Sitting of 24 May 1999

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

    Benefits Agency Staff
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: How many staff are employed in Benefits Agency offices (a) in Inverclyde and (b) in Scotland as a whole; and what was the equivalent figure in (i) 1990, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1996. [83991]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): At 30 April 1999, the number of BA staff employed in Inverclyde was 242. The number in Scotland was 6,966.
    I am unable to provide further information in the form that my hon. Friend has requested due to district reorganisations. Unfortunately, the figures for Scotland are not available for 1993. Before 1990, there was no Benefits Agency.
    Dr. Godman: Those recent figures sound encouraging enough. Jack Martin and his team of officials have my respect, especially the local customer relations officers, Liz McArthur and Margaret Mitchell, but I have received representations concerning the number of doctors and support staff who carry out medical examinations to determine the award of incapacity and other benefits. Is it true that their number is still too low for the number of examinations that they have to carry out? I hope that my right hon. Friend will dismiss the idea that the Sema Group, which carries out that work for the Benefits Agency, is screwing down the number employed to maximise profits. That would be detrimental to our constituents, who have to wait far too long as it is for such medical examinations.
    Mr. Darling: We keep the number of medical staff throughout the country under review. I am not aware of there being a particular problem in Greenock or in the surrounding area, but I will happily look into it for my hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend may be interested to know that we are recruiting 64 members of staff as part of the new single gateway to the benefits system. One of its pilot projects is operating on the Clyde coast, so he will know about it. I thank him for his compliments to the staff; I know that he has written to them and has been extremely supportive of everything they do. They appreciate that.

    Benefits Fraud
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What progress has been made in improving co-ordination between the Benefits Agency and local authorities in combating fraud. [83992]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): There is good progress on a range of fronts. We have earmarked funding in each Benefits Agency area to help to build stronger links with local authorities. Last month, the Benefits Agency and local

    3
    authorities were invited to submit joint proposals for projects to tackle fraud together. Service level agreements are in place giving each party a clear statement of how co—operation should work in practice. Among other initiatives, we have, so far, installed more than 300 remote access terminals to allow local authorities access to Department of Social Security benefits data.
    Dr. Ladyman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Thanet district council has recently been commended by the benefit fraud inspectorate for its work to prevent and to detect fraud? That accolade was earned after much hard work and as a result of being able to put resources into fraud detection and prevention, which includes co-operation with the Benefits Agency. If the system of weekly benefit savings is to be replaced, will he assure me that the new system will continue to provide councils such as Thanet with the resources that it needs to co-operate with the Benefits Agency and to invest in such fraud detection and prevention?
    Mr. Timms: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I commend the achievements of Thanet district council in tackling fraud. Indeed, I commend the efforts of my hon. Friend, who was the chair of finance at that local authority when the lamentable record of the Conservative administration at Thanet was being turned round.
    A commendation from the benefit fraud inspectorate is based on careful and thorough analysis; it is not lightly given. Last week, I visited the BFI headquarters and was able to see for myself the thoroughness and detailed preparation that go into its important work in all the local authorities that are inspected.
    As in the case of Thanet, the WBS—weekly benefit savings—system has encouraged local authorities to allocate adequate resources to the detection of fraud. That is to be welcomed. We will continue to use WBS with local authorities for some time yet, but we also need to encourage work on prevention; WBS focuses on detection. That is the central purpose of the verification framework, and we are funding local authorities £100 million to implement it.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: One of the best ways in which to combat fraud would be to automate the payment of benefits, but that has been the subject of a long-standing dispute between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security. Will the Minister honestly say what has happened to the ICL contract? We gain lots of information from unattributable briefings to the press. Will he come openly to the House and explain what is going on?
    Mr. Timms: There have been a number of delays with the Horizon project and against that background, the Government commissioned a substantial review of the project, which began last year. Everyone involved—ICL, Post Office Counters Ltd, as well as the Department of Social Security—has been looking again at the project to find a way in which everyone can make a commitment to it. I understand that we can expect an announcement about it from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry later today.

    Minimum Pension Guarantee
    Helen Jones: What estimate he has made of the number of people in Warrington, North who will benefit from the minimum pension guarantee. [83993]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We estimate that approximately 2,000 pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in Warrington, North. The increases in income support rates for pensioners will mean that, this year, in real terms, a single pensioner could be approximately £160 better off.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she tell the House whether it is the Government's intention that, if possible, the minimum pension guarantee will be uprated in line with average earnings? If so, does it not highlight the contrast between the Government's policy of protecting the poorest pensioners, and the Opposition's policy of abolishing that minimum income guarantee?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government's priority is to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, which is why we have been focusing money on them in the way that I have just described. She was also correct to have noticed that the Chancellor announced that we intend, next year, to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that, under those arrangements, according to which the minimum income guarantee is pegged to earnings, whereas the basic pension is pegged to prices, the proportion of people in Warrington, North and across the United Kingdom who are dependent on means-tested benefits will rise indefinitely year on year?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman talks about means testing, but omits to mention that, in 1979—when the Tories took control of Government—16 per cent. of all benefits were means-tested whereas, in May 1997, when they were finally driven from office, that figure had risen to 34 per cent. Therefore, we need absolutely no lessons from Conservative Members about means testing. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Government's priority is to ensure that we get help now to those who need it now. The minimum income guarantee will focus real extra resources on those who need them most.
    Mr. Steve Webb: May I transport the Minister to Warrington, North, in the year 2064—which is the year in which constituents of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) who are born this year will reach state pension age? Will the Minister confirm that, under current policy, the combined value of the full basic state pension and the full state second pension for those people will be below the value of the proposed minimum income guarantee? Does she accept that that proves that the Government's policy is unsustainable?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should stop transporting in time, and start examining the very important changes that we are making to pension

    5
    provision to ensure that we float off means-tested benefit all those who work a full working life—plus people who care. The state second pension will achieve that goal.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I welcome the proposal in the pensions Green Paper to examine ways of helping pensioners in Warrington, North and elsewhere whose small second pension takes them just above income support levels and therefore just beyond eligibility for the minimum income guarantee? Many of those pensioners feel that, despite their modest savings, they are little or no better off than those who are on income support and qualify for other benefits. Will my hon. Friend say when the Government might make such proposals?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that, paradoxically, those who have small occupational pensions and find themselves just above income support levels often end up worse off because they do not receive passported benefits. It is a very difficult issue of public policy, which we are examining. As he will know, we have announced a review of the capital limit, and shall make an announcement on that when we are able to do so.

    Benefits Fraud
    Mr. Michael Jack: When he last reviewed his target for the reduction of benefit fraud for the year 1999–2000. [83994]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): For the first time, we have set a measurable target for reducing fraud and error. Our target is to reduce the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by at least 30 per cent. by 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Pursuant to the reply, a moment ago, of the Minister of State—on the ICL computer project, and the fact that an announcement on it may be made today—may I have the Secretary of State's assurance that, whatever the outcome of his deliberations on a project which has a key part to play in the fight against fraud and inaccuracy, Britain's 23,000 sub-postmasters and postmistresses will continue to have an opportunity to play a key role in the front-line fight against fraud?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Later today, my colleague, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will be making a statement on the matter—
    Mr. Leigh: To the House?
    Mr. Darling: No, he will not be making it to the House. [Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that the problem with the project—which we inherited from the previous Government—is that it is three years late, and that its costs were being overrun. Because of that, my colleagues and I conducted a lengthy review of the project to ensure that we had a system that reduced fraud and errors while helping to safeguard the post office network for the future. I am
    6
    pleased that we have reached an agreement between all the parties. It is a good deal for the Post Office and an extremely good deal for the Benefits Agency.
    Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take points of order until the end of Question Time. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) knows what action he can take if he finds the answer unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the benefit card. Did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read the interesting article in The Sunday Times yesterday that suggested that the national identity card that some of us have been calling for might be announced in the near future? Might that be true, and has the Department of Social Security had any influence over any decision that might be forthcoming?
    Mr. Darling: I read lots of things in the newspapers, some of which are true and some of which are not. That matter of policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State talks about the pathway project knowing that his Department has had a massive involvement in it, but he gives us no information on the situation. Briefings have been given to the Daily Mail, as we saw on Saturday, and to The Independent, in which the Government have deliberately undermined the programme. A written answer by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), when he was a Minister, gave no indication of any problems. He said that the programme would be up and running by the end of the year 2000. Last week, the current Minister of State said the same. Now we are told that the Government are going to make a statement, but not to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the current situation on the programme? Let us hear the answer here first.
    Mr. Darling: I think that we have had enough of the hon. Gentleman's synthetic anger about this. Let me repeat that this is another example of our discovering, on coming to office, that a project begun by the previous Government was not working. It was running three years late. That is why we had to review it to ensure two objectives. The first is to safeguard the post office network, which we have done. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The second was to ensure that we can make payments as effectively, cheaply and efficiently as possible to Benefits Agency customers. We have sorted out the mess. If the hon. Gentleman wants further information in the House or elsewhere, it is perfectly possible for him to get it through the usual channels, as he knows full well.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The usual channels have twice produced anodyne answers, such as the statement that the programme is due to go ahead with no problems. Never has there been an admission of a problem in a written answer. The Government are prepared to brief the press

    7
    about problems, but not once do they say anything to the House. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to pledge at the Dispatch Box that, as a result of whatever decision that the Government make, pensioners and disabled people will still be able to receive their full range of benefits, as was the plan, through local post offices?
    Mr. Darling: Yes of course they will, as they can at the moment. I repeat that the project was three years late and was not working. That is why the Government had to review it. We have had long discussions with ICL, the supplier. The hon. Gentleman would hardly expect those discussions to be taking place on the front pages of the newspapers.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman briefed the papers.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself, particularly when he is making wild and unsubstantiated allegations. We are acting in the best interests of the Benefits Agency and the post office network to ensure that we get payments into the hands of people who are entitled to them, to reduce the amount of fraud and error in the system and safeguard the post office network. When people see the announcement later today, they will understand that we have protected the public interest, unlike the Conservative party.

    War Pensions
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What plans he has to improve the take-up of war pensions among ex-service personnel and civilians injured by hostile acts in world war two. [83996]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled to war pensions receive them and we are actively looking at ways of improving our communication with ex-service men, such as the use of a claims telephone helpline.
    Take-up is assured for those ex-service men who leave the forces on health grounds and for the families of those who die in service as, under arrangements between this Department and the Ministry of Defence, neither they nor their widows have to claim. In addition, the War Pensions Agency will arrange for a member of its welfare service to visit any recently bereaved widow of a war pensioner within 15 days of a request to do so and help her make any appropriate claim.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend share my experience from constituency surgeries, which suggests that many veterans or civilians injured in the second world war who did not claim war pensions at the time, but who now find that their injuries are becoming more severe as they get on in years, may not be aware that they are entitled to claim those pensions? That is particularly the case among civilians who were injured. Will he pay particular attention in the review to trying to bring those rights to the attention of those affected?
    Mr. Bayley: The war pensions scheme for civilians applied only to the second world war and is now largely finished. The scheme had a time limit for claims of three
    8
    months from the date on which the injury causing the disablement was sustained; however, the Secretary of State has the discretion to waive that limit in certain circumstances. These days, 50 years after the end of the war, we still get a small number of applications each year for such waivers to be made. That facet of the scheme, as well as all other parts of it, is advertised as widely as possible through leaflets and posters in some 13,000 outlets around the country. The scheme is also advertised in every telephone directory, and in many other ways. We always look to make sure that those who are entitled to a war pension have every opportunity to claim and receive it.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that probably the best network for reaching war widows and others who may be entitled to war pensions is via regimental and corps associations? Will he confirm that, in addition to the work that his Department does with the Royal British Legion, it tries to ensure that all the regimental associations, which do so much for the welfare and benefit of old comrades and their families, are kept fully in touch about the benefits to which those people are entitled?
    Mr. Bayley: I can confirm that we work with the regimental associations, and we issue leaflets and posters to regimental museums. We make sure that all those who leave the armed forces are given information about how to claim, should they need to do so at some time in the future.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a degree of confusion at the heart of Government about the relationship between war widows pensions and housing benefit. He will recall that, on 20 May last year, at column 952 of the Official Report, the Prime Minister, in response to a reasonable question from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), promised a review of that relationship. This year, on 12 May, at column 315 of the Official Report, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what had been done about that review, and was given a contradictory answer. The following day, the Leader of the House gave another contradictory view, saying that responsibility for the matter had been transferred to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a definitive reason why nothing has happened in a whole year, despite the Prime Minister's promise? Is the indecision of the Government final on this matter?
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am—not least because of his links with Yorkshire and the campaigning of the Yorkshire Post—that the discretion lies with the local authority in that matter. As a member of my Department, I know that, under the law as it stands, the discretion lies with the local authority.

    Benefits Take-Up
    Mr. David Kidney: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [83997]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security: We are particularly concerned about pensioners being worse off than they need to be because they are not receiving the help to which they are entitled through the minimum income guarantee. The pilot projects that we set up last year were designed to test new ways of identifying potential beneficiaries and the best way of encouraging them to claim. We will examine the results when they become available and make proposals as soon as we are in a position to do so.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the minimum income guarantee's future reliability depends on ensuring that pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled? Is he aware that South Staffordshire district, part of which lies in my constituency, was one of the pilot areas? Can he confirm that often pensioners who do not claim their income support entitlement nevertheless claim other help, such as council tax benefit and housing benefit? Will he instil into all Benefits Agency staff the approach that pensioners who come to them who are entitled to receive income support will indeed receive it?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. Like him, I am interested in the fact that more people seem willing to claim council tax benefit and housing benefit, even though they are means-tested, than are willing to claim the minimum income guarantee. There are some important lessons for us to learn. We look forward to the results of the pilots in his area and in others so that we can find out what those lessons are.
    Members of Parliament should take the opportunities that we have to point out to people that the minimum income guarantee is an entitlement. Tomorrow morning, I shall participate in a virtual conference for older people, on-line with older people throughout the country, taking advantage of the fact that many of them are internet users. I have no doubt that the minimum income guarantee will be one of the many subjects raised.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am sure that many hon. Members will have received visits in their surgeries from pensioners rendered very anxious by the extension of means testing to incapacity benefit, widows benefit and other basic state benefits, through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. How does the Secretary of State intend to deal with the disincentive to save that the measures will produce?
    Mr. Timms: There is no disincentive to save. We want to ensure that even the least well-off pensioners in our society can share in the benefits of rising national prosperity. The increases in the minimum income guarantee this year and next will mean an extra £250 a year for a single pensioner on income support, and up to £400 for a couple in which one partner is over 80. Those are large sums that can make a significant difference to the least well-off pensioners in our society.
    Through the state second pension, in combination with the minimum income guarantee, we are ensuring that all those who work and contribute throughout their lives will, when they retire, receive an income above the level of the minimum income guarantee. Those two measures in
    10
    tandem mean that we can ensure that there are good incentives to save but that the least well-off pensioners will share in our rising national prosperity.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does my hon. Friend have a recent estimate of the number of elderly people not claiming means-tested income support? Are there any early indications—either virtual or non-virtual—from the pilot schemes? What is the target for the number not claiming that entitlement in 10 years' time? Does he agree that if we are to have a genuine pension guarantee we must find more sensitive and effective ways of ensuring that every person who is entitled to income support—many are in their 80s or 90s—actually gets it?
    Mr. Timms: I have much in common with my hon. Friend on this point. We estimate that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but have not claimed it. We are reviewing the figures, and we expect to have revised figures by the summer. We are considering a range of approaches to the problem. It is interesting to note that in some areas the take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit is as high as 95 per cent., but the take-up rate for the minimum income guarantee among the same population is a good deal lower.
    We are not setting a target for the take-up in 10 years' time, but we are anxious, through new methods such as telephone claims, which will make claiming easier, to ensure that as many pensioners as possible receive the minimum income guarantee to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to anxiety caused to pensioners by Government policies. Will not much more gratuitous anxiety have been caused to millions of pensioners who collect their benefits from post offices, and to post office staff, by the Secretary of State's reluctant admission just now at the Dispatch Box, which was dragged out of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), that the pathway project was facing problems? There were two disgraceful, unsatisfactory and unacceptable aspects to that admission. First, if it is true that there had been problems for several years, why was my hon. Friend given a deceptive parliamentary answer last week on the pathway project that did not mention any problems? Secondly, why did the Secretary of State say that the answer to the question will be given not by him but by some other Minister in a different context? The people of this country will begin to wonder why we waste our time with Question Time if this Government intend systematically to bypass Parliament.
    Mr. Timms: It is Conservative Members who are doing the scaremongering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt fully with the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for the Post Office and that is why he will make the announcement later today.

    Student Housing Allowances
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What representations he has received on housing allowances for students from (a) Scotland and (b) England. [83998]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have received several representations concerning students' entitlement to housing benefit. Most full-time students are not entitled to housing benefit because they are supported through the educational maintenance system. Certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, can claim benefit.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the complex constituency case that was brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during his visit to the excellent Bathgate office of the Department, and in the light of the background with which my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar, is there any hope of improvement in the situation of those mature students who are, rightly or wrongly, dependent to some extent—possibly completely—on housing allowances for the continuance of their education at institutes of higher education where they are well received?
    Angela Eagle: I am aware of the constituent's case to which my hon. Friend refers. He wished to take a full-time course, but had he taken a part-time course, he would still have had access to his housing benefit. He had been unemployed for three months which rendered him ineligible for new deal, which might have given him the opportunity to do a full-time course and still have access to benefit or to undertake training for work, for which an individual must be unemployed for six months. The training opportunities are focused on periods of unemployment of six months or two years to give assistance to those who have fallen out of the labour market to try to make them more employable. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and we will bear it in mind during our review of housing benefit.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Minister made an assessment of how many students will be eligible for housing allowances and benefits when the introduction of tuition fees takes effect? May I assure the House, Madam Speaker, that I am not a Labour rebel, as I was described in a leading newspaper last week, but that I am and remain a Conservative loyalist?
    Angela Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Lady was glad to get that off her chest. Newspapers seem to think that any women Member of Parliament must be a Labour Member. I wonder why that is. I am not certain what point the hon. Lady was making about housing benefit. The only people who are entitled to receive housing benefit if they are studying are those in vulnerable groups. Lone parents qualify, but others would not.

    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: If he will make a statement on the proposed changes to severe disablement allowance. [84000]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The proposed changes to severe disablement allowance will give more help to those with the greatest need.
    12
    Young disabled people under the age of 20—or under 25 in the case of higher education students or trainees—will be given access to incapacity benefit without having to satisfy the usual contribution conditions. As a result, after one year on benefit, they will gain by up to £26.40 a week.
    Mr. Fraser: The Government set up the disability benefits forum last year, but 12 major charities with interests in disability and severe disability have since resigned from it. How does the Minister explain that? The forum was described as giving the disabled a "pivotal" role in shaping policy. How does he intend to replace those important charities?
    Mr. Bayley: Naturally, I regret that the charities withdrew from the forum. They have made an important contribution to the development of the Government's welfare reform proposals on disability benefits although, ultimately, there were areas of disagreement. That is perfectly obvious to the House, and it would be extraordinary if a Government followed each and every proposal made by the charities. Any hon. Member who had read the representations made in response to the consultation document would form that view, not least because on many occasions the charities argued for different things.
    However, the Government will retain the working groups. They have been extremely useful, for instance, in shaping the alternative to the benefit integrity project. Those working group meetings continue and remain useful. The Government will stay in close touch with all the bodies representing disabled people, such as Mencap, which remained in the forum. It is important that we are in dialogue with those organisations.
    Mr. David Bendel: Does the Minister accept that the abolition of severe disablement allowance will hit especially hard those who in early adulthood have caring responsibilities for children, for people who are disabled, or for elderly parents? Such people often are unable to make national insurance contributions, and so are not eligible for incapacity benefit. If their marriage partners have incomes of their own, they probably will not be eligible for any means-tested benefits either. Is it not rather unfair that people who, through no fault of their own, become incapacitated after several years of looking after other people will get no recompense for their loss of earning capacity?
    Mr. Bayley: If we were doing nothing for carers, the hon. Gentleman would be right, but we are doing a great deal for such people—as I should have thought the hon. Gentleman, who sat through the Committee proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, would know. For example, we have taken the decision that all carers entitled to incapacity benefit will carry that entitlement through the period that they receive invalid care allowance for as long as is required. Also, carers will be credited into the state second pension. That will mean that, for the first time, people who forgo a job to care for a relative or some other person will not be left in poverty in retirement as a result.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does not the Minister accept that disabled people, and organisations of

    13
    and for disabled people, know most about their own needs? Does he not accept that the overwhelming weight of evidence given to the all-party disablement group and other Members of the House is against the Government's proposals? Last week's vote on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill indicated that there are grave reservations among Labour Members on this matter. Will the Government therefore think again when the Bill goes before the House of Lords?
    Mr. Bayley: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would read the representations from the charities and other voluntary bodies in response to the Government's consultation document. They welcomed many of the things that the Government are doing. For instance, they strongly welcomed our decision to raise people who are disabled at birth or early in life above the level provided by the severe disablement allowance. Whereas 70 per cent. of those people used to be left on means-tested benefits for life, we are providing that they should be passported on to incapacity benefits. That will leave them about £26 a week better off.
    The representations also welcomed our decision to extend the higher rate mobility component in disability living allowance to children of three and four years of age. The right hon. Gentleman should look at what the charities say, as they welcome most of what the Government propose.
    Mrs. Theresa May: As another female Conservative Member of Parliament, may I point out to the Minister how pleased I am to do something that too many of the Blair babes hardly ever do—stand up for disabled people and women? The Minister responded rather coyly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), saying that there had been something of a disagreement between the former members of the disability forum and the Government. It was not just a disagreement: the disability organisations thought that the Government had got it wrong. We think so too, and so do 67 of the Minister's hon. Friends. When will the Government wake up to reality? Their changes to disability benefits are not the right thing for disabled people, but a betrayal of those people.
    Mr. Bayley: There are few enough women Members on the Conservative Benches. It will not have escaped the memory of Members who were here before the general election that a woman Conservative Member tabled dozens of amendments to wreck a Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which would have extended civil rights to disabled people. For Conservative Members to pose as people who support disabled people's rights is a travesty of the truth, and disabled people and the voluntary bodies which represent them know it.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend remember how, in the previous Parliament, a Labour private Member's Bill to help the disabled was so badly wrecked by the Conservative Government that the daughter of the then Minister for the Disabled disowned what was being done, and the Minister himself resigned
    14
    soon afterwards? Did not that incident show the Tory Government's total contempt for disabled people, and does it not expose the Tory party's present hypocrisy?
    Mr. Bayley: It was a Labour Government who introduced the Commission for Racial Equality to provide civil rights for people regardless of their race. It was a Labour Government who introduced the Equal Opportunities Commission to do the same in respect of gender. The Conservatives blocked civil rights for disabled people, so it is a Labour Government who are introducing legislation that will set up a Disability Rights Commission to guarantee civil rights for disabled people.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to increase local authority discretion in respect of the payment of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [84001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have announced our intention to publish a housing Green Paper later in the year. A modern housing policy should ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. The Green Paper will discuss options to address weaknesses in the current system of housing and housing benefit within our overall objectives for welfare reform.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that, in many areas, housing benefit has become a subsidy for some of the worst landlords? The interests of both taxpayer and tenant might be better served if local authorities were given some discretion over which kind of landlords were eligible to receive housing benefit. I appreciate that my hon. Friend may tell me that the benefit goes to the tenant, not the landlord, but she knows that, although that happens in theory, in practice the money often goes directly to the landlord without touching the tenant's pocket.
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will consider it in our overall review. In November 1997, we introduced more discretion for local authorities to stop direct payment to landlords who are not fit and proper. That allows local authorities to enter into dialogue with local private sector landlords to ensure that correct standards are maintained, and to raise standards in some cases.
    I hope that local authorities will take the new power seriously and use it where necessary. I have visited some local authorities that respond proactively to the local private sector by holding meetings to ensure that standards are correct. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing recently published a consultation document on the regulation of houses in multiple occupation. My hon. Friend is on to something, and we are aware of the improvements that need to be made.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When the hon. Lady says that her hon. Friend is on to something, it is the understatement of the year. Is he not on to one of the biggest frauds and rackets in the administration of public money? How can the public have confidence that action

    15
    will be taken? The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said in the House that the Government
    "will bring forward proposals … shortly"—[Official Report, 19 March 1998;Vol.308,c.1436.],
    yet we will not necessarily get a Green Paper until the end of this year.
    Ought not the Government to name and shame those local authorities in which there is maladministration of the system? The Audit Commission found clear evidence of fraud on the part of either elected representatives or officers in a quarter of the local authorities that it visited. That is a national disgrace.
    Angela Eagle: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's realisation that the housing benefit system, which was created by the previous Conservative Administration, is in need of much improvement. I also note, although it was not quite an apology, his indirect admission that in creating housing benefit and ensuring that its administration was fragmented to 409 different local authorities, particular difficulties of administration were created. Some local authorities administer the housing benefit system superbly and some do it very badly indeed.
    One question that we are considering is how we can raise the standard of the worst to the best. We have already done a lot with respect to fraud. We have set up a simplification and improvement project, which has reported to the Prime Minister, to find out how we can make a complex system easier to understand and administer. We will continue our drive to improve standards in that area.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, the biggest ripper-off of public funds is the landlord who buys a cheap terraced property in a constituency such as mine for £5,000 and can pay for it with housing benefit within 18 months. That is an abuse of public money and it needs clamping down on and stopping.
    Angela Eagle: It is that sort of matter that the review of housing policy and benefit will be considering. We will be publishing a Green Paper later in the year. We are as aware as anyone of some of the bad administration and the rip-offs that occur as a result of the system that we inherited. However, I caution hon. Members that we are talking about the roof over people's heads, so we have to be careful how we change a system on which many millions of people rely. We will do it, and there will be a lot of consultation around the Green Paper. We are serious about reform, but we must not underestimate the complexity or the seriousness of the issues that face us as we approach the publication of the Green Paper on housing policy later this year.

    Benefits Fraud
    Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on his policy for the detection of organised benefit fraud. [84002]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have a national team of highly trained investigators in the Benefits Agency

    16
    security investigation service, which exists to counter the threat of organized fraud. I visited its office in Manchester recently and was impressed with what I saw. Last year, just over 650 cases were accepted for prosecution as a result of the service's work. In addition, we have commissioned an independent review of the Government's approach to tackling organized fraud in social security, which will report in the autumn.
    Mr. Forth: Why is the London organised fraud investigation team being wound up?
    Mr. Timms: Because of serious concerns about the way in which it operated. We are learning the lessons from that experience. That is why, in February, I asked John Scampion, the commissioner of the social fund, to carry out a review of our approach to organised fraud. He is extremely well placed to carry out the work owing to his familiarity with the benefits system—he was the local authority chief executive at Solihull for 18 years.
    This is an area in which we in the Department need to work together with local authorities. Of course, the problem also affects the private sector. Last week, I joined the Association of British Insurers for the launch of its fraud web site, which has a link to the DSS fraud web pages, which gave me a chance once again to promote the need for all of us who are affected by fraud to co-operate in tackling it.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Government have promised an announcement later today on the benefit card, and as one of the reasons for it was that it should act as an effective measure against fraud, does my hon. Friend have to hand the figures for the savings that taxpayers would have made had ICL delivered it on time? If not, can he make them available in the Library before the end of the day?
    Mr. Timms: I do not have the figures to hand. If they are available, I shall ensure that they are placed in the Library.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister understand that virtual reality is no answer to the staggering amount of fraud in the system? Why are the Government reducing investigation and the emphasis on detection? Does he believe that detection and prevention are incompatible?
    Mr. Timms: No; that is nonsense. We are not reducing the effort at all. We are making sure that there is proper attention to prevention, and not just detection. That is the basis of the strategy that we published in March. We are measuring the amount of fraud in the system systematically for the first time, and we will reduce it. Through such measurements, we will be able to demonstrate that we are reducing it, as the hon. Gentleman will see.

