for Blaby, with all-party support, has introduced and obtained a Second Reading for a referendum Bill which is now being considered in Committee.
Perhaps I may quote from the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, the Jenkins Commission. In paragraph 168 it states:
"we strongly support the practical guidelines set down in the Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne".
It goes on to say:
"In particular we urge the Government to accept the recommendation, echoed by the Neill Committee, for an independent body to oversee the conduct of referendums, although we think that the Government should be entitled firmly to express its own view in any such referendum. It seems to us that an Electoral Commission would be best placed to discharge this role in relation to the referendum on the voting system. But if this is not in place we recommend that an independent Referendum Commission should be established to oversee the conduct of the referendum".
I believe that the arguments in favour of an independent statutory commission, whether more generally for elections or more specifically for referendums, are now overwhelming.
As I understand the Government's position, they are firmly committed to publishing a draft Bill on the Neill
1206
Committee's wide-ranging proposals before the Summer Recess. Very good so far as it goes. But I hope the Minister will give more details when he replies to the debate today.
If a draft Bill is published this summer, followed by wide consultation and perhaps consideration by a pre-legislative Select Committee, it should be possible to enact legislation during the 1999–2000 Session of Parliament, or at least in the Session following it; in fact, in good time to cover possible referendums on the single currency and the voting system, although it seems less and less likely to me that the Government will stick to their plans to hold such a referendum. as they promised, during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I understand fully how easy it is to enunciate general principles about fairness in the conduct of referendums. Detailed legislative provision is quite another matter. As has been rightly said, "The devil is in the detail". But an enormous volume of work has been done by the Nairne Commission and the Neill Committee and there is much expertise available to the Government, to the political parties and to other interested and concerned institutions.
I suspect we shall see more referendums in the future. Two are already promised, and there is, and will continue to be, mounting pressure for one on the stage two reform of this House, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne cogently argued yesterday. There is talk of further referendums on regional governments in England, although quite where those would lead I very much wonder. Who knows what may be proposed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
I must confess that my own view about the desirability and efficacy of referendums has moved from outright hostility, when first I entered Parliament, through scepticism to acquiescence. But I am still well short of being an enthusiast. As Hugo Young wrote last October in the Guardian:
"A referendum is a kind of surrender. It transfers the power of direct decision from the politicians to the people. It's also a kind of retreat, an escape-route for the political class. As far as the voters are concerned, it is both a gift and a burden. It says some things are too big to be left to the professionals. But it could also be saying this decision is one they don't have the nerve to take themselves".
I want to see respect for politicians and Parliament improve; I do not want to see it diminished by ever increasing recourse to referendums. But if there are to be more, they must be fair and properly conducted, following reasoned and informed debate. I hope today's debate will assist in that process. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for initiating this debate, which is timely, not least—as he said—because it is likely to surface again during the discussions on the House of Lords Bill.
As a practitioner rather than a theoretician, I have long advocated the case for a radical examination of our electoral processes, and within that I would include the conduct of referendums. Before going further, I should declare an interest as a member of the Patrick Nairne

1207
Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, along with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and as a member of the independent commission on the voting system.
Listening to some of the debates on the subject, one might believe that it is a new concept. It is therefore of interest to note that the debate has raged for over 100 years. That is from 1890, when A. V. Dicey, the constitutional lawyer, advocated its use, until 1975 with the first and only national referendum being held on the membership of the European Community—an experiment it was expected at that time would never be repeated.
However, times have changed. The mid-1990s saw the manifestos of the three main political parties committing themselves to holding referendums if returned to government. Throughout that time, since 1890, there have been many academic theses written on the principle and the merits and demerits of referendums. But until the work undertaken by the Commission on Referendums in 1996, little consideration had been given to the mechanics, which is what we are discussing today, rather than the theory.
It is undeniable that referendums are now accepted as part of our political process. That no doubt influenced the Neill Committee to include aspects of the procedure in its report on the funding of political parties. I wish to focus on aspects of both reports and on the future. It was fundamental to both reports that whenever the electorate are asked to express a view, be it on the choice of an elected representative or on a specific constitutional issue, there must be fairness, transparency, understanding of the process and neutrality. Only then can there be confidence in the result.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, so explicitly outlined, this can be achieved if the procedures are conducted and overseen by an independent commission working to laid down ground rules—a view which I fully support. The commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I were members advocated, as a compromise to one particular view, that there should be a special referendum commission. My own view then, as it is now, is that they should form part of the overall work and function of an election commission.
The role of the election commission should, in this context, include the production and distribution of balanced information, the distribution of core funding and a check on expenditure, the conduct of the referendum proper and acting as an ombudsman to deal with complaints; and, importantly, to advise on the question to be put. Key and crucial to the legitimacy of the referendum has to be the wording of the question which can, if it is biased or badly worded, affect the result. It should be short, easily understood, objective and fair and be designed so that there can be only two possible answers: "yes" or "no".
The commission report illustrates this with the example of a referendum in California on the question of nuclear power. The reverse wording of the question
1208
caused confusion as to whether a "yes" vote meant limiting future development or continuing its use. I am sure no one ever knew what the real outcome was.
Also to be avoided, in my view, is the multi-option question, from which no clear winner might emerge and which almost inevitably will lead to a second referendum.
During the course of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, there was considerable debate on who the electorate should be. I am pleased that the noble Lord. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will respond to the debate. He cited the view of the commission that the electorate should be as for a general election, plus Members of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that Members of the House were given the right to vote just because there were two Peers sitting on the commission. The reason they were given that right was because they can vote in local elections and it was felt that that was the right course to take.
Of course, the make-up of an electorate is important, but of equal concern to the commission was the state of the electoral register and the number of people debarred from voting. This has been another concern of mine over the years, so I am delighted that the Government are seriously considering how to overcome the problem which I regret the previous government failed to do, even though concern was expressed by all the main political parties, including the Conservative Party.
Doubts about the accuracy of the register raise particular problems if there is a requirement for a qualified majority. The commission was clear that the question of thresholds was a political decision, but it said that a simple majority of those who cast their votes carries natural authority.
I feel that if we are going to encourage greater participation in our democratic process, we should never allow those who stay at home to have more influence than those who go to the trouble to vote. There is no basis for assuming that everyone who says "don't know" means "no". I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe it was Winston Churchill who said that a majority of one is a majority. If that can apply to determine a government, it can surely apply to a view on a specific issue.
To quote the Neill Committee Report on funding,
"Neither side should be prevented from expressing a view merely as a consequence of relative poverty".
The report is right to recommend that there should be core funding for both sides and that the election commission should be responsible for its allocation. It is right to request audited accounts from those in receipt of such core funding and to say that there should be a declaration of donations over £5,000. I appreciate the difficulties, but I would have liked to see a cap on overall expenditure and greater control on the spending by outside bodies.
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, said, the main area of controversy arising from the report is that of the role of government. In paragraph 12.21(2) the Neill Committee uses the very good analogy of the Government's being expected to play the role simultaneously of umpire and active player, but

1209
somewhat contradicts that view later in the report when it says that referendums should be treated for these purposes as though they were a general election campaign.
In the latter statement there is no recognition that a referendum campaign will be conducted during the active life of a parliament and that, dependent on the subject in question, might on a day-to-day basis have to deal with allied matters. The noble Lord referred to this lack of clarity, which means that much greater consideration needs to be given to the role and influence of government, government departments and the Civil Service, factors which need to be taken alongside the decisions that the Government themselves must take, including matters such as whether there should be collective Cabinet responsibility, whether the referendum should be advisory or mandatory and its timing.
All those factors raise questions for the election commission in its work, not least in the publishing and circulating of information giving both sides of the argument. This specific role is absolutely crucial to government, in that it forestalls any criticism of the Government for protecting their own position.
This is a huge subject, and for "election freaks" like me it is an interesting one. There is only a very short time available to try to do it justice today; many more points could be discussed. For instance, there is the question of the introduction of a generic Act, which might not be an issue after we have seen the Bill arising from the Neill Committee Report. There is also the important and hotly disputed question whether referendums should be pre-legislative or post-legislative, seeking support for legislation already passed by Parliament.
Referendums in the United Kingdom also need to be considered in the context of parliamentary sovereignty. It is perhaps worth quoting the best formulation of the constitutional position, which was made by my noble friend Lord Glenamara, then Edward Short, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, before the 1975 referendum. He declared that the Government "will be bound" by its result, but Parliament, of course, "cannot be bound".
I am sure that this dialogue will continue, and I look forward to seeing what the Bill arising from the Neill Committee Report has to say. But, whatever the outcome of these deliberations, what is crucial is that the integrity of the referendum process be maintained. It is a process that I believe absolutely will be improved by the establishment of an independent election commission which takes responsibility for its conduct.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hayhoe for introducing this short debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, I welcome it and find it very timely. I should say at the outset that I support the general thesis that my noble friend set out. I am delighted that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, are taking part in the debate.
1210
As my noble friend said, referendums are a relatively new constitutional device for us, and it seems clear that they will be used increasingly. As we know, at the present time constitutional issues are well up on the political agenda, if not at the top, and referendums are frequently used as part of the testing of public opinion over new arrangements.
Like others, I have been concerned that there is a danger that as we move to more referendums the public at large will no longer believe in representative democracy as we have always known it, which most of us would think has served the country well for hundreds of years. Frequent referendums could well have the effect of weakening Parliament and weakening government. But, as the Government themselves have said, people want a more direct say in matters of the day.
Perhaps there is a certain irony in this debate. We are discussing referendums just at the moment when we are also debating the future of your Lordships' House, when the Royal Commission is deliberating on stage two, and when the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are just starting. So there are considerable new democratic institutions concurrent with the whole question of referendums.
I was interested to read the Question, already referred to, of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Nlostyn, replied quite recently. The noble Lord said that the Government were to publish a draft Bill on referendums before the House rose for the Summer Recess with a view to having controls in place before the next general election. It would be immensely helpful to the House today if the noble Lord could tell us more of the Government's thinking on this very important issue.
One specific point immediately comes to mind. If it is the intention to have referendums before the next election—for instance, on possible English regions or to do with local government—does that mean that there will be no proposals in place governing the way in which those referendums are run? This is very important.
There is, as my noble friend said, an enormous amount of evidence to guide the Government and all of us. The report of the constitutional commission under Sir Patrick Nairne has been referred to, as well as the reports of the noble Lord, Lord Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. So the debate is timely and there is much information.
We have had the experience of four referendums since 1997, and more are in prospect. The most important will undoubtedly be that on the single currency. This has already given rise to many questions, not least in your Lordships' House, and, knowing my noble friend Lord Peyton, I am sure he will be assiduous in pursuing the matter.
There is also a great deal of public disquiet, if the newspaper correspondence columns and comment by political commentators are a guide. I profoundly believe that the public—all of us—have a right to know how such an immensely important referendum is to be conducted. After all, there can be no more important issue facing the country into the 21st century.

1211
Leaving aside that immensely important referendum, we have possible referendums over the English regions; possible referendums, I understand, in local government on local issues; and, of course, a possible referendum on proportional representation. Underlying the concern is very much a political concern. It would be a problem for any government of any political complexion. It is this. If the Government, on going into a referendum, are seeking a particular outcome, those who do not agree with the issue will feel very aggrieved unless the whole system for having the referendum is seen to be transparently fair to all the parties.
That is the fundamental issue that concerns us all. Our experience of recent referendums is not entirely happy. In the referendums in Scotland and Wales a strong case was made at the time that they should have been post-legislative, so that the electors would have had a far clearer idea of exactly what they were being invited to vote upon. Others, including the Neill Committee, feel that there should be a threshold of votes to be cast, particularly in a situation such as that in Wales where the results were exceptionally close or, as in the case of London local government elections, where there is a very low turn-out of only 34 per cent of the population entitled to vote.
Turning to the sort of difficulties which could arise in relation to referendums for the proposed English regions, I foresee two big problems. What if each region votes and some regions want a devolved assembly but some do not? What would be the result? I am not at all clear, except that there would be total confusion. What about asking the people of the whole of England whether they want regions at all? Will that be considered? It is a serious point—and, if I may say so, it will become increasingly serious as we see the operation of the Parliament in Scotland. We had a foretaste of some of those difficulties at Question Time today. It is not a case of scoring party political points. Serious constitutional issues will arise and they need to be addressed. Those are only two obvious points; I have left aside all the other more difficult issues.
It is important that the public should be confident about the conduct of such matters. As your Lordships will know, I have recently been involved in the great debate about what I call, in shorthand, the "age of consent". A public opinion poll was published which gave completely inaccurate and misleading information. The truth became clear only if one read the whole poll and the actual questions asked. That casts doubt on polls and on other matters. When we are considering big issues such as a referendum on the single currency or on English regions—those huge and important issues will affect, in the first case, the entire population and, in the second case, the bulk of the population of the United Kingdom—we need to have a fundamental and impartial assurance about the way in which such matters are conducted.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, properly said, one could discuss this matter for a very long time, given the number of important issues involved. However, some of the big issues which come to mind relate to the duration of the campaign; the public information which
1212
is to be available so that people can find out what is really involved; the campaigning organisations outside the political parties and whether or not they should receive public funding; the scope of government activity and participation and of party political activity; access to the media; and whether referendums should be held separately from general elections or, where possible, on the same day. As well as the great political and constitutional issues, many important practical points arise.
I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to give some information about the Government's thinking on this important matter—not only because of the questions raised today, but also because I am concerned, like many others, that people are becoming disaffected with the democratic process. It is very important, where possible, to establish something which is seen to be fair between all parties and the electorate.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Hohne of Cheltenham: My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I should like to join her and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, most warmly for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I had the pleasure of serving under the noble Lord's chairmanship of the Hansard Society and I know of his deep and genuine concern about these matters of public interest. Let us make no mistake: this is a matter of public interest and is therefore particularly well suited to this short debate in your Lordships' House.
I sometimes think—this is not the digression that it sounds—that of all the contributions that the British have made to the world, the one that will be most remembered in a thousand years' time is our ability to write the rules which have made sports and games seen to be fair, enjoyable, understandable and capable of reproduction. We have a wonderful gift for writing the rules of sport. Noble Lords may choose their own sport—tennis, rugby, football or polo—and they will find that it is likely that the British codified the rules of the games which the whole world now plays.
However, when it comes to the constitutional sphere, swathed as we are in this country in complacency, the rules of public life in Britain often seem to owe more to Alice in Wonderland than to the Lawn Tennis Association or the Rugby Football Union. The rules of the political game, which after all is the most important—in Britain, that is saying a great deal because if it is a "game" it must be extremely important!—often seem to depend ultimately on the Government telling us that the rules mean exactly what the Government want them to mean. That really will not do because the rules of the political game decide the level of confidence which our fellow citizens have in their ownership of the political system.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I think that we probably have to accept that referendums are here to stay. Indeed, I would probably go further than the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, on this. Referendums are now a feature of the British political system. The

1213
1975 referendum on the European Community, which at the time seemed to be a one-off but which was followed by the referendum on Scottish devolution, has now been followed in the space of this Parliament by the four referendums introduced by the Government. Therefore, it is now clear that that 1975 referendum was not a one-off and that we are now ready to use referendums.
I agree with Professor Bogdanor, who was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, that the utility of referendums is particularly high in the constitutional area. They secure a higher level of consent, and therefore of legitimacy, than is necessarily possible through a parliamentary majority, particularly when that parliamentary majority may have been achieved in an electoral system in which the Government's majority represents only a minority of the people. Therefore, as far as the rules are concerned, I believe that referendums are helpful when deciding major constitutional changes. If I understood correctly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the other day, I think that I probably go further than him because his support for constitutional referendums seemed more qualified.
As both the noble Lord. Lord Hayhoe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, I too was a member of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which was established by the Constitution Unit and the Electoral Reform Society under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Nairne. It is worth dwelling on that for a moment because in an earlier incarnation as a senior Whitehall official, Sir Patrick was responsible for—and should take much of the credit for—the well understood and relatively efficient administration of the rules of the 1975 referendum on membership of the EC. Under his leadership, our commission was particularly well informed on that one example.
Noble Lords who have read that report will know that we recommended an independent referendum commission. I believe that that is the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, is seeking. Now that the Government have come out in favour of an independent election commission and propose to introduce legislation on that, I am fairly persuaded that the independent referendum commission should be a sub-set of that independent election commission. That is its most obvious locus. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been asked to respond generally to what may be in that legislation, and I should be interested to know whether he agrees that the election commission would be the natural home of a body overseeing referendums as well as elections.
I believe that there has been some misunderstanding on this aspect of the Neill Cornmittee"s report. Your Lordships will recall that the Government and the Home Secretary substantially agreed with that report. The one tremor was over the: slue of referendums. I do not know whether that was what one might call wilful misunderstanding or confused drafting in the report. It could be either. When the Minister replies can he confirm my understanding of the position, which is that the governing party will normally have a view on the question on the referendum? The Government must hope that Cabinet members will support that view. The governing party will have a view and will put it forward.
1214
But, equally obviously, the Whitehall machine must not and should not be deployed behind the Government's view as the governing party. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that understanding when he replies to the debate.
The key difficulty in the Nairne Commission report and in thinking about how to achieve above-board, well-argued referendums concerns the formation of what one might call umbrella campaigns. That is the encouraging point about the European referendum campaign. There were clear umbrella campaigns and therefore it was easier to see it as a straightforward binary choice with organising centres which could be assisted in various ways. That was not the case in the recent Northern Ireland referendum. There was no umbrella campaign for the Good Friday agreement. One does not have to look far to understand the reasons. It would have to unite extreme militant republicanism with Dr. Paisley. We can see why there was not an umbrella campaign for a "no" vote.
If it is possible to have clear protagonists for and against and the organisation which is necessary for umbrella campaigns, then I believe that the Nairne Commission conclusions would flow from that. As that report said, it is appropriate that some core funding should be available to both sides of the argument so that, financially, the minimal argument is capably put. Incidentally, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, about a ceiling on expenditure. We discussed that matter in the commission. It would be very difficult to enforce. I would agree with her more if core funding was available to, say, the poorer of the two protagonists.
There is also the issue of TV broadcasts. I make it plain that I am not speaking as deputy chairman of the ITC, but for myself. If there were two umbrella groups, it would be very difficult to resist the conclusion that they should both receive a certain amount of free broadcasting time.
The potential referendum on the euro has been mentioned several times this afternoon. On such an important issue of public interest, and about which there is a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding—and I speak as someone in favour—it would be inconceivable and I would be horrified if television broadcasting was not available to both sides in that debate in order to advance the arguments and public understanding of the issues.
Finally, I hope that the Government will take the advice of the Nairne Commission and that given by the various speakers so far in this debate about taking the rules of the referendum game very seriously. If we are to have them—and the Government seem to be committed to referendums—we must ensure that they are seen to be fair by our fellow citizens. If we do not do that, I believe that the democratic price to be paid will be very high. I shall be particularly interested in the noble Lord's response at the end of the debate.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I too welcome this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hayhoe

1215
on introducing it. As has already been mentioned, it is a timely and topical issue. We have heard that there are already three reports in the public domain; namely, those of the Nairne Commission, the Neill Committee and the Jenkins Commission, which recommended that there should be an independent body to oversee the conduct of referendums. As my noble friend also mentioned, there is the Referendums Bill in the other place, introduced in March as a Private Member's Bill with cross-party sponsorship, to create an independent commission.
Referendums are rather strange and controversial phenomena. They come in different shapes with different purposes and rules. In their book Referendums Around the World David Butler and Austin Ranney show that over the past 200 years there have been a little over 800 referendums held at national level. Just over 400 of them were held in Switzerland. A number of countries hold them on a regular basis, but they are few in number. However, the occasional use of referendums is common and increasingly so in democratic states. There has been a marked increase in their use in recent decades. As has been said, we have seen that in our own recent history.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, mentioned, referendums have been variously proposed throughout the past century in this country. There is nothing new in their advocacy, but what is new is their use at national level. That, of course, is confined to the past 25 years. However, we have now experienced them and it is likely that we shall experience more of them in the future, as my noble friend and others have said. All three party manifestos for the last election were committed to holding referendums in certain circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Hayhoe said that there are powerful and principled arguments against using referendums. They are quite persuasive. Unlike my noble friend, I have not shifted my position over the years. But the principle that my noble friend touched on is not central to the debate this afternoon but rather the practice. If referendums are to be held—in certain circumstances that will happen—it is vital that they are subject to rules that are both clear and, equally important, consistent.
As a matter of equity there have to be rules which are generic. There has to be consistency and hence predictability across referendums. If Parliament prescribes one set of rules for one referendum and a different set for another, then the legitimacy of the exercise is undermined. There has to be some guidance and framework which determines as well the issues on which referendums can be held. The subject matter of referendums elsewhere tends to be constitutional, territorial and moral issues. On occasions there are other disparate topics such as whether or not one should drive on the left-hand side of the road.
The referendums held within the United Kingdom have been on constitutional and territorial issues although we have experience, primarily in Wales, of local referendums on moral issues. Do we wish to hold national referendums on moral issues? Do we wish to make all changes to our constitutional arrangements
1216
subject to referendums? Precisely where do we draw the line? Drawing a line is important. If we do not do so, then there is the danger of impugning the legitimacy of those measures which are not subject to a referendum. It is thus in Parliament's own interest to define what may or may not qualify to be placed before the electors in a referendum.
There is, of course, an overwhelming case for fairness within each referendum. As has already been touched on, there has to be fairness in the conduct of the campaign. There has to be some equity in terms of campaign funding and access to the broadcast media. We are familiar with the imbalance in terms of the resources poured into the campaign in the 1975 referendum when those supporting a "yes" vote outspent those campaigning for a "no" vote by a margin of about 10 to one. We are familiar with the problems of funding in the campaign in Wales in 1997. There has to be equity within each referendum as well as consistency from one referendum to another in terms of what is permitted.
The need for equity in funding has been covered authoritatively and clearly by the Neill Committee and I do not propose to repeat the proposals, not least since they have already been touched on. Clearly, as the committee recognises, there is a need for an independent body, a commission, to administer the regime that it proposes.
In the time available to me I would like to comment on two of the features which, to my mind, put beyond question the case for an independent statutory commission, which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. Both relate to the question that is to be put in a referendum. Clearly, there is a need for the question to be fair. In the context of this debate, to ensure that the question is as fair as possible is quite a demanding task. It is not something that can be easily achieved by the two sides of either House agreeing on a particular question.
One study carried out at the time of the 1975 referendum found that a variation in the wording of the question could substantially affect the outcome. Therefore, to get the wording right is vital and is a time-consuming exercise; it is not something that can be easily done within a parliamentary forum.
The Commission on the Conduct of Referendums recommended that the wording of the question should be short and simple and also unambiguous. That has nothing to do with the fairness of the question; it is concerned solely with understanding. To ensure that a question is not open to alternative meanings is not easy to do in a debate on the Floor of the House. A question may need to be subject to a number of pilot surveys to determine that the meaning is understood.
Studies of state referendums in the United States have found the phenomenon of the mistaken vote, one example of which was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. Voters can misunderstand the question, especially when to oppose a policy entails voting "yes". In such cases it was found that the proportion of voters casting mistaken votes could be between 10 and 20 per cent of those voting. Any claim of bias or

1217
ambiguity in a question can mean that in a close contest the result is open to challenge. That serves to undermine the whole process of the exercise.
In most of the 800-plus referendums to which I refer the results are not close, but there are some exceptions in western Europe and in our own experience, for example in Scotland in 1979 and Wales in 1997. The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendation of the Neill Committee that an electoral commission should be created and a draft Bill is promised for the summer. However, the Government have not been altogether forthcoming as to the role of the commission in respect of referendums. I appreciate that the Government are consulting on the role of the commission. However, in the other place the Home Office junior Minister, George Howarth, was largely non-committal in responding to the Referendums Bill. He failed to answer the question, which was posed more than once, whether the Government would give a commitment not to introduce proposals for another referendum until rules governing the conduct of referendums were in place. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept that that is a fair and largely unambiguous question that deserves an answer.
For the Government surely there is obvious appeal in the establishment of rules and a commission to advise upon and police them. Rules and an independent commission confer legitimacy on the holding and conduct of a referendum. The outcome is more likely to be accepted as legitimate than would be the case if the referendum was the product of a particular Act introduced by the Government and subject to provisions that did not apply to earlier referendums; in other words, it would be more acceptable than the present situation. In short, it is in the Government's own interests to accept the proposal.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell, of Croy: My Lords, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayhoe. I thank him for raising a subject that I believe needs very urgent examination. The case has already been made for an independent commission to supervise. We have advice from at least two reports. First, the report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums established by the Constitution Unit and the Electoral Reform Society—both separate from central government—contains many useful recommendations and 20 guidelines. As already mentioned, that was chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne who, as a senior member of the Cabinet Office, was in charge of the arrangements for the 1975 referendum on Europe. We also have the more recent fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill. Both reports recommend a commission to keep the situation under review and to make recommendations on referendums.
My noble friend Lord Hayhoe referred to several matters in the two reports. In his report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, recommended an election commission with a wider field—because the committee had a wider remit than referendums—to cover ordinary
1218
elections as well. There are striking comments in the report of the Neill Committee that the first referendum in 1975 was better organised and fairer than the later ones.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that Sir Patrick Nairne deserves much credit for his part, but I should like to add the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who had just retired as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and who was described as the chief counting officer in that first referendum in 1975. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, reminded us, the position was concisely described before that referendum by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, then Leader of the House in another place; namely, that the Government would be bound by the result of the referendum but that Parliament would not be. That was correct in the case of the 1975 referendum.
When the referendum Bills on Scotland and Wales passed through this House noble Lords may recall that I moved an amendment, which provoked considerable debate, to insert the word "advisory". As I made clear, it was not my intention that that word should necessarily be inserted into the Bill, but it was possible for the Government to confirm that in that case both they and Parliament would consider the matter as advisory and that the Government in that case were not bound. Because of the very close result in Wales the Government could have acted differently from the way that they did. Perhaps the Minister when he comes to reply will confirm my understanding that in any referendum the position is likely to be that it is advisory to Parliament but it may or may not be advisory to the government of the day; they may regard it as obligatory.
There are several referendums now in prospect. Whether they are necessary or desirable is not for me to discuss today. However, I see distinct possibilities of even more referendums in Scotland and Wales. Owing to the methods of proportional representation by which the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been elected, coalitions or executive councils without overall majorities are likely to be normal, certainly in Scotland. If in Scotland controversial matters arise, such as tuition fees and beef on the bone, decisions will be difficult and this is likely to be demonstrated in the next few days and weeks as such. More issues of that kind will arise.
In Scotland another election cannot take place for four years. Under Section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 another election cannot be called before four years have passed. These elections are for a fixed term.
It is important for referendums in different parts of the United Kingdom that a commission should supervise them. In the recent election for the Scottish Parliament, many objections were raised about Scots who were not eligible to take part. In the recent referendums in Scotland, electoral registers were used but it was impossible for Scots temporarily resident outside Scotland for a year or more to register their vote. Similar complaints were raised after the March 1979 referendum in Scotland. I referred to them in a debate which I initiated in this House two days after that polling day.
The point is best illustrated by the case of the captain of Scotland's football team, Gary McAllister, who was resident at the time in England because he was playing for

1219
an English football club. He was unable to take part in the Scottish referendum, but the player who scored the vital goal for England in the key match against Scotland at Wembley, Paul Gascoigne, was resident in Scotland and eligible to vote because he was playing for Rangers for three or four years at that time.
Many Scots are resident outside Scotland for a year or more because of their jobs or other valid reasons. Furthermore, registers for recent referendums have been nearly one year out of date. During the passage of legislation over the past two years, Members of the Government have spoken of the will of the Scottish people, but at least half those who would describe themselves as Scottish people were living outside Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, changed his wording as the legislation proceeded and used the term "people in Scotland". I congratulated him because that is an accurate description of the electorate in Scotland, which includes many residents who are not Scottish who were able to take part in the referendum.
I draw particular attention to recommendations of the Neill Committee, although I do not have time to expand on them. First, the question must be clear. In the Scottish referendum it was not called a question but there were two "propositions". A reasonable interval should be arranged between the announcement of a referendum and polling day. A code should be agreed for methods of core funding for both sides. There should be rules for the media and, in particular, fairness in broadcasting opportunities. The Government should not contribute in kind to one side or the other—for example, the services of civil servants in producing leaflets or other documents; cars; or information offices. Audited accounts for core funding should be produced within three months of polling day.
I commend those particular recommendations of the Neill Committee. Even if the Minister is not in a position to say much today, I hope that the Government will take those recommendations extremely seriously and that we will before long have a commission with responsibilities for carrying out referendums, which can then be regarded as completely fair.
4.13 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hayhoe for bringing this matter to our attention and for the eloquence of his introduction to our debate. I make my position clear at the outset. I do not like referendums although, as my support for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to the House of Lords Bill attests, I can accept that referendums may be justified where major constitutional change is being considered.
It is rare that I find myself claiming common cause with Mr. Tony Benn but in this matter I have no hesitation. On "Newsnight" a little over a year ago, the right honourable gentleman said:
"Plebiscites were actually the instruments of dictators. I am not drawing a parallel. You've got to give people a choice. You've got to be able to amend things, and this direct democracy has got a rather unpleasant 1930s flavour about it".
1220
Jeremy Black, Professor of History at Exeter University, endorsed that sentiment on the same programme:
"I think the historical precedents are in some ways rather alarming. Plebiscites, reaching out to the people, directly circumventing representative assemblies in some way or other, is often what totalitarian regimes do".
I do not dissent one iota from either of those views.
I find myself tempted into one of the threads mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. In our debates on the House of Lords Bill, much emphasis has been placed by members of the Government Front Bench on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. On the surface, I do not doubt its efficiency or its effect, albeit that I would qualify that concept with this thought:
"Ministers talk as if the House of Commons were a sovereign body—a sovereign body under His Majesty, the King; but, in fact, the House of Commons is not a sovereign body at all. It never has been. There is only one sovereign under His Majesty the King, so far as I know, and that is the broad mass of the British people"—[Official Report, 27/1/48; cols.644–647.]
Perhaps, ironically, that comment is from the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Cranborne when he spoke on Second Reading of the Parliament Act 1949. I cannot help feeling that it has some relevance to our debate. It suggests inescapable tension between the concept of parliamentary sovereignty as currently espoused and the use of referendums. Viewed logically—and I pick up on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—if it is not to challenge the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, a referendum can only ever be advisory. But, equally, any referendum that is not mandatory challenges the sovereignty of the people.
It is possible to square that circle provided that the dilemma is confined to the legislature—to Parliament. But the current fad for referendums includes a shameful partiality for the pre-legislative version. Those are the toy of the executive. Not only do they rob the public of the opportunity to make an informed decision; they severely curtail Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution and on a London mayor, particularly in light of the low turn-outs for the latter two, demonstrate the point.
For all parties, politics and its presentation to the electorate have by and large been reduced to the status of product. Public meetings have been replaced by the glitz of the television studio. The hustings have been squeezed out by the sound bite. Politics has by definition always been reliant upon the vagaries of public perception. There is nothing new in that. Relatively new to British tradition is the huge emphasis on the image of politics as opposed to its substance. It is as though—and here I owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Birdwood—the eyes of politics have met those of marketing across a crowded room. The ardour of that infatuation shows no sign of cooling. My noble friend Lord Chadlington revealed in a debate a month ago:
"New Labour has spent £22 million on focus groups—three times what the former Tory Government spent—including £500,000 to run the People's Panel".

1221
Later he said:
"The Government are now set to outspend Coca-Cola on TV with a budget of over £80 million for public service advertising. In the past 12 months, there have been 28 separate government campaigns on TV and 106 different campaigns in the national press—a 35 per cent increase in advertising expenditure at the COP'. —[Official Report, 17/3/99, col.763.)
However sensible and reasonable this may be in our media age, the difficulty is that it cart take, and may well be taking, the governing out of government. The fact is that government is not, or should not be, a crude exposition of quasi-managerial skills. More often than not "good government"—if it can be so crassly quantified—is about "doing the right thing for the right reasons" irrespective of populist considerations. It has about it an essential moral dimension which can never be satisfied by vulgar supplication to the gods of market share. And yet, both it and the politics which gives it its being are becomingly increasingly managerial in scope and character. Disturbingly, they are becoming ever more commercial, ever more oriented towards market research. At their simplest, referendums are no more than the big sister; of focus groups which, as Janet Daley has correctly identified, are,
"a way for individuals in authority to avoid responsibility for any Judgement at all".
That is the great risk of their inexorable rise and rise: that government and politics become no more than items on an administration's profit and loss account of populist standing.
Whatever our misgivings about the use of referendums, we have to accept that they are very much in vogue at the moment, both at national and local level. It may even be, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that they are here to stay. A number of hugely significant issues--not least electoral reform and EMU—loom on the horizon. It is crucial that these issues should be dam-mined as fairly and on as informed a basis as possible.
As Mark Henderson observed in The Times only yesterday,
"As both Napoleons understood, the referendum is a powerful but blunt political weapon that is easy to manipulate. With proper safeguards—a simple, balanced question and even-handed campaigning—it can be a valuable democratic tool. But leading questions and one-sided propaganda can manufacture consent. And leading questions with cne-sided propaganda is what we have got".
My noble friend's Motion promotes,
"the case for establishing an independent statutory commission responsible for the conduct of referendums, their organisation and administration".
Against the background I have defined, that case is not only overwhelming; it is imperative as a matter of urgency.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the other speakers in the debate, I welcome the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, to put this important subject forward for debate. I am a member of the Neill Committee, and was a member of that committee when we prepared our fifth report on party political funding which has been widely quoted in this debate. The Neill Committee regarded
1222
referendums originally as peripheral to our remit but, as a result of the evidence we received, in particular from places outside England, we came to regard them as more central than we had at first thought.
The first major referendum in the United Kingdom was the Northern Ireland referendum in 1973 on the future of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. In 1975, as we all know, we had the first and so far the only United Kingdom-wide referendum on whether or not to remain in the EEC (as it then was). Since then we have had the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979, and again in September 1997. We had referendums in May 1998 for the approval of the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland; and on a new system of government for London.
However, the holding of those referendums has been unregulated by law. For referendums there is nothing comparable to the Representation of the People Act for parliamentary elections. Mr. Peter Riddell, the highly respected political editor of The Times described the procedure for referendums in his evidence to the Neil Committee as, "chaotic and unfair". That is undoubtedly an accurate description. If referendums are to be a permanent part of our political system—and they probably will be—then there must be appropriate rules to govern them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, the 1975 referendum was to a considerable extent a model of how referendums should be conducted. It involved a number of key elements including, first, the delivery to every household at public expense of a statement of the case for and against remaining in the EEC; secondly, the granting of free broadcasting time on an equal basis to the "Yes" and "No" campaigns; thirdly, core funding to each campaign of an amount which updated in real terms would now be about £600,000; and, fourthly, disclosure of all donations over the sum of £100.
That model, sadly, has not been followed in subsequent referendums. In none of them has there been the provision of core funding or a free mailshot. In none of them have the rules about disclosure been applied. In 1979 in Scotland the television companies were prepared to give referendum broadcasting time to each political party. That was blocked by the courts when the Labour Vote No Committee objected that this would mean there would be three "Yes" broadcasts and one "No" broadcast. In that context, that decision seems to me plainly correct. with great respect, but the result has been that since then there have been no referendum broadcasts.
One of the differences between the 1975 campaign and later referendums was that in 1975 it was a more cross-party campaign. Both the Conservative and Labour parties were split; and both supporters and opponents were willing to work with like minded people in the other parties. As a result identifiable umbrella groups were formed, and these were able to receive core funding, produce leaflets for a mailshot and programmes for referendum broadcasts.

1223
Subsequent referendums have been held more on party lines. In 1997, in Scotland and Wales the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the trade unions and the nationalist parties ran parallel but separate yes campaigns. The Conservatives, having lost all their MPs in Scotland and Wales, were, frankly, punch drunk and took little, if any, part in the campaigns. The result was that there were no effective "No" campaigns. In Scotland, as is shown by the size of the majority in favour of devolution, it would clearly have made no difference. In Wales it might have done.
When the Neill Committee sat in Cardiff we discovered the extraordinary situation which the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, mentioned. There would not have been a "No" campaign but for the efforts of two individuals unknown to the general public: Mrs. Carys Pugh and Mr. Robert Hodge. Mrs. Pugh is a local Labour activist who was opposed to devolution. In the absence of anyone else doing so, she decided to start up a "No" campaign herself. In order to do so, she borrowed £5,000 from her bank. She wrote to the late Lord Tonypandy who sent her £100 and put her in touch with Mr Hodge, son of Sir Julian Hodge the well known financier. Robert Hodge put up £90,000 of his own money; and that amounted to almost the whole of the no campaign funds. On that sum they were unable to create a proper organisation or to distribute at their own expense literature across 40 parliamentary constituencies. There were, of course, no referendum broadcasts, although the "No" campaign said that it was fairly treated by the broadcasters who gave them equal time in news broadcasts.
Despite that inequality of arms, the "No" campaign came within a whisker of winning. If it had had core funding, a free mail shot, and referendum broadcast, it could well have won. The Neill Committee felt that that was seriously unfair. Referendums must be fair. Fairness requires that the voice on both sides must be heard. That voice need not perhaps be equally loud. The committee rejected limits on campaign spending although that recommendation is controversial. But public core funding and a free mailshot must be provided.
Of course, as my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has pointed out, the key to that is the formation and recognition of umbrella groups on each side. That may not always be possible. As my noble friend said, in the Northern Ireland referendum on the Good Friday agreement, we cannot imagine Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party joining in the common "Yes" campaign, still less the Democratic Unionists and the republican splinter groups joining in a "No" campaign. But it will usually be possible to form umbrella groups in a referendum on joining the euro or in changing the voting system for the House of Commons. I do not see why it should not be possible to form umbrella groups, but the Government should not be responsible for identifying the umbrella groups if there is uncertainty as to which to choose, and especially where the Government themselves have strong views on the issues.
1224
This is one place where an independent commission comes in. A commission can identify in cases of doubt which umbrella group qualifies for core funding. A commission can audit the spending of core funding. A commission can make arrangements for a free post. A commission can negotiate with the broadcasting authority for referendum broadcasts. A commission, if there is a dispute over the form of the referendum question—and this is a very important issue indeed—can decide. The commission can monitor the conduct of the campaign. If spending limits are imposed the commission can enforce them. Even if there are no spending limits the umbrella groups should be subject to the same rules of disclosure and bans on foreign contributions as are political parties. That again will be much easier to enforce if a commission exists. Organisations which spend money on a referendum campaign outside the umbrella groups—and clearly there will be organisations which wish to do so—should be required to register with the commission and to provide the commission with accounts of their spending.
It is clear in my view that the commission responsible for referendums should not be a free-standing body; it should be an election commission with responsibilities going beyond referendums. Referendums happen at irregular and sometimes lengthy intervals. For example, we had no fewer than four in different parts of the United Kingdom in the eight months between September 1997 and May 1998. There may well be no more referendums in the life of this Parliament. A free-standing commission would involve short bursts of hectic activity and long periods of the twiddling of thumbs.
One of the central recommendations of the Neill Committee was for the creation of an election commission to oversee rules on donations and limits on campaign spending. That recommendation has been widely accepted and indeed the Newark case has made the need for an election commission even more obvious than it was before. The election commission clearly, in my view, is the right body to oversee the conduct of referendums. I welcome this debate and hope to see the recommendation of the Neill Committee on referendums incorporated into the draft Bill which the Government have promised for circulation later this year. I hope that those recommendations will be in effect when in this country we next come to have a referendum.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayhoe for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. There are two reasons for my gratitude. One is that it is nice to find oneself entirely on the winning side. Not a single speaker has cast any doubt on the proposition, and I hope that will continue for the next 30 minutes so that we can embrace the Minister in this unanimity as well. The second reason for gratitude is that it allowed me to go to my files and brush down the speeches I made during the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in the summer of 1997. I am really impressed that today my noble friend has managed to bring into the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould

1225
of Potternewton, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I cannot honestly remember that I was ever able to draw them out very much in the course of the referendum debate in the summer of 1997.
One thing about the debate on that Bill is that during its passage I raised a number of amendments: the general issue of the conduct of referendums and why we should legislate for referendums in exactly the same way as we legislate for general elections. Much of the detail of the running of the two referendums in Scotland and Wales was contained in two schedules to that Bill. which were actually placed there at my suggestion rather than being treated as pieces of secondary legislation.
The schedules were amendments to the Representation of the People Act and were frankly unintelligible unless read together with that Act. At the time I expressed my concern about this method of laying out the detail, and expressed the hope that if the Government intended to hold any more referendums they would bring forward a general referendums Act which would be self-standing and not, as happened in the 1997 Act, very much a cut-and-paste job.
I may say that exactly the same problems arose earlier this year on the legislation setting up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where the electoral procedures were very much stitched on to the Representation of the People Act. It did not matter too much for the first-cast-the-post elections, but it mattered hugely for the top-up; and again it was a cut-and-paste job which was hugely unsatisfactory and, I may say, led last Friday in Lothian to a shambolic procedure that occurred in the count for the list vote, and to some of the very problems warned the Government about.
Regarding those two referendums in Scotland and Wales, I am not going to quibble over the results, but I will simply say—and it very much supports what every speaker has said this afternoon—that the campaign, frankly, was far from being seen as fair. The "No-No" campaign in Scotland and the "Wales says No" campaign were placed at every disadvantage. To put it very bluntly, they were shafted. They were shafted by a combination of lack of money, lack of proper access to the airwaves, with the Government and the whole machinery of Government totally on one side of the argument. In fact the "Yes" campaigns in Scotland and Wales had the Gaffing gun in a very big way. In addition, the Government decided that the Welsh referendum should be held a week later, on absolutely no ground at all other than they felt that they might lose in Wales on the same day as Scotland—which undoubtedly they would have done—and if they put the Welsh referendum a week later the Welsh would feel some obligation to sort of go in behind their Celtic brethren and vote for it.
That simply was not fair. It is that kind of unfairness that can bring a referendum result into serious disrepute. We have heard about the series of committees which have all discussed referendums on wider things and have all come to the same conclusion. We have heard in particular about the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums, which I referred to very heavily during the passage of the 1997 Act. We know that the noble
1226
Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, were on that committee.
I could use the rest of my speech to quote from the findings of the committee but I will not, other than just to quote from paragraph 47:
"There is now a strong case for giving responsibility for the conduct of referendums to an independent body … The functions of such an independent body might include all, or some, of the following:

advising on the wording of the question,

allocating funding to campaign groups,

liaising with and acting as moderator between any campaign groups,

acting in an ombudsman role to deal with any complaints,

monitoring balanced access to the broadcast media,

providing public information, including a balance statement of the opposing arguments,

supervising the organisations for each polling station,

counting and declaration arrangements."

In the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, exactly the same issues were studied and similar, if not exactly the same, conclusions were arrived at, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Specifically, the Neill Committee recommended an electoral commission rather than just a referendums commission. Frankly, I have no problem with that, especially if we are to have different electoral arrangements for different elections to Europe. Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly. local government and referendums. Again, without reading it out, chapter 12 of the report of the Neill Committee specifically deals with referendums and argues a powerful and unanswerable case.
So we have two powerful and well-argued reports which reach the same conclusion; namely, that we need a commission to oversee referendums in this country. Moreover, there is a third report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayhoe—the report of the Commission on Electoral Reform chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who refers to referendums in paragraphs 165 to 168 in exactly the terms which my noble friend quoted—which reaches exactly the same conclusion.
I mention one matter of detail which has been raised; that is, the question of majorities. Australia requires a majority of the voters nationally and in at least four of the six member states to vote for a proposition before it passes. In the past, New Zealand has acquired a 60 per cent "yes" vote. Italy requires a turn-out greater than 50 per cent. Indeed, a referendum in Italy just a few weeks ago, interestingly to move Italy from proportional representation to first-past-the-post, failed not because the proposition to go to first-past-the-post did not win—it did, by about nine to one—but because the referendum turn-out did not exceed 50 per cent.
I am sorry for the Italians but it is important to have some kind of fence over which one must jump. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, does not agree. I shall not go into the complicated

1227
arrangement which I suggested during the passage of the referendums Bill but it is important to have a balance of turn-out and majority.
The 1975 White Paper on the European referendum said:
"The Government are concerned that the size of the Poll should be adequate, and they are confident it will be so. They also consider it to be of great importance that the verdict of the poll should be clear and conclusive".
Those are important qualifications: the size of the poll should be adequate; and the verdict should be clear and conclusive. In Scotland, the size of the poll was adequate and the result was undoubtedly clear and conclusive. I submit that in Wales, neither of those conditions was met. The verdict was so close, it was not clear and not conclusive and the turn-out was pathetic.
I appreciated that in the summer of 1997, we could not have a referendums commission. But we should jolly well have one now. My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Norton of Louth both mentioned a Question which I tabled for the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It was whether the Government proposed to legislate for recommendations made by the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan in the conduct of referendums before any further referendums are held.
The noble Lord said that the Government welcomed the main findings and so on and said that they intend to publish a draft Bill before this year's Summer Recess with a view to having controls in place by the time of the next general election. I found that a deeply unsatisfactory answer. It made me very suspicious. I did not ask whether the legislation would be in place before the next general election but whether it would be in place before another referendum is held. So, as the examiner might say to the student, will the Minister please answer the question? I asked whether the controls would be in place before another referendum is held.
We could make progress. Even as we speak, a Bill is in Committee in another place, introduced by Mr. Andrew Robathan, which is a Private Member's Bill. It is perfectly satisfactory. It is simply being hindered by the Government, but they could take it on board and help it on its way. The Bill could be with us in two or three weeks' time. Given the unanimity that there has been this afternoon, I am sure that there would he no problem getting the Bill through in this Session. We should then have a referendums commission in place, with all the necessary legislation, before another referendum took place.
I invite the Minister to answer those two questions: first, whether the controls will be in place before another referendum or before the general election; and secondly, why the Government do not take over my honourable friend's Private Member's Bill and satisfy all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.
4.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for the
1228
moderate and careful way in which he introduced this matter, which is plainly of topical and important interest. Having listened carefully to all the contributions, I believe that there is benefit in every contribution which has been made, even though some noble Lords approached the issue on a much more general basis than the specific purpose of the debate this afternoon.
I believe that I correctly represent what the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, wanted. His basic proposition is that there should be an independent commission established with responsibilities in relation to referendums. Every contribution, from all sides, even including the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, who has difficulty with the whole concept of referendums, demonstrates widespread support for that proposition which I have reduced to its simplest.
I am happy to add my own and the Government's broad support. That does not mean that we shall agree on every point, but I affirm our belief that it is desirable and possible to achieve some consensus across all parties on the issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, rightly said that we are at a time of great constitutional change. The thousand-year review of modern British history to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, referred will demonstrate something rather better than the ability to provide rules for real tennis, snooker or darts. What it demonstrates is infinitely grander. It demonstrates the continuing ability of our nations to develop our constitutional arrangements on an organic basis. It is easy to overlook that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young. spoke of our democratic arrangements over the centuries. But that is not really the case. Universal suffrage on the basis of equality is barely 80 years old. The opportunity for intimidation because there was no secret ballot was taken away as recently as about 1870. So I repeat what I have said on earlier occasions. If one looks at the three great Reform Acts and slots in the Secret Ballot Act between the second and third, and then one bears in mind that women did not have equal suffrage until after the First World War, that is a testament to the text which I put forward earlier. We do have what may be a genius—to put it in its old-fashioned way—for constitutional change and reform. That is what keeps us alive as a functioning, vibrant democracy.
I do not share the gloomy view of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that referendums are only the tools of dictators. Hitler did not come to power as a result of a referendum. There are many very democratic states in the United States—for example, California—which use referendums regularly to produce the view of the populace about particular topics. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in principle with referendums, but they must be properly organised, as I said a few moments ago.
A number of specific questions were raised with which I shall try to deal. I reiterate that we want and intend to have our response, as a government, to the Neill Report in the draft Bill to be published before the Summer Recess. We are committed to early legislation, given the co-operation of your Lordships' House, on the main recommendations so that they are in force at the

1229
time of the next general election. At this stage I cannot say what will be in the Bill. As your Lordships have observed, the Neill Committee made 100 detailed recommendations. We are considering and consulting. That is the proper way forward. It will certainly contain provisions on the conduct of referendums. I hope that is of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, not least with my additional comment that the basic requirement is as he contended: a fair deal for both sides in a referendum campaign.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked whether we would support the Private Member's Bill in another place. Thai, is not the vehicle which we want to use. We want single comprehensive reform. When the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Holme, spoke about that they were right. This is not a time to tinker piecemeal with the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked me to give an absolute undertaking that there will be no referendums before the new commission is established. Of course, I cannot give that undertaking in the nature of things. But I repeat that the draft Bill will be published before the Summer Recess. We want to legislate as soon as possible thereafter. But if a referendum were to be held in the circumstances posited by the noble Lord Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—in other words, before the electoral commission had been established—we should give careful consideration to how the Neill recommendations might be applied to that referendum, even though there was no extant, subsisting legislation.
Other questions have been put. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a number of questions to which I hope to give answers. In particular he mentioned the fact that the Neill Committee recommended that the Government must remain neutral during a referendum. I reiterate the comments of my right honourable friend Jack Straw in another place. This is an important recommendation. It needs careful attention. I remind your Lordships that the Neill Committee stated that it was entirely appropriate for the government of the day to make their position clear on any given referendum question. That was echoed, entirely realistically, if I may say, by the Jenkins Commission.
The business of government cannot be suspended for the duration of a referendum campaign as it is for a general election, so the two are not entirely comparable. However, I repeat the important overarch that referendums must be conducted fairly as between the two sides.
The question of core funding and capping was also raised. Neill recommended, in our present day terms, core funding of about £600,000. There was reference to difficulties in the context of Northern Ireland. There are difficulties in getting Dr Paisley and other "No" protagonists in the same room, let alone agreeing to divide up the same postal order. That, I believe, would be beyond the wit and ingenuity of any of us in your Lordships' House.
There is also the question of the Neill Committee recommendation that only one campaign organisation on each side of a referendum should have the core
1230
funding. That is difficult, not only in the context of Northern Ireland. It was rightly said that Mrs. Pugh was a doughty "No" campaigner. Mr. Hodge, possibly funded by his father, Sir James Hodge. came from a different political background, as has already been identified. There are difficulties but I do not think they are necessarily incapable of being overcome. Neill, of course, did not recommend placing a cap on expenditure in referendum campaigns. It is difficult to think how that might be properly established.
I turn to a very important point in answer specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I repeat the words stated by the Home Secretary: the Government favour a body independent of government and free of party political interference. The Neill Committee recommended that the body be set up along similar lines to the National Audit Office, accountable directly to Parliament, not funded from a departmental vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the interesting question about the nature. advisory or binding, of a referendum. I believe the true answer is as he implied; namely, this is a political question for the government of the day. In the nature of our constitutional arrangements it seems to me that conceptually a referendum could never be binding on Parliament. It would be open to the ruling, governing party of the day to consent to be bound by the result of a referendum. The portents are not entirely favourable. I recollect recently that in a not dissimilar situation the leader of the then Norwegian Government said that if he did not secure more votes at the general election than he had at the previous general election, he would feel obliged to resign. The electorate responded in the expected way by giving him about 0.2 less and he therefore had to resign.
However, it seems to me that if a government wish to adopt a policy plank central to their continuance they are perfectly entitled to adopt that stance, I would say, on the basis that they put it unequivocally to the electorate before the referendum began.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He has replied completely to my first point, which is that any referendum would be advisory to Parliament. On the second point, I am not sure whether his view is that the government of the day would decide beforehand and announce whether it would be advisory or obligatory for them when the results came out.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is the political question to which I referred. It seems to me that it is constitutionally open and proper for a government to say, "This is the question in the referendum. We intend to be bound by it", and accept the consequences of failure or success as they fell. I believe that is a legitimate constitutional device. Governments' views might significantly vary in the context of the question. It seems to me that there is a difference in importance and quality between, for instance, having the devolution question for the

1231
Parliament in Edinburgh and—admittedly a subject of passionate interest when I lived in West Wales—whether public houses are open on Sundays.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the power to bind a government to accept a referendum goes a little further than the Minister said. I seem to recall in the 1979 referendum that the terms of the Scotland Act prevented the government from introducing a commencement order unless the Act had been approved by a qualified majority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his recollection. However, I do not believe that differs from the answer I gave in response to the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
I was about to develop that modest theme. There are differences of importance. That is why one has, on occasions, local referendums. I certainly remember irritating such friends as I had in Swansea by telling them that I would vote "No" for the opening of public houses in Swansea on Sundays. I was able to do that safely and confidently because I imagined that most of the residents of Swansea would vote "Yes" as, indeed, it turned out they did. I therefore had the benefit of moral satisfaction as well as being able to have a drink in the public house on Sunday.
I think I have answered the detailed questions that have been put. The important point here is bound up in the general question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young; namely, could I confirm that we as a government would pay careful attention to what has been said this afternoon? I hope that by my response, and my detailed response to the questions, I have been able to give that reassurance. This is much more important than party political advantage. If we get it right it has to stand for a long period of time. The reminder given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is important. This has to be a construction which may not be regularly used, though for my part I agree with those of your Lordships who have said that this, as a constitutional implement, is likely to be used more often in future.
I repeat that all the contributions, not least for their tone as well as their content, will be given careful attention. I very much look forward to being able to introduce the Bill in due course in your Lordships' House.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, this has been an excellent short debate, particularly in view of the widespread unanimity and consensus achieved in all the speeches. Perhaps I may say in a personal fashion that it is the sort of politics I prefer to the "yabooing" which goes on rather more in another place.
I am extremely grateful to all who have taken part in the debate, and in particular to the Minister for the positive comments he has made. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Small Firms
4.58 p.m.
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson rose to call attention to the regulations that affect the job creating potential of small firms; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. Its underlying purpose is to help the process of job creation.
Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, met up with his fellow socialists in Vienna to make the reduction of unemployment a top priority. I do not doubt his sentiments but, alas, the road to the dole queue is paved with such good intentions. His words say one thing; his deeds do the opposite.
Since January this year an avalanche of new regulations has hit the business sector, and hit the small business sector particularly hard. The overwhelming evidence is that caring Euro-socialism has been a disaster for workers, creating unemployment in France, Germany and Spain at levels not seen since the Great Depression. Minimum wages, welfare cultures and protection against unfair dismissal have been the caring themes in these countries and have been shown in practice to be destructive of jobs.
By contrast, in one month alone this year, the United States created more jobs than France and Germany have done in 10 years. But the Government load on yet more illusory protection. Small businesses suffer most from this. They do not have large personnel and legal departments to absorb the deluge of extra information and bureaucracy.
We cannot dismiss small businesses as though they did not matter. Every statistic clearly shows that it is to small businesses we have to look for the creation of jobs. It is large firms that are downsizing, and all large firms originally started as small businesses. It is worth repeating that the vast majority of businesses are, by any definition, small. Firms employing fewer than nine people make up 94 per cent of all businesses in this country. Such small firms—and farms—employ over 10 million people, well over half the total of non-government employees, and the figure is rising. That is why their welfare is so desperately important.
There are two primary causes of unemployment in the United Kingdom today; first, over-regulation; secondly, the excessive taxation of labour thereby raising its cost. If we raise the price of anything, people use less of it. The unemployment remedies mostly emanating from Europe exacerbate both maladies. Unemployment, to some degree, is a national self-inflicted wound. Here society is increasingly making more formal what should essentially be less formal; that is, the process of buying and selling one's labour. In so doing we have frustrated the natural workings of the exchange of labour and thereby destroyed the opportunity for the unemployed to re-enter the labour market by the part-time route.
The Government are well aware that employment growth in continental Europe in the past decade has been only in the public sector; there has been virtually no overall new employment created in the private sector at

1233
all. They have destroyed the flexibility of their labour market. Unwittingly, that is what many on the Benches opposite seek to achieve. I am sure that they do not do so deliberately, but they should remember the cautionary tale of Gulliver's Travels: no one single thread held him down; but a thousand made him immobile.
The price of excessive job protection is job destruction. Perhaps I can illustrate that by a typical, but true, example. Mr. Evans and his wife ran a small health shop in Braintree last year. She found the work heavy and the business was not paying well so they decided that she would find an alternative job and he would advertise for a part-time assistant.
A Ms. Hill, aged 22, was one of the five applicants who filled in the questionnaire giving details of their previous sales experience and family situation. Mr. Evans shortlisted three of them, including Ms Hill, and telephoned her. The conversation was going quite well until she told him that there was something she had not said on the form; namely, that she was six months' pregnant. To which, perfectly understandably, Mr. Evans said that there was no way he could take her on because he had to have somebody who could look after the shop while he was out on deliveries, apart from which she would have to move heavy boxes as well as take down and put up the shop's metal shutters.
Under the circumstances, there is not a soul in this House who would not have reacted in the same way as Mr. Barry Evans did. He did not want somebody who would be here today and gone tomorrow and who was not capable of doing the job in the first place. Why should he take her on if she was unsuitable? At this level the law must recognise intrapersonal human relationships. However, a week later he received a registered letter asking him to appear before an industrial tribunal. He was subsequently fined by that tribunal, under the chairmanship of Mr. Robjant, the sum of £2,000 to compensate Ms Victoria Hill for the upset and loss of confidence she felt when she was rejected.
That was an excessive and quite unnecessary application of the law and a denial of commonsense and natural justice. The very nature of the system encourages employees to exploit it. That case is not unique. I hold in front of me a cutting from the Daily Mail 1998, the banner headline of which reads,
"Insanity of sex bias laws".
It says it all. In the case of Mr. Evans the fine nearly bankrupted him. It was only through the generosity of well-wishers, many of them women, that he was able to meet it and continue in business. What we shall never know after reading about such a case is how many potential small business people were put off and, as a consequence. how many jobs were not created. That type of case could be repeated a thousandfold.
Sadly, most career politicians have arrived in power with no more business experience than a smattering of professional work. They have had no contact with the exhausting realities of running a small business, or they would not introduce such crazy legislation. But at least two senior Ministers have come close to the realities and farcicalities of excessively one-sided job protection legislation and I hope they learnt from it. Mr. Jack Straw
1234
had to battle for months over a sex discrimination case in his own electoral office; and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Irvine, was found guilty of sex bias in the employment of his adviser.
With a toss of his wig the noble and learned Lord dismissed the case brought against him by Miss Coker as "mischievous". He did not deign to attend the tribunal, to which he sent one of his own officers. An easy way out. but one not possible for the small businessman. He has to suffer all the anxieties, costs and time-wasting by himself. Now, apart from the sex discrimination Act. unfair dismissal and the new 48-hour working time directive, he has even more regulations to look forward to. Incidentally, the 48-hour working time directive was described by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—Mr. Blair' s better regulation adviser—as "a dog's breakfast". I warmly welcome the presence in this Chamber of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who will bring with him much useful and valuable experience. I look forward to his maiden speech today. I am sure that giving it will make a pleasant change from improving dogs' diets!
I started up a small business by myself; I know what it feels like. One day I was self-employed and the next I became an employer. At that point we have the whole rule book thrown at us. It is a lonely and tough experience running a business without help with the threat of swingeing penalties hanging over our head if we fail to comply with complex laws.
The macro economy is in practice the micro economy writ large. It is at that lowly level that we need to uncover some of the constraints to job creation. I suggest noble Lords opposite talk to small businessmen like plumbers and electricians, perhaps instead of talking to themselves. I make a point of asking such people why they do not take on an assistant or an apprentice as they used to. Invariably the reply is that it is not worth the hassle. The cost of dismissing staff; the threat of prosecution over unfair dismissal often because the employer has technically failed to give statutory written warning when he should have done—something that in practice is extremely difficult to do on a one-to-one basis in a small firm—all make it so unpleasant that they cannot face doing it again. They would rather soldier on alone.
As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of potential jobs remain undeveloped in this country today. Unemployment may have fallen, but if we want it to stay down, we must not make it expensive and difficult to employ people. Germany has done so and there we can see that their small firm sector is in decline. Governments need to recognise that one of the primary sources of new employment is self-employed people turning themselves into small businesses; small businesses taking on staff. So every effort should be made to assist and not to hinder that process.
My first essential message in this debate therefore is to ask the Minister to consider introducing regulatory exemptions for small firms employing fewer than 10 people where such exemptions do not currently apply and to follow the American practice of wide exemption, which has immensely helped their small-firm sector to create jobs by removing the threat of prosecution. I recognise, of course, that much of the impetus for

1235
regulatory overload derives from the EU. But it is no good Ministers saying that there is nothing we can do about it because it comes from Brussels. We must stop the whole regulatory engine going off the rails and taking employment with it.
When I took up the case of Mr. Evans with the noble Lord, Lord Simon, I asked whether the Government were content with a situation where a self-employed person can be obliged to employ a pregnant woman and so incur some of the costs associated with her condition even though there was no biological relationship between them. To that he replied,
"We recognise some individual employers may incur costs in holding a job open for a woman who is having a baby and we aim to ensure that these costs are minimised but we consider that they are outweighed by the benefit".
Government Ministers may consider that they are outweighed by the benefits, but, if the small employer does not, he will not hire in the first place. Another job is not created. Such crazy laws are counter-productive. One million small businessmen will not be in a hurry to risk employing pregnant women after reading about cases like the one I have just illustrated. The job market will get harder for women, not easier, whatever the law may proscribe. The sheer complexity of running a business today is a nightmare when one is virtually on one's own. It is very sad to hear the report from The Samaritans that there is a rapidly rising suicide rate in this whole sector.
Everyone has rights, except the employer. He can be taken to court at the drop of a hat if he dismisses anyone, yet the same employee can walk out of the job at the end of the week. Increasingly, there is a distinct lack of justice in the present arrangements. So my second key point is that an employer should be able to claim costs when any tribunal finds in his favour. This would go a long way to preventing frivolous and exploitative litigation. This, plus exemption for very small firms from regulatory overload, would do much to improve the situation and thus create jobs.
Small firms have rights, too, but no one champions them. Perhaps it is time that we had a small firms disability rights Bill. They, too, are an oppressed minority, the only difference being that, if they fail, all the other minority groups, which depend on the economic wealth that they produce, will go down with them. Our once flexible labour market is beginning to take on the rigidities of its continental counterpart. I hope that the Government will listen to the advice of the better regulations board, and the sound advice of its Minister, and not let the dog's dinner of increasing regulation destroy the wellsprings of job creation through small firms.
There is a clear need for a comprehensive agenda to tackle over-complex regulations at source. This is where Mr. Blair should be putting his energies. I hope that this debate will direct his endeavours accordingly. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Haskins: My Lords, it is a great privilege to make my maiden speech and to participate in a debate so
1236
dear to my heart. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for his kind comments of welcome and for his shared interest in the digestion of canines. I am chairman of two companies—namely, Northern Foods and Express Dairies—which, until recently, were one. The dairy company is the largest in the country and the food company supplies all of us with some of the most delicious foods that man has ever tasted, supplied through Britain's wonderful retailers. Together, the two companies made £150 million last year.
However, the success of that company is entirely to the credit of my father-in-law who started those businesses from scratch 50 years ago. When I am asked the reason for the success of the company, I always say, "The first £10,000 that Alec Horsley made, from nothing, out of that business 50 years ago". I remind people in the business of that every time; namely, that we, too, were a small business at some time.
I am also chairman of the Government's Better Regulation Task Force. It is an independent task force, I am glad to say, and showing its independence with due verve. I can say that chairing such a task force is the most entrepreneurial task I have ever taken on in my life. As regards any suggestion that the "Yes Minister" series and poor old Hacker were overstating the situation, I can assure noble Lords with great passion that that was a minute understatement of what was really going on.
The task of carrying out this work is such that it is bound to give offence. That is because all of us take a very schizophrenic approach towards regulation. Because regulations are a restraint or a burden, all of us dislike them when they are personally addressed to ourselves. But, at the same time, as individuals we want a safer environment, safer food, safer public transport and more secure jobs, which inevitably lead to more regulation.
Of course, businesses have to bear most of the burdens of modern regulation. Many would argue that the use of regulation can be an alternative, more stealthy way of governments achieving policy ends without resorting to the more unpopular route of taxation. Therefore, regulation can have a very significant impact on the economy, and particularly on the small business sector.
The specific problems that I have observed with the impact of regulation on small businesses are many and conflicting. First, regulation puts them at a competitive disadvantage against their larger brethren; indeed, there is no questioning that. Bigger businesses have the resources to comply with complex regulations. Small ones do not. The problems of payroll regulation are increasingly costly and worrying for small businesses. However, large businesses actually make money out of collecting taxes for the Government.
Secondly, small businesses are often not given enough time to understand and, therefore, comply with new regulations. They should be given more time. Thirdly, because of their size, the regulation of small businesses is inevitably erratic. Therefore, those who choose to ignore the law, for the most part, go undetected—thereby putting themselves at a competitive advantage over those more worthy businesses who go out of their way to comply with regulations.