    Minimum Pension Guarantee
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What estimate he has made of the cost of linking the minimum income guarantee for pensions to average earnings. [84003]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We intend to raise the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings as resources allow, so that even the least well-off among today's pensioners can share in rising prosperity. We have pledged to raise it in line with earnings next April and estimate that that will cost an additional £220 million.
    Mr. Corbyn: As the Secretary of State accepts the need to raise the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, does he not accept that the basic state pension should also be raised in line with earnings, instead of being raised only in line with prices, which means that pensioners are significantly worse off than they were when the Tories broke the link? Should not the Government at least redress that imbalance?
    Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, because that would not help the poorest pensioners. I have made it clear in the House before that the Government's priority is to address a major problem that we faced on coming into office: the fact that many pensioners live on very low incomes. That is why we are investing more than £4 billion over this Parliament. The new minimum income guarantee for pensioners targets help on the poorest pensioners. We have increased the winter fuel allowance fivefold, to £100, for every pensioner household, starting this winter. We have also reformed pensions in the long term, particularly through the new state second pension, which will greatly increase the pension that low earners can accrue during their lifetimes.
    The Government's strategy is to do far more than ever before to help pensioners who have lost out because of the policies of the previous Government. My hon. Friend's proposal would benefit middle and some higher income pensioners, but poorer pensioners would not benefit at all, which we want to avoid. I believe that the Government's strategy is right because it does more to help the pensioners who need help most.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Why do Ministers continue to say, more in hope than belief, that there is no disincentive to save? I am sure that the Secretary of State saw the reply to the parliamentary question that I tabled earlier this month showing that a single pensioner receives £60 a week more if he has done nothing to save for his retirement than someone who has savings of more than £16,000. The accumulated facts show that it would cost £43,000 to buy an annuity with that return. [Interruption.] Those facts were revealed in an answer given by the Minister of State, who is even now briefing the Secretary of State. Does not that mean that people must save £43,000 or not bother at all? Is not that the most massive disincentive to saving?
    Mr. Darling: No. The hypothesis behind the hon. Gentleman's question is unrealistic. Pensioners in the position that he described would have a SERPS entitlement that he seems to have ignored. Let me deal with the minimum income guarantee, which is what he is complaining about. As I understand it, in so far as the Conservatives have a policy on welfare, they are against the minimum income guarantee. That would mean that 1.5 million pensioners would lose out immediately.
    The Government's clear priority is to help the poorest pensioners. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, he must accept that the logic of what he says is to remove
    18
    the support that we give them so that they would be poorer still. Most people would think it right to help pensioners who, often through no fault of their own, are on very low incomes. That is why we increased the minimum income guarantee, which will mean that some pensioners will gain £160 in real terms—something that the Tory party would have denied them.
    The Tory party has to come clean with people; if Tory Members are against the minimum income guarantee, they must be in favour of reducing the income and the living standards of 1.5 million pensioners.

    Maternity Costs
    Siobhain McDonagh: What plans he has to assist mothers with the costs of maternity. [84004]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are extending maternity allowance to women who earn £30 a week or more and increasing it for self-employed women, who currently receive less benefit than employed women. The existing social fund maternity payment will be replaced with a sure start maternity grant from April 2000, and doubled from £100 to £200 for each child.
    Those improvements will give low-earning mothers-to-be some financial help towards the costs of a new baby, enable them to take their full entitlement to maternity leave and help them to achieve a better balance between work and family life. It will be good for their standard of living, good for their health and good for the health of their babies.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware of how widely welcomed the extension of maternity allowance to less well paid women and the new maternity grant have been? Does he agree that that will allow less well-off mothers to stay in touch with the workplace? Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything that it can to be involved in the Government-wide plans for family-friendly policies in the workplace?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues. This package of policies demonstrates joined-up Government at its best. People widely welcome the doubling of maternity payment from £100 to £200. People should also be aware that the person claiming has to be in touch with health professionals, so that individuals can obtain advice on how to bring up their new child. Those improvements are welcomed throughout the country and throughout the House by everyone apart from Conservative Members who, last week, voted against the extension of maternity allowance.

    Benefits Fraud
    Mr. Derek Twigg: What plans he has to minimise fraud in the administration of housing benefit. [84005]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): "Safeguarding Social Security", published in March, makes it clear that we are developing a benefit system that is secure from start to

    19
    finish. We have already taken a number of steps to make the administration of housing benefit more secure. Those steps include providing £100 million to fund a rigorous programme of checks by local authorities on the authenticity of claims. We have also introduced a scheme, in conjunction with the Royal Mail, to prevent fraudsters from redirecting postal payments.
    Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The previous Government did nothing about benefit fraud. Is not the level of fraud that we inherited from that Government unacceptable? Will my hon. Friend do all that she can to work with local authorities to ensure best practice; and, more important, will she ensure that that best practice is spread throughout local government?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. Some local authorities are extremely good at administering housing benefit, while others fail and fall below the kind of standard that we would expect. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing is introducing best value pilots, which will include housing benefit and will set—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Conservative Members seem to think that sitting there and sneering about the Government's plans is somehow—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Members on the Opposition Front Bench must remain silent while the answer is being given. I want no running commentaries from them—or from Members on the Benches behind them, for that matter.
    Angela Eagle: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hooligan element has taken over the Tory party; all Tory Members can do is sneer—they have no policies.
    20
    As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, the best value pilots will set benchmarks of good administration for housing benefit that can be followed by other local authorities. We have also included housing benefit and council tax benefit in the new work-focused single gateway pilots. We have been carrying out some prototypes between local authorities and the Benefits Agency to improve administration. Those prototypes have resulted in spectacular improvements, so we are considering how we can spread that throughout the whole country.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will the Minister confirm that a recent Audit Commission report shows that, in no fewer than 25 per cent. of local authorities visited, the commission found evidence of fraud committed by officers or members of the local authority? Does she agree that that disgraceful situation should be addressed urgently, ahead of other reforms to the housing benefit system?
    Angela Eagle: If the hon. Gentleman had read the rest of the reports, he would realise that they both compliment the Government on the progress made in detecting and reducing fraud. I agree that such an incidence of officer or councillor fraud is utterly unacceptable, and we are producing a whole strategy to deal with it. Perhaps he should sit back and reflect on how he went through the Lobby and helped the Tory Government to create a housing benefit system that is so fragmented and fractured that it is extremely difficult to administer efficiently.

Freedom of Information Draft Bill
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about freedom of information, on which I have today published a draft Bill and consultation paper. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
In December 1997, the Government published a White Paper entitled "Your Right to Know". I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his work on that document, which underpins the draft Bill. I am also very grateful to the Select Committee on Public Administration for its consideration of the White Paper's proposals.
In drafting the Bill, we had to strike a careful balance three ways, between extending the public's access to information, protecting citizens' own privacy, and preserving confidentiality where disclosure itself would be against the public interest. That has been a difficult balancing act, but I think that we have got it right. The scales are weighted decisively in favour of openness, and the proposals will radically change the relationship between Government and citizens.
The proposals are not merely about abstract rights, to the benefit of academics, historians or constitutional theorists alone, important though all those are. The proposals will benefit everyone and provide access to the sort of information that people really want to know: parents will be better able to find out how schools apply their admissions policies; patients will be able to understand how hospitals allocate resources between different treatments and how they prioritise waiting lists; and citizens will be able to find out more about the actions of their local police force.
Under the Bill, for the first time, everyone will have the right of access to information held by bodies across the public sector. There will be a duty on public authorities to adopt a scheme for the publication of information about their work; a positive duty on authorities, even where they are not obliged to provide such information, to consider disclosure on public interest grounds; and a new Information Commissioner, together with a new information tribunal, to enforce the rights which are created.
Let me now explain to the House how the draft Bill compares with the White Paper's proposals. On which bodies are to be covered, the Bill's proposals are a little wider than those of the White Paper. All the functions of the police and police authorities are to be covered as the Select Committee proposed, with specific exemptions for information which is gained as part of an investigation or which relates to informers. The security and intelligence agencies, now together with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, will remain outside the scope of the Bill. We are discussing how Parliament can be included without prejudicing parliamentary privilege.
Unlike the current code, the White Paper promised access to specific documents and actual records—the Bill delivers that promise. Applicants for information may express a preference for the means of communication of the record: inspection of originals, a copy, or a summary of the information that is sought.
22
The White Paper set out seven areas to be covered by exemptions, together with other information that would be excluded from the Bill. It also set out conditions on the right of access. The Bill delivers broadly the same exemptions as the White Paper, but the tests involved do differ.
As to policy advice, there was never any expectation that Cabinet documents, inter-ministerial correspondence and official papers on developing policy would ever be disclosed under a freedom of information regime. As the White Paper said:
"Now more than ever the Government needs space and time in which to assess arguments and conduct its own debates with a degree of privacy."
Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the product of such private deliberations is almost always a public announcement of policy.
Under the Bill, there will be a class exemption for the formulation of Government policy in place of the simple harm test in the White Paper, which we believe will achieve the same purpose in a more straightforward way. The White Paper proposed a substantial harm test to cover six specified interests in addition to policy advice, which was to be covered by a simple harm test. After careful consideration, we reached the view that a single omnibus substantial harm test could not work properly for the range of exemptions proposed. What is or may be "substantial" in relation to law enforcement may not be so in relation to international relations. We believe that the harm concerned must be capable of being interpreted in relation to the subject matter that it is designed to cover.
Therefore, where national security is an issue, the test now proposed is whether the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding it. Where the health and safety of an individual is at issue, the test now proposed is whether disclosure would or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual. Elsewhere the proposed test is whether disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the criteria set out in the relevant exemption.
These tests will result in a more open regime than under the existing non-statutory code of practice. Under the code, the test is the possibility of harm being caused. Under the draft Bill, the test is a higher one of probability. Generally, the Information Commissioner will have the power to substitute his or her judgment as to disclosure for that of the public authority. He or she will be able to ensure that public authorities are not able to claim that prejudice would be caused in circumstances where this would be trivial or frivolous. The prejudice has to be real, actual or of "substance". In respect of policy advice, the commissioner will be able to challenge the reasonableness of a Minister's decision against disclosure.
There are two areas where the White Paper suggested that a harm test would apply where in fact such a test turns out to be impractical: these are personal information and information supplied in confidence. First, the disclosure of personal information is governed by our obligations to comply with the European Community data protection directive and the European convention on human rights. The convention and directive do not provide for the application of a harm test, and we cannot therefore unilaterally provide for one ourselves.
Secondly, we believe it would be wrong to overturn in the Bill duties of confidence that arise at common law. Those doing business with public authorities have the

23
[Mr. Jack Straw]
right to ensure that their confidences are respected. In many cases, public authorities need access to information held by others, which they in turn will be prepared to release only if given an undertaking of confidentiality. Where information is supplied to a public authority in those circumstances, the public authority should not be required to disclose it if that would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by the supplier of the information.
Let me turn now to the enforcement provisions for the new regime. An Information Commissioner will enforce the regime, and there will be rights of appeal against decisions of the commissioner to a tribunal, with a further appeal, on a point of law, to the courts.
The Select Committee on Public Administration said in its report that there was a need for coherence between the data protection regime and the freedom of information regime, with a "simple and comprehensive" right of access to each. We agree. Many requests for information will be for a mixture of personal and general information. We shall therefore merge the office of the Data Protection Commissioner with that of the Information Commissioner.
The cost of all the proposals when fully implemented is forecast to be between £90 million and £125 million a year. A task force to assist implementation, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, has been established. The Bill is compatible with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will now be subject to extensive consultation with the public and Parliament, including the Select Committee on Public Administration.
I have spoken today of the need to balance rights. There is a right to know, a right to privacy and a right to confidentiality. For too long, we have given insufficient weight to the right to know. The proposals in the draft Bill seek to redress that balance.
This Government have done more than any other to open their workings to greater scrutiny by the public. In our manifesto, we promised a programme of constitutional reform to get citizens more closely involved in the decisions that affect their everyday lives. We have delivered, as promised, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. We are bringing rights home through the Human Rights Act 1998, and today we are taking forward our pledge on freedom of information.
I commend these radical and balanced proposals to the House.
Sir Norman Fowler: Before responding, I must declare an interest as a journalist and chairman of a regional newspaper company. I hope that, on this occasion, the Home Secretary has heard that declaration.
We welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has chosen, on this occasion, to make a statement on the Floor of the House. I hope, however, that he is aware that, after the past two years, many Members of the House, not all of them Conservatives, will need persuading that the Government have their heart in freedom of information.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
Sir Norman Fowler: I do not think that I should take an intervention at this point.
24
The one action by the Home Secretary that we remember above all others was his obtainment, earlier this year, of an injunction against the whole of the British media to prevent publication of a few paragraphs of the Macpherson report, which was, in any event, to be published a few days later. Will he explain to the House how he squares that with all his words about freedom of information?
Our concern is increased not only by the fact that the clause that sets out the exemptions to freedom of information is the longest in the draft Bill and that the exemptions go way beyond national security, but by the fact that, in one vital respect, the test for withholding information has unquestionably been made easier. The White Paper proposed the test based on the question
"will the disclosure of the information cause substantial harm?"
The Home Secretary is now proposing a test based on the question whether disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice matters set out in the exemption in question.
Does not that mark a retreat from the White Paper and a reduction of the test in the previous Government's code of conduct, and was it not argued against inside Government by several Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor? In the lengthy negotiations in Whitehall, have not the Government Departments and the civil service won the battle in what they regard as a damage limitation exercise?
I have some questions about specific details of the statement. Is the Home Secretary saying that none of the submissions that come to Ministers will be available for publication, even though many of them are factual statements of the position in a particular policy area? Has he rejected any substantial change to the 30-year rule, given that it has clearly broken down in many respects? Will he say more about the costs of the new system? He said in his statement that they would be between £90 million and £125 million. Will the Government reimburse bodies such as the police, or will costs go where they fall?
Above all, will the Home Secretary confirm that the Government could and should become more open without any legislation? I remind him of the way in which he personally blocked all questions about the leak inquiry concerning the Macpherson report. Does he remember that, on 4 March, I asked him not for the identity of those who were to be interviewed, but whether Ministers, officials and special advisers would be interviewed? His written reply stated:
"It would not be in the interests of the leak investigation now under way to give these details."—[Official Report, 4 March 1999;Vol.326,c.855.]
That does not sound like a Minister who is committed to freedom of information.
How will the Bill affect the Government's refusal to disclose the fact that a European Union Committee is considering nearly 200 taxes—twice the number previously thought—for tax harmonisation? Is it not strange that the Dutch Finance Ministry confirmed that freely over the weekend, while the Treasury yesterday told the press that it was "confidential"?

25
Our aim will be to make this legislation effective, but if the Government want more openness in public bodies, they must take the lead and set an example. So far, there is precious little evidence of that.
Mr. Straw: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's specific points, and then with the general one. He asserts that the proposals will result in a reduction of the test in the previous Government's code of conduct.
Sir Norman Fowler: And the White Paper.
Mr. Straw: As I explained in my statement, that assertion is incorrect because the Bill will result in a strengthening of the test in the previous Government's code of conduct. Their harm test was simply one of a possibility of harm, but this is of a probability of harm. Yes, the tests differ from those proposed in the White Paper; there is no dubiety about that. I have explained the reasons. On further examination, we found that had we kept to the substantial harm test, information which, unquestionably, could have caused harm to, for example, the national interest in respect of national security or to a law enforcement investigation, but would not have fallen into the category of substantial harm, could have been disclosed. We think that that would itself have been harmful. For that reason, we have gone for more straightforward, simple harm tests.
As I said, the harm tests that we have proposed must ensure—and will be required to ensure—that the harm concerned is real, actual or of substance. We are not talking about an assertion by Ministers, or anybody else, that something could cause a trivial or minor degree of harm; it must be of substance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, under clause 27, none of the submissions that go to Ministers would be disclosable, including factual statements. Factual statement background information is potentially disclosable; it depends which part of the Bill it falls under. Importantly, every Department will have to establish a code of practice for the publication of information. In my view, Departments should be separating argumentative policy advice documents from those which provide background information, and ensuring that background information is disclosable. Moreover, one of the big differences between this Bill and the code which preceded it is that the proposals will be enshrined in legislation and will secure a major change in culture.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what the Government did to become more open even before this Bill was published. Pages 1 and 2 of the consultative document set out a good deal of information about the sort of changes that have been made, where the Government have already introduced major improvements in openness.
Since I became Secretary of State, my Department has put its statisticians on a proper independent footing. No longer, as for my predecessor, is the date of publication of crime data in the gift of Ministers, who then manipulate it to suit their political purpose. We have published all operational manuals relating to the immigration and nationality directorate, except those relating to law enforcement.
26
When I came to office, more than a dozen reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons were sitting on the Secretary of State's desk—some more than a year old—waiting for him to approve publication. I have established a clear protocol so that those documents must be published, whether I like it or not, within six weeks. Many of my colleagues throughout Whitehall have similarly ensured that there is much more openness than there ever was under the last Administration.
We are all delighted to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that his aim is, on behalf of the Opposition, to make the legislation effective. There is always room for a Pauline conversion. As some of us remember, in the Conservative campaign guide the whole Tory party stated that there was
"no need for a Freedom of Information Act"
and that
"the only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."
In our judgment, all British citizens are interested in a Freedom of Information Act, and we are delivering it.
Dr. David Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and congratulate him sincerely on his draft Bill. It marks a new stage in the struggle to sweep away the cloak of secrecy that has engulfed British society for too long, and means that for the first time our citizens will have a statutory right to information. I also thank my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he is taking the Bill forward, and for allowing wide discussions both inside and outside the House.
The Bill is in some respects slightly different from the White Paper, as I would expect, but I have no difficulty in going along with most aspects of it. I would, however, like elucidation of one issue: that of prejudice and substantial harm. My right hon. Friend said that prejudice would have to be of substance. Can we not write that into the Bill? It would be very reassuring.
Mr. Straw: I, in turn, thank my right hon. Friend for his generous comments.
My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that the Bill will, above all, change the culture in which Governments operate. This is the first time that any citizen in this country will have a right to information from Government, and Government will have to say why information should not be provided rather than citizens' having to say why it should be provided. That is a profound change from the climate that we found when we came to office.
As for my right hon. Friend's substantive point—or, rather, the point on which he differs with me—he asked whether the Bill could state that prejudice must be actual, real or of substance. I will certainly consider that, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, following the Pepper v. Hart judgment by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, if an issue relating to the interpretation of the Bill and of prejudice comes to court, their lordships in the Appellate Committee take account of what Ministers have said in explanation. I am sure that any court will take account of the definition that I have used—
"real, actual or of substance"—
whether or not it is possible to write it into the Bill. That is one of the reasons why I have put it on the record.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Putting the Bill on the statute book, even in its present form, would

27
constitute a significant advance in the right of the citizen to have information; but do we not have the impression that while it has been hidden away in the Home Office, the mice have got at it?
Will the consultation be real, and will it make it possible for some key points to be reinstated in the Bill? Does the Home Secretary recognise the feeling that—as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) suggested—prejudice should be defined in some way as substantial, serious or significant, and that there should be a right of access to factual information on policy issues that might otherwise be excluded because it is in the category of advice to Ministers? Issues such as BSE and Gulf war syndrome come to mind as examples In regard to which important facts must be included in the advice to Ministers. Should not threats to the environment and the need to prevent corruption be among the grounds on which otherwise protected information can be forced into the open, in the public interest?
Mr. Straw: I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the Bill. Obviously, I understand that he may have some reservations, but it is a significant advance. I promise that, in all the very long and open consideration within Government on the Bill, I never spotted a mouse even in the Home Office, and despite the fact that there is poison against rodents in my room just around the corner from this place.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the poison for the rebels?
Mr. Straw: It was not laid by the Patronage Secretary.
On background papers, the right hon. Gentleman asked how much we can change. It is important that, so far as possible, background papers that inform policy considerations, but do not determine them, and whose publication would not prejudice the good workings of government, should be published. That is one of the things that we need to look at very carefully. By the way, we intend to publish the background papers leading to the publication of the Freedom of Information Bill as proof of our good faith.
I say again that there are two safeguards in relation to the publication of such papers. One is that each Government Department has to publish its own programme of publication. The second is that, under clause 14, even where it is held by the Government Department and by the commissioner that the Department is entitled to refuse, as a right, to publish the information, it will still have a duty to consider exercising a discretion in the public interest for publishing that information.
We have looked at the use of the word "prejudice" a good deal. One of the reasons that it was chosen by parliamentary counsel was that it is in greater use than the word "harm". The House will be fully familiar with the fact that it crops up in paragraph (4) of part II of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. The point about that—it is, of course, an Act that was passed under a previous Administration—is that it talks about information whose publication would prejudice the authority.
28
The use of the word "prejudice" crops up again in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. More important, it has been the subject of much judicial definition under the European convention on human rights, so its use is appropriate. Of course, that could be the subject of more consideration.
As for threats to the environment, again, the provisions of the Bill say that environmental information has to be published, save where it would endanger the health or safety of an individual. That is a pretty high test to pass. We certainly believe that the maximum amount of information relating to the environment should be published. Again, the degree to which the Bill achieves that end will, I hope, be the subject of consideration, not least by the Select Committee on Public Administration.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I share the view that the measure will be a significant advance over what has gone before, but he will realise that there is a certain amount of disappointment among some of those who have taken a close interest in the matter. He will have seen it alleged—it is not a view I hold—that the Bill will not make a significant difference to existing practice. Will he please address that point?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the powers and, indeed, identity of the commissioner will be crucial to the way in which the Bill is enforced? If, for example, the commissioner turned out to be a retired Cabinet Secretary, we might all have grounds for suspicion that it might not be enforced with quite the rigour that we would like, so can we have an assurance that the selection process for the commissioner will be open?
Will my right hon. Friend say something about the powers that the commissioner will have? In the event of a dispute between a Minister and the commissioner, who will have the final say?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's commendation. The Bill is a significant advance. Of course, I have seen the allegations that it will not make much difference. They will turn out to be untrue. Once the Bill has been passed—as I hope it will be, no doubt with the support of the Opposition—into law and been implemented, there will be a profound change in what people see as their rights in relation to those of Government.
Taken with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998, we are changing profoundly the balance of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
We certainly did not have it in mind that a retired Cabinet Secretary might be able to be appointed to the position of commissioner. I should say—if I may give vent to a private idea—that I had it more in mind that the position might be a good place for a retired Home Secretary, or that some consideration should be given to how we may create a selection process to achieve that end. I should also say, for the benefit of the record, that that was said in jest—although I am always a candidate for a write-in vote.
The commissioner's powers will be very extensive indeed. In most of the exemptions in part II of the Bill, the commissioner will have the power to substitute his or her decision for that of the public authority. Therefore, if the public authority says, "No, don't publish", but the

29
commissioner says, "Yes, do publish", the commissioner's decision—subject only to an appeal to a tribunal and, ultimately, to the courts—will apply.
Policy advice, because of the certification procedure, will be dealt with at one remove. However, under the current clause 28, if the commissioner says that, in his or her view, a document that has been categorised as policy advice is one that no reasonable Minister could possibly have categorised as policy advice, the document would be published.
I accept that the position of commissioner will be a very important appointment, and that the selection procedures will have to reflect that fact.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given our long national tradition of openness in local government, from how many advisers will the Mayor of London be able to accept confidential advice?
Mr. Straw: I am not sure of the precise answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, although I can say that local government has been significantly ahead of national Government on the matter of openness. He may have been raising an issue about relations between central and local government. One of our proposals is that the Department that possesses information originally will have control over which freedom of information regime should apply to it.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response to his statement today by Opposition Front Benchers was absolutely mind-blowing for those of us who spent 18 years trying to get a Freedom of Information Bill passed, but watched the Tories vote down any attempts to pass such a Bill? As long ago as the 1983 Parliament, as shadow Home Secretary, I made the passage of one such Bill the official policy of the Labour party.
In considering changes to the legislation between now and the introduction of the full Bill, will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that although parliamentary counsel are excellent advisers on words, they are not necessarily the best advisers on policy? Will he remember that fact when considering the wording of the final Bill?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the presumption in the legislation must be that information will be disclosed, rather than withheld; that risks shall be taken on disclosure, rather than on concealment; and that any changes between the draft Bill and the full Bill shall be made to widen the window of information, and to get rid entirely of the net curtain mentality that prevailed under the Tory Government?
Mr. Straw: I do indeed remember my right hon. Friend's pioneering contribution to freedom of information legislation and his action in 1983, when he was shadow Home Secretary, to make that the then Opposition's official policy. I share his view on the Conservative Opposition's rather rapid conversion on the issue. Although they do not have a monopoly when it comes to conversions, their conversion on this occasion is bigger than others that I could think of.
30
I accept what my right hon. Friend says about parliamentary counsel, who, in my long experience, are brilliant, but they do not presume to make policy decisions, which are a matter for Ministers.
I fully understand that my right hon. Friend has not had time to see the consultative document, but clause 8 lays down the fundamental right that every citizen will have. It starts:
"Any person is entitled, on making to a public authority a request for information—

(a) to be informed by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and

(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him."

That clause is fundamental to the Bill. It sets up the presumption of a right to information. Everything else is merely an exception and does not detract from the fundamental nature of that right.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): That statement would have been truer of the White Paper than it is of what we have seen of the draft Bill. I welcome the fact that this is a draft Bill that can be considered by the House at greater leisure and in detail. However, it represents a significant retreat from the White Paper. In some respects, although it is broader, it is weaker than the code of practice. It removes the code's more enforceable—in the sense of discretion—public interest test, making it easier to conceal misconduct. It exempts all information about the formulation and development of Government policy, including factual information and scientific analysis on issues such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and genetically modified food in clause 28(1)(a). It replaces the White Paper's substantial harm test with a lower prejudice test. It contains wide catch-all exemptions, allowing authorities to refuse disclosure without having to show that it would cause harm. It allows new exemptions to be created at short notice to block requests already received.
Those are just a few of the points that show that the draft Bill is a significant and substantial retreat from the Prime Minister's assurance in the White Paper about the partnership between the citizen and the state. It reverses the White Paper's presumption that the information is the citizen's and gives central Government large discretion over the release of information.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has taken an active interest in the subject, not least as a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, so I am sorry to say that I do not agree with him. I do not believe that anyone reading the Bill would come to his conclusions. There has been no dubiety; I have not disguised from the House for a second that we have differed from the White Paper's six areas in which the substantial harm test was to be established. This has been a consultative process in which we have had second and third thoughts. We have changed the effect, though not the method, of the clauses relating to policy advice, principally clause 28. However, in no sense could that be described as a significant retreat from the White Paper.
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we are reversing the presumption. I ask him to look at clause 8, which establishes for the first time the clear right of every citizen to seek information from Departments and other public authorities. The authority must argue the case for an exemption.