1237
Fourthly, in areas such as public safety, where small businesses can be as much, or indeed more, of a danger to the public as large ones, there is no case for making a special case for exempting small businesses from regulation because of their size or problems of enforcement. Indeed, generally, small businesses do not see more exemptions as a satisfactory solution to their problems and they have told us so. The task force is doing a lot of work on the major barriers to small businesses—that is barriers to growth—both when they start up and when they begin to grow. People are telling us that, while regulatory barriers do exist, their greater concerns relate to access to financial support and the lack of skills which they find.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Prime Minister is taking a particularly close interest in the efforts of my task force to contain the quantity and improve the quality of new regulations, and to seek ways of reducing regulatory burdens, particularly as they affect small businesses. But, of course, this must be done while at the same time maintaining the Government's policy objectives of a safer and fairer world for all our citizens.
The task force has been pleased with the Government's response so far to many of our suggestions. Ministers have agreed to simplify proposals to regulate long-term care for the elderly and childcare. They are looking sympathetically at our proposals to make it simpler for charities to receive funds from departments—a vital part of keeping charities alive. Under the food standards proposals, Ministers have withdrawn what we considered to be very costly and ineffective plans to license over 600,000 food premises, in favour of a simpler registration system—even though this, too. may be an unnecessarily expensive option. Ministers have also greatly simplified the regulations to introduce the national minimum wage, after discussions with us. So far, I have received remarkably few complaints from small businesses about this major policy proposal. They are looking sympathetically at our proposals—long overdue—to deregulate and liberate the licensing laws of this country.
Thanks to a much greater awareness of the issues, departments now consult with the task force at the earliest possible moment in the regulation-making process. We want departments to seek to get agreement with the task force on all major regulatory proposals. We want the task force to seek out regulations which can be repealed or simplified. We all want small businesses to prosper, uninhibited by costly, unnecessary and disadvantageous regulations, while also complying with those necessary regulations, which provide protection to citizens from unacceptable levels of risk and abuse.
My task force—a splendid, knowledgeable and experienced group of independent citizens, which is well balanced—will pursue these challenging, sometimes conflicting, objectives with enthusiasm and, I feel sure, with the strong, mostly consistent and general support of all sectors of the community, particularly the business one.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I have the honour on behalf of all noble Lords to congratulate the
1238
noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on his maiden speech. The Government Whips office provided me with the ammunition to fire back at the noble Lord, but the ammunition comprised merely biographical details from Dod. From that I learnt that the noble Lord grew up and was educated in Ireland; that he has worked with Northern Foods since 1962 and he has been its chairman since 1986; that he was a member of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development; and that he is currently chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, about which he has spoken today. But, by its very nature. Dod is able only to give a modest view of a person. Perhaps today I may take the opportunity to be immodest on the noble Lord's behalf.
His speech has given us a glimpse of what Dod could not: that he has great expertise and ability which he has used to drive a competitive business further and further to success in what has been an increasingly hostile and competitive environment in both the European Union and international markets. Northern Foods is one of Britain's biggest food manufacturers and supplies all the major supermarkets. I understand—courtesy of the BBC's Internet site—that after linking up with Marks and Spencer to expand into the frozen food market, the noble Lord became known as the man who invented the ready-made meal. I am not too sure whether that should make me grateful to the noble Lord, but I have to convey to him the thanks of my husband, who otherwise might not have been fed over the past years. I can assure noble Lords that ready-made meals have certainly not been dog's breakfasts. We all welcome the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to the House. I am sure that we all look forward to his contributions to our debates.
I thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for introducing the debate. I should like to draw attention to the impact of regulations on the job-creating potential of the tourism and hospitality industries. The biggest challenge of the tourism industry—and yet its great strengthߞis its fragmentation and its complexity. The industry is managed by about 200,000 businesses around the country, the great majority of which are small businesses. It is our fifth largest industry, worth more than £53 billion a year, and directly accounts for about 5 per cent of Britain's GDP and 8 per cent of all consumer spending. It employs nearly 2 million people, 7 per cent of the UK workforce and in recent years it has created one in six of all new jobs. Given the chance the industry has the potential to create even more jobs, to generate more wealth and to help rejuvenate run-down areas.
That potential for job creation has been seriously threatened by the raft of regulations introduced by the Government. The document of the Department for Culture, Media and Sports, Tomorrow's Tourism, states:
"Poor regulation is particularly damaging for small businesses who have fewer staff to implement, and are less able to absorb the costs of, regulation".
That point was clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. Exactly so; I agree. But, despite that statement, the Government have introduced over 2,000 new regulations over the past two years, many of which bear hardest on the tourism industry—the national minimum wage, for example. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said with regard to complaints to his

1239
task force, but I have seen many complaints and individual examples of hardships caused by the implementation of the national minimum wage.
The problem for decent, hard-working people in smaller businesses is not the cost of paying the national minimum wage, as the overwhelming proportion of them do anyway, but the cost of administering it—the extra paperwork, the extra systems, the extra associated costs and the consequent lower profits, which will eventually lead to less investment and fewer jobs.
For some businesses, like members of the British Activity Holiday Association, which employ large numbers of younger people who are away from home on short contracts, the national minimum wage spells possible disaster. I am aware that strong representations have been made to the Government about the adequacy of the £20 accommodation off-set and whether it will be increased or even maintained. I am also aware that the BAHA hopes to have further discussions with the Government. Last week, my honourable friend Peter Ainsworth referred to this issue in a debate in another place and asked the Minister for Tourism to respond. Unfortunately, she did not do so. Perhaps she simply ran out of time.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House today what progress has been made on this issue. In his other role in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I am aware that the Minister is knowledgeable about tourism. I feel sure that he is aware that the BAHA is an employer in a very special situation. It employs young people who see their time with the association as time in which they can develop the life skills which will be invaluable to them in their later careers. Its operations can best be described as being akin to those of the American summer camps—and in the United States those have been exempted from the scope of the national minimum wage.
I turn now to the working time directive, which the British Hospitality Association says has been a major cause of concern. More than any other, the tourist industry needs flexibility in its labour force. It is true that the majority of large corporations in this sector can absorb the extra costs of such measures. They do not want to do so; it will cost them many millions of pounds and it will mean fewer jobs. That was pointed out to me very clearly on Monday by representatives of large hotels and leisure businesses whom I met at the British Tourist Authority's annual trade forum in London. However, the majority of the industry is made up of small businesses which can ill afford the extra costs of bureaucracy. The fixed-on costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000, but the burden is greater on smaller businesses.
Again I should like to refer to the special experience of the British Activity Holiday Association. It is a residential community where the staff are considered to be part of that community. The hours of work have of course therefore never before been measured; it does not have a clocking-on and clocking-off mentality. The introduction of the Working Time Directive to this environment is destructive to the character of the whole system.
1240
Tourism is not an industry that whinges; it gets on with the job. It diversifies; it does what it can to survive and expand; it is not complacent; and it plans for the future. I have read today the West Country Tourist Board's strategy document, which is an impressive and carefully drawn plan for the future of tourism in its region. The British Hospitality Association hopes to create 400,000 new jobs nation-wide by 2005. But it issues a caution: that while the service sector is currently growing, excessive regulation will have only a marginal effect on jobs—that is true—but as soon as there is any slow-down in the economy, however slight, the picture will rapidly change. It points out that the problem with employment regulations in particular is that they create a straitjacket and are not adaptable to changing economic circumstances.
The association points out that it is not necessarily just the individual measure that is seriously damaging but the combined effect of large numbers of such measures, all arriving in a short space of time. The individual proprietor simply does not have the hours in the day to learn about these measures and then to implement them.
When the Minister for Tourism, Janet Anderson, responded to a debate in the other place last week, she recognised that regulations are a burden on the tourism industry. She said:
"The forum and the summit will be considering that issue". —[Official Report, Commons, 5/5/99; col.877.]
But the summit is not until next year, and the future remit of the forum is called into question by Tomorrow's Tourism by referring to it in the past tense. The document refers to the forum as having existed and not having a future existence. Can the Minister tell the House what will be the future remit of the forum with reference to regulations? What guarantee is there that the Government will act upon its advice?
I hope that the Government will take note of the concerns of the tourism industry and stem the flow of regulations that affect it adversely. I hope they will consider amending those which are already in place.
5.39 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for bringing this matter to your Lordships' attention today. I declare an interest in that my husband and I run a small family farm where we produce quality black Welsh mountain lamb, breed pedigree Blonde cattle, and sell unpasteurised goats' milk and speciality cheeses made from that milk.
We too often lose sight of the fact that farming is a business and that small farms are small businesses. We all know of the parlous state of agriculture. We have heard Ministers exhort farmers to diversify. Millions of pounds have been disbursed in Area 5b payments and central and local government grants to encourage this process. Food producers hear Ministers tell them, on the one hand, that they are in favour of small specialist businesses; that they are supportive of enterprise. On the other hand, instead of listening to small food producers, the Ministers seem to be deaf to the problems created by draconian legislation that puts these same enterprises out of business.

1241
In the Guardian last weekend, the noted food writer, Joanna Blythman, wrote an article on small food businesses under the strap,
"If the bureaucrats pt their way, our independent producers may soon he out of business".
She was commenting on a recent meeting of independent producers that I attended, where representatives of over 2,000 small businesses expressed their concern that this Government's policies are putting at risk over 100,000 jobs—a disaster far bigger in scale than the parlous state of the Longbridge car plant which so recently exercised Ministers.
All the representatives present at that meeting were agreed on three things: that the scale of the impending disaster was unprecedented; that the cause was not any single impost, but the cumulative effect of many different measures; and that the disaster was largely unrecognised.
The latter, particularly, is the great tragedy, occasioned not least by the fact that when small businesses go to the wall they do not shed thousands of jobs from one plant with dramatic scenes to delight television producers. Instead, anonymously. up and down the country, they put up their shutters—no drama, no television cameras, no MPs standing at their gates declaiming government policies and demanding rescue packages. They drift away in their ones and twos, each with a personal tragedy that goes unheard and is disregarded. These tragedies, repeated daily, represent hundreds of jobs and blighted families. If the current thrust of government policy continues, they will soon represent thousands, then hundreds of thousands of skilled, rewarding and fulfilling jobs lost, maybe for ever.
I turn to Joanna Blythman's article for an explanation. She then turns to the noted food safety expert, Dr. Richard North, for the answer. He reports that, since the salmonella scare 10 years ago, 9,000 small egg producers have gone out of business, without any corresponding reduction in salmonellosis. Whenever there is a problem, he says, the drill is the same: "Round up the usual suspects (small producers) and give them a hard time". People go into specialist food production because it is something they enjoy and believe in, not because they expect to make money. If you drown them in controls, they lose their incentive to continue and withdraw from the aggravation.
Is the Minister aware that some MPs have been led by officials to believe that small food businesses are purveyors of germs? Does he appreciate that most rural food producing businesses are run by families whose interests are to produce quality products to the highest standards? It is not in their interest to produce food that will bring the wrath of officialdom upon their heads and lose them custom. Officials find them difficult simply because they do not fit into the industrial food producer mould; their very independence is their downfall.
MAFF has recently issued draft Dairy Products Hygiene Regulations, running to 165 pages. The last regulations are only four years old. Arthur Cunnynghame,
1242
chairman of the Specialist Cheese Makers' Association, of which I am a member, has said:
"They are so hideously complicated, you need a PhD in microbiology and a corporate lawyer to interpret them. The cost of such professionals is not a problem if you are a huge dairy churning out thousands of tonnes of cheese, but it is yet another stray to break the back of the small cheese maker".
It appears that there is a requirement that every hatch of cheese should be microbiologically tested. Some of my batches consist of only one or two cheeses. Even if I could afford the tests, I would be left with no product to sell.
Mr. Cunnynghame recently met the Minister for small businesses. It was with despondence that he came away from that meeting. The Minister was able to offer little but sympathy.
I turn now to the Meat Hygiene Service. It has featured much in the news and in Parliament of recent weeks. First, there was the instruction that, in the interests of hygiene, all hairy cattle should have their underbellies shaved. Hairy cattle are hairy because they live out of doors. Many only see their human owners from a distance. In other words, they are wild. To bring these animals from their hill grazing into a yard and get them into a cattle crush is no simple task. To attack them with noisy electrical clippers is a recipe for a very short life. It is hardly surprising that more than 200 farmers and slaughterhouse workers in Scotland alone have suffered serious injuries. Even with the evidence of this human carnage, the Meat Hygiene Service resists any sensible change, such as clipping the animals after slaughter, because the hair might contaminate the slaughterhouse. To add insult to injury, there is no shred of evidence that the campaign has prevented as much as a single case of food poisoning.
There are numerous examples of the inappropriateness of legislation in this field, such as the requirement for eartags which rip animals' ears, causing them pain and infection; washing animals before they go on a long and stressful journey to market or abattoir with animals from other farms when their automatic response will be to produce copious sloppy faeces. It seems that they were dreamed up by a pen-pusher in a thickly carpeted office who has no concept of the practicalities or of animal behaviour.
On 21st April 1999, the Minister of Agriculture announced that the £20 million burden for specified risk material inspection would not be imposed upon abattoirs for this year. The Government would commission a study to examine the dynamics of the slaughtering sector and of the impact of the charges on abattoirs and producers. On 7th May 1999, a consultation document was sent out to a very limited number of interested bodies. This was received on 10th or 11th May. Replies are required by noon on 17th May 1999. The questions in the document are complicated; the recipients will need to consult with their members, some of whom will be unavailable during this week. What of the Cabinet guidelines which state that there should be at least eight weeks allowed for a consultation process?
In these graphic, if rather personal, examples is an illustration of the attitude to small producers embodied in this Government. Legislation that is introduced in the interests of consumer safety seems to cause Ministers to pay little heed to the safety or welfare, the survival or

1243
prosperity of the people who actually produce the food. Ministers simply obey the diktats of their experts and officials who tell them that absurdity after absurdity is necessary in the interests of consumer safety. Is the Minister aware that in 1996 32 people sadly died from food poisoning? However, 84 died from falling off chairs or out of bed. When are the Government going to oblige us to sit and sleep on the floor in the interests of consumer safety?
The utterance of the mantra "consumer safety" by a tame expert immediately makes a Minister putty in the hands of his officials. Nothing, it seems, is too draconian, too absurd or too costly if it means improvements in consumer safety. Herein, I believe, lies the nub of the problem: the cult of the expert. Only yesterday the Minister of Agriculture told the committee in another place that he had to take heed of expert specialist advice when considering whether to remove the beef on the bone ban.
"I am not entitled to inflict my personal view",
he said. He could not reject the,
" clear-cut advice of a health professional".
The question is, why can he not do so? He refused to ban the sales of unpasteurised cows' milk, against expert advice, on the basis of consumer choice.
If we are to have Ministers at all—and who better to represent the consumer than an elected Minister?—then it is their judgment, their good sense, that should prevail. They should not be slaves to their advisers, or, as Edwina Currie told the BSE inquiry, simply be there to rubber-stamp the officials' decisions. Does the electorate vote for MPs who subsequently become Ministers in the expectation that they will simply be the spokesmen and spokeswomen for unelected officials and advisers? I think not. Do voters expect their elected representatives to take heed of their wishes and weigh them in the balance with other advice before coming to their own considered judgment? I think so.
Noble Lords will know of my interest in organophosphates. It was government legislation that compelled farmers to dip their sheep in organophosphate dips. As a result, there is evidence that many of those farmers have become ill. Shortly after the present Government were elected, the parliamentary organosphosphates group met the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Jack Cunningham. We asked why the promised moratorium on organophosphate sheep dips had not materialised. The Minister told us that he was obliged to take the advice of his scientific committees, and that the advice was that the dips were safe if used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Therefore, there would be no moratorium. He told us that that was confirmed by counsel's opinion. I studied the legislation very carefully. All it said was that the Minister "shall consult with", not that he was obliged to accept the advice.
In several Written Questions, I asked for clarification. First, I was told that the obligation was enshrined in EU and UK legislation. When I asked exactly where in the legislation it was enshrined, I was told in effect that actually it was not in the legislation and remained to be tested in the courts. Are the officials always right?
1244
If we explore the detail of many of the imposts we are told that we must obey because they come from the EU, we tend to find evidence of the peculiar genius of our civil servants in expanding the provisions of EU law, or its enforcement, to make UK law much more onerous than it need be, matched only by the compliance of Ministers, who seem to be all too readily gulled into believing what their officials tell them.
Do we want to see the survival of the small independent businesses that are the backbone of our economy? If we do, we need Ministers with a healthy dash of scepticism, and with the vision to see how the influence of multinational companies and supermarkets has crept into and taken over government decision-making processes. We need Ministers who will take time off to think through the actions which are proposed. I understand that Clement Attlee used to retreat to the lavatory for an hour or so when he needed time to think. We need Ministers who will question the advice they receive and not simply act as the mouthpiece of their advisers and officials. Most of all, we need Ministers who possess the same courage and independence of spirit so amply present in those who are prepared to invest their talent and possessions in businesses.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Vinson cast his fly upon the waters of your Lordships' House, I doubt whether he realised what an important rise he would get out of the pool of better regulation.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for his excellent maiden speech. It was most important that he should have been here for this debate, even though, dare I say, he seemed a little immune from the kind of troubles I have from small businesses.
As your Lordships know, the business of small businesses is not small within the United Kingdom economy. After all, they have created 2 million jobs in the past five years, and 97 per cent of all the United Kingdom's firms employ fewer than 20 people. We cannot afford to strangle the employers of half the total employees within the private sector. What a blizzard they have to stand up to! To stifle enterprise and initiative and erode our competitive position there are the working time directive, criticised vigorously by the noble Lord not long ago in another context, the minimum wage, the working families' tax credit; and the childcare credit; the disabled persons' learning credit; and the student loan repayment administration regulations. It is a massive infliction.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, said, there have been 2, 400 new regulations since May 1997—an extra £5,000 a year on all businesses. And what do we have going through the House at present? The Employment Relations Bill, with the automatic recognition of unions and immunity from the sack for union leaders. We all know that the unions pay a very large subsidy to the party opposite, and during the negotiations on that Bill there were threats of the subsidies being withdrawn. There was a call for an emergency conference and withholding funding. The party opposite was bought and paid for by the trade union lobby in regard

1245
to this legislation. It is sleaze with damaging consequences in unemployment and reduced prosperity for the small businesses of this country.
Your Lordships are familiar with Parkinson's law, "Civil servants exist to grow their own jobs": the health and safety inspectors, the fire inspectors, the building regulation officers, the environmental health officers, the wages inspectors and the VAT officers. "VAT officer" is the most overworked description in the English language at present. Often with degrees from some rather bogus new university, which should only be a polytechnic, they are nothing more than inspectors. They are very friendly; they are nattily dressed: they are paid for by you and me. They take up a vast amount of precious time and drink prodigious amounts of coffee.
When the Minister replies he should say that he will seriously consider that any firm employing under 500 people should be allowed to charge the Government for the time spent on compliance. That would very effectively concentrate the minds of those who make the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, made in another context a serious attack on the working time directive. He also made another comment—that the Government do not now allow enough time for consultation. It is understandable. Vs, e now have an unprecedented number of advisory bodies—440, containing approximately 6,000 so-called experts. I believe that the staffing of these advisory bodies is putting a strain on our excellent Civil Service, so much so that the normal standards are being dropped, creating the impression that the Government have made up their mind on another slice of socialist dogma and are only pretending to consult in order to cover their subsequent actions.
I had experience with the rural England discussion document. One would have thought that it would come from the Ministry of Agriculture, but it actually came from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A 15,000-word submission was returned in answer to all 11 questions. That submission had the ringing endorsement of the Standing Conference on the Countryside. But as the consultative document made no mention of the largest employer in rural England—country sport—I had the impression that the alliance's submission was not to the civil servants' liking.
I wish we could bear in mind that the imposition of the values of the urban majority on the life of the rural community is a form of dictatorship. The quality of democracy is the protection it affords to minorities, not the domination it gives to majorities. The consultation process should at least be genuine.
Then we have a. great statement by the Prime Minister that he is so much in favour of the way America has grown. The great thing in America is the wonderful contribution that small businesses have made to the dynamo of America's growth. Why? Because the American Government have not done anything about them; they have left them severely alone. Any business in the United States with a turnover of less than 500,000 dollars a year has no minimum wage, no ethnic quotas, no disablement facilities and certainly no equal pay, and it can fire people with or without cause. I see no
1246
sign of such steps being taken here. All I can say is that, whatever it may say, the party opposite gives the impression of being entirely tied to its trade union paymasters
5.49 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on raising a very important and difficult matter. It is important because, as he said, regulation affects the productivity, prosperity and competitiveness of our economy. Equally important, however, it affects the quality of life and fairness of our society. Regulation is difficult because it has to achieve a balance between the two.
Perhaps I may pray in aid the words of Isaiah Berlin, who often drew our attention to these mutually irreconcilable and conflicting values which are the price of a liberal society. He said that tolerance enables us to balance these conflicting values. The problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and I would not agree on the degree of tolerance required. If we did, there would be no need for regulation because voluntary agreements and codes of practice would do the job.
Noble Lords are concerned about regulation destroying jobs. They are right; so am I. That is a concern. But perhaps I may draw a picture of what an unregulated market-place would look like. Some companies would exploit and deceive their customers through monopoly power. They would use it to destroy the small firms that we are debating. They would exploit their workforce through discrimination and unfair employment practices. They would pollute the atmosphere and endanger life and limb with their working practices and products. Where would our savings and pensions be without regulation in the financial services sector? None of us would want to live in such a society. Of course, some would behave differently. Rowntree, Cadbury, Leverhul me and Simon Marks did not need regulation. They realised that a free-enterprise economy cannot be justified purely on the grounds that it is good for business; it has to be good for society as a whole.
However, regulation also took on other aspects, such as the aspect of bureaucratic control and the quick political fix. Regulations were an easy way of making life simpler for the Government by standardising products and services, thereby inhibiting innovation. New regulation was an easy, knee-jerk political gesture by a government under pressure from an interest group. The legislation on dangerous dogs and on trade union check-off comes to mind.
It is also easier to make regulations universal instead of selective. Of course, there is no need to throw the whole hook at everybody. In fact, many regulations need not apply to small companies. Many small companies are owner-managed and so have no need for the regulations which apply to larger firms, such as those regarding the separation of the duties and powers of shareholders and directors.
It seems to me that there are two kinds of regulation. The first stops people doing what at the time was perceived to be the wrong thing and the other attempts

1247
to encourage people to do the right thing. In either case, we have to be selective. I think that in recent years we have come to recognise this, particularly with the introduction of the Better Regulation Task Force, so ably led by my noble friend Lord Haskins, and by the business test panels. As my noble friend explained in his excellent and informative maiden speech, through those organisations the Government have come to realise that modern regulation is not about restricting people's freedom to be innovative; it is more about encouraging best practice in order to create a fair society and a thriving economy.
I should like to consider some of our more recent regulatory legislation in rather a more balanced way than that adopted by some noble Lords so far. Perhaps I may take an easy one first. I refer to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act, which has not yet been mentioned. No one can doubt that it encourages best practice and helps small businesses.
A more difficult example is the national minimum wage. I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that even small firms in America are subject to a national minimum wage. Admittedly, it varies from state to state, but companies there are subject to a minimum wage. The issues raised by this example are typical of Isaiah Berlin's "mutually irreconcilable values". That is why it needed months of research and investigation by the Low Pay Commission to arrive at a compromise. Perhaps it is too early to say whether the minimum wage has or has not helped firms to maintain a more committed workforce with reduced staff turnover. Presumably, the Low Pay Commission is monitoring that.
Where I think that small companies really do benefit from this legislation is that those regulations, together with other measures such as the working families' tax credit, help to remove the poverty trap making work pay better than benefit is an important reason why there are now more people in work in this country than ever before. That must be of help to small businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggested that the Employment Relations Bills is a sop to the unions. I see it as a way of avoiding conflict. Again, there has been a lot of negotiation and discussion over that Bill. When we debated its Second Reading on Monday, I made a forecast, which I now repeat. I said that I thought that the Bill would very soon cease to be a matter for discussion because the basic decent minimum standards that it lays down are already carried out by most reasonably run companies, large and small. The Bill hardly affects those companies. It will affect poorly run businesses and bad employers, but I do not think that they will be able to withstand modern competitive pressures anyway. So I categorise that Bill as one which encourages firms to do better by adopting best practice in order to survive.
The regulations in the Social Chapter are a mixed bag, but many relate to parental leave and the rights of part-time workers, many of whom are married women. I would group those under family friendly regulations. On many occasions your Lordships' House has debated the importance of the family and has consistently called for more understanding of the pressures that modern
1248
working life puts on the family. Those regulations are designed to achieve precisely that. They bring the pressures out into the open and systemise ways of dealing with them. How much better it is to do that than to force people to conceal family problems and perhaps lie about them to their employers. Can I categorise those regulations as helping best practice? I think that I can.
There has also been legislation to protect whistle-blowers and to speed up the resolution of disputes. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, is concerned about small employers being taken to industrial tribunals. The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act, which received Royal Assent on 8th April, is specifically designed to speed up the resolution of such disputes by informal arbitration instead of going to industrial tribunals.
In addition, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that any employer, large or small, involved in a dispute with an employee must seek the assistance of ACAS. I was an employer in the textile industry for 30 years. I can assure the noble Lord that that industry knows all about small companies. When I was involved in disputes, I found ACAS very helpful and professional. It favoured neither one side nor the other and avoided quite a lot of the nonsense about which the noble Lord spoke. Of course, if an employee is determined to have his day in court, there is little that anyone can do about it; but the same applies to disputes with neighbours over the garden fence.
I too am concerned that over-regulation will impede the nation's productivity and the ability of small firms to employ people and to flourish. However, improving the nation's productivity and the success of small businesses depends on a lot more than just regulation. It depends on investment, training, skills, innovation and, crucially, management introducing best practice. I have tried to show that some recent regulations and legislation have helped to do precisely that—encourage best practice. Certainly, there are other ways of encouraging best practice. There is the work of the Best Practice Division of the DTI and presumably the new Small Business Service. Firms in supply chains can insist on best practice from their suppliers. There are voluntary codes of practice. But regulation by legislation does not exclude these. It closes the loopholes and sets the often minimal standards.
Regulation is not all static. There is a dynamic element. It is important to differentiate between the two. This work is being carried out by our own Better Regulation Task Force and the Business Test Panels set up by the European Commission and the Internal Council. In nine countries, including the United Kingdom, these test panels act as a test market to assess the regulatory burdens on business of new legislation. I hope that the Government will encourage this work, including the work of the Better Regulation Task Force, for there is a price for regulation. Let it advise if it is a price worth paying.
6 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, it was the comedienne, Victoria Wood, who uttered the rather dubious prayer, "Please God, let me prove that winning

1249
the lottery won't spoil me". For many, starting one's own business is a lottery with no guarantee of success.
I am privileged to be a vice-president of the Small Business Bureau and president of the African Caribbean Westminster Initiative. Both of these national organisations have given me some insight into the opportunities and problems facing the small business community. I also speak from personal experience as a director of a small company.
Having said that, I acknowledge that my business experience is far short of that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord to this House. I believe that we all agree that he will be a great asset.
There is no doubt that the future of small companies is vital to our economy. They form the majority of businesses in this country. There are 3.7 million small firms contributing 40 per cent. of turnover and employing 50 per cent. of the private sector workforce. Nearly 95 per cent. of them employ fewer than 10 people.
When I was a full-time barrister the rules of life seemed relatively simple. My experience in the criminal courts had taught me, for example, that one should never buy a portable television set in the street from a man who is out of breath! Furthermore, video recorders described as "genuine Victorian antiques" are usually from a less than honest source.
But starting a small business takes one into another world where one feels a little like David surrounded by an army of Goliaths, including the Working Time Directive Regulations and the Minimum Wage Rules. Clearly, some regulations are required, especially to protect health and safety. But it is the cost and the complexity of the system which is wrong. Since May 1977, when the Government came into power, they have imposed over 2,000 new regulations. I believe that it now 2, 400, but who is counting?
The Institute of Chartered Accountants estimates the extra cost of regulation on the average small business to be £5,000 per year. That sum is enough to close down some firms or to deter others from even starting. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business are all critical of the present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, acknowledges—and one is grateful for it—that the compliance with regulation impacts far more on small firms. Large employers can delegate or hire more management to cope with the additional administration. The small businessman usually has fewer options. The sole trader often has to divert time away from his business to ensure compliance with a whole raft of rules. The sheer number of new regulations means that smaller companies are sometime unaware of the latest obligations that they have to comply with. So time is spent trying to find out and then there is a rush to avoid penalties for missing the deadlines.
To most small firms finances are critical. For many, the most beautiful words in the English language, apart from the Bible and Shakespeare, are "Please find cheque enclosed". Noble Lords may agree that the phrase has a
1250
certain ring to it. So the last thing that a small businessman wants is to become over-regulated to an extent which actually inhibits wealth creation.
The problem has particular resonance for the ethnic business community. I helped to form the African Caribbean Westminster Initiative because I was aware of how difficult it is for black and Asian business people to attract funding from mainstream financial institutions. To tie them down also with excessive regulation is to keep them at the starting block with less chance of competing.
The Federation of Small Businesses, representing 130,000 firms employing 1 million people, has called for a single inspectorate to deal with regulations such as those affecting health, safety, fire and the environment. These agencies have responded by saying that no one agency could ever be expected to handle all these issues. Quite frankly, I have sympathy with that response. But the problem is that that is exactly what the small business owner is expected to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, does not appear to be complacent about the situation. He may agree with me that the Working Time Directive, certainly in its initial form, was clumsy and unclear. The Government introduced it in a rush with no parliamentary debate. It may be that they were worried about being taken to the European Court. The leaflet explaining the directive contains 72 pages. The problem is that it had a number of errors. I believe that it is on its third reprint at the Department of Trade and Industry to get it right. If the department is unable to get it right how can the small businessman do so?
As regards the National Minimum Wage Rules, I notice that they were introduced on All Fools Day. I make no other comment about that. The DTI did provide a 112-page guide, but firms were given just three weeks to comply, to get it right by day one or face criminal conviction and a fine of up to £5,000 for not complying. Bearing in mind that the rules cover temporary staff, seasonal workers, piece workers and includes bonuses, but not free meal vouchers, this task is not easy for anyone let alone the small employer. The Government seem to be operating on the principle: "If you can't convince them, confuse them. "
I accept that simply exempting small firms from regulation would not be right, especially in areas such as food safety. But, as suggested by the Confederation of British Industry, regulators should put more emphasis on helping firms comply, rather than punitive enforcement.
I understand that there are more than 30,000 regulation enforcers at the moment. But one of the problems is that local authorities put different amounts of resources into enforcement. So a small business in one area could be subject to visits from one inspector after another while those in another area are less scrutinised. Even where advice is given, inspectors from different agencies have been known to give conflicting advice to the same business.