31
[Mr. Straw]
We are publishing a large amount of information about BSE—a process that may have begun under the previous Government. [Interruption.] It may be discretionary. The House may have to consider that matter, not least in the Public Administration Committee. I have no interest in factual information being the subject of exclusion or exemption. However, there is an important point about policy advice. I have read and re-read the Select Committee's report carefully. It never argued that the process of policy development and formulation should take place in an environment in which people were not able to have disagreements in private. Policy formulation in government, in opposition or in the editorial conferences of newspapers cannot take place properly unless people have confidence that what they say in a meeting will not be broadcast publicly. Institutions cannot operate if they are not allowed some privacy in policy formulation.
Some countries with freedom of information regimes have not given proper protection to policy formulation and advice. The paradox of their situation is that, far from that leading to an increase in the accountability of Ministers and decision makers, it has reduced accountability because it has cut the audit trail. Officials and Ministers have gone in for Post-it notes and oral decisions which should have been properly recorded, or for devices for ordaining all sorts of documents which have nothing to do with the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees as Cabinet documents. We want a straightforward and honest regime which recognises that we are dealing with three competing rights—the right to know, the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality. Getting the balance right is difficult, but I think we have achieved it.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best test of the legislation will be the first occasion when the Government give factual information to the House of Commons that is rather uncomfortable for them—something that may arrive sooner than they expect? Is it the intention to include detailed papers about information on European matters which will be of grave concern? He will be aware that the House of Commons needs to take back to itself the right of access to information, and that it is because of the 20 years of refusal to give such facts and figures to the House that the Bill is desperately needed.
May I comfort my right hon. Friend with one thought? He should not worry too much about those argumentative papers which he says are essential—those will be the ones that get into the public domain without any assistance from him or anyone else.
Mr. Straw: I can reassure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I publish factual information that is uncomfortable to us every day of the week. It is right that we should do so, because the public have a right to know what is going on in our area of the woods. The statistical services of the Home Office have been put on a properly independent basis, and it is now the director of the research, development and statistics directorate, and not Ministers, who publishes those statistical data—whether they are uncomfortable or not—and sets the date for publication.
32
On European Union matters, I agree that much more should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In terms of justice and home affairs, we have sought, with the co-operation of the relevant Select Committees of this House and the other place, to improve the flow of information that is made available to the House in advance, for example, of Justice and Home Affairs Councils. We are always open to suggestion on ways of improving the flow of information.
Mr. Gerald Howarth(Aldershot): Many people will think that the Home Secretary has made a good case against his own Bill. Given the huge raft of exemptions for which he has provided, can he give some practical examples of information that he expects the Bill to produce which the Government are not prepared to produce at the moment? Does he agree that, under the new proposals, he would have been prevented from seeking an injunction against The Sunday Telegraph when it tried, rightly, to place in the public domain information to which the public should have been entitled?
Mr. Straw: I find the hon. Gentleman's point about the injunction, and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), to be eccentric. With the full support of the courts, I was seeking to protect the privilege of this House to see the document first, as well as the commission and the Lawrence family. No one could argue that I was seeking to suppress publication, as there was no doubt that the document would be published three days later, in any event.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen under the Bill that is not happening now. I gave a series of practical examples in my statement, and I am sorry that he was not paying his usual attention to what I said. The examples included information on waiting lists and the allocation of resources by health authorities; information on school admissions policies; important information on the police service, which should be made available unless it interferes with the investigation or prevention of crime; and information on many aspects of central Government.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have been very open. Often, when I am asked a parliamentary question, it is suggested that I do not give information, but I say that we ought to provide it. I and my ministerial colleagues have sought to ensure that we provide much more information than the previous Government did or than we are required to provide.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on finally presenting the draft Bill to the House, after what seemed like an elephantine gestation period. I thank him for his kind words about the Select Committee on Public Administration, which it has been my privilege to chair, and its work on the draft Bill.
Are not the disappearance of the substantial harm test, the new override powers of the tribunal over the Committee's decisions and the almost unilateral nature of the public interest test, which is now in Ministers' hands, bound to lead to the suspicion that all the Sir Humphreys have drawn the covered wagons of Whitehall into a circle, to deny us information that, had we followed the White Paper principles, would have been put in the public domain if someone had requested it?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the publication of the draft Bill. Our manifesto

33
commitment was to legislate in this Parliament, and we are only two years into it. We produced a White Paper in late 1997 that was considered by the Select Committee that he chaired, and we have now produced a draft Bill. We will legislate as soon as we can and I believe that we will end up well before the end of this Parliament with an Act on the statute book. That, I think, is significant progress.
I have sought to explain to the House why we decided, on careful examination, that it was not possible to use a single substantial harm test to cover all the disparate interests. Nor, in my judgment, was that desirable, because there could have been information whose publication would have caused real harm, but harm that could not quite be categorised as substantial, that would have had to be made available.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Sir Humphreys, but Ministers are responsible for what is in the draft Bill. We have taken advice, which has not been all one way, but we take full responsibility as Ministers. We are not hiding behind officials' skirts. Ministers have brought the proposals to Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide how to dispose of them.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Does the Home Secretary accept that in the brave new world that he is outlining, the taxpayer should and will learn a lot more about people whose pay and expenses are met through taxation? Should people who work in a Department on substantial salaries and who travel extensively be prepared to be open with the public about their activities? Will he give an undertaking that, before
34
the legislation is enacted, he and his colleagues will tell us everything about what their political special advisers do in Departments, spending taxpayers' money?
Mr. Straw: I have answered many questions about the activities of my political advisers. It is usually pretty straightforward information. I am not sure whether it was the right hon. Gentleman or someone else who tabled a parliamentary question about the travel costs of my special advisers over the past two years, but I have answered the question and I shall continue to answer such questions.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): I welcome the draft Bill. I remember that, many years ago, in the Public Administration Committee, when the Tories, to a man, wanted a code of practice on freedom of information, Labour Members, to a man, wanted a statutory right. The statutory right is the biggest improvement that the Government have made. The Committee will sit shortly, take evidence and make recommendations. Can I take it that those recommendations will be accepted?
Mr. Straw: The serious answer is that the usual dialectical process will take place—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not know what that is. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis will take place. The Select Committee will make its proposals and we will read them carefully. I have not been able to accept every proposal made by the Select Committee in its previous report, but we have accepted several, including the criticisms that there was a disconnection between the data protection regime and the proposed regime for the Information Commissioner. We have sought to ensure that they will be properly connected.
Madam Speaker: Order. On that note, we will move on.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were here earlier when we heard an almost unbelievable statement by a Minister. He told the House that a Secretary of State would make a statement about an important matter of public policy and a large sum of public money. You must have shared my astonishment when it was revealed that that statement would be made not here in the House, but in some other, as yet unspecified, location. Can you do anything to persuade or charm Ministers into coming to the House to make statements of huge public interest? That issue surely cannot be allowed to slide by without action being taken, preferably by yourself, but otherwise by anyone who can do so.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can competently deal with the matter. I was dismayed to hear the Secretary of State for Social Security tell the House that a statement would be made later today outside the House, presumably by the Department of Trade and Industry. I have no knowledge of what that statement contains, whether it is new policy, an extension of policy or a change of policy. If it is a new policy or a change of policy, it should be made at least by written answer in this House. The House deserves greater respect in such matters. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will let the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry know my views on the matter. I might add, for some of those in the media who do not know the term "Treasury Bench", it means the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a complicated and important statement is being delivered, would it be within the rubric of the House for copies of the Minister's statement to be made available to Members in the Chamber? I have thought about that point for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took us through the complicated harm test rule, which I genuinely wanted to understand and would have asked about, had I caught your eye. I confess that I am still somewhat confused by, but very interested in, the issue. I notice that members of Press Gallery have the luxury, at the moment the Minister rises, of having the statement distributed to them, and some Front Benchers and other hon. Members close to those Front Benchers have access to statements. Would it be possible to explore whether statements could be made available to other hon. Members? If I were to rush out to get a copy—and this is the rub—I might offend you by being absent from the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings and I appreciate that they are echoed in many parts of the House. It is not a matter for me: it has always been for the Minister making a statement to determine when the documents will be made available. If the hon.
36
Gentleman wishes to take the point up with the Modernisation Committee or the Procedure Committee, he is at liberty to do so.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point. All Ministers in all Governments determine when they issue statements. It is for the Modernisation Committee or the Procedure Committee to consider the matter.
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was surprised to read in this morning's edition of the Chippenham News that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today visiting the Dyson factory in Malmesbury in my constituency, as I have received no notification of any kind from his private office. Am I right in thinking that that is because I am an Opposition Back Bencher, and that it might have been different were I a Government Back Bencher? At all events, will you confirm that Ministers should always notify Back Benchers when they visit their constituencies?
Madam Speaker: It is custom and practice—and courtesy—for an hon. Member to inform another hon. Member when visiting that hon. Member's constituency. However, I have always made it quite clear that this is really a matter that should be resolved between the hon. Members concerned, and that it should not be dealt with by means of points of order.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have seen the news over the weekend that there is to be a very substantial increase in NATO force numbers on the Kosovo border. Given that the NATO force declaration meetings are taking place this week, it is possible that the decision will be made while the House is not sitting. The clear implication is that there may be a fundamental change in approach to NATO's Kosovo strategy. Will you inquire whether it might be possible for the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House before the recess to explain exactly what the Government and NATO have in mind?
Madam Speaker: The Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request. It is not entirely a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman must also, of course, use the usual channels in pressing his point for a statement before the House rises for the recess.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Bearing in mind what you said to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the substance of his point of order being a matter for the Modernisation Committee, is the fact that the Vote Office often receives the texts of statements before they are made in the Chamber a matter for you?
As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, if an hon. Member leaves the Chamber to get a statement from the Vote Office once that statement has started to be read, you have said that will not call that hon. Member, because he or she will not have been present for the whole statement. However, as that statement is often available at

37
that time in the Vote Office, hon. Members who are not interested in it are able to see it, while those who are interested are forbidden, by your ruling, from seeing a copy.
Madam Speaker: I would not call an hon. Member who had left the Chamber to get a consultation document or any other document and had therefore missed part of the statement, as that represents a great discourtesy to the Minister answering questions at the Dispatch Box. However, that is not a matter for me, nor for the Vote Office. If hon. Members want to pursue the matter, they should do so in the proper way. The House has two relevant Committees—Modernisation and Procedure. Such matters should be given to those Committees for examination, so as to allow discussions with Ministers on whether they want the texts of their statements to be made available to other hon. Members.

Orders of the Day

  Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1998–99, on The Provisions of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords] (HC 212), the Eighth Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1997–98, on The Future of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (HC 936) and the Government's Response thereto (HC 1100 of Session 1997–98.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am very pleased to recommend to the House today a Bill that will transform the Commonwealth Development Corporation from a small-scale, Government-owned investment organisation into a public-private partnership that will operate on a larger scale and channel private sector investment into the poorest countries. We hope also that the new CDC will encourage by example much larger flows of foreign investment into the least-developed and poorest economies, by proving that such investment can be safe and profitable.
  As the House knows, the Government have given a greatly increased commitment to the promotion of development, and to the reduction of poverty in the poorest countries. We have established a separate Government Department that now has Cabinet status. We have increased that Department's capacity so that it now has expertise on a wider range of policy issues such as trade, debt, international investment, agriculture reform and environmental agreements. The Government can therefore take full account of the needs of developing countries, before deciding on our position in international negotiations on all those issues. We have also reversed the long years of constant decline in the volume of aid spending as a proportion of gross domestic product, by increasing my Department's budget by 28 per cent. over the next three years. That is the largest increase to be made in any Department's budget.
  Also, we have re-examined and refocused the Department's work, and in November 1997 we set out our new policy in the White Paper entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century". That White Paper refocuses all the work of the Department on the eradication of poverty and on mobilising the international system to meet the agreed targets of halving by 2015 the proportion of people in the world living in poverty. Other targets include getting all the world's children into basic education, and providing basic health care to all, by the same date.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that, although her White Paper is so radical, the House has had no opportunity to debate it, despite promises from the business managers? A thorough debate on the White Paper and its implementation is long overdue.
  Clare Short: I certainly agree that the White Paper is worthy of debate. We have had interesting discussions on

  39
  it in the Select Committee on International Development, which the hon. Gentleman chairs so ably. The problem is that the Government are committed to large amounts of new legislation, and it is difficult to get all our business through the House. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and would welcome any opportunity to hold a debate.
  As part of our policy commitment to the systematic reduction of poverty in the poorest countries we have made it clear that development and poverty reduction cannot be achieved through improvements to social policy alone. That is an important point, but it has not been fully accepted in previous debates. Economic growth must outstrip population growth, or poverty will grow. That is what happened to much of sub-Saharan Africa during the 1980s.
  We seek to promote Government investment in education for all and in basic health care for all. However, we also seek efficient economic management and the encouragement of a thriving—and responsible—private sector and of inward investment. It is clear that the big increase in economic growth that is needed in the poorest countries will not be achieved unless there is a big increase in inward investment. Our work to encourage development must focus on creating conditions that will encourage increased inward investment in the poorest countries.
  For that reason, we propose the transformation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation from a wholly Government-owned institution into a public-private partnership.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What is the difference between a public-private partnership and a privatisation, or partial privatisation?
  Clare Short: I am about to outline the difference in great detail—although I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand the meanings of words. Privatisation takes something that is owned by the Government and allows commercial rules and market forces to determine its future. A public-private partnership means that the Government retain a stake and that some public sector objectives are entrenched in the relationship with the private sector. That is what we seek to secure—[Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to giggle about it; she might find it difficult to understand these matters, but if she listens carefully, she will understand a little more.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak on the same point, it might help his thought processes a little if I explain it so that he may better understand it.
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation was established in 1948 as the Colonial Development Corporation, to develop the resources of the then colonies. It was wholly Government-owned and was funded by loans from Government. Its remit was extended in the 1960s to the independent Commonwealth countries, and, in 1963, it changed its name to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Since then the corporation has
  40
  developed a long record of successfully identifying and managing investments in difficult conditions. It has investments in more than 400 enterprises in 55 developing countries.
  The corporation has made a substantial contribution to development, and I pay tribute to all the staff who have worked for it so successfully. However, on coming to office, the question that I asked about the CDC—as well as all the other activities of my Department—was whether it could make a bigger contribution.
  It was clear that, for as long as the corporation remained in the public sector, it would be constrained by public sector financial controls. Even with our growing development assistance programme, the CDC would obviously face severe limits on available funds. I was therefore very interested in examining whether it was possible to reorganise the CDC so that it could enlarge its investments by tapping into private sector funds.
  My second and bigger objective was to examine whether the CDC could be used to leverage larger private sector investment into the poorest countries. If the CDC was bigger and could make investments that achieved a rate of return attractive to the private sector, it could demonstrate that the private sector could invest successfully in countries that it currently shuns. That is a second and important part of my objective in recommending the reorganisation of the CDC.
  We therefore propose to create a new CDC that is a true public-private partnership and which provides for direct private sector involvement and also for the on-going involvement of the Government as a partner. We see that as a long-term partnership and we intend to retain a substantial minority holding in the CDC for the foreseeable future. That means that the Government will have a long-term stake in CDC's success.
  As well as our ordinary shareholding, the Government will hold a golden share, which will exist as long as we have a substantial interest in the CDC. That will protect the CDC's investment and ethical policies and, therefore, its development role.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly welcome the step that the right hon. Lady is taking, and pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Does she agree, however, that, while the Government will retain a golden share, it will be important for the CDC to secure from where it wishes the funds that it needs for its future development? Does she agree that it should be able to go to capital markets outside as well as in this country?
  Clare Short: The CDC is free at the moment to raise funds offshore because it is not constrained by the rules on a publicly owned investment organisation. One of the major reasons for the CDC's ceasing to be wholly Government owned is to enable it to raise funds within Britain to enlarge its investment portfolio.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Clare Short: Perhaps I may finish this paragraph and then I will give way to all the hon. Gentlemen—I think that they are Gentlemen—who are attempting to intervene. Of course, I am not questioning their gentlemanliness.

  41
  Let us be clear that a continuing Government role is necessary to protect the CDC's development role. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham might like to concentrate on that point. Pure privatisation would simply drive the CDC out of the least-developed countries. A privatised CDC would simply behave like other commercial investment companies. A wholly publicly owned CDC is limited in the way in which I described. The public-private partnership is thus essential to our objective of increasing private sector investment and ensuring that that goes to the poorest countries.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State has described the primary difference between a public-private partnership and a partial privatisation, which is that the Government intend to retain their minority holding for the foreseeable future. Obviously, that presupposes that the Government may get rid of that holding at some stage. If they do, will the CDC still be a public-private partnership?
  Clare Short: It is not merely a case of the monetary holding but also of the golden share to which I alluded. If the hon. Gentleman has read the debate in another place as I am sure he has, he will understand that. If the Government got rid of their golden share and all the principles that are entrenched—where the CDC will invest and the ethical principles of investment—the CDC would be privatised. I have worked hard to ensure that that cannot be done without returning to the House. There was a technical difficulty, but we have secured that now and that is right.
  Mr. Leigh: May I return to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked? I am not clear how the present proposal differs from privatisation. After all, in previous privatisations the Government retained a golden share. The essence of a privatisation is that the Government sell the majority of their shares. How is this proposal different from an effective privatisation?
  Clare Short: Oh dear me! I think the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government and yet he was obviously not clear about what they were up to. There were transitional golden shares to assist privatisation, but they were all phased out. This is an indefinite golden share and that is the difference. I hope that I have helped.
  Mr. David Heath: Perhaps we can move away from the definition of privatisation. One of the knottiest problems with which the Secretary of State's Department has been wrestling is the future tax status of the corporation. Will she explain what that will be during her remarks today, or will we have to wait for the Standing Committee, in which case it will make it more difficult to have a reasoned debate on the subject?
  Clare Short: I shall explain how we will do that today. The principle is agreed and clear but the full details and the amendment will be introduced in Committee.
  The emphasis of the partnership will be on the CDC continuing to do what it does best: investing in the poorest countries that other investors shun. Its purpose will be to maximise the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries—especially the poorer
  42
  countries—to achieve attractive returns for shareholders, and to implement social, environmental and ethical best practice. The challenge is to ensure that the CDC continues to focus on the poorer countries. It may help Opposition Members in understanding the difference between privatisation and partnership to know that that focus will be secured through the investment policy required under the articles of association, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Hon. Members who made points of order might like to know that.
  The policy sets out a list of developing countries for whose benefit the CDC may invest, and requires that at least 70 per cent. of its investment over a rolling five-year period is for the benefit of the poorer of those countries. It also states that the CDC will aim to ensure that 50 per cent. of its investment each year will be for the benefit of sub-Saharan Africa or south Asia and notes several sectors, such as manufacture of equipment for military purposes, in which it may not invest.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State knows that the Select Committee considered that difficult issue. If the policy changes slightly, or military investments are made, what sanctions will be imposed—short of sacking the whole staff by using the golden share? How exactly will the ethical policy be enforced?
  Clare Short: It will be entrenched through the articles and through a series of procedures such as the ethical committee, on which appointees of the Secretary of State will have a majority. The policy will not be amendable without the consent of that committee. The ultimate sanction is the golden share. None of that will be changeable without a majority on the committee and the permission of the golden shareholder. The policy should not be immutable because there may be improvements in the ethical policy, or the poorest countries may develop so that we need to change the list, but it is entrenched so that change to it cannot be forced by market forces. Investors will know that it is a permanent, unchangeable part of the organisation's structure.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What will happen if the CDC makes losses? Will a proportion score against the public sector financial deficit? Rather than the approach taken so far to get money to the least—developed countries, have the Government considered the development of a loan insurance scheme?
  Clare Short: The CDC will be a private limited company with minority Government ownership under the same rules as any other plc. There are already all sorts of loan insurance systems. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is, in a way, such a system, and there is also the World Bank MIGA—Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency—loan insurance system. The short answer is no.
  Mr. Tyrie: Those are subsidised insurance schemes.
  Clare Short: Indeed, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, one reason why the private sector will not invest in such countries is political instability and weak enforcement of bank regulation and contracts. My Department, the World Bank and others now work with much better understanding, especially after the east Asian crisis, of the

  43
  conditions for beneficial inward investment, but there is always a reputation time-lag. If the CDC can be a cutting edge player that comes in earlier to demonstrate track record and rate of return, it will increase the private sector flow into countries that are shunned. That is the whole idea. The investment policy that I have described will be put in place before private participation is invited and the partnership is established; any subsequent changes to it will require the agreement of a majority of ordinary shareholders and the golden shareholder. The investment policy will entrench the CDC's focus on developing countries.
  As I have said, we expect the CDC to operate as an exemplary social, environmental and ethical business. That approach is reflected in its business principles and policies, which cover social, environmental, health and safety matters and business ethics, as well as a statement of the general principles by which the CDC will conduct its business. Copies of those principles and policies are available in the Library. The CDC is to be congratulated on those documents, which reflect a great deal of careful thought. They have been developed over the past 15 months through a full consultation process, involving staff throughout the organisation. The precise mechanisms for dealing with any changes to those policies will differ from those for the investment policy, reflecting the fact that they will continue to evolve in line with best practice—as I pointed out earlier—but they will also be entrenched in the company's constitution and protected under golden shareholder reserved rights.
  I am confident that those mechanisms will be effective in securing the CDC's development role. We consider that it is absolutely essential that those policies, and the mechanisms to protect them, are clearly set out from the start in the partnership framework and in the company's constitution. They will then be an essential part of the company's identity and will be clear to all future investors.
  As hon. Members would expect, before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the proposed partnership at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October 1997, we had commissioned expert external advice on the viability of the proposal. The advice made it clear that, provided that the partnership was well designed, there was likely to be strong private sector interest in investing in the new CDC. Clearly, that is our aim and I therefore took pains to ensure that the design of the new CDC would make it attractive to private sector investors.
  A CDC that will attract private investment requires a framework such as the one that I described, so that there is no fear of unpredictable Government interference. The public sector interest is strong and clear; it will be entrenched from the start and will not depend on the exercise of unpredictable intervention—for example, intervention from one Minister after another changing their mind, or as a result of a change of Government. The principles will be entrenched, so that anyone considering investing in the corporation will be able to see what future performance is likely to be. That also means setting an appropriate capital structure for the CDC and ensuring that the CDC is tax efficient, so that it can compete with other comparable institutions, as has been pointed out.
  44
  There has been some media interest in the CDC's tax treatment. It was most important to ensure that the tax treatment was right, and that took a little time. However, I am now confident that it is right. It is obvious that the CDC has to be able to compete with offshore funds, if it is to achieve its goal of investing in developing countries using capital raised in a competitive private investment market dominated by offshore funds. From the start, it was clear to me at least that it would be unacceptable for a major instrument of the UK's development policy to be based offshore. I realise that, some time ago, the hon. Member for South–West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said to the Financial Times that it should be offshore.
  Mr. Streeter: I said "could be".
  Clare Short: No, the hon. Gentleman said "should". In effect, he said, "Stop dithering—put it offshore."
  It seems to me that a body with a major golden share in a Government holding, which is an instrument of our development policy, should be based in Britain. I asked my advisers where it could be based offshore because I thought that it might be bearable to place it in Africa, but they replied, "The Cayman Islands—or Ireland." It would be nice if it were in Ireland, but this is a British—a United Kingdom—development institution.
  Mr. Streeter: Jersey.
  Clare Short: They did not suggest Jersey, and I do not think that Jersey would do the trick for the purpose of competing with other offshore funds. That was the origin of the tax problem: other funds go offshore and benefit from very low tax, but an instrument of British development should be based in Britain or, I should say, in the United Kingdom. That was the circle that we had to square.
  With the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, we considered all possible options, and I can today announce our conclusion that we should provide tailored tax treatment for the CDC public-private partnership. We discussed whether there should be a class of development institutions, which would have been another way of approaching the problem, but we settled on a tailored tax treatment that will enable the CDC to compete for funds with companies that are based offshore. That treatment will endure so long as the Government hold their golden share in the CDC. The main element will be exemption for the CDC from corporation tax arising on income and chargeable gains from its investment activities. Instructions have been sent to parliamentary counsel and I intend to table the necessary amendments in Committee. The solution is a good one which will enable the CDC to compete fairly and be a major instrument of British development policy.
  The International Development Committee has also expressed interest in the CDC's capital structure, and it is right to say that restructuring is needed. Currently, the CDC's balance sheet consists of about £750 million of interest-free debt to Government and reserves of some £515 million; obviously, as a public corporation, it does not have any share capital. We intend to restructure the CDC's capital to create a balance sheet which potential investors will recognise as commercially viable and which will be a strong balance sheet, suited to the CDC's

  45
  business needs. We do not propose to leave interest-free loans on the balance sheet once the partnership is established; that would, in effect, be a subsidy to shareholders, which is clearly wrong. We shall restructure the loans into equity, or commercial loans, or a mixture of the two. We shall keep the International Development Committee fully informed as those decisions are made, and lay any proposals before the House.
  As the House will know, there is always a potential state aids angle in any Government sale. After informal soundings with the European Commission, we do not consider that tax or balance sheet proposals will either distort intra-Community trade, or be likely to create any difficulty. However, to provide investors with certainty, we plan to notify the Commission at the same time as we inform it of the capital restructuring—a process required to ensure that there is no hidden subsidy in capital restructuring. We expect speedy clearance from the Commission on both questions.
  As I have made clear, we want to encourage wide participation in the CDC, and that will ultimately lead to our seeking a listing. The CDC's business principles will ensure that it is very much an ethical investment, so it is likely to appeal to the growing sector of ethical investors. However, we do not intend to target ethical investors alone: interest could also be expected from, for example, those who are already targeting emerging markets and who are interested in moving into poorer frontier markets.
  The timing of a listing will depend on several factors, including market perceptions of pre-emerging markets and of the CDC's track record and forecast performance. The key will be to ensure that new capital is introduced at the right time for the success of the CDC's business. However, we recognise that listing might not be possible at the time when other conditions are right for creation of the partnership; in that case, we would look at alternatives for a transitional period. For example, the CDC might have a good track record, but if there is turbulence in emerging markets, the time might not be right for a listing. We must move at the right times and to the right stages during the process of transformation.
  The CDC's financial track record is obviously a key issue. Clearly, 1998 was a very difficult year for emerging markets. The International Finance Corporation, which is part of the World Bank group, produces an index that measures, for example, what is happening in emerging markets; it fell by 22 per cent. in 1998. Against that background, the CDC's performance was creditable: although for the first time in many years it made a loss in 1998, that was largely due to provisions against investments in Indonesia and Pakistan; although the underlying investments were good, the provisions were necessary because foreign exchange problems meant it was not possible to get money out of those countries.
  Overall revenue in 1998 was £147.2 million with an operating surplus of £110.4 million. Although both figures are lower than in 1997, they have held up well in difficult market conditions. In previous years, the CDC has generally achieved profitability targets, with returns comparable to or above those of other development finance institutions. However, it is obvious that returns at historical CDC levels will not be enough to attract private investors.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State obviously examines the CDC's figures.
  46
  Does she envisage that the CDC will make a loss in the next financial year or return to its position of the year before last?
  Clare Short: I have not made such a projection, and I do not think it would be useful for me to do so. The CDC runs its own business. Although I exercise some supervisory powers, I do not consider myself to be an expert when it comes to the economic performance of emerging markets. I read about such matters with a great deal of interest, but I do not think my predictions would be very valuable in guiding the CDC in its investment operations.
  We are confident that the CDC will be able to increase its profitability and make the returns needed to attract private investors. Much of the improvement will come from the CDC's capturing for itself more of the profitability of the investments it makes. Historically, the CDC has largely invested in secured debt, which is obviously relatively low risk and therefore offers low returns. In preparation for the partnership and to increase its capacity to attract private sector funds, the CDC has started the process of shifting to risk capital—meaning equity and quasi-equity. It will, therefore, capture a higher return on its investments.
  In 1998, more than 60 per cent. of new investments were risk capital, compared with around 30 per cent. in 1997. That is important not just in order to attract private sector funds but from a development point of view. Equity investment leads to a stronger commitment to the development of a business with long-term growth prospects. Risk capital is in short supply in the poorer countries. A larger CDC creating more equity investment will bring much greater benefits to developing countries.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Some of us are concerned that the easiest way for the CDC to make serious savings on its overheads in difficult market conditions is by closing some of its offices in countries where its investment is coming to an end. Yet, when the CDC gave evidence before the Committee, it pointed out that one of its best selling points was its unrivalled network of offices in countries in which few of its competitors were active. Has the Secretary of State discussed with the CDC the fact that, in order to make itself more attractive to the capital market, it is in danger of eliminating the very asset that makes it an attractive development instrument?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is what would have happened if we had simply privatised the CDC and it had cut costs by closing offices in difficult markets and moving to easier markets. That is why we must have a partnership and why we have had to entrench the rulings about the countries in which the CDC invests. We have said that at least 50 per cent. of the CDC's investment in developing countries must go to the poorer countries, which will prevent the search for greater returns leading to the kind of action that the hon. Gentleman described. This measure is designed deliberately and carefully to prevent that outcome.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the low-risk loan investments that the CDC has taken in the past have the first call on return and offer low rates of return. An equity stake in a business offers an interest in its long-term creativity. By opting for equity, one potentially

  47
  increases the rate of return and commits to creating in developing countries businesses with a capacity to generate more long-term economic growth. The move to equity is necessary to attract private sector investment, but it will also bring benefits by helping to create businesses in developing countries.
  Mr. Streeter: Has not the Secretary of State forgotten the other part of the equation? The reason why equity investments are often referred to as risk capital is, of course, that they have no security, and if the company in which one is investing fails, one might lose the total value of the investment. At least with secured loans, more often than not, one gets back some of the asset and is able to recover some of the investment. Will the right hon. Lady take that into account? The shift from secured loans to equity alone will not, perhaps, give her the uplifting returns that she seeks.
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the whole purpose of the exercise, which is to get more private sector investment into countries into which it currently does not flow. That will be done directly through the CDC and by proving, through the CDC, that such private sector investment can be profitable and secure. The rates of return that the CDC, as a lender of last resort in very secure loans, at present achieves will not attract the private sector. The CDC must be able to handle equity investment if it is to succeed in bringing private sector investment into developing countries, which will not thrive economically unless we can bring them more such investment. It might help the hon. Gentleman if he reads my explanation in Hansard later.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have very little knowledge or experience of the stock market, but a question has occurred to me while I have been listening to my right hon. Friend. If the CDC should go into substantial profit, would there be an opportunity both for private sector investors to have a reasonable return on their capital and for there to be greater investment in developing countries?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend describes the position exactly. At the moment, the private sector tends not to invest at all in sub-Saharan Africa. She will know that during recent globalisation, the international flow of private sector investment has massively increased, but 90 per cent. of that goes to the 11 most-developed countries and very little goes to the rest. The Bill's purpose and the objective of successful development is to create conditions in which the private sector will want to invest in the poorest countries. If equity investment brings a commitment to more creative companies in those countries and a higher rate of return, investment in those countries will be attractive to the private sector, which is the overwhelming objective of this exercise.
  In the past, the CDC has also tended to be a lender of last resort because it is a public sector institution, so it is required not to compete for investments that are attractive to the private sector, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon will know. It is, in effect, required to seek a rate of return that is lower than the commercial rate; otherwise, the public sector would be unfairly crowding out the
  48
  private sector. The new CDC will no longer be constrained by being wholly publicly owned, so it will be able to seek good investments that offer attractive financial returns and make a greater contribution to sustainable development.
  The Bill is the first stage in the creation of the public-private partnership that I have described. The Bill is largely technical, and the policy issues that I have outlined—other than the entrenchment of the Government's shareholding—do not generally appear in the Bill. As I have said, those issues are covered in the background papers that have been deposited in the Library, and they are essential to understanding the Bill's purpose and effects.
  The Bill, taken narrowly, covers four main areas. The first is the provisions needed to transform the CDC into a public limited company. Initially, the Government will hold all the shares. The intention is to proceed with that transformation as soon as practical after the Bill becomes law. As I have explained, the timing of the eventual sale of the majority holding will depend on a number of factors and in particular on market conditions.
  Although the transformation of the CDC is a technical issue, I should explain a little further why we are proceeding in the way that we have chosen. At the moment, the CDC is a statutory corporation that is obviously not a suitable legal vehicle for the partnership. The Bill departs from the technique usually employed in privatisations whereby legislation transfers the assets of the public corporation to a newly formed successor company. Instead, the Bill transforms the CDC directly into a public limited company without creating a new legal entity. No transfers of assets are involved, because the CDC retains the same legal identity and remains in being, both before and after the transformation.
  That legal technique is being used because many CDC assets are held abroad. Had the successor company method been used, every individual asset would have had to be transferred under the local laws applying in all countries in which it operates. That would have been laborious and time-consuming, to say the least. We were pleased to find such a good legal remedy to what was at first a headache.
  The second area contains provisions that are needed to restructure the CDC's balance sheet. As I have explained, it will be necessary to give it a financial structure that suits the needs of the partnership. That part of the Bill also makes provision for the continuation of Government financial assistance while CDC plc is wholly owned by the Government—subject to a cash limit.
  The third area is tax. Clause 27(3) says that the Act shall not come into force until a draft order that makes provision for tax treatment for the CDC has been laid and approved. As I said, I intend to table detailed amendments in Committee which will set out the tax treatment to apply to the CDC, which I described earlier.
  Clause 18 entrenches the Government's role in CDC plc. As I have made it clear, the Bill creates a partnership between the Government and the private sector, involving a substantial and long-term Government interest. Given that proposal, as I have said in answer to questions, if a future Secretary of State wanted to dissolve the partnership and fully privatise the CDC, he or she should be required to seek Parliament's approval before doing so.
  Mr. Rowe: A thought has just occurred to me; I wonder whether the Secretary of State could set my