1251
As regards employment, we know that small companies in America are not covered by many of the business regulations. They seem to do very well. But their employees can enforce their rights through the legal system and frequently do.
There is a strong argument for a freeze or amnesty on many more regulations at least for the rest of the year. We should remember that small firms are already trying to cope with pressures from the introduction of the euro and the need to prepare against the millennium bug. It seems to take more brains and effort now to comply with the myriad of regulations than it does to actually make an income.
There should be at least an annual statement to Parliament on the cost of regulation and the Government's plans to reduce that cost in the following year. I would also welcome a minimum period of consultation; for example three months, on each new regulation, with organisations like trade associations. There could also be a similar period of notice, within which to give firms time to prepare.
I have a business friend with an exceptionally creative mind. But just to keep his small company going amidst the sea of regulations, he feels unable to employ more people to make the business itself grow. As he told me, "John, I started out with nothing and I still have most of it".
It is time for a better balance and greater understanding of the difficulties faced by small firms. Over-regulation is the enemy of job creation. We must not forget the old saying that you cannot fish and mend your nets at the same time.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise today in defence of small businesses generally but particularly small rural businesses that tend to be separated by distance from specialist assistance. Not for the rural business a quick trip for photocopies, replacement stationery or lunchtime baps. Similarly, they lack the casual contact with one another and with professional firms that can occur throughout the day in town and city. Membership of luncheon clubs, golf clubs or even the chamber of trade is more difficult for the man and woman who is situated five, 10 or 20 miles into the countryside.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, speaking in Monday's Second Reading debate on the Employment Relations Bill, said that its purpose was
"to create an understanding between employers and employees". —[Official Report, 10/5/99; col.967.]
I submit that its effect will be to isolate even further those rural businessmen and businesswomen who will now have to cope with union recognition for firms with just 20 people and three months' unpaid leave for maternity and paternity. One wonders whether this will extend to both parents simultaneously where they work within the same small business. Ten per cent. of the workforce is to have three months' unpaid leave. That is interesting, even mind-boggling. There is also to be
1252
time off for domestic incidents. I point out that neither the Bill nor its proponents has yet defined what constitutes a domestic incident.
In his speech on Monday the noble Lord, Lord Simon, told us that he had spent five years as the head of British Petroleum. I am sure that he is highly qualified to pass judgment on big business, but I wonder whether such accreditation fits him to comment, nay legislate, on a myriad of small businesses affected by a confusion of rules and regulations. Moreover, he told us a little later (at col.971) that the cost of his legislation would be,
"about 5p a week per employee".
According to my elementary mathematics, it will cost £1 per week, or £52 a year, for the owner of a 20-strong business to implement and fund what the Minister described (at col.966) as,
"a radical, forward-looking package of measures".
I turn now to the existing burden of regulation, and I use that expression advisedly. I provide another quotation, this time from my noble friend Lady Miller who said in Monday's debate (at col.974):
"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".
The Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry has told me that in its latest quarterly survey 41 per cent. of manufacturers and 31 per cent. of service providers quoted legislation and administrative burdens as being of greater concern to them than in the previous quarter. They have suggested that the Government allow a learning space of at least four months between the approval of a regulation and its coming into force. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, in his very good maiden speech suggest that there should be perhaps a time delay. This only highlights a situation typified by the beef-on-the-bone ban where a series of industries covering a great many firms, large and small, was given only 24 hours to implement that ban.
Regulations emanate from the Government but we must not lose sight of those that are prompted by European directives. I recall a problem on Radio 4 last year in which the representative of a cheese manufacturer stated that the cost of complying with European health and safety and hygiene rules had put a number of his competitors out of business and that he had survived only by virtue of the fact that he was a charity (Camphill Trust).
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has consistently, and today, reiterated her concerns about the increasing burden of legislation on small businesses. The NFU claims that 62 per cent. of farmers now obtain part of their income from diversification. Ten years ago off-farm income was only 20 per cent. of agricultural earnings. Nowadays, particularly on lowland cattle and sheep farms, the majority of earnings comes from agri-businesses of one kind or another.
I am also very concerned not only about the legislation with which small businesses are quite happy to comply but the fact that, particularly in the farming industry, small businesses should be allowed to compete

1253
on a level playing field. On 21st April in the other place my honourable friend Mr. Tim Yeo asked the Minister, Mr. Nick Brown, whether it was true that French pig farmers received extra financial aid. He wished to see proof of it. Today, my honourable friend has provided a press release which shows clearly that additional subsidies are being paid to French pig farmers. In a speech given by the Minister, M. Jean Glavany, to France's National Federation of Pig Producers he spoke of an extra 150 million francs having been given to the pig industry since he became Minister.
If small businesses are to compete surely they should do so in an even-handed way. If that does not happen it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that it is looked into. The pig industry is in crisis, as one or two noble Lords know only too well. All I ask is that our pig farmers and others are able to compete on a level playing field and that where that is not so our Government refer the matter directly and quickly to the European Commission.
We in this country have set down standards for our industries with which people are quite happy to comply. However, recently I spoke to a small business person who is a farmer and ice-cream maker. We have laid down national standards on environmental and health issues. However, in her case part of the farm is in one district and the ice-creamery is in another. The district councils interpret: the standards in a totally different way. That is a matter of very great concern, and I hope that the noble Lord will look into it.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the plight of small businesses particularly within the farming industry. Sometimes one is tempted to query figures when one is on the receiving end of a stream of complaints about the effects of bureaucracy and our work here. There is the problem related to matching European funds, for example for environmentally-friendly schemes. Recently, a scheme for recycling a two-year backlog of waste plastic materials held on farms was itself delayed when the Welsh Office refused to match a successful hid from Europe for money. That is one example, and there are many others.
I thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for enabling me again to stress that small firms often become big businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, touched on that point. It is my profound hope that they will continue to do so in future. Earlier this year, I went to the Country Living Fair at Islington. I was encouraged more than anything else by the Prince's Trust pavilion, which was put aside for 80 young people to show their skills and entrepreneurship. It was exciting to share their ideas, hopes and drive. My hope is that the Government will realise that small firms must not be overburdened but be allowed to grow, so that those little acorns will be allowed to grow into bigger businesses.
All successful businesses perform a tax-gathering, information-supplying, statistics-compiling faction for central government. Large businesses can support the costs by incorporating those functions in other tasks. Small businesses have to employ somebody else or take time out to undertake that work themselves. I remind your Lordship of Lord Simon's 5p per week per
1254
employee for running the proposed employee relations legislation. Such glib statements accompany the cost analysis of many government proposals hut the reality is far more onerous. Small businesses suffer disproportionately from laws and statutes. In Europe, derogations are often applied to small businesses, whereas in the UK we seem to specialise in making life even more demanding on them by adopting standards that are even more stringent than those of our competitors—simply gold plating.
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for introducing this important debate. I take part as a Fellow-elect of the Small Business Fellowship of the Industry and Parliament Trust, and I declare an interest as president of the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers.
Small businesses are being strangled from trying to comply with regulations, and the costs for small business are disproportionate. A study by the University of Bath in 1995/96 showed that the compliance cost to employers of operating pay-as-you-earn, expenses and benefits in kind, national insurance, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay was £288 per employee per annum for firms with between one and four employees. That compares with as little as £5 per annum per employee for companies employing 5,000 people or more.
Another frequently heard complaint is that businesses act as unpaid tax collectors for the Government. It is probably correct that business tax administration should take place on business premises, but could not the Government recognise that businesses and small firms in particular are providing a free and efficient tax-collecting service? That service should surely be paid for, by allowing businesses to retain a small proportion of the tax raised. That simple gesture would raise the morale of small firms no end. If it would be too expensive to apply that measure to all businesses, restrict it to firms with, say, up to 50 employees. France, Germany and Holland have schemes to compensate firms for their VAT compliance burdens that allow them to retain some of the tax collected.
Small businesses up to a certain size enjoy exemption from some of the more onerous regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, whose maiden speech I enjoyed immensely, is quoted as saying that some firms are deterred from going beyond the point at which they are exempted from some regulations. I am sure that he is correct. As we want small firms to grow, the answer seems to be double the exemption criteria. I hope that the Minister will not say that is impossible because our European partners would not understand. They probably do not understand the rules of cricket either.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is also quoted as saying that Ministers spend far too little time considering enforcement when legislation is planned. Perhaps we could look to Scotland to solve the problem. I am delighted to see that the Minister with responsibility for trade in Scotland is in his place. I welcome also the appointment of the noble Lord,

1255
Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. Presumably we will be able to welcome him to these Benches when he attends this House.
The Scottish Parliament is to be a unicameral House, and planned legislation will go out to consultation and be thrashed out in pre-legislative committees—so that when legislation is passed by that Parliament, it should work.
It would be churlish not to recognise the lowering of the small business tax rate in the last Budget and that interest rates are moving the right way. However, with all due respect to extremely hardworking small business Ministers at the DTI, I fear that not much more will be achieved until there is a complete change in the way that we regulate small businesses in the United Kingdom.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for sponsoring today's debate. He has much practical experience in his own right and is a respected past chairman of the Rural Development Commission. My late father taught me among other things never to disturb him when he was reading The Times or drinking his port; and that self-interest never lies. So I declare an interest as a small businessman in varying enterprises including land ownership, agriculture, tourism and retail—and as the holder of a sub-post office franchise from Post Office Counters Limited.
The creation and maintenance of a viable rural economy has long been of interest to me—not only out of self interest but so that I may help to improve the lot of my fellow country dwellers. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, would call it best practice. In the gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session, we heard about the Government's wish to promote entrepreneurship. It is from small beginnings that many successful business grow.
The country has a good supply of redundant agricultural and industrial buildings available for conversion, to rent relatively cheaply as work space. They are a good starting point for small businesses. It is irritating to hear from the Islington Tendency that such conversions only profit the landlord. At Penshurst, we are proud to have managed the creation of more jobs in our workshops than have been lost to agriculture since 1945. Three start-up businesses have expanded into much larger companies.
We would be able to create more workshops but for a perverse written planning appeal, when the inspector admitted that a building had been on the site but chose to ignore it for the purpose of the appeal. My only recourse would have been to the High Court, when the cost of the case would have been greater than the rental income would ever have been. One really must have common sense in rural planning decisions.
The threatened loss of the sub-post office in Penshurst some years ago encouraged me to take on the franchise. The sub-post office provides all the normal services. The most profitable is the paying of old age pensions,
1256
Giro benefits and postage stamps. It seems a little illogical to me that if one buys 26 1p stamps to send a first class letter, rather than one 26p stamp, the sub-postmaster will receive more money at the end of the year. It is probably a symptom of past regulations. I seem to recall that before British Telecom was privatised one could have one's telephone mended by the GPO only on a Saturday or Sunday because that is when the engineers were paid double time.
The closure of the only food shop in the village forced me to open a village store. I was pleased to hear from the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, that the proposed licence fee will not now go ahead. It seems illogical that my shop, which has perhaps 50 or 60 lines, would pay the same amount as Mr. Fayed would pay for Harrods food hall.
As the owner of a two-pump filling station, I must accept that safety is important when dealing with petrol storage. I am rightly expected to keep accurate statutory records of fuel deliveries, sales and stock sold so that one is able to tell at a glance whether there is any seepage of petroleum spirit either into the atmosphere or the ground. However, as a belt and braces operation, and at some considerable cost, I am expected to have the fuel tanks pressure tested once every two years. It costs something like £1, 500 for five tanks. It seems a rather overbearing amount of regulation.
Where the village high street still exists it is faced with ever more draconian regulation which drives out any possibility of a living wage. As the owner of an historic house and garden open to the public for seven months of the year, I employ a large number of part-time staff. I believe that all members of my staff are fairly rewarded for the work they do. Indeed, I have always believed the adage, "If you pay peanuts you get monkeys". The Government's signing up to the European work directive has meant that every part-time member of staff who works one day a week for more than 13 weeks will receive three days' holiday pay; and from 23rd November of this year that will rise to four days. It seems illogical that people who are paid at a higher rate because they are temporary staff should then receive holiday pay as well.
I imagine that such regulation is driving up costs throughout the tourist industry. In small businesses, the introduction of unpaid paternity leave, maternity leave, and statutory sick pay means that it is difficult to get cover, or one often pays twice for the same job.
Small firms are faced with an array of regulatory bodies: Inland Revenue; Customs and Excise; the Health and Safety Executive; the planning authority; and the Environment Agency, to name but a few. Each agency considers its particular brand of bossiness paramount. The poor employer has to deal with all those demands as well as run his business profitably. The decision to take on more labour is often coloured by the need to keep more records for the many statutory returns, while struggling to meet deadlines and keep the bank manager happy. It is safer and easier for an inspector to say no than to consider an economic and sensible alternative. We should never let the best be the enemy of the good.

1257
The anarchic nature of free enterprise can be quickly stifled by too much regulation. It must be the duty of the Government and the legislature to keep the amount of regulation to a sensible minimum. The effect of our deliberations, and of those in another place, often translate into draconian measures by those who implement legislation. One would hope for a proactive relationship with regulators rather than a vindictive reactive one.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner and director of several small businesses. I am often forced to ask myself why anyone would want to start up a small business. There are so many rules, regulations and laws which make life impossible that we must be mad to contemplate it. There is a battery of red tape to stop one from succeeding and to drive the unwary back to employment, or unemployment, rather than their desired role of employer.
In a tongue-in-cheek manner I wish to take your Lordships through the imaginary beginnings of a small business. First, you need to find a place to run your business. It sounds logical and seems easy until you start looking around, and then it becomes remarkably difficult. Having found it, you are faced immediately with a large insurance bill. You must have liability cover, employee cover, fire and theft cover and many more.
Then you have the joy of paying business rates, and for the pleasure of paying those rates—taking people out of the dole queue and helping the business profile of your local authority area—you will have the great joy of joys: your refuse will be collected. But you will not have a vote in the local elections and so will have no say in who your local councillor is or the political make-up of the council.
Then you probably have to go to your local council to arrange a change of use for your chosen venue in order to comply with the local district plan. In the case of agriculture, farmers are being asked to diversify. They move from being rate free to being rated. That surely has to be the biggest disincentive of all.
Now you have a business and it has been registered in the local authority's record. The next step is visits from health and safety and environmental health officers and the fire brigade. They all tell you different and converse things. That necessitates an annoying and boring round-robin series of meetings until the common denominator is found.
The most extraordinary situation arose in my equestrian centre recently. The environmental health and health and safety officers insisted that we had a small door put into one of the walls of our riding school so that people could get out. I pointed out that right next to that area was a 15-foot by 15-foot door which would make it easier for people to get out if there were a rush because of some crisis. The only people who paid any attention to me were the fire brigade. After a long series of arguments it was agreed that I would not have to put in a five-foot door when there was a 15-foot door within one foot of that area
1258
Now you have your business and a venue so what do you need next? You need employees. The only problem is that you cannot have those you want. You cannot apply for females only or males only; and you are discouraged from discriminating on age grounds. You definitely cannot choose on grounds of colour or race. Even when you have made your choice, the potential employee whom you turned down can claim that you chose the person you did because he was a Scot and you chose an English person, or because he was white and you chose a black person, or vice versa; or, as the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said, you chose a non-pregnant person rather than a pregnant one.
After all that, you have your employees. They must only work a certain number of hours. They must be paid the minimum wage as set down in law. You must give them PAYE status and you must quickly understand how to work out wages. You cannot claim that they are all self-employed and give them each £100 a week cash in hand, or whatever you decided to give them. That would be far too simple. We all pay our tax returns now through self-assessment. But you are not allowed to call them self-employed persons and let them work the figures out for themselves. You are now an unpaid government tax official. But do not get the figures wrong because you cannot claim back from your new employee any overpayments or mistakes you have made.
You must also remember that if an employee is sick he must be paid. If she becomes become pregnant you must keep her job open for her, even if you do not know whether she will come back after the birth of the child.
You must also decide whether you are going to opt to be VAT registered, and if you do that you must fill in the necessary returns each quarter. Again. do not make any mistakes, as you will have to pay for these with interest at a punitive rate. Ignorance is no excuse. Again, you pay to do this, but you had better do it, even if you have not got the time to do it and your business needs your attention on the shop floor rather than in the office. Oh, you can employ someone to do it for you, but if they do it wrong it is still your fault because you have not given them the right information.
Now your business is up and running and you have to fill in your annual returns for Companies House, and, guess what, if you are late there is another fine: automatically £100. The bank, if you are in the unfortunate position of having an overdraft, wants you to make a profit and it only accepts that you are doing that if you have to pay tax. You may feel that you should keep that money, reinvest it in the business before the year end and use creative accounting. You realise that you would be better off not paying the tax, but the bank cannot see that and so the man who should remain in his cupboard—your friendly bank manager—more often than not loves to come out of his cupboard and asks to see you. He is now concerned that the bank's money is at risk. You point out that your overdraft interest payments are paying bank employees' salaries. But he is not impressed by that and he says he wants to discuss the matter with his superior, who is probably a

1259
computer. So instead of reinvesting you pay the corporation tax and trust that the bank knows best. The moral of the story is, do not have an overdraft.
Now everything is running smoothly, the business is going, you are making money; but one of your employees is not pulling his weight. He really needs to be sacked because he is destroying the morale of the rest of the workforce. If you do not do this in the correct way you can be sued. It is your business: you should be in charge, but you are not. In the Daily Mail today there is a little story in Lynda Lee-Potter's column which runs:
"Sales co-ordinator Natasha Jeary was sacked because she had agoraphobia, which made her afraid of travelling and of public places.
She's now been awarded £7,000 after the Exeter employment tribunal ruled that her bosses breached disability regulations by sacking her because of her condition".
As Lynda Lee-Potter asks, what use is a sales co-ordinator who cannot travel?—about as much use as a chauffeur who cannot drive. I think she has got it right.
Even if you do sack someone properly, you can still be accused of bias in your sacking. If you are a male, females can destroy you with allegations of a sexual nature in retaliation, destroying your business, your personal standing in the community and your marriage. Naturally it sometimes happens the other way round, as no one likes to be sacked. As someone who has been sacked in a previous incarnation, I can assure your Lordships that it is not a pleasant experience.
In another of my businesses we were in fact accused and taken to an industrial tribunal by someone whom I had taken on who had AIDS and I knew had AIDS when I took him on. As your Lordships will know, I take on ex-prisoners and I have taken on a variety of people. I do not think I could ever be accused of bias in any direction at all on that score. He was quite ill and after a period of employment in my business he decided that he had to go to hospital to get himself sorted out for a bit. When he came back he carried on working and he worked very well, but then certain other things happened and unfortunately our ways had to part. I was absolutely shocked when a week later a letter came through the post saying that I had sacked him because I had just discovered that he had AIDS. Nothing could have been further from the truth: he knew that, I knew that and it was a question of proving it to the industrial tribunal. It took an enormous amount of time and amount of money and I certainly had other things that I wanted to do. In the end the case was proved in the right way and everything was okay. However, it just goes to show in what a difficult position employers can be placed.
So now the poor old small business man has the industrial employment tribunals to deal with. They tell you what you are going to have to pay by way of compensation to the employee you have sacked because of his or her incompetence. Who would be an employer today? The law is definitely against the employer and does everything to protect the employee. Of course not
1260
many years ago employees definitely needed protection, but we have surely adjusted the balance too far the other way.
I have had a bit of fun in this debate and I want to thank my noble friend Lord Vinson for introducing it. I have taken things to an extreme; I accept that. However, all the scenarios I have mentioned are possible. The system must be simplified. The small business employer does not have the resources of the big business owner, as we have heard from several noble Lords. We must do something to remedy this, and soon. Too much of our economy relies on small businesses. Too many business men and business women are running themselves into the ground just trying to keep their business going and provide employment in their area, and this group of people should not be allowed to go under beneath a welter of rules and regulations.
I should like to make one comment on the subject that my noble friend Lord De L'Isle mentioned. If it is possible for someone who runs a small post office to get commission on sales of stamps, pension payments and so on, surely it must be possible for small businesses to get something back for the work that they do—totally unpaid at the moment—in the form of tax collection.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for promoting this interesting and very useful debate and to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on his excellent maiden speech.
From all the tales of woe that we have heard from the Benches next door to me here, it is surprising what a vibrant sector the small firms sector is in this country. If we take the small firm as being a firm with fewer than 500 employees—that is actually the definition adopted by the National Statistical Office—they constitute 99.9 per cent of all enterprises in this country and they employ 62 per cent of the workforce. Since 1979 the best estimates are that they have created over two million jobs, and, as the Annual Abstract of Statistics also shows us that between 1979 and 1998 a net 1.5 million jobs have been created in the United Kingdom, it indicates that the small firms sector has more than compensated for falls in employment in other sectors.
Perhaps there should be a few caveats. The fastest growing sector among the small firms has been the very smallest sector, the self-employed. We have seen the proportion of the self-employed rise from 6.6 per cent in 1979 to 13.6 per cent today. It has more than doubled, and represents a faster rate of growth than any other sector. Secondly, we have actually seen a drop in employment in small firms of 200,000 between 1996 and 1998. There was a drop of 200,000 in the numbers relating to small firms and particularly in this very smallest sized category. However it reflects the tougher conditions that manufacturing industry is meeting in the relative recession that we have seen over the past year
or so.
As many speakers have pointed out, regulations in this country fall disproportionately on small businesses because they cannot afford the specialist compliance

1261
staff that the larger firms can afford. Therefore in terms of cost per employee or even in terms of overall cost, this is often disproportionately high for small firms.
We have had sterling speeches from a number of speakers, including the noble Viscount, Lord De Lisle, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick and, in particular, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who have told us how small businesses, and particularly small rural businesses, have been suffering. In this respect I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to an Early Day Motion being put forward in another place by my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It occurs to me that perhaps some noble Lords may like to ask some of their friends to sign this Motion. It draws attention to a survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, revealing that some small business advisers believe that the annual cost of implementing new legislation is more than £5,000 for small businesses. It points out that this is a very significant sum for small businesses and it calls upon the Government to carry out an immediate audit of the regulations affecting small businesses and to establish a statute for ameliorating these difficulties. It further requests the Government to commit themselves to ensuring that future legislation will not add unnecessarily to those burdens; to produce an annual impact assessment detailing the costs of all new legislation specifically upon small businesses; and to exploit fully the opportunities offered by the Internet for streamlining the administrative demands upon business.
As I say, we have heard a good deal about the burdens imposed by European legislation and in particular, the problems encountered by small fanners and rural business. Yet, wearing our other hats, as consumers, we are concerned about food safety, about outbreaks of e-coli and that we should have internationally comparable food standards.
If we look at European legislation, there is little doubt that over the years, there has been a good deal of gold-plating by both governments. There is considerable evidence that in other countries—and some of your Lordships have mentioned this—such legislation is not implemented as meticulously as it is in this country. In some of those countries, that legislation is not regarded as the great burden that it is in Britain.
In that respect we all welcome the Better Regulation Task Force mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. But there are other lessons which we need to remember and think about. It is important that we should try to engender different attitudes among those whose responsibility it is to administer the legislation. In Britain, there has often been a problem of double-banking of legislation because we have not repealed UK legislation when it has been superseded by European legislation.
We should also like to see more business-friendly enforcement. Enforcement officers should try to be more helpful towards small firms in relation to compliance and be advisers and counsellors rather than prosecuting for non-compliance. It is unfortunate that current performance targets set in the Department of Trade and Industry frequently reward officers in terms
1262
of the numbers of prosecutions they make, rather than in terms of the numbers of small firms which they have helped to comply with the legislation.
I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to research which has been undertaken to look at what it is that creates employment in small businesses. It is extremely valuable to look at what it is that creates the jobs rather than what destroys them. In particular, I wish to mention three pieces of research which are relevant to the issue.
The first piece of research is by Professor David Storey who, for the past 10 years, has run the Economic and Social Research Council unit on small firms research at the University of Warwick. Among other things, he was investigating the position of fast-growing small firms. He found—many people already knew this—that most employment growth comes not from general growth of all firms but from one or two firms growing very rapidly. Birth and death rates among the population of small firms are extremely high. Those which survive create jobs.
Those firms which grew most rapidly and generated the highest profits and growth of employment were the small high-tech firms, often led by a scientist or engineer with a PhD.
We need to see what hampers those firms. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, pointed to that. The research shows clearly that it is not regulation which inhibits the growth of those firms but access to finance and entrepreneurship. I for one welcome what the Government are doing to promote both venture capital in this country and to train our scientists and engineers who have doctorates in science and technology in management techniques because we need those new entrepreneurs for the future.
That research by Professor Storey has been complemented by further work by Professor Derek Bosworth who is now at the Manchester Business School but he undertook the research when he was at Warwick. He looked at a sample of firms in the Midlands, cross-cutting large and small firms. Among those, he found that only half the firms undertook anything which they called R&D and only half of those firms employed a graduate scientist in R&D. But he also found that those companies which employed graduate scientists, whether in R&D or in the company as a whole were generally more successful and gained faster in profits, turnover and market share than their competitors. Those firms which had a graduate scientist or engineer on the board of directors did even better. Those which had an R&D department and employed graduate scientists and engineers in that department did best of all.
He found that confronted by stiff competition within the global world in which many of those companies operate, those which had an R&D department moved to redesign their products and moved upwards with higher value-added products, whereas those without any resort to science and engineering frequently tried to compete in terms of price and found themselves going under.
Finally, I draw your Lordships' attention to what I call some action research that was sponsored not by the Economic and Social Research Council but by the

1263
European Union under its structural fund in Liverpool. That took place from 1992–94 when there was in Liverpool a surplus of those graduating from the science departments at the two universities—Liverpool University and John Moores University. It was an initiative which took some of those unemployed scientists, trained them for six months in management techniques and then offered them to the small firms in inner city Liverpool on the basis that if they wanted them, they could take them, and if they did not want them, they would be taken back again.
There were problems. Some people were extremely doubtful as to whether they had any use whatever for a graduate among the staff. But the majority of firms took them on. At the end of the year, the EU paid their salaries as interns for a year and offered to take back the graduates. Almost all those small firms said, "No, no. You cannot possibly take them back. We will pay their salaries. And have you got any more where they came from because we found them so useful?".
I believe that in this country we are confronted by a very real problem in terms of innovation; namely, that it is not our large firms which fail us in that respect but, because we have a large number of small firms which are not using up-to-date techniques, they are failing to create jobs. It is the entrepreneurial firms which create jobs. It is vital that we should get scientists and engineers into small firms.
Yes, it is certainly true that regulations are disproportionately expensive for small firms. It is often difficult for them to comply with them. But I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. By all means, let us be vigilant and let us keep the regulations to a minimum. Let us beware of the gold-plating of the regulations. But let us also beware of prejudice and let us heed the results of research. Jobs are being created by the small innovative firms. The key constraints on their expansion are not regulations but finance and skills. We need to concentrate our attention at least as much on those issues as we do upon regulation.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Vinson on the excellent way in which he introduced the debate, and thank him for doing so. I am particularly interested as I was a member and director of the Small Business Bureau until I was appointed to the Front Bench of the previous Government in 1994.
I am also particularly interested because I started my own small business in 1972 which I ran and developed into an international business covering three countries by the time I left it in 1998; but not, I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, as successful as his father-in-law obviously made his. Judging by the standard with which he spoke in his maiden speech today, I am quite sure that his father-in-law must be delighted with the way in which he runs the business. On behalf of all noble Lords, I welcome him to this House.
1264
Inevitably, many contributors to the debate have focused on the potentially disastrous effects of the national minimum wage, the forthcoming Employment Relations Bill and the Working Time Directive. I, too, shall touch on those matters, but first I should like to talk about the difficulties for small businesses.
Businesses have troubles that are started by government. I refer not just to this Government but to every, successive government. Such troubles are caused because government departments seem to be unable to grasp one simple elementary fact; that is, that small businesses are not the same as large businesses. There is a difference between, say, Sainsburys and the local corner shop. The local bicycle repair business is vastly different from Fords. There should be different degrees of regulation and control to which they should be subjected. Many noble Lords have mentioned that today. Small businesses simply do not have the internal resources to put in place the record-keeping requirements imposed on their businesses, nor the money with which to pay professionals to do it for them.
The vast majority of businesses in this country are small and medium-sized enterprises. The directors and their families are also often, indeed usually, the shareholders. The complex rules of meetings, delivering and filing of accounts are totally irrelevant. Every year a limited company has to file a document at the companies registry called an annual return. There are dire financial and personal penalties for failing to do that in time. Why, I ask, do small family companies where the directors, shareholders, registered office and capital remain unchanged year after year have to do more than fill in a simple form asking, "Have your particulars changed during the past year; yes or no?" Why do small private companies have to file their accounts every year, under ever escalating automatic penalties starting from £100 for being late by one day? Indeed, my noble friend Lord Rowallan mentioned that point. It cannot be to inform potential creditors. There are months from the end of the financial year before they have to be filed so they are virtually worthless except to make work at the companies registry. Unincorporated businesses do not have to file their accounts publicly.
Only this weekend we read in the Sunday Times that the Government are about to demonstrate their aversion to the public finance initiative by axing the Pathway Project to computerise social security payments through the Post Office. Indeed, the Benefits Agency wants to pay them through the banks. That is despite the fact that a high proportion of the recipients do not have bank accounts and the banks purportedly do not want this time-consuming business.
It is also despite the fact that the Post Office may have to axe thousands of sub-post offices which depend upon customers collecting their benefit and spending some of it in the shop. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has estimated that 5,000 sub-post offices, which is nearly a quarter, might have to close. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord De L'Isle will not be one of those affected. These are the same