  49
  mind at rest. Should the CDC incur losses over the next few years, they will not fall on her departmental development budget—will they?
  Clare Short: The Department will hold a minority share; profits will go to it. It would have the same liability as the majority of shareholders if there were a sustained period of loss. However, the likelihood is that there will be gains, not losses, to the Department. A disaster would have some consequence, but it would not be major or one about which the hon. Gentleman needs to be concerned. Logically, if the thing were to collapse completely, the loss of value in shares would affect the Department.
  Clause 18 entrenches the requirement for Parliament's approval for any change or desire to privatise. It does so by entrenching the two key aspects of the Government's side of the partnership: first, a substantial economic interest and, secondly, the golden share, with the important rights that it reserves to the Secretary of State. Clause 18 requires the Government to hold at least 25 per cent. of the CDC's ordinary share capital and to continue to hold the golden share. The clause cannot be amended or repealed without Parliament's consent. I think that I said to the Select Committee that I was struggling with that matter. Members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that we found a solution.
  Clause 18 also prevents a Secretary of State from agreeing to changes in the CDC's constitution that would diminish the Government's rights as holder of the golden share, except with the approval of Parliament. Together, the provisions of clause 18 will ensure that the fundamental nature of the partnership, as it is being presented today, cannot be altered without Parliament's consent. I am sure that that is right.
  We cannot reduce poverty in the world without faster economic growth in the poorest countries. Such growth will not be achieved without higher investment, and that requires much higher inward investment. There is massive and ever-growing capital investment around the world, but, sadly, very little of it flows to the poorest countries. We hope that the new CDC will help to improve that, both by channelling private sector investment and by acting as an example to other investment institutions, showing that such investment can be profitable. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: For more than 50 years, Conservatives have supported the Commonwealth Development Corporation. For 35 of those 50 years, when in government, we nurtured and encouraged it and its important work in investing in the developing world—investing in business and in people and bringing hope and dignity where there was none. During those years, the CDC created thousands of jobs and changed thousands of lives. Conservative Members pay warm tribute to the skill and dedication of its staff, who have achieved so much over the past half-century.
  Today's debate is really about how we can best take the CDC into the 21st century, to help even more effectively the millions of people in the world who live in abject poverty. The words "abject poverty" are easy to say, but the misery, squalor and pain which are the daily experience of so many people alive today and which those simple words represent, must motivate us to do something
  50
  about it. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the attempts that she has made since taking up her post to do precisely that.
  It is a good thing to care about the problems of the world's poorest, but it is even better to do something about them. The CDC has played its part in the past, and must do so in the future.
  There are three key economic ways of improving living standards in the developing world. On the one hand, well-targeted aid has a part to play in meeting people's needs; on the other hand, the private sector and foreign direct investment are vital in generating the wealth and jobs that are necessary to transform the prospects of the world's poorest. Somewhere between those two key pillars has been the role of the CDC. It is not concerned with aid, and it is not—strictly speaking—the private sector. It is a vehicle for investing in small businesses, taking a stake in a community, stimulating private enterprise and supporting local entrepreneurs. That is what the CDC has been good at for 50 years. It has been a necessary halfway house between aid and private sector investment, and our role as the Opposition is to ensure that the Bill does not undermine its vital developmental role.
  Mr. Rowe: I hope that my hon. Friend will include in his encomium evidence given by the CDC that, to the largest extent practicable, it has upheld a non-corrupt form of trading for 50 years. In response to a question from us, it claimed that one of its biggest single assets was the fact that its reputation enabled it to browbeat those who tried to corrupt it, and to refuse to be corrupted.
  Mr. Streeter: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is second to none in his understanding of the word "encomium".
  I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that, sadly, corruption is a real issue in far too many countries. The integrity of the CDC, and the model that it has been able to provide over the years, have been an important part of the performance of this excellent corporation.
  It is well known that, at the same time as nurturing the CDC's activities over the past 20 years, the Conservative party has been promoting privatisation and removing the dead hand of the state from many former nationalised industries. That is well known to the Secretary of State, who has opposed every one of our privatisations. Conservative Members believe in the private sector, and in marketplace solutions. I have worked as a lawyer in the private sector for 20 years and more, advising business people on, primarily, buying and selling private limited companies. I have also seen the public sector at close quarters, notably while I was a Minister in the last Government. The public sector is necessary, and can be excellent; but there are many things that the private sector can do better, and investing in businesses is an obvious target area.
  For a large part of our 18 years in government, we examined ways of securing more private sector involvement in the CDC. We considered whether we could privatise it, in full or in part, and how we could harness and focus private sector energy and resources without hurting the people whom the CDC had been set up to support. The problem, of course, was finding a way in which to produce an attractive return for private sector

  51
  investors without letting go of the CDC's vital developmental nature. We could have done it easily if we had been prepared to risk hurting the poorest of the poor in the developing world, but we were not prepared to do that.
  Meanwhile, while we were privatising and changing for ever the economic and industrial landscape of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State, then in opposition, was roaming around attacking the evils of privatisation at every turn. What a delicious irony: the person who, at her core, opposes and despises privatisation and the private sector, should now be tasked with putting into effect new Labour's first privatisation.
  Clare Short: There is hardly anyone here, it is a serious matter and the hon. Gentleman still has to play silly infant school games. I have been a member of the Labour party since my youth and have always believed in the mixed economy. There is a role for the state and for markets. Under his Government, the market part of the role got way out of control.
  My Department gives advice to the former Communist countries and to many developing countries about privatisation. I say to them, "Learn from our mistakes. Do not give big windfall gains to the private sector. Do it fairly and efficiently, so that you get good services. Learn from the mistakes of the British Tory Government." People worldwide are doing that.
  Mr. Streeter: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has learned from her mistakes. None the less, she must accept the fact that, throughout the 1980s, she bitterly opposed every privatisation that was introduced by the then Conservative Government, who transformed our economic and political landscape.
  When we heard the Prime Minister announce the privatisation, we all wondered how the Secretary of State would be able to come to terms with perhaps her greatest personal challenge to date: to privatise something that even Conservative Governments for 18 years could not find a way to privatise without hurting the people whom the CDC was set up to help.
  We waited with bated breath. Surely even the Secretary of State would not be able to pull off such an amazing volte-face, but, when it emerged, the solution was a classic piece of new Labourism. We should have guessed. The solution was simply to change the name. The Secretary of State opposes privatisation, so do not call it that; call it "public-private partnership" instead. It is Orwellian double-speak at its best.
  The Bill converts the Commonwealth Development Corporation into a Companies Act company, of which up to 75 per cent. will be sold in one tranche to the private sector, with provision for the remaining shareholding to be sold in due course. It is privatisation in all its glory. It may be a partial privatisation to start—up to 75 per cent.—but that is how many of our privatisation took place in the 1980s. It is privatisation. If it looks like a dog, walks like a dog and barks like a dog, it is probably a dog. The Bill will privatise the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I know it, the Secretary of State knows it, the whole House knows it.
  Therein lies my concern at what the Secretary of State is trying to do with the CDC. It is not that introducing the private sector is, in itself, wrong; of course not. We of all
  52
  people would be hard pushed to argue that. It is that the Secretary of State is not owning up to the reality of what she is doing. If she does not face up to the reality of what she is doing, she will inevitably be blind to the dangers and pitfalls of taking the CDC down the path that is set out in the Bill. There is a real risk that the CDC will be sold cheaply, shareholder pressure will take it away from its developmental objectives, and the people whom the CDC was set up to help will be left behind.
  During the passage of the Bill, our aim is to ensure that those dangers have been fully and properly considered and that, when we finally come to vote on Third Reading, every hon. Member can do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing. It is like that with the Government: if people want to know what they are doing, never mind the headlines, read the small print.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience about selling things off cheaply, but, before he goes any further, can he make it absolutely clear that his party sees no other way: either the CDC is a Government-owned company, or it is privatised? He is saying that his party sees no middle road whatever. He has made a categoric statement this afternoon.
  Mr. Streeter: There is, of course, a case for retaining the CDC in the public sector while seeking to improve its performance. There is also a case for fully and properly privatising the CDC, and for at least obtaining a proper return for the Department for International Development budget. However, there is absolutely no case for selling the CDC off cheap—so that, over time, shareholders will inevitably and increasingly force its board to consider primarily the bottom line, thus moving the CDC away from its developmental objectives. That is the prospect staring us in the face as we consider the legislation, and that is my concern.
  We shall not divide the House on Second Reading. However, in Committee, we shall want to explore in detail four key issues. First, have the CDC's developmental principles been adequately protected; or will the Bill destroy that heritage? Secondly, will the Department for International Development budget receive a fair price for our taxpayers' investment over the past 50 years? Thirdly, will the privatisation protect the poorest in the developing world—the very people whom the CDC was established to help? Fourthly, do the Government's proposals for the tax treatment of the new CDC deserve our support? Unless we are satisfied on those four key issues in Committee, we shall reserve our position on Third Reading.
  Once private sector shareholders are involved, they will want to drive the company to increased profits and better returns on their investment. Such a development is inevitable, entirely natural and understandable. Therefore, the question is whether the Bill will secure the CDC adequately to its developmental moorings, to prevent it being driven out to the sea of commercial return, leaving behind the reason why it was established initially.
  If the Bill is passed as drafted, the way forward is sadly clear. It is likely that, in a year or two, 75 per cent. of the company will be sold off, probably—as the CDC's financial track record in recent years has been so modest—at a bargain-basement price. Investors in the

  53
  company will be pension funds, which are able to bide their time and to see a long-term opportunity. After a few years of the CDC seeking to strike a balance between developmental objectives and making a return for its shareholders, the company will almost certainly fail.
  The CDC's rate of return is less than 8 per cent. It will have to get that up to 15 per cent. or more, and that will be hard to do unless it is guided only by bottom-line considerations. The Secretary of State explained that the CDC will be able to increase its rate of return from 8 to 18 per cent., primarily by shifting money from secured loans to equity investments. Of course it is true that potentially greater reward may come by investing in equities rather than loans, but the risks of loss also may be greater.
  There is absolutely no guarantee that moving from secured loans to unsecured equities will boost returns. If there were such a guarantee, why do not all United Kingdom banks forget about lending money to companies and simply invest in share capital? The point of risk capital is that one may not only increase one's return, but lose one's investment.
  Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is possible for the poorest and least-developed countries to attract private sector investment? If he is right in his critique, no investment in those countries will be attractive to the private sector. Although I know that he is wrong about that, perhaps he will either agree that he is wrong, or state plainly that he believes that those economies will never attract private sector investment and, therefore, are in long-term difficulty.
  Mr. Streeter: I do not think that the Secretary of State is listening to me—I was not saying that at all. One of the points that I shall make in a moment is that many private sector investors are already investing in those emerging markets. However, the CDC that she is shaping for the future will simply become another investment bank or investment fund manager. Unless we get the matter right—this is why we have to examine it very carefully in Committee—the CDC will not be distinctive from any other fund manager.
  Of course we want private sector investment in emerging markets, but such investment is already being made. Surely it is right that the CDC should play a particular and peculiar role in development, as it was established to do.
  I am not saying that it is wrong for the CDC to move from loan to equity. I am simply saying that, in a volatile market, such a move may not offer the panacea that the Secretary of State believes it will. What will happen if investors in the new CDC do not receive the rate of return that they are expecting? She has not answered that question.
  The directors of the CDC are people of good faith. They will try hard to meet the financial targets, while remaining true to what they understand to be the CDC's developmental focus. We wish them well and hope that they succeed but, if the rates of return are not adequate, the shareholders will gradually turn the screw, insisting on higher-value investments and better returns. Gradually, the developmental focus will be all but forgotten as the new CDC becomes just another investment bank or fund manager. I have noticed before that, when the Secretary
  54
  of State knows that she has lost the argument, she starts chatting to the person next to her. I wish that she would listen. She might learn more about the industry.
  Clare Shortrose—
  Mr. Streeter: Does the right hon. Lady want me to give way?
  Clare Short: That is what standing up at the Dispatch Box means. I was saying to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, "Poor chap, he cannot seem to understand how the entrenched requirements on the proportions of investment make what he is suggesting impossible." I was listening to the hon. Gentleman. It would have been rude to make my comment loudly, so I made it quietly, but as he wants me to be rude in public, let me be so.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because she has made my case. I shall explain why she has not entrenched the developmental objectives of the CDC in the Bill. She thinks that she has done so by saying which countries the CDC can invest in, and through and by the incorporation of the statement of business principles, but that does not protect against shareholders wanting to take the investment portfolio away from creating jobs and investing in long-term communities in the developing world and putting it into high-value, high-tech investment that will result in the CDC being no different from any other investment bank or fund manager. She has not entrenched that principle properly. The shareholders will gradually turn the screw, insisting on higher-value investments and better returns. Gradually, the developmental focus will be all but forgotten as the new CDC becomes just another investment bank. The CDC that is filling the vital gap between aid and the full-blown private sector will, little by little, inch by inch, relocate itself firmly in the private sector investment camp, leaving a huge void behind it.
  I do not take any pride in saying that. I wish that the truth were otherwise. I want the plan to succeed, but the Secretary of State expects us to vote tamely for the Bill. She hates criticism and questions. I am simply trying to point out to her that she may not have achieved her objectives. I wish that she had discovered a magical way of combining two mutually inconsistent principles—riding two horses at the same time—but I fear that she has not. It is likely that, within a few short years, all the noble aspirations of the CDC when it started 50 years ago will have been left behind.
  The Secretary of State thinks that she has entrenched the CDC's development principles but, after closer examination, I fear that she has not. I was sent the statement of business principles on 11 May. It is a worthy document and I do not disagree with a single word in it. It contains some excellent phrases. It says:
  "The way we do business is to set out in our mandate:

  To maximise CDC's success in creating and growing long term viable businesses in developing economies, achieving attractive returns for shareholders and implementing ethical best practice."
  It says that the CDC will
  "be open and honest in our dealings, while respecting commercial and personal confidentiality".

  55
  It talks about the core values, saying that it will
  "recognise that economic development results in environmental change"
  and that
  "Sustainable development seeks to maximise the potential of environmental resources".
  It is all good stuff and I support it. However, the mission statements and developmental principles of other large corporations use almost identical language. Shell says:
  "We aspire to be a leader in the economic, environmental and social aspects of everything we do; first choice for our shareholders, our customers, our employees, those with whom we do business, society and future generations.
  We will strive to help to build a better world in which current and future generations enjoy greater economic, social and environmental security.
  We will embrace the concept of sustainable development in our business decisions, large and small. In this way we will continue to create value for our shareholders and society, while being responsive to society's changing expectations."
  I do not criticise the CDC's business principles, and I certainly do not criticise Shell's. I simply say that the adoption of those principles by the CDC is no more than any major international player does these days. It is part and parcel of today's global business environment, and it does not protect the special developmental status of the CDC.
  The principles do not in any way prevent the CDC from investing in top-drawer, highly successful companies which make high-tech products, employing only a handful of local people, in the permitted countries. Nothing in the statement of business principles prevents that investment from becoming the norm. If I am wrong, the Secretary of State can intervene and tell me so.
  The second attempt at entrenchment is to insist that 70 per cent. of all the CDC's investments are limited to an agreed number of developing countries, 50 per cent. in sub-Saharan Africa or south Asia. That is set out in the investment policy and, again, I support it. There is a long list of countries—involving about two thirds of the world—including South Africa, India, China, Zimbabwe and Kenya.
  Surely the Secretary of State will not pretend that that measure prevents the new CDC from becoming a commercially driven investor in those emerging markets, no different from any other such investor. That is already happening. When I was in Kenya recently, I spoke to one of the CDC's field managers, who was being instructed to move away from the long-term, job-creating, community-focused investment on which the CDC has built its reputation. He was now being encouraged to look at shopping malls, office complexes and high-tech companies—sectors in which several other private investors are operating.
  There are examples of fund managers investing in emerging markets. Perpetual Investors talks about its funds in Thailand, the Philippines, India, Taiwan, Indonesia and Malaysia. Genesis Emerging Market Funds has significant investments in Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Mauritius, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Hundreds of private sector investment organisations are beginning to invest in the
  56
  emerging markets—and a good thing, too. My concern is that others are doing what the CDC is gradually going to get into.
  The moorings to which the Secretary of State is attaching the new CDC are too weak, and the currents tugging the new CDC out to sea will be strong, and will get stronger. We know that a burgeoning private sector is the very thing that those developing countries need, but other organisations can help provide that. The Secretary of State is not facing up to the radical change of direction for the CDC that she is instigating. Unless we can strengthen the Bill in Committee, the likelihood is that, in not many years, the CDC will have floated free from its developmental moorings. The House should consider the Bill in the light of that clear risk.
  A host of other matters need to be looked at carefully in Committee. The tax treatment of the CDC is a critical concern. As long ago as 7 July 1998, the Select Committee on International Development was told by the Secretary of State that preferential tax treatment would be forthcoming. She explained that it has been longer in coming than she would have liked, and that is fair enough. However, it is disappointing.
  The House of Commons is debating the Second Reading of a major Bill, which has the consequences that I have explained. The tax treatment is at the centre of whether the company succeeds and flourishes in the private sector. We do not have a scrap of paper that tells us what that tax treatment is. That is not good enough. It is all very well to say that it will be brought before us in Committee, but the Committee is likely to start in a fortnight. Surely we could have the information now. We must reserve all our positions in relation to the tax treatment of the company.
  Is the Secretary of State really saying that the Government will create a special tax status for one company in the United Kingdom, 75 per cent. of which will be owned by the private sector? What an extraordinary idea. She says that going offshore would be wrong. What is wrong with CDC funds going offshore? Has she consulted the Prime Minister, who talks about globalisation and our role in the global economy? Why is placing funds on a tax-efficient offshore basis politically unacceptable?
  It is an abuse of the House to treat us in this way. We want to consider carefully the balance sheet of the new CDC; to clarify the future position of Government guarantees and soft loans; and to know when it is intended to float or sell off the newly created shares. We want to explore all those matters in great detail in Committee.
  The Secretary of State must think again. She believes that she has discovered a third way in investment in developing countries—a private sector that will be content with pursuing developmental objectives at a modest rate of return—and that, by calling it a public-private partnership, rather than a partial privatisation, she has cut the Gordian knot that prevented us from taking that step; but there is no such third way.
  Mr. Leigh: The Government are retaining less of a share in the new company than the Conservative Government retained in a privatised British Telecom; and we retained a golden share for many years. I am also worried by the fact that, as the corporation is keeping 39 per cent. of its return on capital

  57
  employed—£468 million—it could be a target for predators. It will be a private company and there is nothing in the golden share to deter predatory interest.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There are real concerns and fears. That is why I say that the enshrinement and entrenchment that the Secretary of State thinks that she has achieved may not be in place. That is why we need line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. I warn the Minister that we will spend a long time in Committee. There is an awful lot to consider. I hope that the Secretary of State will be there, too, because decisions will have to be made. We intend to table sensible amendments that the Government will want to consider and, probably, accept.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that this partial privatisation is extremely dangerous and could well hurt the very people whom the corporation was set up in 1948 to support. The way that the Secretary of State has chosen is self-deluding and potentially dangerous. I know that she does not like criticism, but I urge her to consider carefully what I have said. There are real dangers. I urge her to be flexible enough to allow the Bill to be strengthened in Committee.
  No one could support private sector involvement more than Conservative Members, but we are not prepared to see 50 years of precious heritage sold off cheap and on false pretences. We will not stand by quietly and watch as the people of the developing world lose a vital lifeline to dignity and prosperity.
  5.38 pm
  Angela Smith: I have listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon. It seems to me that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has missed some crucial and fundamental points. It is worth reminding the House that it was a Labour Government who established the Commonwealth Development Corporation in 1948. Then, as now, Labour Members recognised our wide responsibilities throughout the Commonwealth and the world. The object, which we will continue to stick to, is to invest in the world's poorest countries.
  Since 1948, the corporation has become one of the world's leading providers of development finance. I am loth to cite statistics, as one can lose what is behind the figures, but it is worth noting that £1.6 billion is being invested in more than 400 enterprises in 54 countries. That is practical aid and support, especially for those smaller enterprises that would not attract major international finance.
  We can note with interest some of the investments that have been made. I was surprised to learn that £4 million was invested in the largest poultry farmer in Nicaragua; £4 million in the Ugandan textile industry; and £13 million in the Philippines cement industry. Those investments would not have been gained from large international financial companies, but they are absolutely crucial to the companies and communities involved, bringing local sustainable development. The finance and support has gone to those countries that have the most underdeveloped private capital markets and the least capital. By contrast, the majority of private investment has gone straight to the wealthiest developing countries.
  58
  It is worth reminding the House of the statistics, although they cannot show the real pain that lies behind them. One in four people lives on less than $1 a day. The scale and depth of poverty cannot be conveyed by statistics. They do not convey the individual suffering and misery. When people can die from poverty, not just from starvation, we have an obligation to help those on the margins of life. Extra ethical investment can be of great help and, for some people, is a matter of life and death.
  Both sides of the House can agree that we can be proud of the work that the CDC has undertaken. Given that success, any change would be viewed with caution. However, we have to seek ways to build on that success. Many of us believe that there should be more private investment in those areas of greatest need. The Bill and the new arrangements for the CDC can help to bring that about.
  First, the Bill will enable the CDC to raise private sector capital to increase private investment in the poorest countries. In addition, it aims for long-term partnerships between the private and public sectors to bring about the sustainable development that is so crucial. Perhaps most importantly, it will also ensure that we use the CDC's commitment to ethical business practice to enhance ethical, social and environmental awareness and to encourage private investment to sign up to those concerns. Enhanced business investment is good if it helps poor people and if the social elements and environmental policy are good.
  If the Bill is successful, it could be a model for other countries that want to work with private business to encourage ethical overseas investment. We have in the CDC a unique asset, with unique experience. We have a duty to use that and to do what we can to extend it. What distinguishes the CDC from other investments is its ethical stance, and I welcome the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today that that is foremost in her mind. The Bill could open up new opportunities for investment and development. More importantly, it will build on the important work that has already been undertaken. The CDC will use the experience of staff in offices in 27 countries to continue its work.
  Today, we seek to improve and extend business investment by offering the support and advice of the CDC to target finance where the need is greatest. That is where the challenge lies—to ensure that the focus continues on the poorest countries and communities. Because of the success of the CDC, we should view any change with caution, but I welcome the Department's consultations and discussions with the NGOs. It is essential that they are involved because their expertise is key.
  It may be a couple of years before market conditions are right for establishing the partnership. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult widely on the composition of the board. Business and commercial interests are essential, but she will need to satisfy herself and those who have an interest in the partnership that the board and board members have the knowledge, experience and—especially—the commitment to undertake that vital role. It is also crucial that board reports should be available for scrutiny by Members of Parliament, because we will wish to review and examine the successes. Those will need to be open to public debate. Where the structure works well, other countries may follow. It is more difficult—but necessary in the interests

  59
  of transparency and accountability—to allow Parliament the responsibility and the opportunity to review areas that may fail. We need to ensure that we can discuss those openly and to learn any lessons necessary. If we wish to use the partnership as a model, we must ensure that other countries also have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes as well as our successes.
  I welcome the fact that the Government will hold the golden share. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that to be crucial and I welcome the Government's commitment to it. Even when 100 per cent. of ordinary shares have been sold to the public, the Government will still have that golden share. It does not give voting rights, but it allows a member of the Government—preferably the Secretary of State—to attend meetings and to speak at them. That is important, as it ensures that development remains at the heart of the CDC and the reason for its existence. That will ensure that the Government's ethical policy remains in place.
  I began by stating that a Labour Government established the CDC in 1948. The Bill changes the organisation but its provisions, if used effectively, will build on and develop the CDC's existing role, and bring more private investment to the very poor developing countries whose needs are the greatest.
  5.45 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Liberal Democrat Members welcome the concept of the Commonwealth Development Corporation becoming a public-private partnership. We do not agree with the Conservatives that there is no middle way. Of course we do not: we believe that there has to be, or we would not be Liberal Democrats. The Bill offers the potential that more money and investment will go to developing countries. We appreciate that, although good development practice must emphasise education—especially for girls—and health issues, which must be accompanied by economic development.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on International Development and, from the countries that I have visited and the Government officials to whom I have spoken, it is clear that there is a desperate need and desire for investment and development. However, I regret to say that, so desperate are they for growth in their economies, they tend to dismiss questions to do with the environment, labour standards or sustainability. I shall return to that later.
  We have no objection to the concept of a public-private partnership in this context. We support it, provided that it really is the best way forward, and provided that the Government guarantee that it will not mean that, ultimately, there is less money in the development aid budget. If the public-private partnership fails—I shall express many reservations about it—will the Government ensure that the promised increase in funding for developing countries will continue and eventually reach 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product?
  The problems of the poorest countries are legion. They include bad governance—which is not helped by those countries' colonial past—environmental disasters, civil wars continuing and breaking out all the time, and the AIDS pandemic. In some areas, the disease affects up to
  60
  25 per cent. of the population and, sadly, many of those affected are the economically active. All those factors, and others, make investment in those countries risky and unattractive.
  However, the past record of the CDC bears examination. We have heard a lot about the CDC's virtues from the hon. Member for South—West Devon (Mr. Streeter). The CDC has been able to take risks that the private sector could not take. Funded by Government loans, it has not had to achieve high financial returns: its target has been a three-year average return of 8 per cent, and it has been able to receive UK Government backing to access markets closed to private investors.
  The Bill aims to ensure that the CDC will still be able to do its development work while at the same time attracting private capital, but will it succeed? I confess to being sceptical about the match between development objectives and the financial requirements of markets. My gut reaction is that it cannot work.
  I was interested to read in today's newspapers that the chief executive of the Commonwealth Development Corporation is to leave the organisation. Either he thinks that the concept behind the Bill is brilliant but that he is not up to the task, or he thinks that it is lousy and he wants nothing to do with it.
  Clare Short: The chief executive is a very fine man who strongly supports the Bill. We have worked closely together on the proposals. He is coming up to 60 and wants to be replaced before the transformation so that the organisation goes from strength to strength. He will do so in all honour and with the full agreement of the Government. There is no suggestion that he has any criticism of the Bill, nor that we have any criticism of him. It is a question of his age and of ensuring that the CDC is led by someone who can see it through its transformation period. I think that it is important to have that clarification on the record.
  Dr. Tonge: I am delighted to hear that, and glad that the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to say so. None the less, I share many of the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Devon.
  I must confess that I have no experience of investment or the workings of the City. My lifetime investment has been in my children and in working for the national health service, a very public company, though perhaps not, I suspect, for much longer. Nevertheless, I have considerable reservations. The International Development Committee was told that private investors are interested in ethical investment. We were also told, conversely, that the companies looking to sustainable development in low-income countries are few and far between. The ethical investment market currently amounts to £2 billion per annum, a tiny proportion of the entire market.
  The CDC's returns in 1998 showed a loss of 3.4 per cent. compared with a modest Government growth target of 8 per cent. The CDC is not currently required to pay any interest on loans. In future, the CDC will aim at an overall rate of return of 15 per cent. in order to attract private investors. I simply cannot see how that can be achieved without compromising the purposes of the CDC.
  We were told that there have been special factors recently in India and Pakistan, in which the CDC has experienced huge difficulties that affected the rate of

  61
  return. Emerging markets have been turbulent, but there will always be countries in difficulties. The areas that really require CDC attention, such as sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, have far more serious problems than those of India and Pakistan, and conditions there are much more turbulent. Those are the countries most in need, and I am sceptical that the project will benefit the poorest of the world.
  We have heard something about taxation, and I shall not—indeed, given my background, I could not—go into it in great depth. However, the Bill is only half a Bill as the detailed tax proposals have not been put before us. No doubt, greater business minds than mine will tackle the tax proposals in Committee, but I feel that it insults the House to fail to table those proposals with the Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that an offshore banking arrangement would be unacceptable. She previously told the Select Committee that such an arrangement would be intolerable. Tailored tax arrangements have been announced to put the CDC in a special category. How fair will that be for other companies that trade ethically? We must see the detail. I am unconvinced that the CDC can be a one-off case in a special taxation category, and I hope that the muddle can be sorted out satisfactorily in Committee.
  The CDC sent the Select Committee a copy of its business principles before the Bill reached Second Reading, and they are laudable. The CDC aims to implement the best ethical practices itself and in all subsidiary companies that work for it. It will exhibit "honesty, integrity and fairness." It will employ good environmental, health and safety, and social issues policies. However, the document is full of verbs such as "recognise", "seek" and "identify". I should prefer it to contain words and phrases such as "insist", "enforce" and "make legally binding". The document reminds me of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development code of conduct for multinational enterprises, which is advisory and full of hope but which contains no compulsion. We have heard it all before, during the negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment.
  We all know that multinationals—unlike the hon. Member for South-West Devon, I shall name no names—produce glossy brochures containing codes of conduct. Sadly, we also know that the companies do not always adhere to them. We understand that the Governments of poorer countries are responsible for ensuring the protection of their environment and the welfare of their people. However, they are desperate for investment and industrialisation and they are tempted to turn a blind eye to bad practice. The CDC must not be allowed to follow that path.
  The so-called golden share, held by the Government, is claimed to be the mechanism by which CDC investments will be reviewed and monitored. Will it ensure a legally binding adherence to the business principles set down by the CDC, and will that cover any subsidiary companies? Or will a thin veil be drawn over that aspect of CDC business so that investors can be attracted?
  My final concern is the percentage of CDC business that will be done in the very poorest countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. What percentage will be done in countries in which a larger return on investment can be assured? The Government
  62
  require that at least 70 per cent. of investment should be in poorer countries. That is fine, and we have heard today which countries are the poorest.
  The Government also require that the CDC should aim at 50 per cent. investment in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, where the poorest people of the world live, but if the Government wish to stick to their White Paper's excellent aspirations, which we all support, they must not "aim" but insist that those countries receive 50 per cent. of the investment. Furthermore, they must insist that that investment helps the poorest of those countries, not lining the pockets of the wealthy and corrupt.
  If the Government insist on those things, will the CDC be able, given all the problems in those countries, to attract sufficient private investment that will provide a good return for shareholders? I fear that it will not. A memorandum to the Select Committee from Sir Michael McWilliam, a former member of the CDC board, pointed out that
  "the CDC should be made to satisfy two masters—the God of the Development Community and the Mammon in the City."
  It remains to be seen whether the CDC can deliver.
  The Liberal Democrats will not vote against Second Reading, but we hope that problems will be addressed and resolved in Committee. Unless they are, the Government will not achieve their noble purpose of seeking to alleviate poverty in the world.
  5.58 pm
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a few remarks in this important debate. I do so with a little trepidation, because I feel very much an amateur in this area, and I know that most hon. Members present have much more experience of development matters than I do. Nevertheless, as a long-time member of the World Development Movement and a supporter of other charities and pressure groups that aim to redress the clear imbalance between the richer, mostly western nations and the poorer, developing countries, I welcome the Bill. In particular, I welcome the safeguards outlined today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The Bill has benefited from the scrutiny that it received before it came to Second Reading. It started life in the other place, and it has been well aired in the Select Committee on International Development. The Government have promised that that type of pre-legislative process will become more common. Apart from the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Immigration and Asylum Bill and the draft Food Standards Bill, the process has not yet become the norm. I look forward to the process happening more frequently in future, and I welcome today's publication of a draft Freedom of Information Bill.
  I support the Bill, which will convert the CDC into a plc with a difference. The public-private partnership and the ability to attract private sector funds into parts that other public limited companies cannot—or will not—reach will be important. However, the difference that an ethical dimension will build into the whole project is even more important.
  From reading the transcripts of previous debates and evidence sessions in Committee, it is obvious that the CDC is already a well-respected vehicle, which has

  63
  supported much high-quality development work—at present, about 400 projects in 50-plus countries. It is also obvious that many people who know a lot about these matters feel that much more can be achieved if private sector investment can be levered in where it is wanted and needed. The CDC has not been able to support as much potential development as it could have, at least partly because of Government financial rules and the limits on Government expenditure and because, unfortunately, direct state involvement can sometimes be a disincentive to prospective private partners.
  It is clearly the case, however, that the Government's known commitment and explicit priorities for development help to establish trust. Much, of the CDC's success has come from its close ties with the British Government. Therefore, the loosening of those ties must be undertaken with care.
  Probably the most important feature of current CDC projects is that a high proportion of them—as high as 80 per cent., and a mixture of equity and loans—are in the poorest developing countries, which are those with a per capita gross national product of less than $1,600 or thereabouts. Certainly that should continue to be the case, and it has been mentioned in virtually every speech today. The eradication of poverty must continue to be the aim.
  Existing policies try to ensure that supported projects are economically and commercially viable, sound in development terms and satisfactory when judged as ethical businesses. Christian Aid has advocated social and environmental impact assessments before investment decisions are taken, and independent monitoring of codes of conduct for ethical businesses in each country.
  If it can be shown that private investors can achieve attractive returns in the markets of the poorest countries without exploitation, it will be of great value. Christian Aid has also welcomed the Government's decision that proceeds from the sale of holdings in the CDC should be used to boost the aid budget. That should certainly happen, with the proviso—unnecessary, I hope—that they are an addition to an increasing aid budget and not a substitute for part of it.
  The Government have already done much and they intend to do more to protect the CDC's development role, particularly during its transition into its new form. Despite the strictures of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), many non-governmental organisations already believe that there are sufficient protections.
  The concern now must be that the CDC must become sufficiently attractive to investors so that it can run successfully as a business. Judging by the story in last Friday's Financial Times, it may yet be some time before the CDC's investment portfolio is in shape to attract private sector investment, but the Secretary of State has explained the background to that story. Nevertheless, the aim must be to complete the legislation and put the change in place as soon as possible, so that there is no delay when the time is right to set up this public-private partnership.
  I support the Bill and wish the CDC every success in its new form.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) anticipated how I intended to open my remarks by
  64
  describing the two reports of the Select Committee on International Development on the subject as a pre-legislative process. One of the few recommendations of the Committee that the Secretary of State has not been able to honour—it is not her fault, but that of the organisers of Government business—is the recommendation that the Bill be the subject of a pre-legislative process. We have done our best to take evidence on the subject and we published it in two reports, the last of which was published about a month ago. I hope that the House has found that useful.
  As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) explained, that report contains much of the detail that the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill. Indeed, I would say from the outset that the objective of the Bill is one that we would all wholeheartedly embrace. The Government are attempting to expand the Commonwealth Development Corporation so that it can take on more business and expand the private sector into some of the more difficult countries of the world and act as a catalyst to bring in other private sector investors and local investors to enhance the private sector in those countries.
  As the White Paper, which the Secretary of State introduced, straightforwardly states, development will take place not simply through aid, but through the private sector—through which there has been a much larger flow of funds to developing countries than that from the aid budget, even given the increase that the right hon. Lady managed to secure from the Treasury. I thoroughly congratulate her on that, but it will not be a fraction of what we could and should anticipate coming from the private sector.

  The Bill, which will enable the CDC to be used as a vehicle for private sector investment, is to be wholly welcomed. We must also welcome the fact that the CDC in its new form will bring more and not less money to the countries involved, in particular the poorest countries in which it is difficult for the private sector to operate.
  The devil is in the detail in this Bill, as the Select Committee said. The Secretary of State has managed to answer most of our questions about documentation—the publication of the articles and the memorandum of association, and the details of the special share and the development policy to be followed. We have been able to examine those in detail. Indeed, we know the business principles and ethical investment policy that the CDC will pursue. Together, those present a considerable burden and onus on the CDC, which might act as a detriment to attracting sufficient private investment, although I hope that they will not.
  I shall recall some of the achievements of the CDC for hon. Members because those will inform the House about how it will have to change when it is in its new form. There are some worries. As the House knows, I had the honour and privilege of serving the CDC as an employee for nearly 15 years. In that time, we undertook many developments, many of which were highly successful. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West remarked, they relied on the relationship with the Government. Low-interest loans received from the Government enabled the CDC to carry out the work. The Government thought that the CDC filled a special niche, as was set out in the Bill that set it up in 1948. It was not to be a competitor with other private investors; it was to fill a niche where private investors could not or would not dare to tread.

  65
  One of the CDC's early investments was in Swaziland. The then King of the Swazis negotiated with the CDC a long lease on large tracts of hillside that had been denuded of all vegetation. The CDC found that the Caribbean pine tree—which agriculturalists had located in Belize—would grow well on the high plateau lands of Swaziland. It invested in clothing the hills with a large forest, which took about 13 to 15 years to mature—because of the conditions in Swaziland, the trees grew faster than they do in the Caribbean. The forest gave rise to an industry in wood products, which still flourishes today, and a mill to produce pulp for paper was founded in the country as a result. The partnership between the King of the Swazis and the CDC has greatly promoted the Swaziland economy, not only by creating a new forest and paper products industry, but by major investment in sugar through the Swaziland irrigation scheme. That has been a huge success and a training farm is based there that helps many African and other agriculturalists to learn the latest techniques in tropical African agriculture. That improves yields and people's ability to feed themselves and to produce cash crops to sell worldwide.
  That is the sort of thing that can be done with long-term loans that do not require dividends or returns on capital for 15 years while the trees grow. Another investment was required in the factory that produces the pulp, and a further one in a railway line from Swaziland to ports in South Africa and Mozambique to allow export of products to South African or overseas paper producers. A private investor would be loth to undertake such a scheme because of the time taken for the investment to reach maturity. It was that niche that the CDC filled so brilliantly in that example.
  Another example from Africa is the CDC's investment in Kenya in the production of coffee and tea by smallholders. Those products now head the lists of Kenyan exports. That resulted from a land reform achieved by a former chairman of the CDC and Governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring. With the co-operation of the people around Nairobi, he reorganised landholdings to bring together sufficient acreage of farmland to enable people to grow coffee and provide a farm for themselves to sustain their families and produce surpluses to sell in the market. Co-operative tea and coffee factories were set up and have been a huge success.
  The only worrying thing is that the theory that people produce fewer children as they get richer has proved mistaken in this case, because they have become more productive in that respect as well as in tea and coffee. Economically, and in terms of producing independent people who can vote, pay tax and participate in their country's democracy and civil society, the project has been a huge success. Again, the success was due to the sort of finance provided by the CDC. Organising smallholders is not the most profitable activity in developing countries, but that was what the CDC did in producing first-class development.
  Clare Short: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for their valuable work. If the poorest countries cannot attract investment on terms other than those that he describes, is not the future gloomy? If it is not possible to find beneficial, commercially interesting investments in those countries, they will be marginalised from the world economy. The south-east Asian countries, which have had the biggest reduction of poverty in the
  66
  past 50 years, received aid to invest in education and health, but they created conditions that attracted large-scale private investment. That is what caused the major advance. I respect his argument, but it worries me. If the CDC cannot make the transition that we seek, the prognosis for the economies of the poorer countries is gloomy.
  Mr. Wells: I could not agree more. I am describing the role that the CDC played in initiating development where previously it was not happening. That has led to other, greater development. In Malaysia, the CDC pioneered the diversification of the economy from simple dependence on rubber plantations into palm oil, which is now its second or third largest export. Once diversified, the economy was less dependent on one product. Both industries generated funds that attracted further investment to process the rubber and palm oil. That provided the revenue for the Government to increase investment in health and education. Malaya's economy is now described as a tiger.
  Countries have to move to the bigger league, if I can call it that, to allow real investment—the private flows from which Malaysia has benefited so hugely that it produces motor cars and exports them to this country. The CDC has not taken part in those much more profitable and normal investments. I shall not take too much more time wallowing in past successes. What the Secretary of State is trying to achieve needs to be achieved, but it will come at the sacrifice of some of what the CDC was able to do in the past.
  On handling finance, the need to locate the CDC offshore and shield some of its investments from exchange risks is shown by the housing market. CDC investment in housing has diminished over the years, because if pounds are used for long-term investments in housing mortgages, the money has to be returned to pounds from the local currency 20 years later when that currency may have been considerably devalued. That not only affects the interest repaid on the loan, but means that the money is repaid in, for example, devalued Guyana dollars. I was involved in housing mortgage finance in Guyana; a factor of 60 times what the money was worth when it was invested is involved. In purely financial terms, housing was a bad investment.
  The new CDC structure may allow it both to borrow Guyana dollars and avoid the exchange rate risks. If that is tax free, it will not be taxed in Guyana or the United Kingdom, so it can roll over. I hope that the CDC will be able to undertake such investment, which will enable it to contribute to a valuable and profitable housing market, alongside other investors. Throughout Africa and Asia, there is a huge need for extra housing development. Social housing is also needed, but such investment will help with that because building housing for people who can afford to buy it means that people who cannot will be able to move into the houses vacated by the buyers. There are many opportunities of a different character. As I have shown, we are changing the character of the CDC profoundly by altering its financial arrangements and putting it largely into the financial sector.
  The CDC executive was told that it should not engage in refinancing. If some company or group was willing to make an investment in a power or hotel company, the CDC would not invest. It would say, "If you think it is viable and you can make your money out of it in the

  67
  private sector, you go ahead; the CDC will not bother." However, in the small Caribbean islands, the CDC was the first investor in international tourism. In St. Lucia, Antigua and Grenada, the first international-style hotels were built by the CDC and completed in 1962. That was the foundation of tourism in that area.
  The then chairman of the CDC, Sir Nutcombe Hume, said that he would never invest in international tourism because that was not what development was about. However, he did so because no one else would invest in those hotels. That started a huge new industry. Indeed, in terms of earning power, tourism is the only viable and buoyant industry in Antigua, Grenada, St. Lucia and Barbados. The CDC was an initiator of such investment; it took a highly developmental role, of which we can all be proud. The Labour Government who set up the CDC, successive Governments and all those people employed in the CDC have worked hard to bring that about.
  Members of the executive of the CDC were not interested in investing in equity; they were told not to do so. Now, the reverse will take place—it is already beginning. The reason for not going into such investment was that it was much more risky. There is a banking principle that one does not use loans—with which the CDC was financed—to invest in equity, with all the attendant dangers: when the money would be repaid; when the dividend would be received; or whether the dividend would be enough to repay the loan and the interest in due time. That will change, and so the character of the CDC will be greatly changed.
  That change could make the CDC more, rather than less, viable, provided that we get right those details to which the Secretary of State referred in her introductory remarks. The question of tax is absolutely crucial. We shall have to go into that matter in Committee, and examine exactly how it will apply. According to my notes, we were talking about exemption from capital gains tax and chargeable gains. That matter needs further exploration in Committee, to ensure that the CDC is not put at a disadvantage when investing alongside other private sector companies, which will be keeping their money offshore. Such companies would not be taxed in this country and would be able to recycle their money and reinvest it overseas without having to bear the tax that the CDC would have to pay if it did not have that tax exemption. If we put the CDC into that position, it would be unable to invest alongside other private sector investors, which is one of the Secretary of State' s major objectives, and one that I very much welcome. The CDC should be involved in such investment, not only in partnership with other international lenders, but by gathering together and harnessing capital in the countries themselves. It should be working alongside those countries, both in investment and in management.
  I hope that one of the features of the existing CDC that will be retained is the capacity for investors to manage their own investments. In the many difficult political circumstances and in the potentially unstable economic conditions of the least developed world, that is probably the only real security for investors. If they manage the project or are responsible for its management and can decide who to recruit and appoint, there will be a degree of security that cannot be provided in any other way. In so doing, they will be giving an example to local people
  68
  as to how to manage properly and efficiently. They will be able to train local people as managers. That would be one of the most effective developmental strategies that we could undertake. I hope that we shall encourage the CDC to continue to manage projects overseas, albeit with an equal opportunities programme to bring in women. People from the country concerned and from other countries should be involved and moved around, as the CDC has begun to do. It should do that even more and should carry out appropriate training.
  Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Department has a holding in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The bank's chief economist, Nick Stern, thinks that the move from loans to equity and, therefore, the greater commitment to improving the quality of the management of the business, rather than securing a return on the loan, will possibly have great creative impact. The reason for that move is not merely to obtain a higher rate of return that will make it attractive to commercial investment; it will improve the long-term management capacity of the company into which the equity is placed. That potential benefit of the change could have great importance.
  Mr. Wells: I very much agree with that point. I want the CDC to be encouraged by the directors in actually pursuing that. However, the change will not be easy to achieve. The right people must be found; they must be properly trained and supervised. However, doing so will provide security and that vital interest in the day-to-day management and in taught management. That would make it impossible for Governments in the states in which the CDC was operating to make political appointments to the management—a problem that has faced the CDC in the past. Such political appointees were not able to manage properly; they had neither the training nor the background and were forced into the management of the company. Thereby hangs a serious tale, which, in the case of the Guyana Electricity Corporation, ended with the collapse of the company, so that, for some months, there was no light in Guyana's capital city. Management is most important and I hope that it will be developed systematically, using modern management techniques.
  I come now to the question of borrowing. The CDC will be able to expand if it reaches the point at which it can borrow on the international markets. Until now, its great restriction has been that it was subject to the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement and the amount that could be borrowed in the private sector. Once money from the aid budget was not being invested in the CDC, its ability to expand was dependent on borrowing from the Treasury. It will be released from that constraint by the Bill, once the shares are sold to the private sector. I understand that the Treasury rules provide that the Government should sell 60 per cent. of the shares to private sector investors and the CDC would then be able to borrow on the private markets. That goal must be reached as soon as is practical, because it is from that borrowing that the CDC will be able to expand.
  My next point relates to timing. If we were to turn the CDC into a company under the Companies Act 1985, but wholly owned by the Government—as it would be

  69
  possible and practical to do by the end of this year—the CDC would be unable to borrow from the private sector because its shares would be wholly owned by the Government. In those circumstances, I worry as to whether the CDC could maintain its investment programme—roughly running at about £250 million a year—because its only source of money would be self-generated funds, unless the Department is considering allowing the CDC to borrow from the Treasury during that interim period. I suppose that that would be possible, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could let us know about that when he sums up. Will he also confirm whether some of the aid budget will be allocated to the CDC to enable it to expand its lending and investment programmes during the interim period before the shares are sold off and it can borrow in the private sector?
  That period is crucial because the CDC will be attempting to build a track record during those years. If its ability to borrow and expand is constrained too much, there will a bad effect on the track record that it presents to private investors.
  My own view is that the sooner we sell the shares and launch the CDC in its private-public sector role, the better, which brings me to the balance sheet. Waiting too long for a track record would be a mistake; the CDC should go quickly into the private sector, so that it can begin to borrow, to adjust to the disciplines of the private sector and to make the equity investments necessary to enable it to accomplish what the Secretary of State wants. Certain interim steps could be taken—for example, dressing up the balance sheet by issuing preference shares. Such shares would have a coupon of, say, 8 per cent. They would attract ethical investors and commercial investors from the insurance world who are interested in an emerging market portfolio. They would also have transfer rights, so that they could be transferred into proper, full equity share at a later date to be decided by the investor. In that way, we could attract private sector investment into the CDC sooner.
  Whether the preference shareholding would qualify the CDC to borrow from the private sector is a detail that we need to explore, but that sort of imaginative thinking has to go into the balance sheet and how to dress that up in the interim period. There is no doubt that it would be perfectly possible to produce a balance sheet for the CDC that would be attractive to the private sector almost immediately, because the CDC has accumulated profits and surpluses within the budget totalling almost £550 million. In addition, there are Government loans that are not currently being repaid, or on which interest is not being paid, which could be converted into equity.
  Those are major hurdles which the CDC must overcome as it transfers to its new role of investing in vibrant sectors of society. In its developmental role, it will help countries to escape dependency and enable them to achieve self-confident development. As those countries generate their own resources, they will be able to invest revenues derived from the taxation of those resources in housing, education and health, which are vital to proper development.
  I shall conclude with a statement made by Sir Michael McWilliam to the Select Committee. I asked:
  "Can the CDC achieve its aims of development more effectively if this Bill goes through? What do the panel think, yes or no?"
  70
  Sir Michael's conclusion was:
  "I think the end result as one comes out of this transition period will be more focused development, a clearer idea of where they really are making a contribution and the ability to attract partner funds will also be enhanced and that again will reinforce their development purpose. I think this whole process, uncomfortable as it may be and muddly as it may be in some respects, has a very worthwhile objective at the end of the road."
  It is a worthwhile objective to find a way of enhancing, encompassing and bringing together private sector investment in the extremely poor and not-so-poor countries of the third world, so as to bring about economic development that complements social and other development.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Phil Hope: I shall be brief and stay within the time allowed to me.
  I strongly support the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to pursue the White Paper's goals and objectives of eliminating world poverty. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, revealingly, that the Conservatives did not privatise the CDC because it would hurt the poorest of the poor. What does that tell us about the Conservatives' motives in all their other privatisations?
  I am convinced that the Bill is about long-term partnership, as the CDC attracts new private capital for investment in the public good in developing countries. The CDC will target and expand its work in the poorest countries and will ensure that its investment is ethical, with social, environmental and health and safety issues taken into account. I remind the House that, in October 1997, when launching the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said of the sale of the CDC:
  "I can also promise that all the money Government raises from the sale will be ploughed back into our development programme".
  That is an important point.
  The White Paper's goal of halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 is extremely important. Achieving that goal is not just about aid, or trade, or development support; it is about investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we have to get private sector investment into developing countries. The ambitious programme that the Government have set out will turn the CDC into a major instrument in the achievement of that goal, and I hope that this will become a model that all other countries will follow. In that way, developing countries will be able to go forward with us and achieve the elimination of global poverty.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: One of the key reasons why I take an interest in this subject is that, when we were at the Department of Trade and Industry, Sir Tim Sainsbury and I were involved in the successful privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. That company is not entirely dissimilar from the CDC, even though, because we were dealing with potentially far more prosperous markets, we faced far fewer problems when the ECGD was privatised than the Government are facing today. The then Labour Opposition opposed that privatisation, but we rejoice when sinners repent of their former mistakes.

  71
  I have a few questions to ask the Government—after all, the CDC was founded in 1948 and it has been successful, so we have to be certain that the motives and factors prompting change are powerful. The CDC borrows long, at 25 years, and lends short, at an average of seven years; that adds to its surpluses. How will being in the private sector facilitate its ability to continue to do so? If the CDC's current borrowing power is insufficient, and if it will have more freedoms in the private sector, will it be able to borrow as cheaply in the private sector as it borrows now? Since 1995, the corporation has borrowed from the Exchequer at a zero rate of interest. Can that continue when the CDC is in the private sector?
  Can the Treasury concede a special tax structure to a private company, to enable that new private company to compete with offshore companies? Will not that set a precedent, which the Treasury normally resists vigorously? The CDC is an extremely small burden on the UK taxpayer, so why are we changing its status now? If we are doing so because of its insufficient borrowing powers, could not those powers be extended in some other way—for example, by allowing the CDC to borrow overseas, which would free it from the shackles of the public sector borrowing requirement?
  As I said in an earlier intervention, I understand that the CDC's reserves at 31 December 1997 stood at £486 million—some 39 per cent. of its capital employed. My concern is that the CDC will be a target for predators who are more interested in its reserves than in its work. The Secretary of State is completely committed to her subject and I do not for one moment question her good faith in this matter; I do, however, question the ability of the new company that she is creating to resist predators once it leaves her control.
  That is all important, because 80 per cent. of the CDC's investments are in countries whose per capita income is less than $1,600. I have no doubt that the new CDC will continue to invest in those very poor countries, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I am not convinced that, once it is in the private sector, it will not concentrate its investments in such countries in the better, more fruitful and more commercially viable investments that are already the subject of private sector interest.
  Clare Short: That is a very important point. We do not want the CDC or its successor to make unprofitable, second-rate investments. High-return, high-tech investments are not taking place in the poorest countries, but they want and need that investment. If the CDC were to move into sectors with high rates of return and help to lever that kind of investment to some of the poorest countries in the world, that would be extremely beneficial to those countries' economies. It would not be a bad thing.
  Mr. Leigh: The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. However, my point follows on from the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). He brings great experience to this debate and gave a string of examples—which included hotels in Antigua—where the CDC, under its current structure, had led the way by investing in projects that were not initially attractive to the private sector. I have
  72
  no doubt that the right hon. Lady is correct: it is right and proper that the CDC should be able to make more profitable, high-tech investments. However, we are concerned that the private sector is already doing that. We are not convinced that, once freed from Government control, the new CDC will not forget its roots, which are so important to the developing world.
  The CDC's return on capital employed fell from 8.3 per cent. in 1996 to 7.3 per cent. in 1997. How will private partners be attracted in such an atmosphere? The Government admitted that there was a problem in their evidence to the Select Committee when they said that returns at that level would "not be sufficient". Will socially desirable projects be sacrificed in order to increase returns? The Prime Minister said:
  I am less interested in whether an institution is public or private than whether it works."
  We all agree with that. However, what proof do we have that the CDC will work better as a public-private institution—apart from vague exhortations about the merits of the "third way"? Is this project a sacrifice to the ideology of the third way?
  What proof do the Government have that the CDC could not continue its work in its current form? Could it not be allowed to borrow overseas? In any event, is this project not a privatisation in all but name? If it is, why not admit it? What is the point in obtaining a substantial minority shareholding? If the golden share is retained, is not the substantial minority shareholding of 25 per cent. superfluous? The Government will sell what the CDC owes it as shares, but will the new shareholders want to continue to invest in future projects of the type that we have described? Will they set new priorities?
  I believe that the CDC as we know it and have come to admire it is being sacrificed on the altar of the third way. The third-way mantra is that the public and private sectors can inevitably run companies together. The Post Office will be the next victim of the third-way ideology—although that will be an even more timid toe in the water because the political complexities are far greater: in that instance, it will be our constituents complaining, not some of the poorest people in the world.
  I have a different third way. I believe that there are several wrong approaches to international development. One wrong approach is to wash one's hands of it and say that people in the developing world are none of our concern. All hon. Members are passionately concerned about poor countries and want to help them. Another clearly wrong method is the woolly-headed, generous approach, unrelated to market disciplines, which has proved disastrous in many countries. 1 do believe in the third way: a hard-headed, market-disciplined approach. If the company achieves that, well and good; but why not at least have the courage to admit that this is a full-scale privatisation? If it is, I suspect that some of the poorest people in the world may suffer, and that we may have to create a new Commonwealth Development Corporation in the future.
  6.45 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: This has been an interesting and full debate about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has been operating since 1948. In a way, I suppose that we have been considering what it will do in the next

  73
  millennium. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House—not least my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who opened so ably for the Opposition—in paying tribute to the corporation for the way in which it has discharged its aims and objectives since its inception.
  We welcome this opportunity to examine the organisation's forward planning. I stress to the Secretary of State that the Opposition's motives are as good as her own: we have no vested interest in seeking the failure of any privatisation or public-private partnership—whatever the right hon. Lady wishes to call this measure. I hope that she will consider my remarks in that spirit. However, the process is not without its difficulties—not least of which is the U-turn that the Labour party has made on this issue.
  "The Opposition are supportive of the corporation's contribution. It is a public corporation and it will remain even more so under the next Labour Government."—[Official Report, 20 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 65.]
  Those are the words not of some left-wing fanatic but of the Under-Secretary.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Who says that I am not a left-wing fanatic?
  Mrs. Gillan: If the cap fits, wear it. The Under-Secretary is responsible for steering the Bill through the House, and perhaps the fact that his heart is not in it has contributed to the delay in the passage of this measure.
  It has taken a remarkably long time to bring the Bill to the Floor of the House considering that it began its passage through the legislative process on 7 December last year when it received a Second Reading in another place. From its First Reading in this place on 10 March, it has taken two and a half months to reach this stage today—although that is not as long as the Foreign Secretary takes to answer some written questions. The hold-ups in the passage of the Bill are indicative of the problems attached to it.
  Unfortunately, the Bill's passage has coincided with the CDC's announcement that it made a £42 million loss in 1998—its first annual deficit since 1954. That is hardly a helpful result considering the Government's plans for its future. The Bill has at last reached the House and we have had a chance to listen to hon. Members' views about the proposals and the so-called public-private partnership, which is privatisation by another name—as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out in an intervention during the Secretary of State' s speech.
  We know that the legislation gives rise to some difficulties. That is recognised not least by the Department, which has been wrestling with the problems highlighted in another place, in the Select Committee and in today's debate. The key is in the Secretary of State's speech. The Secretary of State was honest enough to say that she had struggled with this issue and that she believed that she had found the solution. I hope that she has—sadly, only time will tell—but it is only right that we should have an opportunity to raise with her our fears and trepidations and examine the problems that we believe the CDC may face as she takes it down this route. The
  74
  Secretary of State referred to tailored tax treatment. However, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have not had an opportunity to examine the details of that tailored tax treatment, which will not be available until the Committee stage.
  The Secretary of State talked about the problems of the timing of the listing and the CDC's financial record. When I asked her about future profitability, she said that she was no Mystic Meg, but she went on to read from her script that the CDC's profitability will increase.
  Clare Short: The hon. Lady claims to wish the CDC well, so she should not make irresponsible remarks. Everybody in the world knows that emerging markets have faced difficulties this year, and any responsible decision to float the CDC on the stock market will therefore take into account the state of emerging markets and the likely interest in investing in the company. The hon. Lady' s colleague the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made constructive points about making sure that the balance sheet can perform well in the meantime.
  There is a gap between making responsible criticism, and denouncing the whole operation and trying to score points that would reduce the possibility of the project having the most beneficial future. It is unnecessary to descend into cheap point scoring instead of tackling a complex and interesting transition.
  Mrs. Gillan: That intervention does not do the Secretary of State justice; it is unworthy of her. She represents a party that talked down every privatisation carried out by Conservative Governments. Nothing in my remarks so far has been other than the truth, and I am trying to be constructive. I said at the beginning of my speech that I hoped that the Secretary of State would respond to that, but obviously that will not be the case.
  There has been much praise of the CDC on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said that she wanted the CDC's focus to remain on the poorest countries, and she wanted wider consultation with non-governmental organisations, which we can all applaud. However, the language that the hon. Lady used gave the impression that she believes that the Government will retain total control of the CDC. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), in her rush to support the third way, almost forgot that she intended to be critical of the Bill. She seemed to welcome the Bill and then said that it would not work. She is trying to be all things to all people, but I agree with the scepticism that she expressed later in her contribution.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) welcomed the draft Bill on freedom of information, and there are so many unknown quantities in this Bill that I tend to agree with him that we need more freedom of information, perhaps to know the details on which we are legislating today. If ever a Bill needed a pre-legislative process, it is this Bill, which contains so many unknown quantities that we shall not know what we are talking about until the Department for International Development chooses to reveal the details.