1265
sub-post offices far which the Labour Party, while in opposition, shed crocodile tears when the subject of privatisation of the Post Office was floated.
I turn to the topical subject of the national minimum wage, the Employment Relations Bill and the Working Time Directive which I believe will have a devastating effect on British commerce, especially on small businesses, to say nothing of employment prospects for unskilled and young persons.
The Government set up an advisory body called The Better Regulation Task Force. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Haskin, informed us that it is an independent organisation. I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, called it "our task force". I certainly do not blame him for laying claim to it. Half of its members consist of representatives of small businesses, including one from the Federation of Small Businesses.
Prior to the passing of the National Minimum Wage Act, the task force gave the Department of Trade and Industry certain advice which the Government ignored. The task force loses no opportunity to repeat in its various reports and consultation documents that its criteria for good regulation are transparency, accountability, consistency. proportionality and targeting. Its advice under the heading of targeting welcomed the idea of an enabling Bill, giving the Secretary of State power to make detailed regulations because:
"It means that where regulations need to be changed or fine tuned in the light of experience this can be done by sample means".
What do the Government do in the face of that advice? Under Clause 2(8), Clause 3(3) and Clause 4 the Secretary of State expressly forbade himself from making any regulations which allowed for variations between different areas, different sectors of employment, undertakings of different sizes, small businesses or persans of different ages or different occupations. In other words, in the face of those recommendations of their own advisers they set their face against any form of flexibility which is absolutely necessary in dealing with small businesses. They did it in such a way that no matter how cogent a case there might be for derogation from the national minimum wage in special cases, the Secretary of State could wring his hands and say, "I'd like to help you but I do not have the power".
I proposed an amendment, both in Committee and on Report, removing those self-imposed obstacles and giving the Secretary of State power to vary the national minimum wage in any way, for any purpose and for however long he chose to do so. The amendment was the only one that was passed in this House. Incidentally, my noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned the British Activity Holiday Association. That association would have benefited from that amendment. Its members came and lobbied me on that matter. Were the Government grateful for this aelpful, constructive and totally discretionary new power I gave to them? No, they were not. The Minister rejected it. In the other place they described it as a wrecking amendment. Wrecking? All it did was to give the Secretary of State a discretionary
1266
power to use or not to use as he chose. All it did was to follow the advice of the Better Regulation Task Force, as I believe the Government should have done.
The task force recommended:
"any form of record which enabled an employer to demonstrate compliance with the act should be acceptable".
Following the specific advice of the task force that the record-keeping requirement:
"should he non-bureaucratic and minimise the need for additional documentation"
I proposed, in the interests of making life simpler for small businesses, that PAYE records should be. just one such method as an alternative to whatever else the Secretary of State might propose. What happened? The Government rejected my amendment and produced a set of draft regulations that would have entailed the employment of a team of accountants and statisticians on every single pay day.
Fortunately, however, common sense broke through. Regulation 38 now provides for the records to be:
"sufficient to establish that the employer is remunerating the worker at a rate at least equal to the national minimum wage".
That was just as I had suggested. Why did the Government give me such a hard time? Why were they so negative? The reason is that the needs of small businesses are really at the bottom of the Government's priorities. The task force expressly advised that:
"the absence of records should not be a criminal offence".
But, Section 31(2) makes an employer who fails to keep or preserve records liable to a fine on the highest legal level; a maximum of £5,000. I believe that is pure intimidation, especially of and bully boy tactics against small businesses who might not have the means or possibly are too ignorant to even keep the records. No major public company, or one which can afford to employ book-keepers or accountants, will find any difficulty with that.
I turn briefly to the Employment Relations Bill at present before your Lordships' House. I say "briefly" because some of your Lordships will have heard me speaking to it for some 23 minutes the day before yesterday. Your Lordships will be most relieved to know that I do not propose to repeat all of my arguments made then. We shall certainly have plenty of time to go through them point by point in Committee.
For the moment, it is sufficient to say that the proposals for maternity leave, paternity leave and waiting-for the-TV-repair-man-to-come leave will all rebound most severely on small businesses while adding to the overheads and reducing the competitiveness of all businesses. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not answer my question on Monday when I asked for a definition of the so-called "domestic incident". I hope he will be able to do so—I do not suggest today—certainly before Committee stage.
Small firms with, by definition, few employees will be the most hard hit by employees being able to take time off for some personal problem that could be dealt with at some more convenient time.
Then we come to the working time regulations. This concept was originally contained in the Social Chapter from which the former Prime Minister negotiated

1267
Britain a complete exemption. However, the Brussels bureaucrats and the socialists controlling the various organs of the EU ruled that it was a health and safety measure over which Britain had no exemption—a piece of legal chicanery which deserved an Olympic gold medal for sophistry.
The former Prime Minister protested, but to no avail. It would not have mattered anyway, because no sooner had this Government taken office and without even stopping to take off his jacket, the present Prime Minister was on his way to Brussels, biro in hand, eagerly asking where the dotted line was for him to sign up to the Social Chapter with what many of us believe to be its costly job-destroying provisions. The devastating effect of that directive on small businesses has already been commented on and I shall not repeat it. But what is disgraceful is the way in which that regulation was sneaked on to the statute book. It was laid before Parliament on 17th August during the last Summer Recess. It came into force before Parliament had any opportunity to discuss it. No wonder the task force complained about government failing to allow time for consultation; no wonder the Government are contemplating amending the regulations before they have barely come into force.
I should like to summarise the effect of the regulations the Government introduced in their first two years and which they described as business legislation: minimum wage regulations, £2.4 billion a year (the Government's own estimate); working time regulations, £2 billion a year (the Government's own estimate); Employment Relations Act, £60 million a year (the Government's own estimate); administration of working family tax credits, student loan repayments, stakeholder pensions and disability discrimination compliance costs, a total of another £322 million. That is a total of £4.75 billion a year, apart from the over £300 million non-recurring set-up costs. That is a burden on the whole of British industry and commerce.
According to the Daily Telegraph of 26th April, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said,
"The cost of small businesses complying with employment regulations is disproportionately high".
He went on to say,
"the level has been reached where they present barriers to the growth of small companies…especially from the Working Time Regulations".
I was going to say that he described the working time directive as "a dog's dinner", but I believe my noble friend Lord Vinson described it as "a dog's breakfast". I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, will be able to tell me which meal he did describe it as; in any event, I could not have put it better. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to his colleague's comments.
It is abundantly clear that the Government surrender to Brussels and the Government's legislation has been based on political considerations that do not have concern for the commercial interests of the United Kingdom, the interests of commerce generally and small businesses in particular. I believe, unfortunately, we may all have to pay for this folly.
7.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and all who have taken part in the debate. I say that sincerely, though the thrust of the debate has inevitably been critical of the Government. I do not complain of that. I am grateful also, despite that fact, that my noble friend Lord Haskins has taken this opportunity to make a maiden speech. If that was a non-controversial speech, I wonder what his speech would be like if he were freed from the confines of the traditional maiden speech.
I am clearly not going to get away with a whitewash in my noble friend's presence. All I can do, as humbly as I can, is set out what the Government are planning to do about the undoubted burden of regulations on small businesses. Let me start from that common point. I shall say what we are planning to do about it and try and give some answers to the specific questions raised.
As everybody else began by declaring interests and qualifications, let me say that in humble contrast to my other noble friends who have spoken—my noble friends Lord Haskins and Lord Haskel—I ran a business for 30 years which started as a small business and ended as a small business. So I had the disproportionate burdens that have been described right from the beginning.
But in all of those 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, I did not recognise the vast majority of criticisms made by noble Lords opposite; I much more closely recognised what my noble friend Lord Haskins said. The problems for a small business are, above all, finding the working capital and the development capital to get going and continue—in other words, the bank manager rather than the state—and in finding skilled staff to do the work. Those are the two real difficulties.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe the Minister said he was in business between 1965 and 1995. I am sorry to interrupt, but my reason for doing so is to say that we have had a plethora of regulations coming in, within the UK and particularly from abroad. The noble Lord would therefore find it much more frustrating now than he did then.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall come to the numbers. However, I have to say now that this is a timed debate and I shall not be able to give way to interventions as I was able to do on Monday on the Employment Relations Bill.
As I said, the second difficulty of being a small business was in finding skilled staff. It was not employment relations that were the problem—they were in place for nearly all of the period in which I was in business very much as they are now—it was the lack of skills in the workforce in this country and the lack of continuing education and training for adults. That was certainly the responsibility of the last government, but probably goes back to previous Labour governments as well. I do not want to make a point of that. I was fascinated by the research described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I shall have to read carefully what she said, think about it and write to her if I can make any positive contribution to her points.

1269
So I simply do not recognise what is described as being the position of a large number of small businesses. That is not because in any way I underestimate the importance of small businesses to our economy. The noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Kimball, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, all referred to the statistics. Our figures say that 99 per cent of UK businesses employ fewer than 50 people; that they provide 46 per cent of jobs in the private sector and account for 42 per cent of turnover. If we add that to the job creation figures of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, we see how important they are.
Let us be clear. The Government cannot make small businesses succeed; but we can help in three ways. We can give help to ensure that those with the will to succeed have a fair chance to do so by providing a supportive and stable economic environment. The most fundamental difficulties I had in those 30 years were the huge swings in business confidence that undermined our customer base in the market research business, which some noble Lords might think is a little remote but it certainly is not. Then we can tackle specific barriers to performance and growth, including regulation, and provide high quality support services. We are committed to doing all three of those.
First, the stable macro-economic environment is already paying dividends. Inflation is under control. Interest rates have come down 2.25 per cent since last October. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 40 years and the public finances are in good order. Of course there have been difficulties for some time with the strength of the pound. That is a problem which exists in many parts of the world. Manufacturers in Europe are struggling as a result of the global downturn and the decline of exports to the Far East. But the figures seem to suggest that this is getting better. However, we still need to take action to address the longer-term performance of the economy and in order to do that we have to close our performance gap with our competitors through productivity and enhancing businesses' ability to innovate ahead of the market. That is what small businesses in particular can contribute to the process.
So we must encourage enterprise. That was the first of my suggestions of things that we could do. We have created the Enterprise Fund, a new fund to support the financing needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is worth £160 million over three years and includes a more cost-effective Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and support for regional venture capital funds specialising in the provision of small-scale equity. We also intend to provide tailored business advice and support to at least 10,000 innovative high growth potential start-ups by 2001. Funding of £20 million will be available for that over the next three years, together with a further £20 million to help small firms realise the benefits of communication and information technology.
When I think back to when I started in business, I sometimes wonder how we ever managed without PCs, accountancy programs, payroll programs, VAT programs and even a photocopier. Surely it must be a
1270
minimum aim that any small business which comes within the scope of regulation should have the benefit of electronic processing.
In addition, we have heard much talk about costs. The Budget contained a raft of measures aimed specifically at the business community: the reduction in the starting rate of corporation tax at 10 per cent; the cut in the small companies' tax rate to 20p. in the pound, down from 23p. as at the election; a 10p. starter rate of income tax for the self-employed; and a I p. cut in the basic rate for next year. All small businesses will benefit from the additional £325 million being set aside for small and medium-sized enterprises to write off 40 per cent of all they invest in plant and machinery in the coming year. There is also the new Enterprise Management incentive scheme to provide more generous tax-advantaged equity-based incentives to attract successful managers to the new companies that our economy needs. Smaller businesses should also benefit from the new R&D tax credit for small and medium-sized enterprises—a boost of some £150 million a year.
I do not deny some of the figures as regards the cost of regulation, but they must be set against the help which is being directed specifically to small businesses. We are of course aware of the burden of regulation. We know that the burden is harder to bear for small businesses. We inherited regulatory control systems from the previous administration and we have gradually come—perhaps too gradually—to the conclusion that that administration did not deliver what it wanted to achieve. It tended to come into play too late in the policy-making process and looked at individual measures in isolation, with little appreciation of the cumulative effect on business.
I believe that we addressed the latter in the Modernising Government White Paper published in March, which includes improvements to the Regulatory Impact Assessment system. That means that the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit will have to be consulted on all regulatory impact assessments on both primary and secondary legislation. There will be a forward programme of regulatory proposals over the next three years, including European Union proposals, to enable Ministers to decide collectively on the overall shape of the regulatory programme and how to cut it down. We have asked the Better Regulation Task Force, led by my noble friend Lord Haskins, to spearhead the Government's drive to remove unnecessary regulation from the statute book. So there is no doubt that we are trying in many ways, through central government, to relieve the burden of regulation which has been described.
The third element that I referred to was advice and support. That is why we decided to set up a new Small Business Service. We found that traditional government structures have not worked to the advantage of small business. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that what we should be doing is helping small firms to comply, and not setting targets for prosecution. Therefore, for the first time we are creating an institutional structure which reflects the importance of small business. The new body will have three main functions: first, it will improve the quality and

1271
coherence of government support programmes; secondly, it will help firms meet the demands of regulation, working with the Regulatory Impact Unit and the Task Force; and, thirdly, it will act as a strong voice for small business at the heart of government.
I will have to race through the answers to specific questions, but I shall do my best. Perhaps I may, first, talk about the number of regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, intervened at one point, but I was interested in the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, namely, "Who's counting?" Well, we are counting; and, indeed, we have counted. In terms of the total number of regulations, including those which do not impact on business, the numbers have varied over the past five years between 3, 200 and 3, 400 and there is no pattern of increase whatever. The number of regulations imposing costs on business in 1995 was 180, in 1996 it was 209, in 1997 it was 168 and in 1998 it was 199. Therefore, there is no good evidence to show a significant increase in the number of regulations. I say that in the face of what has been said by a number of speakers about surveys on the impact of new regulations.
One of my favourite surveys is one which was not referred to in the debate, but it has been quoted in a number of press reports during the past month. It was produced by Peninsula Business Services and the first question was:
"Do you wish that employment legislation was easier to implement?"
I have to tell your Lordships that 16 per cent of those surveyed wished that it were easier to implement while 84 per cent appear to have said, "No"—so presumably they wanted it to be made more difficult. We shall not satisfy them.
On the cost of implementation, it seemed to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, simply did not believe my figures on the Employment Relations Bill. I think that the Opposition had better look at the Regulatory Impact Assessment. No criticism was made of it when it was possible to do so on Second Reading. We will welcome debate on the assessment. The amount of £60 million a year is small compared with the benefits which we have been able to introduce as a result of the last two Budgets.
I had hoped to say a few words about enforcement, but no speaker referred to it. I wanted to do so because I wanted to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on his work at the time of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on his contribution to the creation of Sections 5 and 6 which very much improved the enforcement provisions. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we are looking at them again in the hope of improving them further.
On the issue of small firms exemptions, the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, asked for a blanket exemption for small firms, while the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked for a freeze until the end of the year. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Haskins answered that. With all the contact that he has had with small businesses, he simply said that small firms are not looking for that. Of
1272
course, there are many exemptions for small firms, for example, there is a threshold for company accounts below which companies only need to file abbreviated accounts, and there is also a threshold below which there is no statutory requirement to have accounts audited. Moreover, in comparison with most other European countries, there is a very high VAT registration threshold and there are of course the lower rates of corporation tax to which I referred. There is a threshold for statutory union recognition under the Employment Relations Bill. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, but that does not appear to be a major issue in the representations being made to the task force.
The noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Rowallan, made particular points about employment tribunals. We certainly recognise that there is always a possibility of what we call "blackmail applications" being made to employment tribunals. The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998, to which my noble friend Lord Haskins referred, encourages alternative forms of dispute resolution. It enables ACAS to find and promote a scheme for the arbitration of unfair dismissal as a speedy, formal and private alternative to tribunal proceedings. Much has been said about the Employment Relations Bill. Perhaps it would be better to leave discussion of that Bill until the lengthy debates that will undoubtedly take place.
In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I failed to give her a definition of "domestic incidents". I am not able to give her a definition but I can give her examples of what is in and what is out. What is in are certainly things such as the sickness of family members and others or being called to a school; what is certainly out is being called to the TV repairman, as the noble Baroness suggested. I was going to use the example of the lost hamster.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in particular, should repeat the canard that we are tied to trade union paymasters. If he looked at the history of the Employment Relations Bill he would recognise that it has arrived as a result of 18 months intensive consultation with employers' organisations and with trade unions. He will find that, in general, employers' organisations are as satisfied with the provisions as the trade union organisations. I will pass on from that Bill because there is so much we can debate on another occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, asked me about the tourism industry. Yes, of course we recognise the position of the tourism industry. She is wrong in thinking that Tomorrow's Tourism is a government statement only. It is a government statement in association with the industry itself, which was responsible for a very large part of it. It is very much an independent report on what needs to be done.
The noble Baroness mentioned particularly the British Activity Holiday Association and the problem raised by Peter Ainsworth about the £20 accommodation offset. That has been referred to the Low Pay Commission, which recommended that there should be no immediate change. However, there will be further monitoring, a

1273
further report and further evidence from the new earnings survey of 1999. In contrast with the statistics of the noble Baroness, the report issued by Coopers and Lybrand and the London Business School identifies low pay in the tourism industry as a factor which undermines morale in the industry rather than a factor in the other direction. As to the working time directive, as I am sure the noble Baroness will now recognise, the regulations do not require the keeping of logs of hours worked—and, yes, the forum will continue.
I shall have to write to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle, about sector-specific cases. It would have been impossible for me to have been briefed on such cases. The noble Countess made many points about the plight of small farms, the Meat Hygiene Service and so on. With the help of MAFF, I shall write to her on those points.
We accept and understand some of the criticisms of the way the working time regulations were introduced in the first instance. We recognise that the original leaflets were too long, too complicated and sometimes even wrong. a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. But we are making changes to the guidance to reduce the burden on employers. We have made every effort to deal with the undoubted difficulties which arose then. Fortunately, they do not appear to be arising with the national minimum wage.
I have taken longer than I wanted in reply to the debate because I try to answer as fully as possible the points made by noble Lords. However, I cannot reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about French local government boundaries. That is a little bit beyond my remit.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I may have
confused the Minister. There are two separate issues. The ice-cream farmer is in this country; this has nothing to do with France. I hope that Hansard will show that I have not misled the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will read what was said in Hansard. I thought it was two French local government boundaries.
I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I repeat the assurances that the Government greatly value the contribution of small businesses. I hope that we have shown that we intend to do not only as much as reasonably possible but sometimes as much as unreasonably possible to improve the prospects for small business in this country in every way we can.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, at this latish hour in the evening I know your Lordships would not wish me to open up too many of the points made in the debate. We have had such a good-natured debate that it would be wrong for me to raise any particularly contentious points.
1274
We have much to learn from the American scene and how the Americans interpret and enforce regulations. I wish to make it quite clear that I recognise that there is a place for regulation; however, I do not recognise that there is a place for overregulation.
We have been lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, here to make his maiden speech. I am sure that he has seen the House at its best.
I am fond of looking to America because we have so much to learn. It is always 20 years ahead in terms of its economic and often legislative development. I once saw a sign outside a town in the mid-west which said, "As you come to our town here, please remember that a smile is a curve that helps straighten out a lot of things".
We have had a good-humoured debate but behind it has been a heartfelt and deeply experienced expression of the realities of the world. I welcomed the Minister's sympathetic summing up, but there is one point I would like to leave with the Government Front Bench. When we talk about SMEs we muddle together—the muddle has been made by a number of speakers today —firms employing 500 people with firms employing one. They are totally different animals and legislation should and must be framed to recognise that fact. The global expression "SME" means nothing when it is related to the realities of the precise size of the firm on the ground. The self-employed person taking on one man and thereby turning himself or herself into an employer is a critical point that legislation should examine.
I thank noble Lords for the great support we have had today. I hope that many of the good ideas that have been put forward will be taken on board and digested by the Government. I know that they have at heart the welfare of this very important sector. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Lord Rotherwick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights
7.39 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their refusal to make available the international remedies for breaches by the United Kingdom of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman

1275
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may thank in advance noble Lords who will participate in this debate. I am sure that its quality will be in inverse proportion to the number of noble Lords participating.
The United Kingdom is bound by several important international human rights covenants and conventions. The Attlee Government ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. The first Wilson Government ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1969. The second Wilson Government ratified the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Cultural and Social Rights in 1976. The Thatcher Government ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986 and the Convention against Torture in 1988 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.
These decisions to become bound by those human rights instruments had to overcome strong objections within Whitehall. They were made because enlightened Ministers and their advisers were committed to the effective international protection of human rights and because there was the necessary political will.
The decision to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights was made most reluctantly by the Attlee Government and only on condition that the UK would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to deal with individual complaints of breaches of the convention by the United Kingdom.
The historic decision by Harold Wilson's Government in December 1965 to allow British cases to go to Strasbourg was taken after a full year of debate within Whitehall. The decision to ratify the two UN covenants in 1976 was taken in the face of strong resistance from within the Cabinet and again only on the basis that complaints of breaches of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would not be permitted to be made to the UN Human Rights Committee.
Similarly, successive British Governments have also refused to accept the jurisdiction of the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Committee Against Torture to deal with individual complaints of breaches by the United Kingdom.
When the new Labour Government won power two years ago, I and many others, in our innocence, hoped for a change of heart. We hoped and believed that Tony Blair's Government would not only introduce the long overdue legislation to make the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in British courts, but would also follow the example of the other 14 member states of the European Union, of the great majority of the member states of the Council of Europe and of Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, by accepting that British complainants could take their cases to the
1276
Human Rights Committee, where domestic remedies had failed to provide redress. The Government speedily set up an inter-departmental working party to study the implications.
But when at last the Government announced the results of their labours on 3rd March 1999, our hopes were dashed. Instead of seizing the opportunity to enhance the human rights protections offered by these instruments, the Government merely said that they would "look again" at the issue,
"once the Human Rights Act has been fully implemented".
Apparently the Government has had cold feet about bringing the Human Rights Act into force so as to enable British courts to review the Government's measures and decisions. The Act, which was introduced with such enthusiasm as the Government's first measure of constitutional reform, will not be brought fully into force apparently until late 2000 or even 2001: rights brought home not now but at a snail's pace to please the convenience of the Executive, rather than to give speedy and effective domestic remedies for breaches of convention rights. The Government have not even yet set the timetable for judicial training on the Human Rights Act.
Deferring decisions on the acceptance of the international complaints mechanisms until convention rights really are brought home means that the people of this country will have to wait several more years until the Government decide whether at last to take the modest but important step of accepting the competence of the Human Rights Committee to give redress for breaches of the covenant. They will also have to wait for the Government to accept the competence of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Committee Against Torture (CAT) to be able to give redress.
The Government's excuse for further delay does not bear close scrutiny. In a Written Answer on 31st March 1999 the Minister explained, as he will probably do in his reply to this debate—and I sympathise with the task he will have—that,
"There is a great deal of work to be done by public authorities across the United Kingdom to prepare for the commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998 and to ensure that it is assimilated successfully. The Government consider that preparing for the right of individual petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other Conventions, and responding to any complaints which may be brought under those procedures, is likely to divert resources from implementing the Human Rights Act 1998". —[Official Report, 31/3/99; col. WA 77.]
It is an answer worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby. The United Kingdom has been bound by these human rights instruments for many years and has had to report for many years regularly to the Human Rights Committee, the CERD and the CAT about the UK's compliance with our treaty obligations. Indeed, it is in the process of reporting to the CERD right now. As the Government and public authorities are already bound to comply with these instruments, there would be no further work involved in securing compliance within this country. That work has already been done, in any event.
The international human rights bodies themselves have recognised the anomalous position of the UK. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, in a Written

1277
Answer of 7th May 1999, all three human rights bodies have made specific recommendations on the need for the UK to accept Me right of individual petition.
To avoid an unnecessary duplication, the Government could follow the example of other European countries by accepting the tight of petition under the covenant only for complaints that cannot be dealt with under the European Convention on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Dholakia will have something to say on the important issues relating to racial discrimination. As regards racial discrimination and torture, complaints can be made to the Human Rights Committee, the CERD or the CAT only after all effective domestic remedies have been exhausted. The domestic remedies rule acts as an effective filter to reduce the likely number of cases that would be taken against the United Kingdom in these international fora. The experience of the many European and Commonwealth countries that have accepted the right of petition under the covenant shows that the caseload is perfectly manageable. Yet in some way, apparently what the Germans, Italians, French and the rest of the European Union can accept is unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
Because of the Government's procrastination, the UK remains in unsplendid isolation as the only member of the European Union that has not accepted the right of individual petition under the covenant. The covenant and the convention are complementary, rather than conflicting. The Council of Europe, whose 50th anniversary was celebrated here last Wednesday, has encouraged the ratification of both instruments since the 1970s. Within the 40-strong, now 41-strong, Council of Europe, the UK remains with only Albania, Andorra, Moldova, Switzerland and Turkey outside the covenant's individual rights mechanism.
The covenant contains several rights which are not in the European convention. It contains children's rights, voting rights and a right of access to public services on an equal basis. It also contains rights for ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and very specific rights on what are the humane standards of treatment for detainees (unlike the European convention which is not as detailed). Most importantly, the covenant contains a free-standing right to be free of arbitrary and unfair discrimination without restriction. There, I suspect, is the rub for the Home Office and other departments.
Acceptance of the right of individual petition would enable individuals to seek a remedy for discrimination on grounds currently not forbidden by UK law—for example, on grounds of religion, in Britain, or sexual orientation or age—and without the restrictions on the right to equal treatment contained in Article 14 of the European convention. That is what happened in the case of Australia, where Tasmania had discrimination based on sexual orientation. A complaint went to the UN Human Rights Committee and, as a result, legislation was enacted to give effect to its opinion.
It is in this area that there is the most significant gap in practice between covenant and convention rights. I am sorry to say this as well: Work is currently being done by a Council Europe committee of experts to fill the gap between the covenant and the convention
1278
by creating a new protocol to widen the guarantee of non-discrimination in the European convention, a very sensible and laudable attempt. I have been told by a member of the committee of experts that the only opposition to this work comes from the United Kingdom and Turkey. I have not given the noble Lord the Minister notice of this, but I should be most grateful if he could indicate in his reply, or by letter, whether what I have just said is the case. Are we undermining the work being done on the protocol or procrastinating in relation to it?
Very sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the main reason for the Government's continued denial of the right of individual petition, at least with respect to the covenant, is that they do not want breaches of the right to equality and non-discrimination to be dealt with at an international level by the body established by the covenant for this purpose: the UN Human Rights Committee. It is not some kangaroo court. The Human Rights Committee of 18 distinguished jurists is a most eminent body. Indeed, in many ways the quality and qualifications of those who are on the committee are at least equivalent to those of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the most distinguished and long-serving members, Professor Rosalyn Higgins. is the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. She is now the British judge on the International Court of Justice.
Acceptance of the right of individual petition would, in the words of Dame Rosalyn Higgins, take the covenant "out of the shadows" and make it a more significant source of United Kingdom law. A few rulings by the Human Rights Committee in British cases would also encourage British courts and administrators to take the covenant more seriously, enhancing its standard-setting nature and reinforcing the covenant's role as a universal yardstick for respecting human rights. That would also contribute to an ethical foreign policy in which we were able to set a good example to other countries.
The covenant and the conventions are important standard-setting instruments of universal human rights. It is a great disappointment that the new Labour Government, like their predecessors, continue to block victims' use of the international mechanisms available for the protection of human rights. It sets a very bad example abroad. It weakens the effectiveness of international human rights law, and it denies victims of alleged breaches the opportunity to assert their case before an international body of jurists, such as the Human Rights Committee, for an effective remedy. If the Government will not bring home all the rights guaranteed by those instruments, by incorporating them into domestic law, they could at least allow the rights to be exercised on the international plane, as did Harold Wilson's Government from 1st January 1966 in relation to the convention. I hope that the Government will reconsider the case for doing so soon so that we can celebrate with them next year.
The new Labour Government are too fond of invoking the "principle of unripe time". That, as

1279
F. M. Cornford wrote in his satire on university politics some 90 years ago, is the principle
"that people should not do at the present moment what they think is right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived".
As Cornford also observed,
"Time … is like the medlar; it has a trick of going rotten before it is ripe".
7.55 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome this debate, and congratulate my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on raising some important issues today.
I wish to concentrate on matters relating to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
My noble friend's record on race relations is unique. I remember his contribution in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when, as a member of CARD, the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination, he did much work to bring about awareness of the extent of racial discrimination in this country. I remember that he promoted the first Anglo-American conference in 1967, which was chaired by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Michael Ramsey, and which was the forerunner in establishing comprehensive race relations legislation in this country.
It was no surprise to many of us that when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary my noble friend Lord Lester was appointed his special adviser. The 1976 Race Relations Act bears the hallmark of his efforts in this field. When we add to this his record on human rights we see that he should be listened to with great respect, because he makes sense on matters of equality of opportunity and the elimination of all forms of discrimination.
Let me stress what we all know. The United Kingdom has signed, but not ratified, several important protocols to the International Convention, which enhance the protection of human rights. It should therefore be no surprise to anyone that without ratification those protocols remain non-binding on the United Kingdom. That has left us without international remedy. What we now do is to submit periodic reports on the legislative, judicial and other measures that the Government have taken in order to give effect to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In other words, where British legislation is silent we are left without international remedy.
The international convention we are all talking about is the great theme based on the United Nations Charter and other instruments, both national and international, concerned with human rights and civil liberties. The bottom line is about equality.
I simply want to concentrate on one issue: Part 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I need not spell out all the details. It is sufficient to say that the term "racial discrimination" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or
1280
effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights or fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social or cultural life, or any other form of public life.
I must admit that we have a record in this area which is the envy of the western world. This is not denied. There has been a long, slow process of race legislation introduced in 1965, 1968 and 1976. It would be wrong not to admit that the Government are committed to the elimination of all forms of racism and to the development of policies which address racial discrimination, intolerance and violence. We all subscribe to a society in which every individual, whatever his or her racial or ethnic origin, is able to fulfil his or her potential through the enjoyment of equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities.
But, despite this enviable record, there are some crucial gaps in the way in which we tackle racial discrimination in this country. This is particularly so when discrimination surfaces in public bodies. Let me explain. The last Race Relations Act was passed in 1976. It established the Commission for Racial Equality and charged this body to eliminate racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. It has also been given the task of reviewing legislation to ensure that it is effective.
We all know that in the past 23 years the commission has reviewed and reported to the Government on three occasions about the inadequacies and flaws in the current legislation. One particular concern is the exemption granted to public services.
Of course, I am aware that as a response to the Macpherson inquiry, the Government are committed to removing this anomaly and bringing all public services within the scope of the race relations legislation. To the credit of the Home Secretary, he established the Macpherson inquiry which highlighted the extent of racism in one of our public services, the police. The previous Home Secretary steadfastly refused to order an inquiry despite the pleas made by the Lawrence family, the Commission for Racial Equality and a good number of other organisations. Of course, he was entitled to do that but if that attitude had prevailed and the same administration was in power now, would we have ever found out the extent of racism and racial discrimination, as highlighted in the Macpherson Report?
If, on the other hand, we had ratified several important protocols, there would have been an opportunity for individuals to submit complaints or communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. All the European Union member states, except the United Kingdom, allow for individual petitions to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. By not ratifying the protocol, the UK Government do not fully ensure that an effective remedy is provided to all victims of violations of the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We have a sympathetic Minister in the noble Lord. Lord Williams of Mostyn. He stands for all that is decent in our multi-racial society but governments come