  75
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development—
  Mr. Streeter: The distinguished Chairman.
  Mrs. Gillan: Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, he is the distinguished Chairman of that Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has already made such a great contribution to the Bill's passage, acknowledged that the devil is in the detail, and went on to prove his command of the detail of the Bill. I hope that, in Committee, Ministers will prove that they have as much command of the detail as my hon. Friend does.
  In a brief contribution, the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) said that he hoped that the Bill would be the model for all to follow. I hope so too, but unless questions are answered, that will not be the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) reflected Conservative Members' concerns about whether the new CDC will be a target for predators. I hope that the Under-Secretary will address that issue in his winding-up speech.
  There is a problem with the Bill. Privatisation was very close to our hearts when we were in government, and if it had been possible, we would have moved towards privatising the CDC in the belief that we could have improved its lot in the world. We judged that it was not possible, and that has been reflected in the proceedings to date. When the Bill passed through the upper House, there was a feeling of consensus, but when one reads the debate, one realises that it was mainly due to the fact that the CDC commands such affection, and its work such respect. There was consensus about its contribution to the development of poorer countries, but there was disquiet about the incompleteness and inadequacy of the Government's plans. The same concerns have been expressed today.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon opened for the Opposition, he said that we would not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. I agree with him, and we shall not seek a Division. Let me instead reiterate for the Minister the detailed matters that we hope to explore. My hon. Friend described four of those in his speech.
  First, have the CDC's developmental principles been adequately protected, or will the Bill destroy its great heritage? That question has come from all sides in this debate. Will the Department's budget receive a fair price for our taxpayers' investment during the past 50 years? I hope that the Minister will answer that question. Will the privatisation protect the poorest people in the developing world? They are the very people whom the organisation was set up to help, and we do not want there to be any diminution in that help. Do the Government's proposals for the tax treatment of the new CDC deserve our support? I presume that the Minister will be able to say little about that tonight because we will have to wait until nearer the Committee stage for the detailed measures to emerge.
  76
  I hope that the Under-Secretary understands our deep-seated concerns. The process of reforming the CDC started in October 1997, and 19 months later, we are left with unanswered questions, unpublished documents and no direction or guidance on certain key aspects of the Bill. That has been reflected in debates in the other place and on the Floor of this House and in two reports by the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of our detailed questions tonight. If not, I hope that he will be able to give us the answers in Committee. We shall reserve until Third Reading our judgment on whether he has succeeded, and we may feel that we have to vote against the Bill because of the concerns articulated today which the Government have not yet addressed.
  Like other hon. Members on all sides of the House, I wish the Bill well in the next stage of its proceedings, but I want the Minister to ensure that he responds to all our questions and concerns. The CDC deserves that.
  6.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have had a predominantly thoughtful debate on the policy and principles behind the Government's proposal to establish a public-private partnership for the CDC, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said, was set up by a Labour Government in 1948.
  There was an interesting contrast between the petty, carping, negative tones of the principal Opposition spokesmen and the constructive, helpful welcome for the Bill by the knowledgeable, thoughtful Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). He has worked for the CDC, is familiar with its aims and knows what he is talking about, and is not merely a spokesman who is trying to climb the greasy pole of the shadow Cabinet.
  The public-private partnership is at the very heart of the Government's development focus on working with others to eliminate poverty. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and other members of the Select Committee said last year in their report on the future of the CDC, the partnership is a
  "challenging and unique opportunity for the best characteristics of the public and private sectors to be combined to make a significant contribution to poverty eradication".
  After careful thought and consideration, that was the unanimous conclusion of a Select Committee that has Conservative members and a Conservative Chairman.
  In today's debate, the proposals have been welcomed by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers. It is only the Opposition spokesmen in this House who have criticised and questioned the Bill. When the Bill passed through the House of Lords, the Opposition's tone was completely different, perhaps because they have a little more knowledge about and understanding of development.
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) praised the Secretary of State for the White Paper, the comprehensive spending review and everything that has been done. He should therefore understand that it is inconceivable that someone with that commitment and record would do anything to undermine the CDC's development role.
  This is not a privatisation. Under public-private partnerships, there will not be windfall gains or fat cats, as we saw under Tory privatisations. That has been

  77
  assured through a combination of measures, such as the 25 per cent. shareholding, the golden share, the memorandum of understanding, the deed, the memorandum and articles of association and investment policy—[Interruption.] If, instead of gossiping among themselves, Conservative Members were to read such articles, they might be a little better advised and more informed.
  The development of objectives will be entrenched in the public-private partnerships, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described. Private investors will not be able to walk away—as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said—from the objectives. Some may choose not to enter partnerships, but if they do so, they will know of the ethical investment policy to which the CDC must adhere. Investors will enter the partnership on that basis.
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon said that we will create a huge development void in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. There is currently such a huge void in foreign investment. The purpose of these partnerships is to mobilise private capital for such countries and to demonstrate the attractiveness of investment in them. We shall be highlighting the attractiveness of the 70 per cent. of the poorest countries—not emerging markets, but pre-emerging markets, as the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly said.
  The Opposition have suggested no alternative. The hon. Member for South-West Devon said that he intends to strengthen the Bill in Committee, but he has given no indication of how he will do so.
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon also raised the question of tax treatment. Several hon. Members did so constructively, but the hon. Gentleman was negative and carped. I confirm to him and to others that, under the Government's extraordinary arrangements, a unique tax regime will be introduced for this public-private partnership, in which the private sector will have a majority shareholding. The tax amendments will exempt the partnership from United Kingdom corporation tax, arising, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, from income and chargeable gains in its investment activities. The exemption will not extend to VAT, stamp duty, and so on. The proposal aims to create a level playing field, but nothing beyond that.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is obviously having a great deal of difficulty, as he blusters through a quite remarkable attack on my hon. Friend the Member for South–West Devon (Mr. Streeter). Does the Minister still believe to be true what he said in 1996, when he stated that the CDC
  "is a public corporation and it will remain even more so under the next Labour Government"?—[Official Report, 20 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 65.]
  Has he not made a complete U-turn?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Lady was accusing me earlier of being a left-wing fanatic.
  Clare Short: It is true.
  Mr. Foulkes: I would not be in the Labour party if I were not left wing. The Labour party is a radical party.
  78
  In some ways, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was helpful; she welcomed the general proposals and rightly asked a number of specific questions, which can be discussed in Committee. Committee is the right place in which to discuss all such detail. The one thing that I did not appreciate was her misunderstanding in saying that the fact that full details of tax proposals were not yet available was an insult to the House. She is a relatively new Member. I have been in the House for 20 years, and have seen the introduction of major proposals not just in Committee but on Report. The unavailability of details is not really an insult to the House. We have been working on them and will table amendments on them in Committee, on which we shall have detailed discussion.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tax proposals are an integral and essential part of the Bill, without which it cannot be debated properly?
  Mr. Foulkes: I have given an indication—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also did so—of the basis of the tax proposals. All that we have not done is provide what the hon. Member for South-West Devon described as "a piece of paper". We all know the value of some pieces of paper. We have given a clear indication of what has been agreed on the tax proposals. Detailed, technical amendments—that is all that we are talking about—to give effect to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said will be tabled in Committee. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can mutter as long as they like, but it will not alter the truth: we have given details of the exact tax proposals and said that amendments will be tabled in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked some sensible questions—unlike his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon—on CDC finances. Some Opposition Members said that they would not want to wish this PPP ill, but then challenged and questioned CDC finances. No one underestimates the challenge that the CDC has been set to improve its financial returns while adhering both to its investment and ethical policies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained why CDC returns have been modest. She also described the 1998 results.
  I can tell the House, and particularly the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has been asking about this matter, that the CDC—not the Government—expects a return to profitability in 1999. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in hoping that that is so and encouraging the CDC in its efforts—[Interruption.] I am answering the debate. The hon. Lady asked a question, and she has her answer. She should be satisfied, instead of muttering away.
  Several hon. Members asked about the CDC's financial relationship with the Government. The point about the period between the CDC becoming a public limited company and the assumption of private shareholdings is important. I refer hon. Members to the memorandum of understanding between the directors of the CDC and the Secretary of State, in which it says that the Secretary of State
  "will give careful consideration to requests for assistance or guarantees under sections 9… and 10 … assessing them against their impact on the value of the public sector's interest in CDC and on development and with regard to other claims on the funds available to her and all other relevant considerations".

  79
  For the period in question, arrangements will be exactly the same as they are at the moment.
  This has been a useful debate. I welcome all the positive contributions to it, particularly from my hon. Friends, who are notably all fellow co-operators—people who believe in ethical investment and who understand it.
  Mr. Wells: Will the Minister provide in Committee details of options available to the Government on dressing the balance sheet for sale?
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall certainly look into that, and undertake—if it is possible—to do so.
  We rejected the privatisation route. Instead, we are creating a public-private partnership, which gives us the best of both worlds: responsibility and enterprise, accountability and profitability. We also rejected the offshore route—the tax-haven route which the hon. Member for South-West Devon wanted. We have come up with a neat solution to give the CDC advantages, enabling it to compete on a level playing field without siting it offshore: again, the best of both worlds.
  The public-private partnership will provide a double bonus for development. All the proceeds of the sale will be ploughed back into our development budget for further work in the poorest countries of the world, helping to eradicate poverty. That is one of the bonuses; the other is that the CDC will be able to mobilise further funds from the private sector for its development work. All hon. Members should welcome that, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the issuing out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation or a company associated with it;

  (2) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee given for the discharge of financial obligations of the Corporation;

  (3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling any guarantee given for the discharge of financial obligations of companies associated with the Corporation;

  (ii) sums required by the Secretary of State in connection with the acquisition of, or of rights to subscribe for, securities issued by the Corporation and companies associated with it;

  (iii) any increase attributable to the Act in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State or the Treasury;

  (iv) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act;

  (4) the extinguishing of liabilities of the Corporation and of companies associated with it in respect of guarantees under the Act and advances and guarantees under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978;

  (5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Question agreed to.

  Modernisation of the House of Commons
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1998—99, on Procedural Consequences of Devolution: Second Interim Report (HC 376).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House approves the Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Sittings of the House in Westminster Hall (House of Commons Paper No. 194).—[Mrs. Beckett.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has selected the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), at end add
  `except for paragraphs 17 and 24, and considers that the new sittings should be known as the Commons Committee; that the Wednesday morning sitting devoted to private members' business should not be transferred to Westminster Hall; and that the seating plan to be adopted should be as set out in Appendix 2 of the Report.'.
  I also understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we debate motion No 4:
  That in the next Session of Parliament the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

  (1) On days on which the House shall sit there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

  (a) on Tuesdays between ten o'clock and one o'clock;

  (b) on Wednesdays between half-past nine o'clock and two o'clock; and

  (c) on Thursdays beginning at half-past two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House).

  (2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.

  (3) Subject to paragraph (12) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

  (4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.

  (5) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.

  (6) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.

  (7) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.

  (8) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.

  (9) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceeding, that business shall not be further proceeded with in
  82
  Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (6) above relating thereto shall be discharged.

  (10) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.

  (11) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c. to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.

  (12) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past two o'clock, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect on Wednesdays; and Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), so far as it relates to business taken before two o'clock, shall apply only to sitting in Westminster Hall, and shall have effect as if paragraph (3) were omitted.

  Madam Speaker has selected the following amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst: the first to paragraph (7), leave out `three' and insert 'six': the second to paragraph (9), second line, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
  7.12 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I speak as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.
  I should like to make three things clear at the outset. First, this is not a Government proposal, although I personally support it. It stems from the Modernisation Committee's own research into a novel procedure used in Australia, and from the Committee's ideas on how that procedure could be adapted for use in the House of Commons. I believe that its originator here was the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—who, as hon. Members will have recognised, is not a Labour Member.
  I know that the Modernisation Committee is very grateful to those—especially the Clerk of the Australian Parliament—who were good enough to come here and give evidence to us.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I should like to make a little more progress.
  Secondly, the motion gives the House the opportunity to conduct an experiment. The experiment, involving sittings in the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall, would give private Members more time—let me repeat that, because, inexplicably, some members of the press have got hold of the wrong end of the stick—more time to debate some of the many issues that, while undoubtedly worthy, are unlikely ever to find space in the crowded schedule of the Chamber. It could also allow time for more focused debates on, say, foreign affairs, or discussion of more Select Committee reports. Some 180 Select Committee reports are published each year, but time cannot be found for debate of more than about 12 a

  83
  year on the Floor of the House. What is being proposed is an addition to, rather than a substitute for, what we can do now.
  Mr. David Maclean: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said about the impossibility of finding time to debate those matters on the Floor of the House. However, I am conscious that, in the past year, we have had the longest summer holiday in history, the longest Christmas holiday in history and an extra four days' Easter holiday; moreover, I think that we are about to have the longest Whitsun holiday in our history. If we had shorter holidays than we have been used to having, would we not have time to debate these matters?
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not have the figures with me, but, according to my recollection, most of the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just given are incorrect. The summer holidays and the Christmas holidays were not the longest, and the Whitsun holiday will not be the longest either. The right hon. Gentleman may go on holiday when the House rises, but most hon. Members devote time to their constituencies, or indeed to other work. I am afraid that I reject what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and it is clear to me that the House does as well.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that our problem is caused less by the fact that we have not enough time than by the fact that the time we have is so badly used? In some debates, such as those on Kosovo, it is virtually impossible to be called, while at other times the Whips are running around desperately trying to get any hon. Members to speak on subjects about which they know hardly anything. Would it not be better to allow debates in the Chamber to come to a natural end—if necessary, by arranging votes at fixed times, rather than providing for them to begin at the end of the debates preceding them?
  Mrs. Beckett: A number of suggestions have been advanced about how we could use our time better. No doubt, some will be aired in this debate. However, it is my understanding that the House of Commons sits for rather longer hours than most other legislatures.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can we now dispense with the fiction that we are sitting for shorter hours? In fact, so much business is being jammed into sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays that Members are being removed from Select Committees and other Committees. We are told that there is not enough time, but in fact the timetable is being skewed.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's view on this occasion. I feel that there is a degree of exaggeration about the extent to which the changes in the pattern of sittings of the House are affecting other pressures on the House's time. However, although I fear I cannot share my hon. Friend's view entirely, it is a legitimate view, to which no doubt she may return.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend said that the sittings in Westminster Hall
  84
  would be an experiment. Some of us are quite relaxed about that, provided that the sittings will clearly be an experiment; but, if substantial sums are involved in the moving of furniture, there may be pressure to continue them. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the sittings really will be an experiment, and that we can view the matter rather more objectively?
  Mrs. Beckett: That brings me to the point that I was about to make. I assure my right hon. Friend categorically that what is proposed is an experiment—and, indeed, an experiment that will need to be reviewed, so that we can see whether, if it is approved, changes need to be made.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: May I answer my right hon. Friend's question first?
  My third point is that the experiment will not require the House to make substantial or additional financial outlay. Work already scheduled for the Grand Committee Room will be brought forward, and the Committee and the House of Commons Commission have asked the House authorities to make every effort to find offsetting savings and to reprioritise within proposed works. The Committee took evidence about those matters from the Clerk of the House and from the Serjeant at Arms. I much regret—as, I think, does the whole Committee—that we did not formally involve the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee, and I assure members of both Committees that no discourtesy was intended. The Modernisation Committee was, however, very mindful, following evidence from Officers of the House that the time scale for a decision to facilitate an experiment in the autumn was short. The House having been alerted to discussion of the proposals in the debate on our last report held before Christmas, it was felt that the matter should be put to the House for decision as quickly as possible.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will know that, as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, I had cause to write to her expressing disappointment that we had not been consulted earlier. Let me take this opportunity to thank her for what I can only describe as a very gracious reply.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who chairs the Administration Committee, also wrote to me, and I have replied to her. She notified me that she would not be able to be present this evening.
  Mr. Robathan: I apologise for intervening so early, but I particularly wanted to comment on the right hon. Lady's first point.
  I have read the report, and I think there is much good sense in it, although I do not support it in general. Can we clarify the ground rules for the debate? The right hon. Lady's first point was that this was not a Government report, and I accept that; but will she say categorically that there will not therefore be a payroll vote?
  Mrs. Beckett: Quite categorically, it is a matter for the House. It is a free vote and it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to undertake the experiment.

  85
  The Modernisation Committee identified a number of possible time slots for the sittings, but proposes three for the purpose of the experiment. The times are chosen to avoid a clash with questions and statements in the Chamber. Indeed, two of the proposed sittings would take place when the House was not sitting. The proposal is that two of the sittings should be for private Members' debates that are taken on the Adjournment, and the third for other House business, such as I have described.
  The demand for such debates far outstrips what the House can accommodate at present. Applications for the daily half-hour, end-of-business Adjournment exceed the number of opportunities by five to one. For the longer Wednesday debates, applications exceed the opportunities by 10 to one.
  The proposed Tuesday morning sitting, from 10 am to 1 pm, would follow the very popular Wednesday precedent of one 90-minute and three 30-minute private Member's debates on the Adjournment. Wednesday morning Adjournment debates would move—as was suggested to the Modernisation Committee in evidence—to Westminster Hall, and would last for the same time as now: from 9.30 until 2, making the Chamber available to visitors.
  The Thursday afternoon sitting—of three hours starting at 2.30—would be available for a general debate, say, on a recent Green Paper, or a specific foreign country. About half those sittings could be used for extra Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
  Ms Hazel Blears: With the advent of regional development agencies and the regional assemblies, clearly, regional business will become increasingly important to the House. In the north-west, we recently had two excellent debates on regeneration and on north-west transport. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that such regional issues, which are important to many of our constituents, will find a place in Westminster Hall debates?
  Mrs. Beckett: It would be a matter for the House. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish for such issues to be aired. I have some other thoughts on how best that might be done and would rather—again, it is a personal view—that the Committee be used for issues that have a particular regional focus, but may transcend one individual region: for example, concerns about a main rail line. However, I entirely share her view that it is an extra resource available to the House to air issues that it is not now easy to find time to air.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend has already said that it is an experiment, but can she assure me that, when it is reviewed, we will consider not just whether to continue with the Westminster Hall Committee, but whether to extend the range of business that might be taken in it?
  Mrs. Beckett: We are getting somewhat into the realms of the hypothetical. If the House decided to conduct such an experiment and it proved to be a success, there might be pressure from Members to expand the procedure in the way in which my hon. Friend mentions, but we are by no means at that point at present.
  The sittings would be chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means and his deputies, or by senior members of the Committee of Chairmen. They would be open to any
  86
  Member to attend. As with a similar body in Australia, only non-controversial business would be taken and only with the agreement of the House. The Committee hopes that the sittings might be of particular interest to a wider and more specialised group of media commentators: for example, technical or subject-oriented journals or correspondents.
  The Committee was conscious of the concern that is bound to be felt in some quarters—which may be expressed in the debate—that the sittings might detract from the Chamber itself, but believed, after much thought and discussion, that the potential advantages of such an additional forum outweighed those dangers—and might, indeed, ease the frustration of those many Members whom the Chair cannot call to contribute to debates in this Chamber with the frequency that they would wish.
  If the report is approved, the experiment proposed will commence with the new Session in the autumn. Along with the development of pre-legislative scrutiny, it is perhaps the most fundamental of the changes that the Modernisation Committee has yet put before the House. It would increase opportunity for scrutiny of public affairs, and Parliament's capacity to hold the Executive to account.
  Some calculation has been made of the increased opportunities that the experiment might provide for the House. Before we have any more remarks about sitting for an extra half an hour here and there, or giving up a day of what is described as a holiday, let me draw to the attention of the House the potential increase in debate time.
  The proposal would provide for some 140 extra Back-Bench Adjournment debates a year on Tuesday mornings; that is four a week for some 35 weeks. It would enable up to three dozen extra Select Committee reports to be debated on Thursday afternoons. It would allow for some 17 or 18 extra general debates on subjects for which the House cannot find time.
  In total, we are talking about nearly 200 extra debates a year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently call for the opportunity of increased scrutiny. That is what the proposal, coming from an all-party Committee, provides. I hope that the House will give it a fair wind.
  7.26 pm
  Sir George Young: The motion is certainly an issue on which Conservative Members have a free vote. It is a House of Commons matter, on which there will be a wide variety of views. On balance, I will support the proposition that is before us, but I will be neither dismayed nor surprised if some of my right hon. and hon. Friends come to a different view.
  I begin with two general points. First, I am not an uncritical supporter of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I objected to the previous recommendations on Thursday sittings—to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred—with their compression of the working week at Westminster. They emanated not from the Committee, but from the Government, and have made it more difficult for us to hold them to account. Of course, I understand that it may be popular with some Members of Parliament, but that does not make it right for the Commons. I look forward to returning to that issue when the evaluation of the experiment is carried out and completed.

  87
  Secondly, as the Leader of the House said, we are being asked tonight to decide not whether the Westminster Hall Committee is the right way forward, but whether to proceed with the trial and, in the light of that, whether it is a sensible reform for the House.
  Initially, I was suspicious of the proposals for a Main Committee, as it was called at the time, because of the centrifugal impact it might have on the Chamber. I will explain why those fears are not soundly based, but, as we took evidence from those who have tried a similar solution and as we analysed the strategic problems that confront Parliament as a whole, I was persuaded that we should give the proposal a go. It offers the opportunity better to hold the Executive to account. That is possibly the biggest challenge that Parliament faces at the moment.
  One can divide proposals for reform of the House into two main groups: first, those that facilitate or expedite the legislative process—Special Standing Committees, carry-over motions and guillotines; secondly, those, such as Opposition days, which facilitate the "holding to account" process. There is an element of overlap in some reforms, but that distinction is helpful. The House has focused too much recently on the first type of reform.
  The way that the proposal for the Westminster Hall Committee is structured is to focus on the second objective and to give the House a greater ability to hold the Executive to account, rather than to enable the Executive to push through more inadequately considered legislation. Paragraph 33 of the report makes that clear. Business can be referred to the Westminster Hall Committee only by agreement. If any orders of the day are referred to the Westminster Hall Committee, one objection can block the reference, as is explained in paragraph 41.
  The type of business to be referred to the Westminster Hall Committee is essentially for holding the Government to account, principally by giving Back Benchers more time. If one wanted one paragraph that encapsulated the flavour of the report, it would be paragraph 23, which gives the impact very well.
  The House is simply unable to patrol all the frontier between it and the Executive. The Westminster Hall Committee will give us opportunity to do that better, with more of the general debates that are held on Wednesday mornings, more Adjournment-type debates, and more debates on Select Committee reports.
  It is worth quoting from the evidence of the Chairman of Ways and Means, on page 4 of the minutes of evidence, who said:
  "However, there is, I believe a prima facie case for a carefully prepared experiment".
  He goes on to deal with the balance that he believes that we should have.
  The Westminster Hall Committee will be part of tilting back the terms of trade, which have swung too much the other way—a process that has accelerated under the current Government, who have consistently bypassed and undermined the House of Commons. Indeed, one has only to consider the events of last Wednesday—on the U-turn on trial by jury, and the Speaker's rebuke that went with it—for evidence of that proposition. Today, there was further evidence of it with the news that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry planned a statement outside the House on sub-post offices, earning yet another rebuke.
  88
  The Westminster Hall Committee will not put things right on its own, but I think that—if read in conjunction with paragraphs 60 to 62, which are at the end of the report, but vital to it—it may be part of a solution. There is a need to look again at the Chamber in the light of the recommendation and the work of the Procedure Committee on the consequences of devolution.
  Mr. Dale Campbell–Savours: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the proposed Committee will be an experiment. I wonder what action he intends to take—or whether he intends to offer advice to some of his hon. Friends, such as "Awkward Eric"—if Conservative Members were to decide simply to object, thereby preventing the entire arrangement from having an experimental period?
  Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraphs 23 to 26, he will see that some references may be made without the matter coming to the House as a whole. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) needs no lessons from Labour Members on how to use the procedures of the House. However, paragraph 41 makes it quite clear that one objection will be sufficient to block certain references to the Westminster Hall Committee. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I am sure that Opposition Members will already have noticed it.
  It is significant that, without dissent, the Select Committee accepted the proposition, in paragraphs 60 to 62, that the terms of trade between Government and the House should be shifted back to the House. That brings me to the argument about the impact of the proposed reform on the Chamber, which featured both in the evidence and in our discussions. Of course I understand the anxieties about that impact.
  I regard the proposal before us as an evolution of other reforms, such as the introduction of Standing Committees after the second world war, and the expansion of Select Committees after the 1979 general election. Before those developments, the work was done either not at all, or on the Floor of the House. The House recognised that, if it were to do its job effectively, it would need forums other than the Chamber from which to operate. The same arguments that can be made against Westminster Hall were, doubtless, made against Standing Committees and Select Committees—that they would divert hon. Members from the Chamber, and thereby devalue the Chamber.
  On both occasions, however, the House decided that its primary task was the holding of Government to account and the proper scrutiny of legislation. The House decided on those two reforms, ensuring that, so far as possible, the new Committees did not always sit at the same time as the Chamber—as we have sought to do with our proposal of avoiding sitting during Question Time and statements.
  I know of no one who now wants to reverse the introduction of Select Committee or Standing Committees. The debate has moved on, to how we can make them more effective. Those forums are able to cause Ministers as much discomfort as the Chamber, as the report on Sierra Leone, to mention only one example, has shown.
  Mr. David Davis: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend mention the importance

  89
  of Select Committees, which—certainly in the past couple of years—have been one of the better mechanisms in holding the Government to account. However, a Select Committee's primary weapon is publicity and embarrassment, by airing the facts of real events. One of the most important mechanisms in performing that task is bringing Select Committee reports to the Chamber on Wednesday mornings.
  My right hon. Friend says that the Committee will be an experiment. How will he measure the effectiveness of that experiment? Specifically, will he compare the effectiveness of a chamber at the other end of this building in debating problems aired in Select Committees reports—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend has raised the key issue of how we shall monitor the experiment's effectiveness. Although it is difficult to say in advance whether the experiment will be a success, I tell him that the publicity that Select Committees receive is derived not from the location of their sitting, but from the nature and persistence of their questioning and, quite often, the Minister's inability to respond to it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I should like first to finish the point, which may address one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).
  If such an exchange were to take place in the Westminster Hall Committee, I believe that it would receive every bit as much publicity as some of the exchanges that we have had in Select Committee. The important matter is not so much a Committee's location as the nature of its questioning and the effectiveness of the ministerial reply to that questioning. If such an exchange takes place in the Westminster Hall Committee, I believe that it will receive every bit as much coverage as if it occurred anywhere else in the building.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be interested to know on what the right hon. Gentleman bases that assumption. As the reporting of Parliament is consistently going down—including the reporting of this Chamber—why does he think that, if the press is not reporting one Chamber, it will effectively report two?
  Sir George Young: I was making the point that devaluation of the Chamber was caused not by introduction of Select Committees or Standing Committees, but by other, extraneous factors for which Labour Members bear much responsibility.
  It is certainly not the case that introduction of Select Committees after the 1979 general election led to any devaluation of the Chamber's reputation. I regard the establishment of the Westminster Hall Committee in the same way as I regard the establishment of Standing Committees and Select Committees: as other forums in which Ministers may be held to account. I do not believe
  90
  that either Standing Committees or Select Committees led to undermining of the Chamber's reputation—that was due to other causes.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important to remember that, if the report is approved, and as it very clearly states, Select Committee reports that are debated in the Chamber of the House will continue to be debated there, not on Wednesdays, but at a different time? The additional venue will also allow for debate on 36 Select Committee reports that are not debated.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are proposing additional time for Select Committees reports.
  I was making the point that Standing Committees and Select Committees are excellent institutions, but that they are constrained both by membership and by subject. They are not as flexible as the proposed Westminster Hall Committee—which all hon. Members will be able to attend, and which may deal with any subject.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall give way—perhaps for the last time, as we are constrained and other hon. Members may wish to speak.
  Mr. Bennett: When the right hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the Select Committee system, is he confident that the proposals will not undermine that system? What will be the priorities? Will a Minister be required to reply to an Adjournment debate or to attend a Select Committee? Often, Select Committees are pursuing with a Minister a particular line of interest, and attendances are fixed several weeks in advance. Adjournment debates tend to be fixed at much shorter notice.
  Sir George Young: It is not unusual for one Department to be confronted with demands on the time of more than one Minister to attend Standing Committees and Select Committees. Adjournment debates will continue to be held at the end of the day in this Chamber, whereas the Westminster Hall Committee will be meeting earlier in the day, in Westminster Hall. Therefore, there will be no conflict of the specific nature described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall, out of respect for my hon. Friend—but this must be the last time.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to an Opposition Member. He has stressed the importance of Select Committees. If Select Committees are so important—I believe that they are—and their reports are very helpful to the House, does he accept that Government, Opposition and the usual channels should respect the integrity of Select Committees and not seek to undermine them?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend takes me way beyond my negotiating remit by referring to how Select