1281
and go. We need to ensure that effective remedy is provided so that governmental actions can be challenged by individuals.
I said earlier that it is now over two decades since Parliament put the. Race Relations Act on the statute book. The Government's intention is not in doubt. It is implicitly to assert the right of all individuals to be free of discrimination and the positive value of good relations between different groups. The Commission for Racial Equality has argued on a number of occasions that the law falls short of this promise. Legal action and formal investigative powers have in most cases served as the trigger for change. There has been measurable progress in tackling discrimination over these two decades. The value of legislation has been well established. The vast majority in Britain supports an inclusive society, yet reality falls short of this vision. Inequality, prejudice and racial discrimination are still a reality in the lives of many people. The law as it stands today has several weaknesses as identified by the Commission for Racial Equality.
Perhaps I may cite them. It leaves many people who are aware that they have been racially discriminated against unable to secure justice. It provides no incentives to encourage institutions, public or private, to end discrimination and implement good practice. Although the Act properly raises the expectation that racial equality objectives are basic to the approach of Parliament and the Government, the Act does not in fact take precedence over other legislation: Parliament can continue to pass discriminatory legislation and important areas of government activity are exempt from the provisions of the Act. While the Act gives a duty to local authorities to have regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity in carrying out their functions, it leaves this duty unenforceable, with the result that it continues to he ignored, even flouted. Confusing and limited provisions for positive action mean that this is little practised. Since a House of Lords ruling in 1984, the commission face obstacles in embarking on formal investigations which prevent it from using its power as effectively as Parliament originally intended.
I am aware of the Government's stance on these matters. The only confirmation we have so far is that all public services will be brought within the scope of the discrimination legislation. We need much more than that. Very shortly we will deal with asylum and immigration legislation. Immigration legislation is, by definition, discriminatory on grounds of nationality or citizenship. Since the case of R. v. Entry Clearance Officer Bombay, ex parte Amin (1983) it has not been possible to challenge immigration practices under the Race Relations Act. To give precedence to the Race Relations Act would mean that, in future, when new immigration legislation is likely also to be discriminatory on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin, this would need to be justified when it was proposed. But the indications given by the Government are that that is not on offer. It has been accepted that the actions of the Immigration Service, like those of the police and other public bodies, pertaining to racial discrimination will be subject to the provisions of the
1282
Race Relations Act, but that will not apply to immigration and asylum legislation promoted by the Government.
There is another major anomaly. Religion is not covered by the Race Relations Act, except in Northern Ireland. Again in one of its reviews, the Commission for Racial Equality sought to open the debate on the need for legislation to prevent religious discrimination. What has been the Government's stance on that issue? Perhaps I may quote what the Government have said:
"Groups are entitled to protection under the Race Relations Act if it can he demonstrated that they have suffered on racial grounds. It is for the courts to determine that a particular group constitutes a racial group within the terms of the Public Order Act 1986 or the Race Relations Act 1976. While the courts have not to date developed much case law under the Public Order Act, a number of cases have arisen in the civil law under the Race Relations Act. As the civil law currently stands, Jews and Sikhs arc considered as a racial group under the Race Relations Act, but not, for example, Moslems, Christians or Buddhists. The case law on this in both the criminal and civil law area is, however, still developing".
The Government are obviously sympathetic to religious groups on this issue, but say that there is no straightforward solution. One must give credit where it is due, and the Government have recognised the grave harm caused to whole communities by racially motivated crime. The Crime and Disorder Act takes the religious factor into account in the criminal offence of racially aggravated violence. We certainly welcome that.
The point that I am trying to make is the importance of having an international remedy when our own legislation is lacking in its anti-discriminatory provisions. We should ensure that we have ratified important protocols which will enhance the protection of human rights. We cannot claim a proud record on anti-discrimination issues if the international remedy is denied to individuals.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has once again done us a service in drawing our attention to these matters. He set out the history of the various covenants and conventions in some detail. He has great expertise in, and enthusiasm for, these causes and he has shown this over a number of years. I shall not try in any way to match his expertise—and, as will become clear, I do not entirely share his enthusiasm.
In short, I think that the Government are right not to rush these matters. They are right to consider them most carefully. No doubt in due course they will come forward with proposals to Parliament in this area, but I do not want to be counted among those who would press them to do so before they feel that they are ready.
My main experience in this area comes from my time as a Minister in Northern Ireland, with particular responsibility for the security situation. At that time, we faced a small number of very determined and extremely sophisticated terrorists who used the most vicious methods, partly to prevent their members being successfully prosecuted and brought before the law. They succeeded in making the proper working of the law very difficult indeed. They also used every

1283
opportunity provided by both domestic and international law, where possible, to further their own cause. The previous government, like the present one and our predecessors, went to very great lengths to ensure so far as we could human rights in every respect. We reported extremely fully to international bodies on this matter. I am in no doubt at all that the powers which the noble Lord seeks could and would have been used by such terrorists to further their own cause and to make life much more difficult for those fighting for democracy itself because that is what the conflict is about.
The Northern Ireland conflict is sometimes represented as a religious struggle which might fall within the terms of religious discrimination. It is not a religious struggle in the sense of being about religious controversy or doctrine. Indeed, the Churches on all sides have condemned the terrorists of their own persuasion as well as other terrorists of apparently different religious persuasions, and asked them not to pursue their methods. I do not believe that in any real sense it is a religious struggle, but it could certainly be represented as such. Frequently, in a form of shorthand, it is represented as a religious struggle in the newspapers and in comment. It is this kind of misuse of the powers which should make the Government reflect very carefully on what they are doing.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I believe it was a Conservative Government that wrote into the Northern Ireland constitution legislation in, I think, 1972 that there should be no religious discrimination, gave effective legal remedies for religious discrimination and made it perfectly plain that any religious discrimination or torture would be wholly contrary to the law of the land. Therefore, what does the noble Lord fear in the mechanisms under the covenant and the conventions which could be abused and exploited in the way that he had suggested?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I referred in extremely general terms to our efforts to ensure human rights. I included the kinds of provisions that the noble Lord referred to. However, I fear that international tribunals would be used for propaganda purposes to some degree in order to bring additional international pressure on the United Kingdom Government as regards the struggle in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to dwell too long on the subject of Northern Ireland. We all hope that the present situation will be advanced and that we shall get what is described as peace becoming permanent and that we shall not return to the kind of situation that prevailed when I was a Minister there. Had these provisions been available at that time I believe that they would have been used as a propaganda weapon.
In addition to those factors, the United Kingdom already has important legislation, not least that to which the noble Lord has referred. There is also legislation on race relations generally. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, drew attention to that. I have always understood that our law compares extremely favourably with the legislation of other countries. In those circumstances it does not
1284
seem to me that there is a great need to advance too quickly on that front. I am not necessarily against advancing, but I am not going to join in pressing the Government to do so before they have had the opportunity to reflect.
The general point is also relevant. The Government are in the process of taking through Parliament many extremely sweeping changes to our constitution. They are doing so at very high speed in many respects. I believe that changes to the constitution should take place more gradually. When the Government are ready, no doubt they will put proposals before Parliament. It may be that when he replies the Minister can give us a clearer idea of the timescale that the Government have in mind. We shall of course consider the proposals carefully. As I say, I am not pressing the Government to produce their measures before they are ready to do so.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Dholakia, were uncharacteristically gloomy this evening. There was a shade of reproach which I am happy to deal with as regards the fact that the Government have dragged their feet. We have been in government now for two years. In that time we have provided a devolved parliament for Scotland; a devolved assembly for Wales; and new constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland which were supported by over 70 per cent of those in the North and by over 90 per cent of citizens of the Republic. In addition, there was the Human Rights Act. I pay credit to both noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for the very long struggle that he engaged in for many years past. That legislation is on the statute book. An entirely novel constitutional device is to fetter executive power. I believe that the key to devolution is not simply the shorthand devolution to assemblies. The whole of our programme is about the devolution of power to the individual, which is much more significant.
I imagine that there will be an announcement about a freedom of information Bill within the next few days, which I have promised on a number of occasions would be available for pre-legislative scrutiny by the appropriate committee in the other place chaired by Rhodri Morgan MP. The Crime and Disorder Act is already on the statute book and will change almost unrecognisably the way in which we deal with the treatment and prevention of crime, particularly in the young. There is also the Data Protection Act. Its name is not on the lips of everyone, but it is a very important piece of legislation dealing with civil liberties. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, pointed out, it will be remembered that at the moment we are engaged in the wholesale reform of this House, which will be the first successful effort this century. Without being unduly boastful, that is not a bad record for two years.
The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Dholakia, referred to the comparison which might be made as regards our relationship in the Council of Europe with those who have signed "pieces of paper". I am not being dismissive of important treaty obligations. I was there for the 50th anniversary last Friday. Without being

1285
unduly chauvinistic, but with a decent regard for our own achievements in this country, whatever conventions have been signed by many of our colleague national members in the Council of Europe, I welcome in many respects a comparison with what they have actually delivered in terms of the protection of human rights for their citizens with what we have delivered in terms of judicial protection, lawful protection and access to remedies. There is no comparison between our achievements and what they have achieved.
We are looking not simply for a signature to important documents, but the actual delivery of positive remedies, preferably, in the first place, within this jurisdiction. I deal with the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. We are not undermining the working group of the Council of Europe on the draft additional protocol. It is being considered by a committee of experts at the moment. The Council of Ministers has yet 10 consider the issue. We have not taken a position for or against the protocol. We have taken a prudent decision to wait and see what is the text and to consider it before coming to a conclusion.
The noble Lord's Question to the Government is whether we will reconsider our refusal. We have not refused to take the course of action that the noble Lord wants. I stress again that we have not closed the door on acceding to treaty obligations referred to by both noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are preparing for the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
I believe I can say without exaggeration that the preparations needed fully to incorporate into our systems not simply the Act but the culture behind it are the biggest single effort in the context of public administration that has ever taken place in peacetime. That may sound overblown but I shall develop my theme shortly. Jack Straw asked me to chair the implementation group. We have not cast the net narrowly. For example, we have on it John Wadham, Francesca Crew and Sarah Spencer, who represent organisations that have a very good record here. We have senior represeltatives of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Bar Council, the Lord Chancellor's Department and local government. We are preparing for the efficient introduction into our systems and culture of something that in 15 years' time will be regarded as the flagship Act of this Government which brings about a fundamental and deeply subtle change to the way that we do our business and think.
At the moment officials are preparing core guidance—I pay tribute to them because it is extremely difficult work—for departments and public authorities. We have under way a programme of public information and dissemination of rights and responsibilities at different levels so that all our fellow citizens, whatever their positions or capacities, will know that these rights are there for them.
As the noble Lord suggested, we could have proceeded in a different way. I believe that we are going forward in the right way. We have to train the courts, for which the budget is available. It is notoriously well known that most of the challenges, perhaps 75 per cent,
1286
will arise in the context of criminal cases. The magistracy must be trained since it deals with substantially more than 90 per cent of the cases in this country in the criminal jurisdiction. The judges must also be trained properly, and the Judicial Studies Board will see to that. I do not believe that it is being backward. Whenever I have made approaches on behalf of colleagues from other jurisdiction who are interested in benefiting from our experience I have always had a most generous response from the board.
Even within the context of the Home Office perhaps the short logistical description that I give indicates the amount of work that we have to do. We must look at every subsisting Act of Parliament and statutory regulation to see whether over the years—sometimes centuries—any relevant Bill that has a connection with the Home Office is convention compliant. That is not the work of a week or a month; it is an extremely intensive, difficult task. We must look at every system that operates within any part of the Home Office empire.
I take almost at random the example of the Prison Service. We must ensure that for every practice in that service it is possible to assert that it is convention compliant. We must also make absolutely certain that all human rights described, defined and guaranteed in the convention are available within every government department. Further, we must advise our colleagues in all public authorities as to what they must do. I believe that that is a small price to pay in order to get it right internally before we go to external remedies. After all, if we provide an effective internal system of remedies it should satisfy the overwhelming majority of legitimate complaints and provide a decent platform for those complainants who find that they have no domestic remedy. I do not regard that as an ignoble stance but a practical way of taking matters forward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have never suggested any ignoble stance at all. I wonder whether he can clarify two points. The first is why the Government have not yet set a date for the judicial training programme so that at least we know that there will be a beginning and speedy end to the process in order to bring into force the Human Rights Act. Will the Government set a date for that programme? Secondly, am I right in thinking that there will still not be any effective remedies on the international or domestic plane for the kinds of discrimination that are not covered by domestic law, and that that is the real gap which we will not fill unless we accept the right of petition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as to the JSB I shall certainly make inquiries about its timetable. It is not an organisation with which I have a direct connection, but I shall find out its timetable. As I have said on earlier occasions, a significant budget has been provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, one is talking about the training of many thousands of magistrates, justices' clerks, Crown Court judges, recorders and assistant recorders who will have to deal with these points on an everyday basis. I repeat that these are utterly novel points for many who have to

1287
carry out these judicial functions. I believe I can say with the concurrence of the noble Lord that when many of those presently in judicial office were trained this matter was not taught in university syllabuses or, to our reproach, as part of the Bar or Law Society courses. This will be a complete culture change.
One matter that strikes me as I go round the country urging people to get themselves ready for implementation is how strange it is that we have discussed these things so often, at such great length, and have become accustomed to thinking in ways that are appropriate to the new Act, but many practitioners, whether judges, magistrates or advocates, have not begun to attend to that.
As to the second point, I believe that I can fairly refer to a Written Answer to the noble Lord. I do not dispute his point that there may be remedies that will not be immediately available. However, in response to his helpful Written Question about the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I said:
"The terms of reference for the Joint Committee have yet to be finalised and proposed to both Houses. However, it is envisaged that they will include the conduct of inquiries into general human rights issues in the United Kingdom". —[Official Report, 31/3/99: col. WA 77.]
It seems to me—it is a matter for both Houses and those who have the infinite privilege of serving on a joint committee—that the kind of questions that have
1288
been put by both noble Lords are those that that committee may wish to consider. I did not intend to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Objectively, I do not believe that we have adopted an ignoble stance. It has taken a little longer to get things ready than I would have contemplated and the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor would have wished. It is a vast effort. We are determined to get it right, and I believe that we have the energy and commitment to do that.
In specific answer to the noble Lord—he has been extremely courteous in all his questions and correspondence with me—we have not refused to make available the remedies but have taken a course that we believe to be right. We must do the best we can to get the perfect solution to our own incorporation. I have always believed that once we start on this journey there is no possibility of turning back because the moral and philosophical transformation has already begun. One cannot get away from that.

Local Government Bill
Reported from the Grand Committee with amendments: Bill ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Local Government Bill
Wednesday, 12th May 1999.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Secretary of State's powers]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.65:
Page 10, line 30, leave Out subsection (5)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.65, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.66 and 67 grouped with it. These amendments relate to Clause 14 of the Bill, dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State, which are commonly known as the intervention powers. The first of my amendments seeks to leave out subsection (5), which may be described as the "hit squad" provision. Subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to give directions as to who shall exercise particular local authority functions, or, alternatively, that an authority shall comply with his or her nominee's instructions in relation to the exercise of the functions. Those powers go right to the heart of the relationship between central and local government.
The subsection is clearly intended for the most extreme circumstances. But neither Clause 14 itself nor the draft protocol that is being discussed between the Government and the Local Government Association states that. Quite apart from my general distaste for this provision in the Bill, the amendment provides an opportunity for Committee to hear from the Minister the criteria that will be applied by the Secretary of State in using these powers. It may follow that we shall wish to see on the face of the Bill the criteria that would be applied if the subsection is to remain in the Bill.
The protocol is written in fairly generalised terms. It does not appear to explain what would constitute failure in the sense in which that concept might be applied in particular circumstances. The Secretary of State's nominee is not expressly subject to the duty of best value, which applies to the best value authorities. When the question was raised on an amendment in another place, the Minister said it was implicit that the nominee would be subject to that duty. The amendment was withdrawn on that basis. The honourable Member for Southampton, Test said that it was difficult to conceive of the Minister acting outside the overall scope of the Bill. That also suggests that there may be some scope for amending this provision to make explicit what appears to be implicit.
However, that is not my main complaint. The subsection raises the issue of who will judge the performance of local authorities. Will it be the users or, as we would say, the electorate rather than the Secretary of State, particularly when the Government still have on
66
their agenda annual elections for all authorities? This seems to be an unnecessarily heavy-handed and wide-ranging power for the Secretary of State, rather than local electors being able to say, "We do not like this. Let us get rid of the lot who are doing it".
Amendment No.66 provides for discussion with the authority concerned around the time when the Secretary of State gives a direction under any part of Clause 14. Subsection (6) deals with all directions under Clause 14. and the authority concerned will be given the opportunity to make representations. My amendment proposes the wider input of representatives of best value authorities generally, which would be helpful in the circumstances of any use of these powers by the Secretary of State. I hate the term "failing authorities". I shall use it because Members of the Committee will understand what is meant by it in the local authority context. I prefer the Bill's idea of continuing improvement. It is much more positive.
At any rate, the issue of any failing authority, or an authority failing in any service, is an issue for all best value authorities, particularly in the local government sphere. There will be useful comments to be gleaned from the local government world in general if this situation were to apply. The last of these amendments proposes that no direction under Clause 14 should he given unless there is a resolution approved by the relevant Select Committee. I have used the words that I have because departments change; "the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" might become outdated.
The short point here is the scrutiny of the Secretary of State's executive action. I appreciate that this may not be the right time to address how Parliament generally runs itself and issues of modernisation. The Select Committee could, however, have a useful role. The use of capping powers requires debate by the Commons. Intervention would be another example of extreme action by the executive and there should be some method for Parliament to hold the executive to account. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I should like to say a few words in support of the general argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is always a greater problem of defining failure in this specific regard. There is no obvious way of making a distinction between what is a general failure, which might possibly justify outside intervention—although there ought to be other ways of dealing with it—and what is a specific failure. It can he a highly publicised breakdown of the service, perhaps in social services and occasionally in education—matters which stir up immense local and very often national publicity. In fact, I feel extremely sorry for social services departments, which all too often are in the dreadful position of being open to the charge of a neglect of duty if something goes wrong. Yet, if they pursue their duty with assiduity, they may be charged with pursuing that duty to the point where they have become unreasonable in the other direction.
There is, therefore, considerable difficulty in defining failure. Clearly, a number of different actions are being postulated to the Secretary of State, including of course

67
a local inquiry. That may be appropriate in some circumstances. However, in what I would call the "Clause 5 situation", one would presumably be talking about a general failure of administration of a service, rather than a specific instance. But there is a lack of clarity here as to what might happen and when. We could certainly improve the Bill if there were a greater degree of clarity. I accept that there is also a need for flexibility.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The noble Baroness said that this goes to the heart of the relation between local and national government; and to some extent it does. However, it would be a novel position to say that national government have no powers of intervention. Yet, in effect, the noble Baroness's Amendment No.65 would remove entirely the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene directly in an authority which is failing, or to nominate someone to do so on his behalf.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there are a number of measures short of that and all of those measures would need to be considered over time. Ultimately, though, that is a power which rests with the Government under the Bill, or with the National Assembly for Wales in the case of Wales. If they were removed they would have no power to take over the responsibility for exercising a function on behalf of an authority, nor would they be able to intervene directly in the internal management of that authority, even in the most extreme and difficult cases. That would be a serious undermining of the effectiveness of the Bill.
Although it is true—and I shall repeat it as often as I have to—that those powers would be used sparingly and in the last resort, it is nevertheless also true that Clause 14 in a sense provides the teeth of the Bill and has an effect because of its deterrent value. Without its provisions the duty of best value cannot be effectively enforced in those areas where an authority is evidently failing to deliver services to its electorate. Removal of the subsection would remove power from the Secretary of State to address what would be substantive failings, including serious and long-term systemic failure which, if we are honest, has applied in the past where the authority has itself conspicuously failed to act, despite having been given the opportunity to do so by central Government.
The noble Baroness asked about the criteria. In a sense, reference to substantive failings and serious and long-term failure covers a number of criteria. There are no specific criteria in that sense, but important principles are set out in the protocol which are highly relevant. They include principles in relation to the process which provides that local authorities should normally be given opportunities to put things right themselves, except in cases of extreme urgency which is the so-called fast-track procedure with which we shall be dealing later.
The powers contained in Clause 14(5) would not only be exercised only rarely; they would also be exercised only after options under the previous
68
provision, Clause 14(2), had been fully explored. Those powers are very much in keeping with the White Paper commitment for responsibility to be transferred to any authority or a third party in cases of serious service failure. The Government recognise that those powers in Clause 14(5) are strong and substantive. They is why they will be used only to tackle cases where the severity of the failure merits the use of those powers. In our view, it is unlikely that this will include more than a handful of cases, but such cases need to be addressed and the Secretary of State needs to have a full range of intervention powers to do so.
The noble Baroness asked, in the case of designating a nominee, what were the duties of the nominee in relation to best value. In a sense, the question is answered by asking what a nominee would be brought in to do. The answer is: to address the conspicuous failings of the authority itself to address objectives of best value. Therefore it means that the nominee would be subject to all aspects of the best value framework.
The second amendment in this group seeks to make provision for representatives of best value authorities, and not just for authorities themselves, to make representations about the report on which the intervention is based and about the direction proposed before the Secretary of State is permitted to issue a direction under Clause 14.
We dealt with the issue of representatives of local authorities in another context on earlier clauses. The Government are committed to working with best value authorities and their representatives. That is why the Bill provides best value authorities themselves with the opportunity to make representations about reports which provide the trigger for intervention and about any direction issued under the clause, with the exception of the most urgent of cases.
Moreover, noble Lords will be aware of—indeed the noble Baroness has referred to—the protocol intervention which we are in the process of agreeing with the Local Government Association under the Framework for Central Local Partnership. That protocol will set out the principles underpinning intervention and the broad procedures to be followed. It will contain a section on the role of the Local Government Association in any intervention.
Noble Lords have access to a draft of the protocol, which has also been sent to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is therefore clear that the LGA, or where appropriate other associations of best value authorities, will be very much involved in that process. The Welsh Office is developing separately with Welsh Local Government Association a similar protocol for intervention. I understand that the Home Secretary and the Association of Police Authorities are moving along the same lines. In addition, the new improvement and development agency, will provide a supportive role in assisting authorities in achieving continuous improvement.
The protocol will set out how representatives of best value authorities will be involved in the process of intervention—the approach will need to be flexible over time as we learn from this process—and will give them

69
a clear role. Therefore, I do not consider Amendment No.66 to be necessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Amendment No.67 is bizarre. It would require that any direction issued under Clause 14 must first have secured the approval of the relevant Select Committee—I assume of another place. I suspect that this stems from a slight misunderstanding, not only of the purpose of this provision, but also of the role of Select Committees. The fact is that Select Committees do not usually scrutinise individual directions. Indeed, they rarely go to that level of scrutiny and it is not generally regarded as their job. If the amendment were adopted, it would represent a significant change in a Select Committee's powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, seems to think that she can offer a precedent, of which no doubt she will inform us.
Baroness Maddock:I agree with the noble Lord.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I thank the noble Baroness. That raises one of the constitutional points that will possibly be dealt with in the context of this Bill.
Your Lordships will be aware that Clause 14 contains a whole range of intervention powers, from the more technical powers contained in Clause 14(2), to the more extensive powers in Clause 14(5). It would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to require the approval of a Select Committee before he could direct an authority under Clause 14(2)(a) simply to amend a performance plan. Even for the more extensive powers under Clause 14(5), it would still require a major constitutional change in the role of Select Committees. It could also impose unnecessary time constraints on the process of intervention. Therefore, I do not think that the involvement of Select Committees in this process—at least at the present stage of development of the role of Select Committees—would be appropriate. I trust that that amendment will not be pressed.
Perhaps I may crave the Committee's indulgence. I wish to put on record another issue relating to Clause 14(5) which is currently under consideration. The Government intend to bring forward further amendments for consideration at the next stage in order to ensure that the provisions relating to the powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to intervene in failing authorities are as clear as possible.
We propose to bring forward amendments to clarify the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 14(2) and Clause 14(5) and their relationship to existing legal provisions. That would have the effect of ensuring that the intervention process is both fair and flexible. They would fundamentally be technical amendments, and would not in any sense further extend the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to intervene over and above the provisions already in the draft Bill. Their aim would be to clarify how the powers currently set out in the Bill would operate and ensure that they could be used effectively.
70
Additional amendments to Clause 14 may be necessary at a later stage to address potential inconsistencies between the best value regime and other legislation where the Secretary of State or his nominee takes over the functions of an authority. We have identified a number of cases in which a conflict or inconsistencies may arise. The most obvious relates to the Secretary of State's role in the appeals system as provided for under planning law. We shall need to bring forward an amendment to clarify that position. I merely place that intention on the record at this stage. In the light of those remarks, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Government will be prepared slightly to expand the amendments that they intend to bring forward; clarity will certainly be welcome. The noble Lord used words that were not unexpected. He referred to authorities which are "evidently failing to deliver". He used phrases like "substantial and serious long-term failure", and said that the powers under Clause 14(5) would be applied only after Clause 14(2) had been fully explored. I said that was not unexpected. However, I should like to see a further reference on the face of the Bill which would "rein in" an over-ambitious Secretary of State. One must always think in terms of future Secretaries of State—for example, three governments on—and not necessarily the current Secretary of State.
Lord Whitty: A Liberal Democrat Government!
Baroness Hamwee: Yes. A Secretary of State of any party should have proper controls on her or his powers.
With regard to Amendment No.66, the answer that the Minister gave was a good deal more helpful than that given in another place, where it was said that duty of best value would be implicit. It is not, and I entirely see what the Minister is saying. Clause 14(1) takes us directly to the issue of achieving the best value duty. Therefore, I see the connection more clearly than I did before, although common sense told me that that was the case.
As regards the proposal for scrutiny, as my noble friend Lady Maddock indicated, Select Committees do not have such powers, or do not use those powers at present. That is not to say that they should not, or that our procedures should not be modernised to enable scrutiny. There is a good deal of scope for expanding the role of Select Committees, although, as I said, this is not the appropriate Bill for addressing general issues regarding the modernisation of Parliament. However, the manner in which the Secretary of State's use of such powers is scrutinised, and how he or she is held accountable, is a serious issue. It cannot be disposed of by the suggestion that Members of the Committee do not understand how the other place works. I admit that I do not understand that as well as my noble friend. I look forward to the amendments to Clause 14. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.66 and 67 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.68:
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of subsection (8) above, urgency means there is immediate danger of substantial harm or substantial financial loss.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No.69. These amendments relate to the clause dealing with intervention powers and in particular the urgency provisions.
There are no criteria on the face of the Bill as to what is meant by "urgent". The memorandum from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee refers to particular circumstances and to authorities failing to address problems. The Bill contains no references of that kind. Clause 14(8) allows the Secretary of State to give directions without complying with some of the earlier subsections if he considers the direction to be sufficiently urgent.
Amendment No.68 suggests some definition of urgency. I have suggested that it means,
"there is immediate danger of substantial harm or substantial financial loss".
Of course, the words "immediate" and "substantial" are the most important there. I have tabled this amendment in order to ask the Minister to explain on what the Government base their assessment of the need for this power. What particular examples do the Government have in mind with a view to seeing whether some criteria can be written in?
Amendment No.69 provides that in circumstances of an urgency direction, the authority concerned is, at any rate, given an opportunity to make representations within a reasonable period after the direction has been made. If the Secretary of State uses these powers, he must inform the authority. It would be useful to provide specifically that the authority can make representations afterwards, although I recognise that that will be after the powers have come into play. The draft protocol recognises that, except in cases of urgency, the authority will normally be given the opportunity to make the necessary improvements itself. I should like to see that on the face of the Bill.
I have tabled the amendment in the hope that any imposition of a nominee will not be for any long period; that the powers of the best value authority will be returned to it as quickly as possible; and that any intervention will be part of a continuing process and not the end of the story. On Report in another place, the Minister said (at col.469 of the Official Report) that the Government were giving consideration to the best way of keeping those interested informed. I hope the Minister can expand upon that this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments deal with emergencies as the noble Baroness has said. The Bill provides that in urgent cases, the Secretary of State can issue a direction without giving the authority the opportunity to make representations about the report—if indeed there had been a report—or about the direction proposed and without having regard to any statement of
72
action produced under Clause 9(2). In these circumstances, he must notify the local authority or its representatives of the direction and his reasons for issuing it under fast-track procedures.
As we indicated at earlier stages, the circumstances in which we envisage the fast-track procedure being used will be rare and it will be used only in those situations which are set out fairly clearly in the draft protocol on intervention. That has been produced in conjunction with the LGA and aims to clarify these and other provisions of the Bill. It recognises that the fast-track procedure will be used only in exceptional circumstances where either the severity or persistence of failure, or the continued risk of harm or financial loss, shows that urgent intervention is necessary.
The first amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No.68, refers to urgent intervention where there is immediate danger of substantial harm or substantial financial loss. It therefore reflects some of the points in the protocol. However, the reference to "immediate" in relation to financial loss may mean an immediate decision that is being taken but the financial loss may well be longer term. That could equally well occur in relation to "harm". Therefore, to place such a formula on the face of the Bill might impose an over-rigid constraint on the ability of the Secretary of State to act and remove the flexibility that we need. Clearly, in terms of substantial financial harm and financial loss, there is a need to act immediately, even though the loss that the decision or the course of action implies may not occur immediately. It could be that the long-term health as well as the short-term health of an individual or group of people cared for by the local authority could be under threat if a decision were carried through. We are therefore faced with the need for rather more flexible definitions, which is the point of the protocol. The protocol can be relatively easily adapted to changes agreed between ourselves and the LGA, whereas if we were to put it on the face of the Bill we would have a rigid formula which we could not easily alter.
Furthermore, the amendment does not deal with the case of persistent and systemic failure where perhaps ultimata or final opportunities to put it right have been missed by the failing authority. Therefore, again, there is a need for urgent action by the Secretary of State, albeit that there have been warnings and interventions under Clause 14(2) powers or other powers previously. In other words, there may be cases in which a local authority has a history of failure of which both it and the Secretary of State are well aware, but which they have taken no action to address. In those cases, the Secretary of State may not wish for a lengthy and time-consuming intervention before taking action.
I repeat: this is very much a last resort power. Nevertheless, because it would be dealing with extremely unusual situations, many of which would have been subject to the earlier powers, it is important that we maintain a certain degree of flexibility in these provisions.

73
Amendment No.69 would make provision for best value authorities to make representations about directions issued under the fast-track procedure after the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales had issued a direction under the clause.
I have already made it clear in this and other contexts that the Government are utterly committed to working with authorities and the representatives of authorities, and that is the case here, too. However, in cases where immediate urgent action is needed there may not be time for the Secretary of State to let authorities produce detailed action plans or to make representations about the nature of the direction he is imposing. We envisage that in such cases considerable dialogue would normally have already taken place between the Secretary of State, the authority and local authority representatives and that therefore the authority would be well aware of the failure but in practice would have failed to take substantive action to address it.
The protocol sets out the procedures for bringing an intervention to an ordered close. The noble Baroness referred to the duration and the hope that any such intervention would always be for a limited period. That is also our hope, but there is a horses-for-courses issue here. The protocol setting out the procedures between ourselves and the Local Government Association will provide for regular monitoring of a function, assessment of whether the authority is in a position to resume and sustain effective responsibility for the function concerned and, during the period of intervention, there would clearly need to be a regular dialogue between the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly, and the local authority and its representatives. 'We therefore do not believe we need to make a separate provision to allow authorities to comment on a direction that has already been implemented. The protocol will deal with the post-intervention situation.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept those reassurances and will not press the amendments.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Having listened to what the Minister has said, if I had not had Annex A which would cause the intervention to happen I would have felt reassured. However, as one goes through the examples of the triggers—a failure of process in particular—those are not substantial or urgent things. I agree that where a Secretary of State is taking what I am sure we would all agree is a fairly commonsense view of what is urgent that is fine, but in the picture painted by my noble Friend perhaps an over-ambitious Secretary of State might fail to publish details of how a performance compared with others and those sorts of things to me do not seem to give any reason to believe that substantial harm may result. It might do, but it easily might not do. The way that part of the protocol is drawn up at the moment seems to make a far stronger ease for Amendment No.68 than if I had not read all of those reasons why intervention might be triggered. There are some matters, perhaps in the failure of substance section, which deserve to be included and are reasonable. However, in the failure of process section, them are some matters which could in
74
the worst circumstances be abused and regarded as relatively trivial. In terms of reasons for intervening, Amendment No.68 is important.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend makes a fair and entirely apposite point. It gives me no pleasure to feel as critical as I do of the Government with regard to this clause given that, in general, we support this part of the Bill. We want to see the best value scheme working and working well. However, the powers that we are discussing are extreme. The amendments address a situation considered by the Secretary of State to be sufficiently urgent as to make it appropriate for him to take action without giving the authority concerned an opportunity to make representations and without having regard to a statement which the authority concerned may have sent him.
I accept what the Minister says about these powers being applied only in circumstances where other attempts to put matters right have been exhausted. However, as they are so extreme, surely the Government must insist that their draftsmen consider which words it is proper to put on the face of the Bill. In these situations terms such as "the use of flexibility" are not good enough. We owe it to the best value authorities, their communities and all the interest groups they serve to be entirely clear about the triggers for the criteria in respect of the use of powers at the very end of the spectrum.
Of course I do not suggest that my wording is perfect and if the word "immediate" is inappropriate then that is the kind of thing that can be looked at. But when the Minister talks about systemic and persistent failure one has to qualify that kind of failure on the face of the Bill. One has to state what kind of failure merits urgent intervention. Systemic and persistent failure can comprise anything from a general failure—which should elicit a response from the local electorate at the ballot box—to something serious which greatly endangers people. I do not suggest that people should be harmed before any necessary powers are used.
We shall come back to this point. As I say. it does not give me pleasure to make this point as firmly as I do because I would like to see the best value duty work well and successfully and—to use current jargon—to see the partnership between local government and central government in this area work well too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.69 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Power to modify enactments and confer new powers]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.70:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment prevents best value authorities from generating income directly related to the exercise of their functions he may, by order, make provision modifying or excluding the application of the enactment in relation to those authorities.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No.70, I shall speak also to Amendment No.75. I say for the record that these amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos.71, 76 and 77 which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
We turn here to the Henry VIII powers which give the Secretary of State powers to modify enactments and to confer new powers. I freely admit that this section has given me a little difficulty, hearing from colleagues on the one hand how disgraceful it is to give the Secretary of State such powers, but knowing myself that they could be used to the great benefit of local government.
Amendment No.70 relates to the range of powers given to local authorities which may be constrained by their inability to charge. The amendment seeks to enable charges to be made not as a separate income-generating activity, but as part of the best value regime.
I shall give the Committee some examples. Local authorities could often give better value if they were not restricted in what activities they could undertake connected with their functions.
When I chaired the planning committee in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, my vice-chairman commented very sensibly that the authority would be in a better position to advise developers of what they could do within the unitary development plan, what was worth taking forward and so on, if the cost of the time of that discussion could be recovered from the developers. We were only talking about £25 an hour. Sadly, that was found by the House of Lords to be ultra vires in the case of McCarthy and Stone.
Other authorities have had similar difficulties such as charging for discretionary services where it is very arguable that the council tax payers as a general body should not be paying. Other instances include licences for tables and chairs on the highway. The council can charge only for the cost of processing the licence but would like to be able to make a small charge to recognise the space occupied. There is a similar issue with regard to skips and other highways' obstructions. Again, there is noise pollution, when a noise team has to be called out.
In the City of Westminster, charging for public conveniences was discontinued following audit objections. On building control fees, local authorities can recover only reasonable costs; so there is no surplus. On filming on the public highway, it is sensible to allow the authority to charge for providing support services to organisations which film on the public highway.
There are a number of examples of such possible charging which, were they to be allowed, would enable the local authority to carry out its functions more effectively.
I am aware of an authority which has recently been advised that it is not permitted to sell advertising space in its own publications. It was advised that Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not apply, and express authority beyond that in the 1972 legislation would be required to enable it levy charges in
76
connection with its own publicity. All it wants to do is charge advertising space in its own newspapers in order to carry out its functions of consultation and dissemination of information more effectively. This example is particularly telling in the context of best value which, by definition, requires wide consultation and the dissemination of information and, as we all know, there is a price attached to that. Through this amendment, I seek to ask Government to put local authorities in the position where they are able to consult economically, efficiently and effectively.
Amendment No.75 is tabled in the hope that perhaps a little assurance may be given to those Members of the Committee who I know remain shocked at this proposal being in the Bill. Indeed, I have been under some pressure to seek to take out the whole of this clause. I have chosen instead to propose an amendment that no order is made under these powers unless its effect is to extend the powers of the best value authorities. That may be implicit. I believe it was a surprise to many noble Lords, and no doubt a great relief to the Government, that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee dealt so gently with the Bill. I have heard various comments that it was bought off by Government assurances and I have talked before about whether we should always expect there to be a benign Secretary of State using his or her powers benignly. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances as to how this power would be used which will, I am sure, be to the interest of the House more widely than just to Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have three small amendments in this group. They are very simple and the Minister could close his eyes, swallow and accept them should he so choose—I suspect he will not.
The first is to insert after the word "power" the words "or exemption". I put that in for the sake of clarity. With the exception of the Greater London Authority, which is not yet in being, local authorities work within a framework of law which exists; they are constrained by the law. I remember in my time in Essex that we used to have one solicitor who specialised in advising us whenever we came to the limits that the law permitted, which I may say was quite often. On occasions, we disregarded his advice on the grounds that no sane person would challenge us in what we were doing. So the law is an interesting concept.
The question that I ask myself is: are we asking for a power to extend the law, which is implicit in what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was saying, or are we rather asking for an exemption for that particular piece of law to apply to a particular circumstance, so that something can be done which is beneficial? It is a moot point whether a power to extend the boundaries of the law is positive or negative. In many instances, an exemption rather than a positive power will be required, which is why I added the words "or exemption".
I added Amendment No.76 for consistency in the Bill. Wherever we mention authorities elsewhere in the Bill, we seem to have mentioned best value authorities.

77
It might be beneficial for the Bill if, every time the word "authorities" appears, it is preceded by the words "best value". We would then all know exactly which bit of ground we are standing on.
We are discussing the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult. Clause 16(1) as drafted states:
"Before the Secretary of State makes an order under section 15 he shall consult such authorities or persons as appear to him to he representative".
I interpret that as a measure that is left to his discretion. I wish him to consult both best value authorities and persons. As the clause is drafted he could consult one or the other and would still be complying with the law. I simply suggest that at for the sake of clarity of meaning we delete the word "or" and insert the word "and" to ensure that both groups are consulted. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: The general dislike of Henry VIII powers is so great that one's instinct is to be extremely suspicious of them. The Committee will know, however, that the Local Government Association is anxious to have these powers and I am persuaded that they are right. The best value regime is a new scheme. No one is quite sure exactly how it will work and what kind of problems it will run into.
There must be a power for the Secretary of State to authorise exemptions. That may constitute an extension of powers or may simply be a question of an authority doing something differently that it is prevented from doing at present. Until some of the schemes get off the ground, however, it is difficult to say what changes, if any, will be needed. The question therefore concerns what safeguards exist to prevent the misuse of these powers. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is absolutely right in saying that the measure should be subject to the affirmative procedure. That seems to give the necessary flexibility as well as providing safeguards against a misuse of Henry VIII powers. I therefore support the proposal.
Lord Whitty: In view of some of the comments of the noble Baroness perhaps I should place on record that whether or not we believe that all future Secretaries of State will be as benign as the Deputy Prime Minister, we must expunge any feeling that anybody can buy off the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by promises or anything else. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, probably for the reasons just indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, reached a judgment that the Henry VIII powers here-in so far as you can regard them as such, and not everything that Henry VIII did was non-benign—will in fact have a benign influence on the introduction of a best value regime.
Indeed the illustrations that the noble Baroness reeled off as regards the frustration of a number of local authorities in terms of what would appear to be red tape are precisely the kind of issues that we will have to tackle. I am not promising her that we will tackle all those particular ones. We will need to build a consensus among authorities as. to whether or not we can take action. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said, this
78
can also be a matter for affirmative resolution. Nevertheless those are the kind of matters that we have to get out of the way if the best value regime is to operate to full effect.
That is why we need flexibility for the future and why Clause 15 has been drafted in the way that it has. No one can claim at this stage to know or understand all the ways in which best value might be achieved and all the barriers which it might come up against that would require some legislative alterations. It is really only by providing flexibility of legislative response that we can assure flexibility in local delivery. Clause 15 will enable the Secretary of State to modify or exclude the application of existing legislation or enact new legislation where that will help authorities to achieve best value. That is the best way of expressing it. As the Committee will know, we have also identified four broad areas where these clauses will be able to assist best value authorities in achieving best value. They are, in broad terms first, facilitating joined-up service delivery (that is, working across organisational boundaries by pooling budgets and the integration of services within and between authorities); secondly, the regularisation of powers in respect of partnership arrangements, including the operation of local authority companies; thirdly, clarifying the circumstances under which local authorities can provide goods and services to others; and, fourthly, making better use of local authority assets. Those broad areas cover most of the circumstances in which we would raise them. There may, however, be others.
The way in which Clause 15 is currently drafted would enable existing legislation to be modified to give authorities the powers that they need to achieve best value. We recognise and provide in Clause 15 that for many best value authorities the issue is not just that existing powers need to be changed but that new powers may have to be made available to them so that they can make the most of their assets in achieving best value.
Those are wide powers, but they are all geared to achieving best value and they are all subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said, to the parliamentary safeguards of affirmative resolution.
I do not believe that Amendment No.70 would help resolve those points. Before we can enable best value authorities to carry out income-generating activities, as required by the clause, we have to consider issues beyond the best value area. First and foremost, local authorities' activities must be firmly tied in to the best value framework and to statutory responsibilities. The purposes of the Secretary of State's powers through Clause 15 is not to permit local authorities to trade as such and to generate income as such, but to ensure that they have the right powers with which to achieve best value within the framework of their existing functions, which may include in the process trading and income generation. I do not believe that the amendment as drafted makes that clear. Indeed, we do not believe, therefore, that if we specified that the objective had to be best value we would need explicitly to put in income generation, or by implication, trading.

79
Amendment No.75 seems to provide that any orders under this clause would have to extend the power of best value authorities. I understand what is meant by that and we do want to ensure that best value authorities have all the powers they need to enable them to deliver best value to the local taxpayer; that is why the Bill is drafted in such a way as to give them extra powers where necessary.
We also need to address the fact that some enactments inhibit the delivery of best value in a different way. That is why Clause 15 also gives the Secretary of State powers to modify or to exclude the application of enactments to best value authorities. It will not necessarily be an extension of the powers; it may well be a modification, an exclusion or an exemption where that will help them achieve best value. We wish to ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility, therefore we would wish to limit the situation of explicitly extending powers to local authorities. The current drafting of Clause 15 achieves that flexibility.
There is a related point in the first amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I understand the intention behind Amendment No.71 and agree with the view that in certain cases legislation makes it difficult for authorities to achieve best value and exemptions are needed. However, Section 15(1), as drafted, already permits the Secretary of State to exclude the application of specific legislation to best value authorities. Amendment No.71 does not add to that; it duplicates it and does not achieve anything more than is already provided for in the Bill in Clause 15(1). I therefore consider the amendment unnecessary.
I turn to Amendments Nos.76 and 77 which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Clause 16 requires the Secretary of State to consult all authorities or persons which represent those interests affected by order made under Clause 15. I confirm that we intend this to include representatives of best value authorities. Clearly consultation is a key component of the whole regime of best value. However, Amendment No.76, as drafted, would, in effect, implicitly limit the obligation laid on the Secretary of State to consult. Requiring him to consult best value authorities would mean there would be no duty under that clause to consult those other non-best value bodies which represent interests affected by the Secretary of State's proposals to modify legislation. That could be unnecessarily restrictive. I can assure the noble Lord that it is our clear intention that the Secretary of State should consult all those representing persons affected by the proposals, and that goes beyond best value authorities. To pick them out explicitly in this sense may actually restrict the powers under this clause. We also need some flexibility in that consultation. Taken together, Clauses 76 and 77 would reduce that flexibility and I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment, and the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Minister mentioned partnership working. I do not have the draft Bill about political structures in front of me, so I am unable to check this. If it were necessary, will this clause facilitate partnership working between authorities? Will the Secretary of State be able to facilitate varying political structures under which authorities might be operating so that they can foist delegated executive authority on to a committee of two or more of those authorities, which the next Bill will preclude? Would it be this clause that will be relied upon, or will there be provision in the next Bill giving a similar power to the Secretary of State? I am not clear whether the powers in this clause will apply to that next Bill, too.
Lord Whitty: This power would apply to the ability to modify any legislation. However, the particular example which the noble Baroness raises will be dealt with more by the next Bill than by this Bill. The circumstances she describes are more about the exercise of functions than about removing or altering legislation. We can probably debate that in the context of the draft Bill which will be scrutinised shortly.
Baroness Hamwee: Some useful points have been made, particularly on the generality of the power. As regards trading, I will read carefully what the Minister has said. He understands that I am not here seeking a general power on the part of authorities to be able to trade, but merely to raise income which will assist them better to carry out functions which they already have. It will certainly alleviate the cost of exercising functions which may be fairly narrowly directed in terms of the beneficiaries of those functions and where there is a major question mark as to whether the whole of the taxpaying base should bear the cost.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.71 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Orders under section 15: procedure]:
[Amendments Nos.76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Contracts: exclusion of non-commercial considerations]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.78:
Page 12, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The first order under this section shall provide for environmental considerations to cease to be a non-commercial matter.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the exclusion of non-commercial considerations from contracts. Perhaps cheekily, but nonetheless seriously, my amendment proposes that:
"The first order under this section shall provide for environmental considerations to cease to be a non-commercial matter".
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances about the Government's approach to environmental considerations in this context. The clause permits the Secretary of State, by order, to change the list of non-commercial considerations that a local authority can take into account when putting a contract out to tender. In other words, the basis for the award of the contract can be more than narrow financial considerations. I understand that reference has been made in another place to the need to include various social matters in the list of considerations such as quality training, health and safety, disability, racial equality, equal pay and gender equality.
A number of environmental performance matters could, and should, be included in such a list. For instance, it could include a history of prosecution under environmental legislation for pollution or other environmental damage. It might also include a reference to whether the organisation concerned is registered as having approved environmental management systems. I refer to the Eco-Management Audit Scheme (EMAS), which is the voluntary scheme for individual industrial sites in local authorities where companies and authorities have established a programme of positive action to protect the environment and to seek continuously to improve performance. Another such system is the international industry standard for environmental management (ISO-14001). I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances about environmental considerations rapidly leaping up the list of considerations that are to be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am sure this amendment is well-meaning, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to specify in this way that one particular set of issues should have priority over all others. It is important that, in progressing this matter, there is wide discussion between all those who might be affected, and that there is some consensus as to the legitimate non-commercial considerations that are to be excluded from the regime in this way.
My understanding is that there have been substantial discussions between the Local Government Association, the Confederation of British Industry and the TUC. They have examined a range of issues, and have identified a number of matters as non-commercial considerations which local authorities should legitimately take into account when awarding contracts. They include: the quality of training offered; the pay and conditions of employees; health and safety circumstances and the reassurances that are given; and matters to do with equal opportunities.
I do not suggest that environmental issues are not important; I fully agree with the noble Baroness that they are extremely important. All I am saying is that the matters currently under discussion as possibly providing a basis for exemptions under this clause are also extremely important, and I should be sorry to see them pushed back under the terms of the amendment, however well-meaning the intention.
Baroness Maddock: I shall be brief. I was rather disappointed to hear the previous comments of the noble
82
Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. The problem with environmental matters is that too many people believe that they are well-meaning—which is why we have failed in this country to make the progress that other countries have made in environmental matters. I say that on the basis of a recent visit to Germany. Every time I go there I am impressed by the progress Germany has made environmentally, not only in the field of transport but in all other areas. As long as we continue to believe that people who care about the environment are well-meaning, and that these matters are well-meaning, we shall fail to put them at the heart of our legislation and ensure that we take them on board properly.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness sits down, what I attempted to put across was not that environmental issues were well-meaning, or indeed that the noble Baroness herself was well-meaning—although I am sure she is—but that the intention behind this proposal was well-meaning in its attempt to put these considerations at the centre of the proposal. My point is that there are a number of matters which should legitimately be at the centre, and which should be achieved by a process of consensus rather than simply writing them into the Bill at this stage, possibly before that consensus is created. The important point is to create that consensus around environmental issues. It will not be created by simply writing it into legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No.78 would require the first order made under Clause 18 to provide for environmental considerations to cease to be a non-commercial matter. The amendment would place an unhelpful constraint on the exercise of that power. It is important to note that the list relates to matters that are not permitted, not the other way around. Everything that is not included in the list can be taken into account, provided that other legislation does not prevent it.
Environmental considerations as such are not explicitly defined as a non-commercial matter at Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988. Therefore, I can only assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is bringing forward this amendment on the understanding that such considerations could be included within the existing definitions, although having listened to this short debate, I am not quite clear about that.
Our purpose in Clause 18 is to provide for the updating of Section 17 of the 1988 Act, which regulates the contracting functions of local authorities. Regulation is achieved by prohibiting local authorities from having regard to certain specified non-commercial matters in the contractual process. The comments of my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey on the current consultation that is taking place in this area are extremely important.
The problem with the 1988 Act is that it makes no distinction between matters which may be relevant to the performance of the contract and those which are truly non-commercial. That is the problem that we seek to address. Clause 18 therefore provides a power to remove or modify by order the so-called non-commercial considerations. To the extent that

83
environmental considerations could be caught by the existing constraints contained in the 1988 Act, the Clause 18 power would allow us to tackle any problem so long as changes are consistent with government and EC policy.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we have considered carefully whether any such changes are necessary. However, our main priority is to deal with workforce matters. I say that in the context of the widest meaning of "workforce matters". I do not believe it is sensible to place unnecessary conditions on the Clause 18 power. I hope that in the light of those remarks the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not dissent from the notion that there should be a consensus as to the matters that would be the subject of such an order. I have no objections to the first order, including the list that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, suggested to the Committee. They are all important points. But as my noble friend Lady Maddock said, environmental considerations tend to be regarded as add-ons, or as some sort of optional extra. In this place we are rather far behind people outside who recognise—the Government have expressed this themselves—that it is necessary to take into account sustainable development in order to sustain all our futures. Our social futures, our economic futures and so on are all bound up together. To treat environmental considerations as some sort of optional extra is to fail to understand the importance of the issue. Having said that, the Minister has indicated that workplace matters in the wider sense, as she put it, are likely to comprise the initial focus. Can she indicate to the Committee any timetable and who will be consulted as regards the laying of any order under this clause?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that wide consultation is already taking place, not only with best value authority representatives but also with those concerned with good public procurement practice as providers and with all those with an interest in this matter. If there should be any further consultation, or any information about the exact timing of that, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Transition from compulsory competitive tendering to best value]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.79:
Page 13, line 11, leave out ("2nd") and insert ("1st")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to propose a slightly different date for the end of compulsory competitive tendering. The Bill proposes that the provisions listed in Clause 20 shall cease to have
84
effect on 2nd January of next year. This amendment proposes the date of 1st January of next year. My query concerns the number of authorities which will have let a contract under CCT before that date. I have already raised this matter. I have received a Written Answer informing me that the information is not centrally recorded. I asked about a number of dates. It seems odd that, irrespective of the arrangements for recording the information, the Government have not inquired—or have implied that they have not inquired—how many authorities would be affected by this measure before putting the date of 2nd January into the Bill. I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Government have a fair amount of information on this matter because I am sure they will want to assess the effect that their proposals will have.
After the Written Answer was published I was contacted by an assiduous member of the public who reads Hansard who informed me that this information has been recorded by the Local Government Management Board and is held by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Perhaps the Minister can inform the Committee of the precise position here. I take the point that was made at the helpful private meeting with the Minister; namely, that there has to be a cut-off at some point. Furthermore, authorities need to know about this matter in advance so that they can make preparations for whichever of the regimes is to apply. That is entirely sensible. However, I query whether we have the correct date in this regard. I am told that the 1997 class of unitary authorities is particularly affected by this measure, as are the white collar contracts let under the CCT regime which will be coming up for renewal.
The best value regime is to start 12 months from the date the Bill is passed, or earlier by order. The memorandum from the department indicates that best value is expected to be introduced on 1st April 2000 and that there will be guidance as to the interim period. As is well known, we want to see the back of CCT, but we are concerned about what could perhaps be the messy introduction of its successor. I also take the opportunity therefore to ask whether those authorities which will continue to exercise functions via a contract let under CCT will automatically be regarded as having achieved best value until that contract expires.
There are two questions implicit in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: While the amendment represents a change of only one day, we carefully chose the day to take account of the existing CCT timetables, in particular for the initial implementation of professional white collar services in England.
We considered that it was important to ensure that authorities receive a clear message that they must comply with the existing legislation and not anticipate the introduction of best value by abandoning at a late stage those tender exercises which had already started. In order to comply with the implementation dates for white collar services up to 1st January 2000 authorities will have commenced the tendering process well before Royal Assent of the Bill might be expected. It normally

85
takes about 12 months to prepare for and to complete a tendering exercise and to commence the contract. That principle also applies to existing CCT contracts which become due for resetting in the period.
I regret that I am unable to give the noble Baroness the information that she seeks. We will investigate the availability of statistics from the Local Government Management Board but we are not normally directly "plugged into" that information. 'With regard to choosing the date, we are anxious to provide as much time as possible to make sensible preparations for best value without the distraction of CCT for those authorities with contracts that will run after that date. January 2nd immediately follows the last planned implementation date for white collar professional services, which is 1st January 2000. The choice of 2nd January will therefore ensure that those authorities reorganised in April 1997—principally the unitary authorities—will be able to go ahead with the process that has already started in putting, for example, personnel and finance services out to competition. They will therefore not waste the period of preparation that is already approximately five months under way and will be considerably further down the line by the time of Royal Assent. Those authorities will then be able to achieve one round of CCT on the financial and personnel services.
We have, however, carefully avoided exposing any information technology services to CCT on 1st January 2000 because of the obvious problems associated with the year 2000 bug. If we were to repeal CCT on 1st January that could lead with regard to the other white collar services to the abandonment of a tendering exercise at a late stage in the process. I hope that that at least goes some way to explain the choice of 2nd January and to explain that it would be disruptive for those authorities to bring forward that date. If there is any more information I can provide to the noble Baroness about the number of contracts involved, I will of course do so. However, we do not have it immediately to hand in the department.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister does not promote his case as well as he might. What he has said about white collar services and so on is entirely understandable. I repeat that I would have expected that careful inquiry would have been made as to whether a slightly different choice of date would have had a more or less disruptive effect on best value authorities. He said that as much time as possible needs to be given to switch regime, which I entirely understand. However, I do not believe that my proposal to reduce by one day at a period when most of the country is expected still to be recovering from the night before the night before will affect this very much.
On the back of this, I asked a question about authorities which are continuing to function via a contract let under CCT. Will that automatically achieve best value, because they will have had no option but to operate under that contract, which will go on into the period when the best value duty has started? I have in mind the occasional problems which authorities have with contractors—they may be just the same under the
86
best value regime—and with enforcing the contracts. Will there be any different approach to authorities in judging what they are doing for the purposes of best value if they are continuing to operate in regard to some functions under old contracts? Is there any difference between their operation using contracts under the different regimes?
Lord Whitty: I am not entirely sure that there is a hard and fast answer to that. Local authorities will be bound by contracts which they have already undertaken and there will be no power under the best value regime to breach those contracts, except in so far as the contracts themselves have penalties or break points. If it were seen that a CCT-style contract were not delivering best value, that could be dealt with only at the end of that process in normal circumstances. There may be some modifications to that in particular cases. but in general a contract signed would have to be completed in that form, and there are no additional powers to break that contract.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is important for authorities to be assured that they are not going to be tripped up because the rules have changed part way through the term of the contract. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Accounts]:
[Amendment No.80 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Co-ordination of inspections, &c.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: What is intended by Clause 24(3)? Clause 24(1) starts by mentioning,
"a person or body to whom this section applies",
that person or body having regard to certain guidance. Clause 24(2) states that "this section" applies to a number of inspectorates. This is the clause which was so usefully inserted by the Government in another place. Clause 24(3) states that the order will,
"apply to a person or body specified in the order"
I can well see that different orders may be made in connection with perhaps fire, social security administration or schools inspectorates, but I cannot see what is added by Clause 24(3). Being rather tedious, because I could not understand it, I thought I should not let the opportunity pass without asking for an explanation.
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty: There is a fairly simple explanation, in that we are listing in Clause 2 the inspectorates that already exist. It is possible that future legislation might create other inspectorates in particular areas and we would need powers for the Secretary of State to specify

87
those additional inspectorates. We need that flexibility, which is why the subsection is included. It is no more complicated than that.
Baroness Hamwee: If that is the case, then perhaps it would be less opaquely dealt with by subsection (2) providing that subsection (3) lists them and such other bodies as may be included in an order. Perhaps it is rather unfair to push the Minister further at this stage.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Guidance]:
[Amendments Nos.81 and 82 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Commencement]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.83:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert ("or may by order provide that any of those sections shall not come into force in relation to Wales")
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, we return to the question of Wales. On Monday, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said that he came to whinge for Wales, but I did not think that it was so much of a whinge as a very proper claim for Wales, now that it has an Assembly, to be able to run its own affairs rather more than this Bill seems to anticipate. I agree with my noble friend, even though I have fallen into the trap myself, that to provide that in the case of Wales the Secretary of State should actually be read as being a reference to the National Assembly for Wales is a fairly off-hand way of dealing with Wales. I admit that I myself have talked about the Secretary of State without saying "or the National Assembly", as the case may be.
My amendment proposes that the National Assembly shall say that it does not want any of the clauses of the Bill to come into force in relation to Wales—in other words, it should run its own affairs. It occurred to me that it might be worth exploring briefly whether this might be a possibility following the example given in the Water Industry Bill with which the Minister is dealing. That sets out a new regime in Scotland but allows for the Scottish Parliament to implement it or not. This is a somewhat similar provision.
Clause 26 allows the National Assembly for Wales to advance the implementation of certain orders, so why should it not be able to defer them, even indefinitely? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 26 has been very carefully constructed to achieve two complementary aims. It places the duty of best value on a statutory footing in line with the Government's manifesto commitment to do so. At the same time, it provides both the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State in England with local discretion to commence aspects of the duty earlier than the automatic commencement dates if they feel that that is appropriate. Both our election manifesto and the local government White Papers in England and Wales made it clear that the Government intended to introduce best value and repeal CCT at the earliest
88
legislative opportunity. This Bill delivers on that promise and provides for a timely introduction of the duty of best value after Royal Assent.
The Government have made it clear that in England, we intend to commence the general duty on 1st April 2000, but to help authorities to prepare it makes sense to commence provisions which allow us to issue statutory guidance and to make orders setting out what is required in conducting best value reviews and publishing best value performance bands, as well as specifying performance indicators as early as possible. Clause 26(2)and 26(3) allow the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales the flexibility to do so. The date of commencement on the general duty in Wales is likely closely to mirror that in England but that is a matter for the Assembly to determine, or whether the automatic 12 month commencement arrangements set out in subsection 26(1) will apply.
Amendment No.83 would, however, allow for the automatic commencement provisions set out in Clause 26(1) to be overridden by the National Assembly. At this point, perhaps I should declare a personal interest as a former Labour group leader and chair of the Association of County Councils, which involved working with both the Welsh counties—as they then were—and the Welsh districts. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the occasions when we all—some more quietly than others, as he acknowledged—opposed certain aspects of the previous government's legislative programme. From my experience, across all political parties and those authorities that were controlled by independent groups. none welcomed the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering. In a way, therefore, the noble Baroness is raising with tongue slightly in cheek the question of whether people want to keep compulsory competitive tendering. Welsh local authorities have been vigorously piloting best value and would not welcome a delay in introducing this other regime.
Clause 26 as currently drafted provides certainty to authorities about the latest date by which their legal obligations will commence. Flexibility for the Assembly in taking decisions about whether early commencement for some or all of the provisions would be appropriate, as would consistency in assuring that authorities in England and Wales move away from CCT to best value at a similar base and on similar timescales. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thought that what I was doing applied only to the best value clauses, since Clause 20 is not within this commencement provision. I am not trying to retain the imposition of CCT on Wales for a nanosecond longer than is absolutely necessary. My Welsh colleagues may have something to say on this subject at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Limitation of council tax and precepts]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.84:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert ("until 1st April 2005")
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No.84, I should also say that I am rising to give the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a moment's relief. This again is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment. One's approach to it depends on whether one is an optimist and believes that the world and that local government work well, or whether one is a pessimist or, possibly worse, a cynic. At least I have the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is an optimist because she has an amendment grouped with this one which reached the same conclusion as I have but in a different way.
The thinking which lies behind capping is what I would consider to he philosophically different, not to say almost philosophically opposed, to Part I of the Bill, which we have just completed, dealing with best value. Best value creates procedures which are designed to make local authorities—best value authorities—function better and more effectively in the interests of their council tax payers, and indeed the taxpayers generally, bearing in mind the enormous domination which central government funding has on any local authority.
They have to comply with best value because somewhere in the background to all this, I have read that there is a built-in efficiency factor. In a response to a question from my noble friend Lord Bowness about how the local authorities were to meet the administrative costs which best value might impose, the Minister said that it was assumed that any additional costs which might be imposed on local government would be met from within the efficiency factor savings, so that there would be no net increase in the cost of public expenditure.
We have a financial inducement on local government to produce better value, and in fact to become administratively and in a cost sense more effective and efficient. Then at the end of the Bill we come to this paradoxical situation where we will continue capping, and apparently, as the Government have not inserted a sunset clause, for all time.
It seems to me that it is unarguable, if you are an optimist, that if best value works and achieves what the Government expect, the need for capping will disappear. If that is so, my amendment ensures that that is what will happen. At least, that is the intention of it, but I may be told that I do not have the right wording for that intention.
The other procedures which exist within the best value regime to catch up with recalcitrant authorities would adequately control the situation into the future. This is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Of course, if you are a pessimist, or still worse a cynic, and you believe that the administrative complexity of best value will not work and that it will not be so successful, you
90
might want to argue against the shut-off date. But we should be able to accept a shut-off date like this for capping, and I hope that will happen. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My amendment grouped with the noble Lord's has the same effect. We are very much opposed to capping and to tabling an amendment which acknowledges that any kind of capping will continue. We are merely acknowledging, at any rate for the purposes of debate in Committee where we shall not have any Divisions, that this is the form in which the Bill has been sent to us from another place. The year 2005 is, in our eyes, very much a lower preference than tomorrow. There is therefore likely to be quite a straightforward debate, perhaps at a later stage on whether the clause and schedule shall stand part.
The new capping powers that are being proposed have been described very much as reserve powers, but I believe I am right in saying—the Minister will correct me if I am not—that that is not actually on the facie of the Bill. They are powers which will be used exercising criteria that he will set, but because the provisions are to be slotted into the Local Government Act 1992 they are no less and no more reserve powers than crude universal capping under that regime. We welcome all moves to alleviate capping but, frankly, along with CCT, the sooner it goes the better.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: These are clearly important amendments and I support them very strongly. I shall not repeat the arguments for them. Many people from all parties have felt that capping should go. It is probably also accepted that it would be politically and for many other reasons difficult to do it in one fell swoop, as many of us would like to have seen. However, the way the Bill is drafted does not really foreshadow the end of capping. It is capping in a different form, possibly with some relaxation, with some greater tolerance, but nevertheless a capping regime continuing.
I do not consider that the Bill can be seen as the end of a process because there are many questions such as, is it how the best value regime develops; how does it make capping unnecessary; what happens to business rates; and what powers local authorities will have over rating revenue. I do not see that a situation should be foreseen where those reserve powers should hold good for all time, so I support very strongly the amendments to put a date on them.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I regret that we shall probably not agree on this. I am certainly not a pessimist and, as noble Lords will know, I am not a cynic, but I am rather cautious here. I understand and sympathise with the wish that these powers are not used after 2005. Indeed, I hope their use will cease, if possible, before 2005. However, 2005 is not very far off. We are engaged, in partnership with local government, in a whole range of measures to modernise local government. We hope that most of that agenda will be in place by 2005, and best value is clearly a major part of that programme.