  91
  Committees are handled. When I was a Secretary of State and was regularly interrogated, my Government paid special attention to Select Committee reports. Every Minister would be wise to do so. One or two have tried to ignore the findings of Select Committees in this Parliament and have come unstuck.
  The decline of the Chamber is not primarily due to the establishment of rival forums in the Houses of Parliament in which matters are debated. The reasons are deeper and the Government have much to answer for. If I am right to say that the establishment of Standing and Select Committees was not responsible for the decline in influence, the establishment of a Westminster Hall Committee need not injure the Chamber either. On the contrary, like the Select and Standing Committees, it might enable Parliament to do its job better.
  I was keen that paragraph 55 of the report should specify that the experiment would not increase planned expenditure on the House this year. The House should observe the same discipline that it imposes on other public bodies. I was reassured to hear what the Leader of the House said about expenditure. I understand the sensitivities of members of the Accommodation and Works Committee. In retrospect, I think that we should have contacted them earlier in our deliberations.
  To sum up my views, I think that it is worth giving this a go. It has the potential to enable us to do our job more effectively, but it should not be seen as a total solution. That will come only with an Administration committed to restoring the influence of the House in the nation's affairs. This is not such an Administration.
  7.41 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As we are debating a report to the House and to Members of all parties, I feel free to say whatever I wish, not least because, although I am fond of Mr. Ian Harris, the Clerk to the Australian Parliament, who gave evidence to the Committee, I know that for all his gentle tone he is a great persuader. I have debated with him whether the establishment of a separate Committee will enhance the work of the Chamber or detract from it. I was not persuaded by him, so I am hardly likely to be persuaded by the report.
  The House is effective not only when it asks hard questions, but when it is able to debate with the people who are responsible for the legislative decisions that they are putting forward. We suffer from under-reporting in the press. The situation has changed a great deal since I entered the House. In those days, a Back-Bench speech made as late as 8 o'clock at night would be at least partly reported. That is no longer the case. There are many talented and brilliant sketch writers, but the reporting of the factual debate of the Chamber is going down and down. With the honourable exception of The Independent, which endeavours to maintain a parliamentary page, most national papers treat the House of Commons as if it did not exist.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Lady accept that, as a consequence of the powers that the House has given to Ministers in enabling legislation and given to Brussels through the treaties to
  92
  which we have acquiesced, what we say here is of little importance, so it is hardly remarkable that it is not reported?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a great load of nonsense. A previous Prime Minister—the first woman Prime Minister—chose rarely to call her Cabinet together except when she wanted something written on the back of an envelope and frequently underplayed the role of the House of Commons. This is not new.
  Helen Jackson: This is a relevant intervention. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the potential benefits of the proposal for sittings of the whole House in Westminster Hall is that it might give good opportunities for the specialist media that do not belong to the Lobby here?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a load of nonsense. The specialist media are given Select Committee reports ahead of publication. They have direct contact with many of the specialist Committees. It is not the specialist press or the regional press who fail to report what we say. It is the general media, the broadcasters and the national newspapers. Unless we understand that, we shall not be able to carry this debate further.
  I am worried that, whether we like it or not, the mere mention of the word "modernisation" makes some Members of Parliament leap up and down and say "What a brilliant idea." The result is that ever more work is pushed into three days of the week. Members of Parliament now expect not to be here on a Friday. That was not so in the past. Members usually reserved Fridays for their constituencies, but if there was major legislation they would be here and they would expect to vote. That is the other major difference. The rearrangement of the hours of Parliament—indeed, the lengthening of the hours of Parliament—has taken from Back Benchers the right to call a vote. That has not been fully acknowledged in the reports or by some of those who are debating the new proposals.
  Select Committee reports gain status from being debated here. They are not a specialist interest to be tucked away in some nice little place where they will not give us any inconvenience. They are one of the driving forces that make Ministers answer questions. I am not surprised that both Front Benches agree on the issue. Some of my hon. Friends fail to understand that when there is agreement between both Front Benches on political developments, Back Benchers should ask why. One reason is that such developments frequently take from Back Benchers the right to debate awkward questions.
  Mrs. Beckett: I bow to no one in my respect for the Select Committees and their Chairmen, including redoubtable Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but it is far from clear to me how, given that only a limited number of Select Committee reports are debated at present, the offer of debates for a further 30 reports that would not otherwise be debated can diminish the power of Select Committees.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Then let me explain. I may not be clever, but it seems to me that reporting debates on

  93
  12 reports that take place in the Chamber is better than not reporting debates on 30 reports somewhere else. That is a real possibility.
  Mrs. Beckett: I assure my hon. Friend that the proposal would not have gone through the Modernisation Committee had the members of the Committee thought that it meant that the Select Committee reports that are currently taken in the Chamber would no longer be taken here. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for a start would never have gone along for a second with such a proposition.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am delighted to hear that, but I have been here long enough to see changes that are presented as temporary experiments slide into being rather more permanent than one would expect.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am so glad to have so much assistance in my speech.
  Mr. Gapes: In the last Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a large number of reports. I remember a report on Britain's relations with Hong Kong and China that was of great topical interest. We had to wait more than a year for a slot to debate it in the Chamber. If there had been another opportunity, we could have debated the report—which would have been embarrassing to the Government in some respects—earlier, influencing the debate sooner.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I look forward to the arrival of nirvana. If at the end of the experiment my hon. Friend has to tell me, "It is extraordinary. We got the debate, but somehow nobody knew what we were talking about", I shall refrain from saying, "I told you so."
  It is nonsense to keep talking about the arrangement of the furniture as part of the problems of the House of Commons. When I was in opposition and had responsibility for health matters, I went to speak in the constituency of a very important lady who was full of the idea that we should not speak to the assembled crowds from a dais. We took our chairs and tables down to the floor of a large church hall, and the meeting proceeded. After 15 minutes, a voice came from the rear of the hall, saying, "I can't hear a word you're saying"—after which we took our chairs back to the stage, from where we were heard clearly.
  I hope that we are not suggesting that arranging everyone in a hemicycle—the fashionable thing to propose—will change our confrontational politics. We confront one another in the House because we have differing views—that may come as a shock to some. Consensus is possible only when people agree on what they are talking about, and does not depend on where they are sitting. I sat next to a delightful gentleman from Luxembourg—who was supposedly of the same political view as myself—for many years and, apart from the fact that he shook my hand every time I got up to go to the loo, which was mildly embarrassing, we never came any closer because we were sitting in physical proximity. That may come as a considerable surprise to everybody.
  94
  If we are carrying out an experiment, I do not see why the cost should be so great. If we stuck with the existing arrangement, we might not be fashionable and we might not be in the vanguard of change, but we might exercise a degree of common sense which I find sadly lacking in the report.
  7.51 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: The Leader of the House, with her usual perspicacity and charm, tried to pass to me the credit for the paternity of the report. I must make it clear that my only suggestion in the Committee was that we needed to find more time to debate the reports of Select Committees. We have moved a long way from that.
  Since I came to the House in 1959, we have never had enough time on the Floor of the House to debate the number of matters that hon. Members have demanded week in, week out that we debate. The present Leader of the House does quite well in passing on requests. When he was the Leader of the House, Rab Butler had an absolute formula for dismissing requests—he said, "Not this week." The demand for more debates on the Floor of the House was nearly as great then as it is now.
  The important question is this—will the experiment allow Members of Parliament to debate more matters than can currently be debated on the Floor of the House? If that can be done sensibly and reasonably, there is something to be said for it.
  Paragraph 60 of the report ought to be highlighted. It says:
  "We share the concern expressed to us by many Members about the diminution of the importance of this Chamber in our national life."
  If the experiment lowers the standing of the Floor of the House in terms of the life of the nation, it will be a failure. However, I believe that the experiment may well enhance the standing of the House.
  On a number of occasions, we have needed longer periods to debate major foreign affairs and defence matters, including Kosovo. We have not had time to debate these major factors in the life of the nation on the Floor of the House. If we can provide more time through the use of the Westminster Hall Committee, it will be to the benefit of us all.
  Let us make certain that we do not follow the approach of the present Prime Minister. I am worried that he wishes to downgrade the House of Commons. He is seldom here, and he plays up to the presidential aspects of his job. If we follow his approach, the experiment will fail.
  The Westminster Hall Committee can, perhaps, begin to debate Select Committee reports, although I must tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the report states that we must not decrease the number of Select Committee reports that are debated on the Floor of the House. As the choice of the debates will rest with the Liaison Committee, we must charge the Committee to ensure that that does not happen.
  The newer hon. Members will not know what a private Member's motion was. We used to have a ballot, and there were 10 days in which a Member could select a motion of his choice, put it on the Order Paper and move it on the Floor of the House. That has gone, and that is a

  95
  great pity. It was one of the few powers that Back-Bench Members had to raise an important matter on the Floor of the House.
  When I came to the House, there were 100 to 120 early-day motions a year, and we debated five, six or even 10 of them. When was an early-day motion debated on the Floor of the House in the past 10 years?
  Mr. Maclean: As so many early-day motions are now dross and deal with inconsequential things, their status has been diluted by trivial matters. We might have some early-day motions debated if colleagues could limit them to 100 per annum.
  Sir Peter Emery: I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend. Tabling an early-day motion when Fulham win the championship, for example—or on something with an equal lack of importance—is nonsense. That is not a matter for a resolution of the House. However, some of the 1,500 early-day motions that are tabled are of importance and would be worthy of debate. If those could be debated in the Westminster Hall Committee, that would not be a bad thing. It would allow Members to express views that they are unable to express on the Floor of the House at this time.
  When the main recommendation was passed, I happened to be in hospital. I would not have agreed to the introduction of a hemicycle, as I believe the Committee should reflect our parliamentary Chamber. I am glad to see that if the hemicycle does not work, we can return to the original structure.
  I understand the genuine worry of hon. Members about the downgrading of the Chamber. If that is an effect of the experiment, it must cease. However, if the proposal does not downgrade the Chamber, and if it provides an opportunity for more people to speak and many more issues to be debated in a parliamentary manner, it will be worthy of an experiment.
  Let it be understood that we will have to make a judgment on the Floor of the House on whether the experiment has succeeded. It must not be allowed to slip on and on and become part of the furniture, as so many experiments have done. We must set a date—perhaps in July, 14 months from now—for the matter to come back to the House so that we can consider the experiment in full and judge whether it has succeeded. On that understanding, the House would be wise to let it run for that period.
  8 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I am enthusiastically in favour of the report. It is important to consider it in the context of the other reports already published by the Modernisation Committee and of the Committee's overall agenda, which has been to try to improve the effectiveness of the House of Commons and of individual Members of Parliament.
  The public expectation of the range of activities that we should do—and especially our constituency case load—has increased over the years, and that has made it increasingly difficult for individual Members of Parliament to fulfil all the different facets of their role effectively. The most important facet of our role is as
  96
  members of the legislature, but we also have important roles in scrutiny, in holding the Government to account and in representing our constituents' interests. It is extremely difficult to do all that in the time available.
  It is especially difficult for Government Back Benchers to contribute in the Chamber. When there are debates on less popular issues it is fairly easy to get in, but the crucial debates are often heavily oversubscribed and, even with time-limited speeches, many of us are unable to get in. I expect that the demand to speak in such debates is suppressed because Back Benchers know that even if they put their names down, the chances of being called are slim. If we are called, it is likely to be at the very end, and hon. Members are disinclined to sit here for six hours on the off chance, especially when there are so many other demands on our time.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If one makes a speech in a debate, is not one of the courtesies to listen to others advancing their points of view? If we simply make a speech and then leave, is not that the antithesis of debate?
  Dr. Starkey: I accept that point absolutely, but I note that many of the more senior Members, who are lucky enough to be called early in debates, do not observe that courtesy and remain to listen to the contributions of those who are called later in the debate.
  Select Committee reports are not well discussed on the Floor of the House. I agree absolutely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that Select Committees are a crucial part of our scrutiny mechanisms and are often hugely more successful in that role than ministerial questions or even Opposition day debates. The reality, however, is that most Select Committee reports are unheard by the House; and I suspect that most of them are unread by most Members of Parliament who do not happen to be members of the Select Committee concerned.
  We have heard that fewer than 10 per cent. of the reports are debated on the Floor of the House; apparently, more than two thirds are not even referred to on the Floor of the House. That is a huge waste of the efforts of the members of those Select Committees and of the enormous expertise that goes into the reports. The proposals will go some way towards remedying that situation by providing additional time to debate them.
  Adjournment debates are a key way in which Back Benchers can define the agenda of the House. All too often, the role of Back Benchers is simply to respond to an agenda set by their Front-Bench colleagues. The Adjournment debate is the one chance for Back Benchers to raise either issues of concern to their constituents or specialist issues. In an Adjournment debate they can consider in much greater depth issues that they might otherwise attempt to raise in questions.
  For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) secured a debate on the governance of universities that raised interesting questions about the way in which certain governing bodies are not living up to the high expectations that we have of them. As we have heard, Adjournment debates are heavily oversubscribed, and I expect there is suppressed demand. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who made the point about the timing and timeliness of Select Committee reports;

  97
  similarly, there may be a constituency issue that one wants to highlight, but the moment may have passed by the time one's name comes up.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I agree with what the hon. Lady says, but does she share my reservation about the proposals in that one element of them is the removal of the Wednesday morning Adjournment debates in the House? Surely we could have additional time in the House, too, so that we do not end up debating welfare reform at 3 am.
  Dr. Starkey: The reason for suggesting the change on Wednesday mornings—incidentally, an additional three hours is set aside for Adjournment debates in the Westminster Hall Committee, so they are not simply being shifted from one place to another—was to try to meet the concern that many hon. Members expressed about the lack of access to the Chamber for visitors. The proposal is experimental and it would clearly be open to hon. Members to suggest the reinstatement of the Wednesday morning sessions here in the main Chamber.
  A recent Modernisation Committee report changed the hours of sitting on Thursdays. Conservative Members—and some Labour Members—keep putting it about that the change has somehow reduced the time available in the Chamber, but it has not. It has rearranged the hours but not made any change to the time available. It appears to me that it has allowed us to make much better use of Thursdays than before. We rarely used to have a full day's business on a Thursday, but now we can have that and still allow our more distant colleagues to get back to their constituencies for the weekend.
  None of the earlier proposals dealt with the essential problem that we want to fit in too much business in too little time. The proposals for a parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall will create that extra debating time without increasing the overall hours of sitting. Very unusually, we are in a win-win situation. The right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) outlined the advantages for the Opposition, and there are advantages for the Government, but most of all there are huge advantages for Back Benchers. It is extremely important to get that idea across. The Opposition argue that the power of the Executive in Parliament is too great, and the one part of that argument that I would accept resides in the fact that Back Benchers have very little room to discuss their issues. The proposals will give them more power and even up the balance between them and Front Benchers.
  The idea of a parallel Chamber was borrowed from the Australian Parliament. Members of the Modernisation Committee have seen a video of the Australian Main Committee. It was not a good advertisement because it was excruciatingly boring, but I suspect that that reflects more on the Australian Parliament than on the difference between its primary Chamber and its Main Committee. The interesting lesson from Australia is that the experience has been extremely positive. There was a significant body of opposition to the idea in the first place, but hardly anyone opposes it now. People have changed their view after seeing the Main Committee in operation.
  The Westminster Hall Committee will have several advantages. The proposed Westminster Hall Committee will provide an alternative forum and will allow business
  98
  to be discussed, the demand for which is currently unsatisfied. Several people have mentioned what sort of business that should be, but the key point is that it would mean an increase in the time for private Members' Adjournment debates and for Select Committee reports. Extra business could also be taken in Westminster Hall. For example, when we have debates on foreign affairs, instead of a wide-ranging debate that flits about the world illogically in a disconnected series of speeches, we could have debates on a specific region, giving some continuity and sense to the proceedings.
  Mr. Maclean: I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady's train of thought that discussing a geographical region is necessarily the most sensible approach. If one is discussing an ethical foreign policy, for example, it would make sense to discuss Africa, South America, Malaysia and perhaps other parts of the world. That approach would ensure consistency.
  Dr. Starkey: We could have a topic-based debate, if we wanted to talk about an ethical foreign policy. However, it is also important to have regional debates. The Foreign Affairs Committee is considering the trans-Caucasus and it would be sensible to have a debate on that subject. That would raise issues that might be lost in a general debate about foreign policy.
  The Westminster Hall Committee would also give us an opportunity to debate Green Papers and other Government consultation documents. At the moment, it is rare for such documents to be discussed on the Floor of the House. Such debates would give Members of Parliament an opportunity to contribute at the beginning of the consultation period, instead of having to wait until policy had been decided, when anything they said would be much less effective.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) mentioned the opportunities for regional debates and she gave an example of interest to her region. I would be interested in a debate on the east-west rail link, for example. That issue covers about four different regions, but is of interest to Members who represent constituencies along the route.
  Westminster Hall debates would also allow greater participation for a wider range of Members. I have mentioned the difficulties Back Benchers have in participating in debates in the Chamber. Many hon. Members bring specific expertise from their previous lives that they rarely have an opportunity to use. Debates in Westminster Hall, on more specialist topics, might allow them to do so.
  Different arrangements are proposed for the Westminster Hall Committee. The anecdote retailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich illustrates the point that if a hall has no amplification, there is a reason for having the speaker on a platform; if the hall has decent amplification, there is no reason for that. It is a reality that the way in which a meeting is organised influences the way people behave. People who are enamoured of the confrontational set-up try and argue that the arrangement makes no difference, but they defend vigorously the need to stick to it.
  Some debates are confrontational. I am as confrontational as the next person and I enjoy the cut and thrust of party debate when the issue being debated

  99
  actually divides the parties. However, many issues—especially those likely to be discussed in Westminster Hall—do not divide the parties. They may provoke differences of opinion, but those might run across the parties. A hemispherical and more consensual seating arrangement is much more conducive to a genuine, complex debate—the sort of debate that goes very badly on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Has the hon. Lady noticed that if we had been sitting in that format tonight, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) would have been sitting next to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?
  Dr. Starkey: That would be my hon. Friend's choice. Some of us went to look at the Grand Committee Room when it was laid out as it would be for the hemispherical arrangement. We could not believe that it was the same room, because the change made it much more pleasant. It would also be much more useful for meetings when it was not in use for the Westminster Hall Committee.
  Another issue for consideration is how to open up the Westminster Hall Committee to people from outside and the possibility of facilities for the press, including the regional and specialist press. It has been remarked that most of the press coverage of Parliament at the moment is through the Lobby journalists, who tend to concentrate on the big political debates, especially those in which there is conflict. That is what makes good political copy and gets on the front page. The debates in Westminster Hall would often be of great interest to sections of the public, but they do not interest the Lobby journalists, who do not have the expertise to follow them and do not understand why they are interesting.
  The current press coverage of the House does us all a great disservice. It gives the public a distorted view of the proceedings of the House by focusing only on the big set-piece controversial debates and ignores all the hard work done elsewhere in the House. By giving additional space for regional and specialist press, Westminster Hall would widen the press coverage for the House and get coverage of interesting and complex debates in the specialist press. For example, a debate in the House on women in science was of enormous interest to the scientific press, and had it taken place at a more conducive time and place, the reporters from the scientific press would have been here instead of having to rely on my press releases afterwards.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Do not the technical press normally read the Hansard report? They get all the details from that and rarely work to close deadlines.
  Dr. Starkey: They can get the details from Hansard, but if that was a satisfactory way to cover the House, Lobby journalists would never bother to be here—they would just wait for Hansard. They come here because they get the news hot off the press, so to speak, and also because they get the flavour of the debate, which it is difficult to get from Hansard. Hansard writes it all down, but it is all incredibly dry compared with the
  100
  toing and froing of some debates. I am not sure, for example, that Hansard will have quite caught the flavour of the question and answer in Prime Minister's Questions last week involving the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), whereas the Lobby journalists, being present, got the flavour in full.
  This House has a tradition of evolutionary reform and this proposal is part of that approach. It is a response to changing times and expectations. It offers an excellent opportunity to the House to respond to those changes and I enthusiastically urge support for the proposals.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the report, a member of the Modernisation Committee and a member—by some strange quirk of fate—also of the Procedure Committee and the Broadcasting Committee. I have considered the proposals from various angles over the past few months. Those who wish to advocate strongly on either side should consider the underlying questions—what is this House for; is it doing that job properly; and, if not, what are the most effective ways of making it do so? The second report offers a good, practical critique of what is not working very effectively at present. It contains a good encapsulation of the criticisms that Members of the House—on both the Front and Back Benches—have, and of their frustrations about the way in which things work.
  It is worth asking what the House is for. I maintain that it is not for getting good press coverage, or for securing a certain number of television minutes. The House has a constitutional purpose. Reforms, and the resistance to them, should be based on whether that constitutional purpose is enhanced.
  The first major job of Parliament and the House of Commons is to provide the ingredients for Government, so that a Government can be formed and their activities legitimised. This debate does not cover that task, although much could be said: the phrase "elective dictatorship" still resonates for many people 30 years after it was coined.
  The second task for Parliament and the House of Commons is to ensure that the legislation produced to form the laws of the land is coherent, effective and sound. The Leader of the House said that the Modernisation Committee has made some useful moves in that direction. It has called for pre-legislative inquiries, and proposed that legislation be rolled over so that it can be produced more evenly throughout the calendar year. It has also proposed that timetabling be used in certain agreed circumstances, and suggested that follow-up reviews be conducted into legislation that has been passed—something that we have not yet reached. In addition, there has been an important report on changing the scrutiny of European legislation.
  We must recognise that there have been failures in the way that the House has handled legislation in the past. The Child Support Agency achieved all-party support and was a catastrophe; the poll tax achieved anything but all-party support but was also a catastrophe in legislative terms.
  The volume and complexity of legislation is increasing all the time. The pressure comes just as much from members of the Opposition parties as from Government manifesto commitments. The Modernisation Committee has also taken evidence about the backlog of law still

  101
  awaiting processing in the House. There are Law Commission reports for which time cannot be found, and other pieces of non-controversial but difficult legislation also await consideration. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is tackling adoption legislation in a piecemeal way—perhaps I should say that he is dealing with one specific aspect of the legislation—simply because there is not sufficient time for the Government to produce comprehensive proposals.
  The pressure is always to find more time and space in the House, and to find better ways and mechanisms for getting legislation through, after proper consideration, and for getting it enacted and reviewed. The report does not propose making more time for legislation, but it will achieve that by removing work from the House of Commons. That is the benefit to be gained.
  Another of the functions of the House and of Members of Parliament is to hold the Government to account. Hon. Members are more than familiar with the processes involved in questions, statements, debates and ministerial responses. However, I want briefly to make a case for the half-hour Adjournment debates, which in essence offer the opportunity for extended questions to and answers from Ministers.
  We have heard tonight that there are five times more applications for the late-night Adjournment debates than there are spaces available, and that there are 10 times more applications for the Wednesday Adjournment debates than there are opportunities to hold them. Those debates are not simply a chance for hon. Members to put out press releases, which was the somewhat sneering contention made at one point in the discussion. They are much more to do with holding the Government to account over local or specific injustices or over general policy.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman says that Adjournment debates are an opportunity to hold the Government to account, but when did such a debate last frighten a Government and hold them to account?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate on war pensions.
  Mr. Stunell: That will do for one, but those who criticise the effectiveness of Adjournment debates need to say when last a question—written or oral—received an answer that was not already under the Government's control. It can be argued—although I do not do so especially strongly today—that it is hard to put one's finger on a single aspect of our procedure that produces results. The examination of statutory instruments came to the Committee's attention recently. In the 1995–96 Session, 209 statutory instruments came before the House. Not one was amended in any way—or rejected, or delayed—as a result of parliamentary scrutiny.
  The argument is not about whether Adjournment debates achieve anything. The whole process of politics raises a question about the effectiveness of Members of Parliament. This debate is about providing opportunities to increase the pressure on Government for accountability, and about providing the pressure to ensure that there is better accountability.
  Another function of Members of Parliament is to represent our constituents and to seek justice and equity for them in what is the highest court in the land. We do
  102
  that by means of parliamentary questions and letters to Ministers, but many hon. Members would like to do it through the extended question-and-answer sessions offered by Adjournment debates. At the moment, there are 240 Adjournment debates each year. If those debates were shared out, each Member of Parliament would get about one debate every three years. The need and pressure to do more in that regard is clearly intense.
  The proposal for the Westminster Hall operation that is before us today is certainly not a magic solution or a panacea. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that the proposal will go only a small way towards putting right some of the problems that we face in making this place effective. However, the proposal can make time for proper consideration of controversial legislation in the House of Commons. It can help to find time for Select Committee reports, as has been noted. It can also help to provide opportunities for major Adjournment debates, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has suggested that that would be useful for foreign affairs debates about specific areas.
  The proposal also means that we will be able to hold more 30-minute Adjournment debates, which will help to hold the Government to account and allow constituents' concerns to be heard and answered. We shall have an opportunity, not much mentioned so far, to comment formally at an earlier stage on Green Papers and consultation documents.
  The proposal should find favour with all Members of the House.
  Mr. Eric Forth: No.
  Mr. Stunell: It should benefit Back Benchers, our constituents, Select Committees and those who introduce reports from those Committees. It should allow those with special policy interests to develop them formally. It should benefit both the principal Opposition and the other Opposition parties, giving an opportunity to challenge and discuss what the Government are doing across a wider range of topics. It even gives the Government some benefits, offering the opportunity for improved outputs from both the House and the Government.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) said that the value of the House of Commons should not be downgraded. I agree with that, but I must point out, as one who sits in on Adjournment debates and pays attention to what happens here, that the proportion of Members who find it possible to spend a significant amount of time in the Chamber is low. If 10 per cent. of Members are here, the 60 or 70 of them make the House look full, but the other 90 per cent. of Members are finding other things to do. The proposal poses no great risk to the credibility or effectiveness of the Chamber, and the new arrangements will provide opportunities for Members to bring concerns into the public domain and to challenge the Government.
  To those who have muttered throughout my speech, from Bromley and from other places, I can say only that a mixed message comes from the critics. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has appeared to maintain from a sedentary position that he can see nothing wrong with the present system and everything wrong with any suggested change. Yet I have heard the