91
There is another side of the issue which relates to financial accountability, and there is yet another side which relates to modernisation of decision making. There will be some hiccups in the process of modernising local government. We could not put our hands on our hearts and say that all the financial accountability will have been achieved through best value by 2005. There is a continuing responsibility on government to represent national taxpayers as well as to protect the local taxpayers in this. Therefore we consider that we need to retain reserve powers. While we expect all local authorities to be responsible and prudent and to provide their local taxpayers with a decent service at a price they are prepared to pay, even in 2005, despite all our reforms and best intentions, there may still be one or two authorities which decide to act irresponsibly. If they do so, we intend both to protect the local taxpayers and to protect the national taxpayers' interests. These are, however, reserve powers. I can assure the noble Baroness of that. We hope that they will hardly be used, if at all. But, as of today, I cannot be as optimistic as the noble Lord in predicting that by the year 2005 all financial irresponsibility will have been removed from local councils. We cannot write in that date and leave local people open to the risk of some irresponsible council exceeding what would be a reasonable limit. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press this matter. I note the noble Baroness's remark that it may be returned to. I look forward to more detailed debate at that stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have to say, sadly, that I am not grateful to the Minister for his reply. It was not wholly unexpected—I did not expect that we should be fortunate enough to receive an immediate concession based on the absolute good sense and the force with which we have argued the point.
I remember all too well how capping began. It was introduced as a reserve power for emergency use and it was remarkable how it evolved into something that was controlling virtually everybody. I must admit that I am still concerned, and I shall continue to feel concern for as long as the provision remains. This is an issue on which we shall probably have to beg to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
[Amendment No.85 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.86:
Page 20, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) An authority shall not be eligible for designation or nomination unless its proposed expenditure per head of population falls within the upper quartile of per capita expenditure for that class of authority and its rate of increase in expenditure is also within the upper quartile rate of increase for that class of authority.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment and the other amendments grouped with it is to place some limitations on capping, if capping there has to be. Amendment No.86 is designed specifically to remove
92
a very large group of local authorities from the capping regime. It states that,
"An authority shall not be eligible for designation or nomination unless its proposed expenditure per head of population falls within the upper quartile of per capita expenditure for that class of authority and its rate of increase in expenditure is also within the upper quartile".
That is actually rather modest. I could perfectly reasonably have produced an argument to say that the exemption should apply to everybody in the 90 per cent below the upper decile, but I thought I would give the Minister the chance to agree with me again. I do not seem to be very successful in persuading him of the virtue of my proposals. The effect of this proposal is simply to specify those authorities that might, if the reserve power, as we shall call it, has to be used, have it applied to them.
Amendment No.87 simply flows from that. If Amendment No.86 were to succeed and be accepted, then Amendment No.87 would be necessary to make sense of the English within the Bill and it would have no greater effect than that. The provision in Amendment No.88, also in this group, is what I have now come to regard as a standard request. Amendment No.89 is rather more important. It is an attempt to have the capping criteria defined in advance and published. At present, local authorities set their budgets, the Secretary of State examines them, says he does not like this one or that one and that he therefore intends to cap them, and the orders are passed accordingly, or the procedure is entered into. If knowledge of the criteria he intended to apply were to be available to local authorities before they entered into their budget process, most of them might have some recognition of those criteria and seek to avoid capping and the administrative trouble that it causes.
I am aware of the argument that this proposal creates a pre-capping condition and that it enforces capping. Indeed, it could; but the whole idea is to give local authorities the option to decide for themselves whether they want to run into this barrier, with the administrative procedures that it implies. They would then have to make their case to the Secretary of State for a variation, if that was their choice, which might or might not succeed; or they could choose not to do so, and comply with the conditions that they know are coming. Since we know that there are reserve conditions, one must assume that they would not be set in too onerous a fashion. Amendment No.90 is tabled simply for the sake of producing consistency and Amendment No.91 is the standard after consultation with best value authorities.
This group of amendments is important. The amendments seek to ensure that, if capping is to have effect, it really does affect only those authorities that are already high spenders and those that are increasing their council tax at a rate which is among the highest for that particular group of authorities. If capping is to continue, I believe that that is not an unreasonable restriction to place on its use. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No.86 is understandable in terms of the objective of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness of getting rid of capping altogether. It is

93
presumably, therefore, an attempt to get rid of capping for 75 per cent. all authorities. Nevertheless, I feel that the selection of the 25 per cent. as described by that amendment cannot be the correct choice even from the noble Lord's own point of view. He is effectively saying that only those authorities with a high level of spending per head of population as well as a high rate of increase in spending should be capped.
Most governments have recognised that there are inevitable and justifiable differences in levels of expenditure. Local authorities might spend more per head of population because they have a relatively high number of school children, or a relatively high number of elderly people, or people who need help from social services, or because there is a sparseness of population, or because they have a higher level of deprivation and there are a number of other reasons why services might cost more. As a result, their absolute level of expenditure and their rate of increase of expenditure might be in the upper quartile simply because numbers are increasing more than in other authorities.
We recognise that when we distribute grant and we use a formula that takes this and many other factors into account, as indeed did the previous administration and every administration I can remember. It is slightly odd, therefore, to pick out the definition of those to whom a capping regime would apply by these criteria. As I have said, it would exclude 75 per cent. but it would hit those who have the highest need and the highest level of expenditure reflecting that need. In other words, by and large the poorer areas of the country could be capped and the more well-off areas of the country could not be capped whatever the rate of increase in their council tax.
I would say in passing that, if that were the case, most, if not all, of those authorities with which the Deputy Prime Minister has had to have words this year would escape entirely any future capping regime and that would be a cumulative case in the future. In other words, while it would no doubt be an achievement from the noble Lord's point of view to exclude a significant number of authorities from capping, he would be penalising those who are least able to take that degree of penalty and allowing to escape many who may be highly profligate in areas that do not have the same level of need. For example, an authority such as Torbay, which had one of the highest increases in council tax this year, would escape from being capped while an authority like Blackburn, which had a much lower increase in council tax, would be susceptible to capping under this formula. That is probably not the intention. The intention is to get as many councils as possible out from under capping. but this is not the right approach.
I am also slightly bemused by Amendment No.89. This would, in effect, achieve the opposite of what the noble Lord intends. It would mean a degree of return to the crude, universal capping policy which he is so against. Even though some of his colleagues in the previous regime were not, I understand the consistency of view of the noble Lord on this matter. If we are to set effectively the criteria and therefore the implied level before budget setting, then we are basically returning to a crude, universal form of capping which the Government have undertaken to abolish, We want local
94
authorities to take responsibility themselves for deciding the budget, not with regard to a level preset by the Government but in the light of their own spending needs and the available resources. The old system of capping, which this would bring in by the back door, meant that some authorities simply set their budget requirements at the level of the capping limit. That is not a sensible system of financial accountability and we do not want that to happen under the new regime.
We hope that the new "best value" part of this Bill and other changes we are proposing on the structure of local government and so forth will help local authorities to modernise and improve. We therefore hope that we will not have to use these reserve powers. We would not wish to reintroduce by the back door a system of universal capping.
Amendments Nos.88 and 91 deal with consultation. They seek to ensure that there is consultation between the Secretary of State and, presumably, the authorities subject to the use of reserve powers, although the draft refers to best value authorities. Not all best value authorities will be affected by this part of the Bill. It will only be the billing authorities. We agree that it is important to work closely with local government and to have a good consultative relationship with local government. The amendment as drafted will not be practical. It is important both to local authorities and to their taxpayers that if there is designation of an authority, then that authority is informed as quickly as possible and that if a local authority is to be capped under these powers, it needs to know its maximum budget requirement as soon as possible, so that it can revise its spending plans and inform its taxpayers accordingly. Any requirement to engage in any wide-ranging consultation at that stage would introduce an unacceptable delay into that process. This would not be in the interests of local authorities to impose. While I accept the general commitment to consultation which lies behind this clause, laying down such consultation during that period would not help. Neither would it help the financial accountability of the local authorities which are targeted under the capping regime, limited though they may be. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see that these clauses are inappropriate and will see fit to withdraw them.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: For a moment there I hoped to achieve a wipe out because the Minister was going to accept that the upper quartile needed to spend the money and that he would accept my removal of the lower 75 per cent. —the lower three quartiles—and we would have done it and we would not need the sunset clause. That was clearly too much to hope for. I shall have to read the Minister's response with considerable care to make up my mind whether I wish to take this matter further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.87 to 91 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.92:
Page 21, line 34, at end insert ("provided that the principles for designation or nomination are the same for authorities in the same category of authority")
The noble Lord said: This amendment could have appeared in the previous group. It is another standard request and I wonder whether the Minister would consider it. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Secretary of State can use his reserve powers only to designate or nominate an authority if its budget requirement is excessive. To decide whether the budget requirement is excessive, he must determine a set of principles. If he determines any categories of authorities, the set of principles used to decide whether the budget requirement is excessive must be the same for all authorities within a category. Therefore, the principles for designation or nomination are the same for all authorities, which is the position the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to achieve.
Once the Secretary of State has decided that an authority's budget requirement is excessive, he may then designate or nominate the authority. He must tell the authority what principles he has used to decide that the budget requirement is excessive. Any council he designates will have the opportunity to challenge the designated amount, and before it can be capped there must be a debate in the other place.
The Secretary of State may, however, decide not to proceed with designation after receiving information from the local authority and instead may decide to nominate the authority.
The Secretary of State is always under a duty, enforceable by the courts, to act consistently in relation to different authorities.
Amendment No.92 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, I believe that at the start of the Minister's response she referred to the Secretary of State deciding to designate. I am not sure whether the term "designate" was used because it has a particular meaning here. The Minister seems to be saying that in order for principles to be applied consistently, the Secretary of State must first categorise the authorities. It was at the start of her response. I may have misheard, but I should be glad if she could confirm, as she appeared to imply that the principles must be applied consistently and the Secretary of State does not have the ability to set his own sets of categories and then apply certain principles.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Secretary of State must at all times act reasonably. The Secretary of State, in deciding whether to designate an authority, must have regard to other categories of authority. I shall confirm to the noble Baroness whether I am right in saying that within different categories of authorities particular circumstances may be taken into account which may apply to only some
96
of the authorities within that category. However, in doing that, the Secretary of State must still remain reasonable.
If one were to consider fire authorities, the well-known old story of the Isle of Wight as a fire authority must be considered within the category of fire authorities. However, the Secretary of State could have a different determination because the Isle of Wight was unable, even though the grant formula assumed it could, to ask Hampshire to drive fire engines over the border.
The Secretary of State may determine categories of authorities, but the same set of principles must be used for all the authorities within that category. I hope that that answers the question. If there are any remaining difficulties, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that. I did not quite catch the word "determine", which is where I stumbled in listening to the Minister's initial response, so that has clarified the matter.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister both for her detailed explanation and for the reassurance that she placed within that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.93:
Page 22, line 51, leave out ("section 70") and insert ("sections 70 and 71")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.93. I shall refer to the other amendments grouped with it in the appropriate place. I can assure noble Lords that these are all technical amendments and they relate mainly to the Greater London Authority Bill which has recently been introduced into this House. In its Committee stage in another place, some amendments were made to the provision in the Bill for substitute calculations. Most of the amendments tabled here reflect those changes to the GLA Bill. There are some others which are equivalent to further amendments which the Government propose to table during the GLA Bill's passage through your Lordships' House.
The amendments include changes to ensure that references to the GLA in the Local Government Bill are accurate and take account of the special arrangements for the budget requirement and tax-setting calculations which are set out in the GLA Bill. This has also one further consequential amendment in order to ensure that the provisions for billing authorities are consistent with those for the GLA and for other major precepting authorities.
I apologise for the number of amendments, but I assure noble Lords that they are not substantive and simply ensure that this Bill and the GLA Bill are consistent in their provisions relating to the GLA and related matters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos.94 to 102:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("70 to 75 of") and insert ("70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and Schedule 6 to")
Page 24, line 47, after ("Act") insert ("or for item P2")
Page 24, line 49, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 25 and insert—
("(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) above the authority may treat any amount determined in the previous calculations for item P in section 44(1) above as increased by the amount of any sum which—

(a)it estimates will be payable to it for the year in respect of additional grant, and

(b)was not taken into account by it in making those calculations.

(7A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above the authority may treat any amount determined in the previous calculations

(a) item P1 in section 73(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or

(b) item P2 in section 74(4) of that Act,

as increased by the relevant portion of any new additional grant.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A) above, "the relevant portion of any new additional grant" means the amount of any additional grant payable, to the authority for the year which was not taken into account by the authority in making the previous calculations, but—

(a)in the case of item P1, reduced, as may be prescribed, by such sum as tie Secretary of State considers represents the portion of the amount which relates to defraying the special item in whole or in part, and

(b)in the case of item P2, restricted, as may be prescribed, to such sum as the Secretary of State considers represents the portion of the amount which relates to defraying the special item in whole or in part;

and "special item" has the same meaning in this subsection as in sections 73 and 74 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (see section 74(2) of that Act).
(7C) In subsection (7B) above, "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, either

(a)the report under section 85 of the Local Government Finance Act 1.388 relating to the amount of additional grant in question, or

(b)regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 73(3)(b) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (in relation to item P1) or under section 74(5)(b) of that Act (in relation to item P2),

as the Secretary of State may determine for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (7B) and any particular financial year or years.")
Page 29, line 29, leave out ("section 70") and insert ("sections 70 and 71")
Page 30, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
("(3) If it—

(a) has made calculations in relation to the year in accordance with sections 32 to 36 above, or

(b) has made substitute calculations in relation to the year in accordance with section 37 above,

it shall make substitute calculations in relation to the year in accordance with sections 32 to 36 above, ignoring section 32(10) above for this purpose.")
Page 31, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
("(3) Where the authority is the Greater London Authority and—

(a) it has made calculations in relation to the year in accordance with sections 70 to 75 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and sections 47 and 48 above, or

(b) it has made substitute calculations in relation to the year in accordance with sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and

98
Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and sections 47 and 48 above,
it shall make substitute calculations in relation to the year in accordance with the provisions mentioned in paragraph (b) above.
(3A) Where the authority is not the Greater London Authority and it has made

(a) calculations in accordance with sections 43 to 48 above, or

(b) substitute calculations in accordance with section 49 above,

in relation to the year, it shall make substitute calculations in relation to the year in accordance with sections 43 to 48.")
Page 31, line 22, after ("calculations") insert ("required by subsection (3) or (3A)")
Page 31, line 42, after ("Act") insert ("or for item P2")
Page 31, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 32 and insert—
("(9) For the purposes of subsection (7) above the authority may treat any amount determined in the previous calculations for item P in section 44(1) above as increased by the amount of any sum which—

(a) it estimates will be payable to it for the year in respect of additional grant, and

(b) was not taken into account by it in making those calculations.

(9A) For the purposes of subsection (8) above the authority may treat any amount determined in the previous calculations—

(a) for item P1 in section 73(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or

(b) for item P2 in section 74(4) of that Act,

as increased by the relevant portion of any new additional grant.
(9B) For the purposes of subsection (9A) above, "the relevant portion of any new additional grant" means the amount of any additional grant payable to the authority for the year which was not taken into account by the authority in making the previous calculations, but—

(a) in the case of item P1, reduced, as may be prescribed, by such sum as the Secretary of State considers represents the portion of the amount which relates to defraying the special item in whole or in part, and

(b) in the case of item P2, restricted, as may be prescribed, to such sum as the Secretary of State considers represents the portion of the amount which relates to defraying the special item in whole or in part;

and "special item" has the same meaning in this subsection as in sections 73 and 74 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (see section 74(2) of that Act).
(9C) In subsection (9B) above, "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, either—

(a) the report under section 85 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 relating to the amount of additional grant in question, or

(b) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 73(3)(b) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (in relation to item P1) or under section 74(5)(b) of that Act (in relation to item P2),

as the Secretary of State may determine for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (9B) and any particular financial year or years.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Major precepting authorities: further regulation]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.103:
Page 17, line 24, after ("applies") insert ("for the purpose of limiting the liabilities of billing authorities (including liability resulting from the limitation of council tax benefit subsidy)")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.103 is somewhat important. Anybody reading the Bill for the first time and coming to Clause 30 might well pause—unless he was a local government finance aficionado and immediately expert in all its intricacies—to wonder exactly what Clause 30 was all about. It certainly is not explained. It comes in Part II, "Regulation of Council Tax and Precepts", and in a sense it is part of that.
Clause 30 in fact deals with the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. Without going into the detail of that scheme at this stage, as I shall do so in relation to subsequent amendments, it would help the Bill enormously if the reason for the presence of this clause in the Bill were explained. The amendment simply does that. It states that the section applies,
"for the purpose of limiting the liabilities of billing authorities (including liability resulting from the limitation of council tax benefit subsidy)".
With that introduction, the rest of the clause becomes clear; but without it, it is somewhat obscure. On that basis, I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No.103 struck me as rather obscure, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for clarifying its intention to Members of the Committee. I assume that the amendment seeks to limit any liability that a major precepting authority may have to a billing authority to those abilities arising from the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme.
The Committee will be aware that this scheme is already in operation. Clause 30 is simply a technical provision to ensure that any major precepting authority which exceeds the guideline pays its contribution to the council tax benefit cost to its billing authority. The amendment as drafted applies to any liability of a billing authority and it is therefore doubtful whether it would have any effect. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall have to consider the Minister's reply. I agree that the purpose of this clause is to provide legal authority for precepting authorities to pay back to billing authorities deficits that might arise as a result of the billing authority not receiving subsidy from the DSS which it would have received before the limitation scheme was applied. The billing authority, which receives its subscription from the DSS, will receive back only that money which applies to its share of the deficit, while the part that is capped in relation to the major precepting authority will not come back to the authority. This Bill makes provision for that money to be paid by the major precepting authority.
100
I may not have explained that very clearly but it is rather a difficult area, where the ratepayer is in effect required to provide a subsidy for what is otherwise a social security benefit. That is the reality of the position. It is in fact another cap. The DSS has an element of right on its side. It has said that if a local authority pushes up its rates in a way that it considers unreasonable, it will not pay the benefit that would otherwise be paid because that is the consequence of someone else's decision; namely that of the local authority.
It is very difficult to see how to rationalise this, but it is a completely new departure that council tax payers are being invited to support—indeed made to support—social security benefits. I tabled this amendment in an attempt to make clear the intention of this clause. I did not think that the amendment imposed any limits. I thought it was a straightforward explanation. My attempts at limitation, which I admit are likely to fail grossly, come in the next group of amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure the fault is entirely mine. I am not sure that I understand his clarification as much now as I did before he expanded it. Perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee if, between now and another stage of the Bill, we worked out what we are both referring to and understand, and whether the amendment would achieve what the noble Lord believes it would achieve.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It was my intention to withdraw the amendment, but I thought some explanation was needed as to why I tabled it, although the Minister has not quite understood the point I was trying to make.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, whatever the detail of the drafting, an attempt to provide a guide for the reader is entirely right. We regard council tax benefit limitation, as the noble Lord has said, as a matter of how welfare provision is dealt with: whether it is a matter for national support or whether it is dealt with at a local level. Many criticisms have been made of this scheme.
The point that I wish to make concerns the oddity of primary legislation dealing with what is a subsidiary issue. Anything that can help the reader to understand that this provision is required as a result of secondary legislation that has already been dealt with, is to be welcomed. I realise the matter is difficult. I congratulate the noble Lord on his valiant attempt.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If the correspondence is three-way, both the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I myself will benefit from the noble Baroness's knowledge.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.104:
Page 17. line 26. at end insert—
("( ) No budge. shall he judged excessive unless the amount calculated exceeds the authority's SSA and the authority's expenditure per head is in the upper quartile for that class of authority.")
The noble Lord said: I admit straightaway that these amendments are bound to fail; this scheme is in existence and we cannot have the billing authorities in technical deficit because there is no legal authority under which precepting authorities can pay back to them the funds that have caused that deficit.
We should recognise, however, that the impact of the scheme is pernicious. Areas which are relatively poor and which have a high proportion of housing problems, low-value houses and social problems will be much harder hit by this scheme than areas which are relatively well-off. The LGA, has calculated what would happen if all authorities exceeded the threshold amount by 1 per cent in relation to their 1998–99 budget requirements.
In the worst-off authorities the average estimated percentage of their total council tax income coming from the benefit is 24 per cent. The impact on council tax of the limitation scheme—as a result of the rise which the LGA postulated at 1 per cent above the threshold—is again about 1 per cent. If, however, you make the same calculation in relation to the best authorities the increase in council tax is only 0.1 per cent. Therefore, those who can afford to have the limitation—if it applies to them—are least affected by it. That is somewhat hard and pernicious.
I do not intend to press these amendments because I admit that they are bound to be inadequate. I have put them down with the quite deliberate intent of provoking a discussion on the machinations of this particular scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that this is a contribution to the debate on the machinations of the scheme. However, the amendments give me the opportunity to ask about the drafting. Clause 30(2) states,
"Whether an amount is excessive shall be determined by reference to criteria specified and published by the Secretary of State."
New Section 52B(2) states,
"The question whether the amount so calculated is excessive must be decided in accordance with a set of principles determined by the Secretary of State."
Why is it that in one part of the Bill we talk about a set of principles and in another criteria? Is there some significance in the different phraseology?
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has indicated the difficulty of this matter in that there is already a scheme in place resulting from orders in the previous legislation. This amendment deals simply with the precepting side. Therefore questions which go to the basis of the scheme are difficult if not impossible to deal with in the way the noble Lord intends.
Perhaps I may record the principle behind the scheme; namely, that when there is an excessively large increase in council tax we do not believe that the national
102
taxpayer should pay the costs arising from local decisions. That is the aim of the scheme. But it is the increase in council tax that matters here rather than whether the council is in a certain quartile or is budgeting above or below the SSA, or whether that expenditure per head is in the upper quartile in absolute terms. It is the rate of increase in council tax which triggers this provision and it is a fairly straightforward trigger. There is of course a limitation in that no local authority, including the poorest, can be worse hit than the average would be in the same situation.
The clause relating to the precepting authorities provides for regulation that will require major precepting authorities which exceed the guideline to make payments to the billing authorities. The noble Lord has explained this matter. It does not affect the establishment of the scheme as a whole. The regulations are relevant to billing authorities but have a knock-on consequence for precepting authorities. Councils have already taken this scheme into account in setting their council tax for 1999 to 2000. If we were to adopt the amendments of the noble Lord we would prevent some major preceptors from paying their contribution to benefit costs to the relevant billing authorities despite having picked up the contribution from their taxpayers. It will therefore result in a shortfall which would have to be met by both the preceptor and its billing authorities. And of course no billing authority would be excluded from the scheme by the amendment; it would solely affect some major preceptors. There would therefore be a somewhat perverse effect from the combination of Amendments Nos.104 and 105, which the noble Lord recognises.
The noble Baroness referred to Clause 30(2). The two schemes are separate. There is no difference in intention between the two terms, but I am advised that it is helpful to have different terms to distinguish the two schemes. If the noble Baroness requires further clarification, I will of course let her have it.
Amendment No.106 deals with consultation before setting the criteria of a scheme. On that, of course, we consulted local authorities at the same time as we consulted on the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement, and there is ongoing consultation with LGA officers to discuss the practical details of implementation. I do not see great benefit in setting out a requirement in a legal instrument in the way that Amendment No.106 would provide.
Amendment No.107 would bring forward the date at which the Secretary of State would need to make an announcement on the criteria which are to apply under the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme.
Provisional details of the criteria for council tax benefit subsidy limitation are announced as part of the provisional local government finance settlement at around the beginning of December. These are then subject to full consultation and a final announcement is made as part of the final settlement normally announced during February. There does not seem to be any practical reason to move away from this timetable. Most local authorities are familiar with the settlement system,

103
and it provides time for any modification of criteria in the light of any changes between the provisional and final settlement.
I do not see any benefit of writing an additional consultation period into this Bill as I understand Amendment No.107 is designed to do. I can understand the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the first of these amendments not being able to achieve what he intends. The other two amendments, I would suggest, are not necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am somewhat concerned as to one aspect of it. I accept that we have a scheme which is in existence and I accept that we have to deal with the situation which that creates. Therefore I cannot complain about what there is in this Bill because it puts right a situation which requires to be put right.
One difficulty which I have is that we are dealing with a situation where the limitation applies on the rate of increase of council tax, and consistently over the years, the biggest variable in a local authority in making its budget has been the amount of money it will receive from central government. Although the council tax increase may be said to be at the initiative of the individual authority, very often it is as a result of a force majeure situation because the subscription that is received from central government has varied. Not only is that a direct monetary effect, but of course it usually has a multiplier effect when it is then applied to council tax because of the domination of local authorities' money.
The scheme will need to be administered with great care because it is not generally experienced that the moneys that local authorities receive from the centre simply go up in a straight line in relation to inflation. There are all kinds of factors which are taken into account for all kinds of very good reasons. At any one time, individual authorities are benefiting and keeping quiet, while other authorities are being squeezed and are complaining like mad. This will need to be looked at carefully, because it will be a situation where individual authorities' requirements will be paramount. The idea of getting broad principles will be quite tricky. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.105 to 107 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.108:
Page 17, line 37, leave out ("authorities or")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. The clause refers to,
"authorities or categories of authorities".
I think that it should refer only to "categories of authorities" so I propose the removal of the words "authorities or".
Amendment No.109 is grouped with Amendment No.108. I believe that everything done in Part II of the Bill should be consistent with everything done in Part 1.
104
I thought that should be explicit rather than implicit and that is the only reason for that amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the purposes of council tax benefit subsidy limitation, the Secretary of State will determine criteria to decide whether the budget requirement is excessive. When determining these criteria the Secretary of State may refer to whatever factors he sees fit.
Amendment No.108 would ensure that these factors could apply only to categories of authorities and not to different authorities.
Amendment No.109 would additionally require the Secretary of State to determine categories of authorities that were consistent with Clause 1 of this Bill, that being the section which defines best value authorities, including various types of local authorities, police authorities and fire authorities.
This year, we used the same criteria and factors for all authorities. However, a few authorities pointed out that there were particular circumstances which applied only to their individual authority and argued that these should be taken into account.
Although we did not agree that this was right for this year, it is possible that in future years there might be good reasons for differentiating an individual authority because of its particular circumstances. This flexibility is needed to ensure that the Secretary of State can act fairly. I should remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State is under a duty, enforceable by the courts, to act consistently in relation to different authorities. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No.108.
We would agree that it may also be right in future years, in the interests of fairness, to have different factors for different categories of authorities. Where that is the case, it might be necessary to have categories of authorities other than those we intend to be listed in Clause 1 of this Bill. In addition, Clause 1 includes a number of categories of authorities which will be best value authorities but not covered by the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, and the read-across is not helpful.
Amendment No.109 also represents, therefore, an unnecessary restriction to flexibility. I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to press it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.109 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.110:
Page 17, line 41, after ("State") insert (", after consultation with best value authorities, ")
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly standard request to include in consultation. Clause 30(4) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision"
I seek to add the words,
"after consultation with best value authorities".
We have been seeking to include this throughout the Bill and this is yet another instance where I have made that request. There is no need to explain it again. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No.110 would require the Secretary of State to consult best value authorities before making the regulations requiring major precepting authorities to pay their contribution to the costs of council tax benefit to billing authorities.
As I have previously explained, the provisions in Part II do not apply to all best value authorities and I presume again that the amendment is intended to apply only to those authorities potentially subject to council tax benefit subsidy limitation and covered by Clause 30.
We have already discussed the importance of central and local government working closely together. The Government do consult or discuss issues with local authorities or their representatives whenever it is appropriate. However, as I said earlier, setting out this requirement in a legal instrument is neither helpful nor necessary. In this case it represents an unnecessary restriction. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.111:
Page 18, line 31, leave out ("60(8)") and insert ("70(8)")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No.111 is a minor, technical amendment to correct a numbering error to ensure that this Bill and the Greater London Authority Bill are consistent. The Liberal Democrat Benches may recognise that it is an amendment which their colleagues in another place put forward but which we persuaded them to withdraw at that point in case there were any other numbering changes. This is the same as the Liberal Democrat amendment and I trust that it will therefore receive universal acclaim. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for taking the point on board—a small triumph!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.112:
Page 18, line 35, leave out subsection (11)
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.112, I should explain that I find it slightly strange. Here we are in the middle of May debating a Bill which may come into effect some time later this year—let us not put a date on it—and subsection (11) reads:
"In its application as regards the financial year beginning with 1st April 1999 this section shall have effect".
We are now way past 1st April 1999 and I find myself wondering whether we are behaving in a normal and consistent fashion in what I can only describe as producing a bit of post facto legislation. It may be that there is a perfectly normal and rational explanation for this which is important. If there is I shall be glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I can see that there is a difficulty with the particular amendment because it would leave a problem with regard to who bears the cost of the new scheme in the current financial year. Having said that, the noble Lord is absolutely right to remind the Committee of—I cannot say "impropriety" because that would be putting it too high. However, it is certainly undesirable that we have passed the start of a financial year and are having to deal with regulations at the level of primary legislation after the start of that year. It would have been much more satisfactory if we had been able to deal with the whole of the council tax benefit limitation scheme before the year in which it was to start to take effect.
Lord Whitty: In response to the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith, I can give a rational explanation but whether I can give a normal one may be another matter. We are in the same bind as with the previous amendment. We have a scheme that has been perfectly legitimately advanced under the existing regulations, but from which the precepting authorities would be in an anomalous situation were we not to make provision for them.
The amendment would not have the effect the noble Lord intends. It would not prevent the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme operating for 1999–2000 as that is provided for under Clause 30(7) rather than Clause 30(11). That scheme is already established. Local authorities, both billing authorities and major precepting authorities, have set their budgets knowing that that is established for this year and, if they have exceeded the guideline for the scheme, they are collecting their contribution to council tax benefit cost now.
The clause is required simply to ensure that major preceptors which may have exceeded the guideline should pay their contribution to their billing authorities. Amending a clause to prevent them from so doing would simply lead to a shortfall which would have to be made up next year by either or both the preceptor or the billing authorities. That would not leave us in a more rational situation; it would leave us in a less rational situation. In general, I fully accept the strictures about supposedly retrospective legislation but this is a consequence of a power that the Government already had. It is tidying up the effect of that power and making sure the cost lies where it should. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The amendment only becomes irrational if it happens to succeed and, since I have no intention of pressing it, it is not irrational at all. It enabled me to make the point that this retrospection post facto

107
legislation is undesirable. That is what I wish to do and it indicates yet another area of concern about this whole scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Chesham): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Refugee Assistance
  Refugee Assistance
  Relief Supplies: Local Purchase
  Relief Supplies: Local Purchase
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  E. Coli: Survival on Grassland
  E. Coli: Survival on Grassland
  Israel: Actions against Palestinians
  Israel: Actions against Palestinians
  Sudan: Political Prisoners
  Sudan: Political Prisoners
  Sudan: Aid Workers' Security
  Sudan: Aid Workers' Security
  Sudan: Slavery
  Sudan: Slavery
  Sudan: Alleged Terrorist Bombing Involvement
  Sudan: Alleged Terrorist Bombing Involvement
  Colonel Robert Stewart: Blaskic Case
  Colonel Robert Stewart: Blaskic Case
  Romania: Assistance to Mining Industry
  Romania: Assistance to Mining Industry
  Syria: Sanctions against Iraq
  Syria: Sanctions against Iraq
  Estonia: Appointment of Ambassador
  Estonia: Appointment of Ambassador
  Yugoslavia: Non-combatant Casualties
  Yugoslavia: Non-combatant Casualties
  Sudanese Ex-servicemen: British Military Pensions
  Sudanese Ex-servicemen: British Military Pensions
  Serbia: Reconstruction Costs
  Serbia: Reconstruction Costs
  TV and Radio: Sex and Violence Guidelines
  TV and Radio: Sex and Violence Guidelines
  The Tote: Review
  The Tote: Review
  Legal Aid: Salaried System
  Legal Aid: Salaried System
  Fishing Allocations: Carry-over
  Fishing Allocations: Carry-over
  IACS Payments
  IACS Payments