  103
  right hon. Gentleman several times speaking with outrage about the Government's overweening power and the way in which the House is being suborned and undermined.
  We have before us an opportunity to improve the situation, but, lo and behold, the right hon. Gentleman is not jumping to embrace the idea, but doing his very best to wreck it. It is time that he made a short trip to the road to Damascus. He ought to recognise that if he wants improved accountability and more effective control of the Executive, our current procedures are not sufficient.
  I wish that the proposals before us went further. I wish that we were proposing sittings lasting the full 18 hours proposed in the Select Committee report, not the shorter sittings proposed in the motion. I should like other things too, and I have mentioned them elsewhere. We should move rapidly to having statements timetabled in the way that questions are, so that Departments are given slots for statements. We should do the same with Select Committee reports. The proposal that topics should be chosen for debate by the Liaison Committee reflects our present procedures, but it might be more appropriate to give Select Committees a slot and allow them to choose the report for debate.
  I would set aside additional time for Adjournment debates scheduled by Department or by policy area, so that bids for them could be more structured than they are under our current random system. I support the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Devon that we should seek to restore some quality control and effectiveness to early-day motions and private Members' motions, although I am afraid that I am too young to know anything about the latter.
  I urge the House to support these sensible and symbolic proposals for improvement. They are a step towards a more modern and effective legislature, and I hope that the House will resist the various wrecking moves.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When we have this new, excellent Chamber, will there be a continuation of the Standing Order that states that hon. Members should not read their speeches word for word?
  Madam Speaker: I am sure, and I would hope, that our Standing Orders will apply to the parallel Chamber. The strictures on rhetoric and repetition should also apply.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I speak as another enthusiastic supporter of the Westminster Hall Committee. I hope that not only will the report and the proposed Standing Order changes be accepted, but that it will be the will of the House to give the experiment a fair wind and trial and not to kill it at birth.
  I am one of those Members who believes that some of the Modernisation Committee's proposals to date have not been the subject of the experimentation and trial that I would have liked. If the carrying over of legislation and many other proposals had been fully implemented, it could have improved the way in which the House scrutinises and works. However, 1 accept that it is early days and experiments are still taking place.
  It is important to accept this proposal because it will enable the House and the Modernisation Committee to consider the parliamentary year and week. I am not
  104
  talking about Members of Parliament working less because that is not what I am in the business for. We have a varied and mixed job, with work here and in our constituencies, but sometimes that work is not as effective as it should be. It is nonsense that we do not know when the recesses will be. I accept that the House could be called back and the dates changed in a national emergency, but we should be able to plan. Our constituents think it crazy that we cannot tell them when we will be in the constituency.
  Likewise, non-sitting Fridays tend to come in groups and then we have a mass of sitting Fridays. If one has urgent things to do in the constituency—and this is particularly true of those hon. Members who represent constituencies some distance away—it is extremely difficult. Sometimes, I have a whole list of things waiting for me to do. As you may remember, Madam Speaker, I was involved in three successive private Members' Bills on Fridays, and that makes life difficult.
  Once the new system is working, I would like private Members' Bills to be moved to Wednesdays. That has not been discussed or agreed by the Modernisation Committee, but it is my view. That would be a fairer way to scrutinise and debate such Bills and it would allow the opportunity for them to make progress if they have the support of both sides of the House. That is one reason why I want to open up our procedures and allow more time for debate.
  The cost of the experiment is being kept to a minimum. The Modernisation Committee was concerned about cost and one or two hon. Members have mentioned it in the debate. Most of the expenditure referred to in the report was scheduled for the Grand Committee Room in any event either this year, next year or the following year. That money would have to be spent anyway.
  Mr. Swayne: No.
  Mr. Pike: Yes. It is scheduled in the programme of work. We were told so by the Serjeant at Arms when he gave evidence to the Committee. We made it absolutely clear that we did not want the purpose-built furniture for the experimental period and that we must find furniture within the House to make the experiment possible. It is important to remember that.
  I strongly support the proposal that the experimental parallel Chamber should take the form of a semi-circle. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have not gone for the format that is used in this Chamber because they wanted to try something new. I would strongly resist, as would you, Madam Speaker, the suggestion that we should knock the walls down to the Division Lobbies and put in a new Chamber here. This Chamber is right—it is historically right and we should preserve it. However, in the new situation it is right to start with something new. That is one reason why I opposed the idea that the experiment should take place in Committee Room 14, which was one option.
  Anyone who is keen on the Select Committee system, as I am, should fully support the proposal. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have great regard for her, but I strongly disagree with her on this issue. The proposal will create extra opportunities to consider Select Committee reports that are not currently debated and so serve a more

  105
  useful purpose. I should have thought that any hon. Member on a Select Committee would welcome that. Paragraph 28 of the report clearly states that the Liaison Committee will retain its role in determining the subjects to be debated.
  The additional opportunities for hon. Members to hold Adjournment debates are welcome and important, but enough has been said on that. We should keep motions under review. I hope that not only the Modernisation Committee but the whole House will keep the experiment under review. We should not wait 14 months but learn from how the new Chamber functions. If we need to adjust it in December, January or February, we should make the adjustment straight away. Obviously, that would have to be done under the Standing Order changes that we are considering today.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) mentioned early-day motions. Like him, I think that they have become nonsense. They can congratulate anyone. We once congratulated a football club on reaching its highest league position, although it has now been promoted to the Premiership. That shows how silly some early-day motions have become. In Committee and elsewhere, I have noted the dangers of saying that early-day motions should be determined as of right. We should not work by numbers, but by importance and subject. We all get letters and other forms of pressure and the fact that we receive a certain number on a certain subject does not necessarily prove that it is the most important. We must watch that carefully.
  As an Opposition Member, I spoke on South Africa in a foreign affairs debate when the person before me had spoken about China and the person after me about Brazil. What nonsense. The new Committee will allow us to discuss important subjects. I accept that sometimes an issue, not the region, will be important, but that can also be accommodated.
  The proposal is a tremendous move forward. Once we have experimented with it, given good will and an intention to make it work, in a year or two we will want to sit more than the proposal allows. It will be good for the Opposition, the Government, and most important, for the Members of this House to debate the issues that we feel are important.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I oppose the proposal and dispute almost every aspect of both it and way in which it has been presented in the report. I want to take issue immediately with what I see as the report's rationale, which is contained in paragraph 3. It states:
  "There is almost universal agreement that there are matters which the House should discuss,"—
  that is probably true because it is an easy and cheap thing to say—
  "which a large number of Members would wish to discuss,"—
  I doubt that—
  "but for which there is simply not enough time."
  I wish first to take issue with the point about time. Typically, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) went to the heart of the matter. The truth is that there is no shortage of time, or there need not be. We are leaving a day early for our recess this very week. The Leader of the House has had
  106
  the gall to say that we do not have enough time but proposes that the House rise a day earlier than originally envisaged. That gives some sense of the urgency involved.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was here—I know that he listens with great assiduity to what is said in the Chamber—when I pointed out that the time proposed in the report would suffice for 200 extra debates. I doubt whether we could accommodate those, even in an extra day.
  Mr. Forth: I was coming to that point. The Leader of the House should not be so impatient. I am developing my initial thoughts, and I do not think that she wants to detain me for too long at this stage of the debate.
  Having demonstrated the extent to which we lack time by sending the House away unnecessarily early, the Government have also, in effect, abolished Friday sittings. The House used to sit on Fridays; we used to regard our job here as a proper job that would take up our time. Apart from private Members' Fridays, Friday sittings have now all but gone. We have casually tossed aside parliamentary days. That strikes me as slightly odd when we hear that we are short of time.
  Business in the House is often unnecessarily prolonged by the Whips for the convenience of Members. People outside the House do not understand that matter fully—perhaps mercifully, for hon. Members. However, we all know that, because a vote is timed for 10 o'clock, if a debate naturally comes to an end before that time, the Whips will encourage Members to come into the Chamber to prolong the debate for the convenience of other Members returning at 10 o'clock. To allow the debate to finish naturally at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock, as many debates would do, allowing us further time to carry out other business, would inconvenience many Members because they would have to be in the House. That is the last thing that Members want. They always want to be somewhere else on Fridays—
  Mr. Gapes rose—
  Mr. Forth: Here is one of them. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Has he considered his role in wasting parliamentary time, over many weeks, on Fridays and late at night?
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that to be in the Chamber and to participate in debates is wasting time. That is where he and I fundamentally disagree. My point is that, for those of us who believe that participation in debates should be most of what we do, it is important that that time should be used properly. We like to spend time in the Chamber; we believe that that is a valuable exercise. The hon. Gentleman does not share that view—
  Dr. Ladyman rose—
  Mr. Forth: Here is another. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I put the point slightly differently? Is it

  107
  not true that he represents a constituency in the Greater London area? It is, therefore, much easier for him to attend the House on Fridays, but still to give his constituency the attention that it deserves. That is less easy for Members from further afield.
  Mr. Forth: That might seem to be a clever point. However, as the hon. Gentleman is never here on Fridays, he will not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is in the Chamber every Friday that I am here. He and I believe that it is important to be in the Chamber in order to discharge our parliamentary duties. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituency is further away than Penrith and The Border—I doubt it—but if my right hon. Friend can take his duties that seriously, I suggest that the same should be true of most hon. Members.
  Dr. Ladyman: The last time that I was in the Chamber on a Friday, I heard the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) filibustering a Bill that was supported by almost everyone else in the House. That was wasting parliamentary time.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not here last Friday, when his Government talked out a Bill that also enjoyed a wide degree of support. I do not think that it is useful to trade those sort of exchanges, although I shall gladly do so because, to date, the Government have objected to more than 30 private Members' Bills—a total to which even I cannot remotely aspire.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I too was going to point out that the Labour Government have blocked more than 30 Bills so far this Session. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, on most Fridays, Ministers have congratulated him, and sometimes even myself, on tabling amendments that improved Bills? I will give the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) the references if he wants me to do so; I have used them extensively in press releases.
  Mr. Forth: I hope my right hon. Friend will share those references with me. I would probably find them useful as well.
  The time element is bogus. The truth is that, if Members wanted to find more time, they would be perfectly capable of doing so. The tragedy is that there is a conspiracy among those who manage our time: they send Members away from here as much as possible, but then have the gall to come here and say that there is not enough time.
  I also dispute the notion that there is huge demand for the change. It strikes me as bizarre that it is proposed that the quorum of the exciting new development, for which there is such demand, should be three. We have been told by those who have participated in the debate that the new Chamber will be crowded with excited Members who have important matters to debate—but the quorum is to be set at three. That does not suggest any great demand.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Would the right hon. Gentleman remind us how many Members voted on Friday at the end of the debate on the private Member's Bill?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, three Members voted on Friday. That only three of them were here to vote is surely a disgraceful condemnation of the 417 Labour Members of Parliament. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the number voting was a shameful display of Labour Members' lack of interest in the House of Commons.
  I doubt that the change is to be carried out as an experiment. We have heard that before and we know that change is a one-way street. I remember hearing that televising the House was to be an experiment, yet it was automatically continued because of a sort of momentum that such developments gather. We know that changes that are designated experiments are rarely reversed, because a sense of ownership develops among those who have a vested interest. I also doubt the reassurances in respect of expenditure.
  Mr. Tyler: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's new line of argument. Is he saying that we should never experiment or make any change; or that, if any change is to be made, it should not be experimental? He would appear to be arguing in favour of one or the other of those propositions, but I do not understand which.
  Mr. Forth: I am not a great advocate of change and I make no secret of that. I am generally rather satisfied with the way the House runs under your excellent tutelage and guidance, Madam Speaker, so 1 am in no rush to make gratuitous and unnecessary changes.
  Mr. Maclean: Those hon. Members who are in favour of the new system and suggest that it is somehow evolutionary ignore the fact that Prime Minister's Question Time has been changed, initially without Madam Speaker's consent, and that the House of Lords is to be abolished. Wholesale changes are being made to Parliament, so to suggest that the proposed development is a minor change that can be treated in isolation is preposterous.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Therefore, I feel no sense of shame when I say that I am not a great advocate of or enthusiast for change.
  To return to the subject of expenditure, 1 was about to refer to appendix 4, headed "Further Letter from the Serjeant at Arms" and dated as recently as March 1999. The Serjeant at Arms gives the total cost of this foolish exercise as £870,000 and adds, most revealingly:
  "there is no provision for expenditure of the order of £870k on the Grand Committee Room in next year's estimates … and the indications are still that a Supplementary Estimate will be required for the Works Vote to cover the costs of the work."
  So much for the bogus claims that the proposal carries no financial implications and can somehow be fudged through under existing expenditure plans.
  Mr. Pike: What I said was that the money was in the rolling programme. The Serjeant at Arms made it absolutely clear that, if we did not spend the money this

  109
  year, it would be spent within the next two years, or three years at most. The money had to be spent on things that urgently needed doing.
  Mr. Forth: I am sure that the taxpayer will be hugely reassured that this is all part of rolling expenditure. Taxpayers must feel really relieved to be told, "Don't worry—it was all going to be rolling expenditure, but it's just been brought forward a bit." I do not believe that and I do not suppose that most of the taxpayers I encounter will either.
  I shall now speak briefly on the substance of amendments that you have kindly selected, Madam Speaker. I hope to divide the House at the appropriate time. The first simply reflects my belief that, instead of giving the new chamber the rather misleading name of "Westminster Hall"—I cannot imagine where that term comes from, since it is not Westminster Hall that we are dealing with—we should call it the "Commons Committee". If we are to have it at all—I would rather we did not have it, and I want to vote against the substance of it—we should call it the Commons Committee to make it clear that, were such a ghastly experiment to be embarked on, it would be clearly subsidiary to proceedings in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
  My second amendment seeks to retain Wednesday morning sittings in this Chamber and to make anything that happens in another Chamber subsidiary to debates in this place. There is no question that what happens in another Chamber can be a substitute for sittings in this place. We must make that absolutely clear.
  I also seek modestly—I was tempted to pitch the figure higher—to make the quorum six instead of three. I have thought about this issue for some time. Presumably a Minister would be present, with a Whip on duty, perhaps an Opposition spokesperson and the perpetrator of the debate. Therefore, I think that a token extra two or three Members should be sufficient to signify the huge demand that we are constantly told there will be for such debates. If we are to believe the comments this evening, this Chamber is normally crowded with 40 or 50 Members of Parliament. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to rule a sitting of the parallel Chamber inquorate if there are fewer than six Members present. That is a reasonable level so as to test demand.
  The absurd, politically correct and consensual hemicycle arrangement must be resisted as a continental nonsense run wild. I make this point with some feeling because—I do not often admit this in the Chamber, but I shall do so to the few friends sitting around me—I was once a member of an institution that met in a hemicycle. For five fascinating years, I sat at a desk with a microphone and a voting machine. That institution was called the European Parliament—I say that as quietly as I can, Madam Speaker. I must make that admission about my past, but I cannot say that I was too enamoured of the arrangement. This Chamber allows for much more lively and legitimate debate, and it is far better than having Members sitting in designated places, usually reading from pre-prepared speeches and breaking the Standing Orders, as has been mentioned in the debate.
  110
  Those are my reasons for opposing this change. I think it is unnecessary, dangerous, expensive and almost certainly irreversible. I fear that it will divert attention away from the Chamber and feed the myth that the Leader of the House and others are attempting to perpetuate, that somehow there is huge pressure on the time of the House. The truth is that, if we wanted to find the time, we could sit on Fridays, reduce the recesses and not rise a day early. We could also shorten debates that do not generate sufficient interest and spontaneously debate other issues. Admittedly, such changes would require a degree of commitment from hon. Members that I suggest is simply not there any more. For that reason, more than any other, I regret this measure.
  8.58 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in the debate because an article that I read in yesterday's newspaper prompted me to seek to catch your eye this evening, Madam Speaker. In yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, the right hon. Gentleman is reported as saying that he believes that the Government are creating another opportunity for hon. Members to drone on and on. I nearly choked on my breakfast when I read that—a case of a sootier pot calling a kettle black I have never heard of.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the sitting hours of the House and said that our recesses are too long. However, he ignores completely the fact that hon. Members have constituency duties that many of us try to discharge well, and that requires considerable amounts of time. If I were given a magic wand with which to reform the House in any way that I saw fit, I would grant the extensions of time in this Chamber to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as well as establishing a parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall. I think we could occupy both Chambers for greater lengths of time by debating important issues that concern our constituents.
  Opposition Members often say that the purpose of the House of Commons is to challenge the Executive and hold it to account, yet tonight some of them are rejecting the opportunity to do that to a greater extent.
  Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think for one moment that his Government would introduce and support these proposals if they thought that they would result in the Government having to be more accountable to Parliament?
  Dr. Ladyman: Yes, I do. The Government have introduced many reforms of the House. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. First, he and I sat on the Select Committee that considered the draft Bill to set up the Food Standards Agency. That procedure had not been used before and gave the House an opportunity to examine Government legislation in greater detail.
  Secondly, I have just finished participating in a Special Standing Committee considering the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was another attempt by the Government to increase parliamentary scrutiny. Previous Conservative Governments set up no such Committees in their 18 years in power.

  111
  Several hon. Members have made a slip of the tongue and referred to the proposed experiment as the Westminster Hall Committee. As I understand the proposals, they do not relate to a Committee, but specifically refer to the House sitting in Westminster Hall.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: How can that possibly be if the sittings will involve only 51 Members?
  Dr. Ladyman: Under the proposed arrangements, all Members will have the opportunity to attend and sit in Westminster Hall. There are not enough seats in this Chamber to accommodate every Member, so how many seats are available in the new Chamber is neither here nor there.
  My point is that we cannot argue that the House will be diminished when all that is being proposed is that the House should sit in a place other than this Chamber. The same Members will be contributing to the debates and the quality of the debates will be entirely dependent on the quality of those Members, just as it is in this Chamber. I therefore reject the argument that the House will be diminished.
  The proposals will allow us to debate a wider range of subjects. If I have any criticism of the report it is that the proposals will not allow a sufficiently wide range of subjects to be debated in the new Chamber, and I hope that the range will be extended in the future. I wrote to the Modernisation Committee and suggested that we could reasonably assign to the new Chamber the Committee stages of constitutional Bills. At present, those debates occur on the Floor of the House.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that changes to the United Kingdom's constitution should be debated in a subsidiary room in which only 50 Members can appear?
  Dr. Ladyman: I am absolutely not suggesting that because the proposal is not for a subsidiary room but for the House to sit in Westminster Hall.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the one thing that experience teaches us about this place is that the chances of being called to speak are pretty slim? In a 51-Member Chamber, will not the chances of a Member being called be even slimmer?
  Dr. Ladyman: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will deal with that point in a moment because the answer to his question is one of the most important reasons why we should set up such a Chamber.
  In addition, the new Chamber could consider certain aspects of European legislation. The Select Committee on European Scrutiny recommends that many aspects of European legislation should be debated on the Floor of the House, but we cannot do so. Is there not an opportunity for extending the scrutiny of European legislation?
  Mr. McNulty: Does my hon. Friend agree that there might be further opportunity to have those debates on the
  112
  Floor of the House if we retained Wednesday morning sittings, rather than abolishing them as the report suggests?
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. When the experiment is reviewed, no doubt one of the proposals that we could consider is restoring Wednesday morning sittings in addition to having sittings in Westminster Hall.
  My final reason why Westminster Hall will be a great improvement to the Chamber is that it will provide more speaking opportunities for the Members who have so few opportunities to speak in this Chamber.
  You, Madam Speaker, spend a great deal of your time—it is one of your most important duties—trying to be fair in calling Back Benchers. It would be disrespectful if I called what goes on in your office when deciding who should be called as black art, so I shall refer to it as divine magic. Although it is pretty impenetrable to me, I can work out some of the factors that you consider when deciding whom to call.
  You balance the debate; you do not reflect the membership of the House. Given that 60 per cent. of hon. Members sit on the Government Benches, and only 40 per cent. on the Opposition Benches, we on the Government Benches are at an immediate disadvantage.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Come and join us.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am loth to answer that sedentary intervention.
  Government Members have far fewer opportunities to be called. One of the factors that you probably take into consideration, Madam Speaker, is the frequency with which we have contributed to debate. By the end of a parliamentary year, a Government Member who has contributed less than oneself is more likely to be called first. One is therefore increasingly unlikely to be called not only in important debates, but even in relatively less significant ones.
  As it works out, new Government Members can be called probably only six or seven times a year. That means that we must manage our contributions—not using up all our opportunities to speak—so that we may have a reasonable chance of being called later in the year in debates that are important to our constituents. A further Chamber, sitting in parallel, could provide an opportunity to contribute to debates on Select Committee reports, for example—many of which are important to our constituents—without using up our opportunities to speak.
  Mr. Bermingham: A sudden thought has occurred to me; perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me, from his vast experience, how to solve it. What if there is a vote in this Chamber and a vote in that Chamber at the same time?
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend has clearly not read the report; there will not be any Divisions in the other Chamber. However, when we review the experiment, we should consider ways of allowing controversial subjects to be debated there. The experiment should not end simply with consideration of whether we continue with a parallel Chamber. If we think that it has been a success,

  113
  we should consider whether to extend it, introduce controversy and schedule Divisions in two separate Chambers on the same evening.
  The proposal is only an experiment. It would be a relatively minor change. I do not believe that it is the fundamental shift in importance from this Chamber that other hon. Members are suggesting. It is a way in which to enhance this Chamber and our debate—a means by which we may debate some subjects that will make our constituents sit up and take notice once more, instead of ignoring us as they do at the moment. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can laugh as much as they like, but their antics are the reason why people do not want to report the proceedings in this Chamber any more. The proposals are a way of addressing some of those concerns.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is not going to spoil what this report says. There will be debates in what I would prefer to call the Commons Committee rather than sittings in Westminster Hall. That would clearly indicate that that Chamber, although part of this Chamber, was subordinate to it.
  The Leader of the House was right to emphasise—it was emphasised too by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—that all matters debated in the Commons Committee would have been agreed across the Floor of the House and that votes would not take place. The experiment that I think the House will decide should go ahead is based on the Australian experience. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that votes do not take place in that Chamber either.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winterton: I will give way once to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Ladyman: I want to clarify my position. I fully accept that the experiment being proposed is exactly as the hon. Gentleman has explained, and I am delighted about that. I am merely saying that, if when we look at the results of the experiment we think it has been a success, we may then feel that we might like to consider extending it.
  Mr. Winterton: I hope—I say this both as a Conservative Member and as a member of the Modernisation Committee—that our Chairman, the Leader of the House, would not seek to present proposals that would take us down that path. She nods, which suggests that she would not want that.
  I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who is also a member of the Modernisation Committee. He made a good point. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs the Liaison Committee, is present. It is vital for that Committee to play a pivotal role in deciding what Select Committee reports are debated in the sittings in Westminster Hall or what I shall again call the Commons Committee. We must keep the decision away from Government, Opposition and the usual channels if Select Committees are to retain and maintain their integrity, and
  114
  their authority to hold the Government of the day to account and scrutinise the success or otherwise of their management of the country.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and I agree on one or two elements in the report. One thing that she highlighted was that the video produced by the Australian Main Committee, which was viewed by all members of the Modernisation Committee, did nothing to sell the experiment to the House. I suspect that, if other Members of Parliament had seen the video, more of those who are enthused by what they read in the Modernisation Committee report would take a different view. It was boring beyond words. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that only the required quorum was there to take part in what was a very turgid debate.
  The House ignores the views of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) at its peril. Let me say, as a Conservative Member, that she is an immensely impressive politician.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is doing my reputation no good.
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Lady may say that, but she is highly regarded, and I believe that her understanding of democracy and the way in which the House operates is second to none. Her earlier contribution was very helpful.
  I make my speech wearing two hats. I am a member of the Modernisation Committee; I also have the honour and privilege of chairing the Procedure Committee. Many of the matters with which the Modernisation Committee is dealing are also part of the responsibility of the Procedure Committee. Wearing my modernisation hat, I am principally concerned about the primacy, the integrity, the sovereignty, the role and the authority of the House of Commons—of this Chamber. What worries me is that the House is being bypassed in so much of what I see going on. I do not wish to make any reference to rulings and utterances that you, Madam Speaker, have delivered from the Chair, but the importance of the Chamber must never be understated.
  Many people say that there is too much legislation and never enough time to debate it all. I say from some experience in the House that there is too much legislation and too little debate. We should have more debate. That is why I personally warmly support the proposals in the Modernisation Committee's report that we should have more genuine debates in the House. Whether they are on the Floor of this Chamber, or in the Grand Committee Room—the Commons Committee—is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Forth: Given that my hon. Friend shared my view that, usually, very few Members would be in the alternative Chamber, how would that enhance the quality of debate overall in the Palace of Westminster?
  Mr. Winterton: I will come to that, so I ask my right hon. Friend to be patient.
  I support another proposition that the Modernisation Committee has put forward: there should be more pre-legislative scrutiny. If that takes place, better legislation will come before the House and less time will be spent in Standing Committee, during remaining stages or in the Committee of the whole House. Therefore, certain pluses are coming out of the report.

  115
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has rightly referred to the attendance in the Chamber. It is something of which I am ashamed. When we are televised and people see just a handful of Members in the House—on either side—people get the wrong impression. I almost wish that I were able to be here, but, as you know, Madam Speaker, my other duties in the House rightly take me elsewhere, whether it is—although it does not meet when the House is sitting—the Modernisation Committee, or the Procedure Committee, some of whose members are in the House and hoping to speak. We meet concurrently with the House and do an important job, although people looking on debates in this Chamber would not appreciate that fact.
  I raise a matter that I have raised with the Leader of the House before. There is a problem in Committees in achieving a quorum. On two occasions, we have had to cancel an important Procedure Committee sitting to discuss the procedural consequences of devolution because we could not achieve a quorum of members to enable us to sit. If we have bad attendances in the Chamber and find it difficult to man Committees, clearly, we will need to take account of the problems that will arise because of another Committee, or another sitting in Westminster hall, which will be concurrent with what is going on in the House itself.
  Mr. Brady: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would bear it in mind that sittings in Westminster Hall could contribute to the problems of Select Committees in achieving a quorum.
  Mr. Winterton: Indeed. That is why I have raised the issue. I have raised it in the Modernisation Committee, through correspondence with the Leader of the House and, for that matter, correspondence with the Whips, of both the Government and Opposition parties. The Leader of the House has taken the matter on board. Clearly, the House will have to take it into account in reaching a decision tonight.
  I want to be positive in respect of the role that I play as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. The Committee is sympathetic to the Modernisation Committee's proposal as it provides more time for debates, which all hon. Members may attend. That is particularly pertinent as devolution will necessitate some changes in the way in which the House operates and conducts its business.
  One of the problems that the Procedure Committee has had to consider in its inquiry on the procedural consequences of devolution has been the future of Grand Committees, which currently comprise a set of the House's Committees. As many hon. Members will be aware, before devolution, such Committees provided a mechanism whereby hon. Members representing parts of the United Kingdom with distinctive identities—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—could present their views. Now, the new devolved legislatures will themselves be able to make representations to the United Kingdom Government. Therefore—in my view, and that of my Committee—there is no need for such double representation.
  None the less, devolution should not mean that there should be no debate at Westminster on matters relating to Scotland or Wales. My Committee and I believe that
  116
  many of the matters previously referred to Grand Committees—such as the implications of the Budget for Wales—will remain proper and desirable subjects for debate in the House. However, as our report states, the Procedure Committee was attracted to the principle
  "that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom should be able to participate in debates held in the United Kingdom Parliament."
  I believe that continuation of Grand Committees would undermine that principle. We therefore propose making some savings—which I hope will enable hon. Members who sat on the Grand Committees to be available elsewhere.
  The increased opportunity for debate offered by Westminster Hall means that debates on matters relating to Scotland, Wales or—dare I add it—even England could be taken in a forum in which all hon. Members could participate, be it in the Commons Committee, in Westminster Hall, or the Chamber itself. Indeed, the Procedure Committee was so interested in the proposal that it rushed out its "Second Interim Report on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution", so that the House could have notice of its thinking before any early debate on the subject that we are now debating. Today, the Committee published its full report on the "Procedural Consequences of Devolution".
  It is important that we should seize the opportunity offered by Westminster Hall if United Kingdom Members are to have the opportunity to learn from one another's experiences. I wonder how many Labour Members know that, currently, no English Member other than a Minister may participate in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that only five may join the Welsh Grand Committee. Those debates may, in principle, be read after the event, but I should be surprised if they had a wide circulation.
  If devolution results in things being done better—as they may be—in Scotland and in Wales, all hon. Members should have the chance to hear about them and to discuss the Scottish or the Welsh experience. Similarly—as I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, will be aware—policies on reserved matters affecting the highlands may have similar effects on remote parts of England and of Wales. Hon. Members from all countries may have an interest in debating those matters.
  The Procedure Committee recommended that
  "once devolved government is in place and for the period of the experiment with the sittings in Westminster Hall, the Grand Committees be suspended."
  Mr. Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, having participated in the Procedure Committee's discussions on the issue, that Committee members were concerned that no precedence should be given in the new Committee to debates that would previously have been held in Grand Committees, and that those debates should take their place alongside other debates in seeking to use the additional opportunity?
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He also plays an important part in the business of the Procedure Committee. I congratulate him on his regular attendance of the Committee, thereby enabling us to maintain a quorum.
  I believe that the House will have to be very careful in taking the decision that it will take today. Some dramatic changes are proposed that may have an unfortunate effect on the integrity, sovereignty, role and authority of the House.

  117
  Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I am concerned about the hemicycle. I would have much preferred a similar layout to this Chamber. The cost is estimated at £870,000. I think that it will be much more. It is likely to be close to £1 million. The example of the new parliamentary building across the road shows how contracts can overrun. I am concerned about our ability to find such a large sum at the drop of a hat. I remind the hon. Member for Burnley that the money is being brought forward from 2002-06, when the expenditure would otherwise have been incurred. We are finding a great deal of money to carry out the experiment. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure me that the amount spent during the experiment will be kept to a minimum. Only if the experiment is a success should we proceed with the full expenditure.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but he knows the position. It is proposed that work on the Grand Committee Room that was scheduled should be brought forward. Any further expenditure should be kept to a minimum. He will remember that I asked about the need for the additional expenditure. The House authorities have undertaken to see whether it is possible to provide all the funds that would be required within the leeway for this year.
  Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. I remember her raising the matter and I know that she shares my concern that in the experimental period the expenditure should be kept to a minimum, although we disagreed about the layout in the Grand Committee Room.
  I shall consider deeply which way to vote, but I have a nasty feeling that my traditionalism may prevail.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I am in favour of the motion. Since being elected to the House, I have had the privilege of sitting on the Procedure Committee, which has been very active. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Committee.
  As well as the procedural consequences of devolution, the Procedure Committee has considered resource accounting and budgeting, which has not been mentioned so far. It is clear from the Committee's detailed examination of the issue that considerable additional information will be available to Select Committees to enable them to examine the finances of the Departments that they shadow.
  We have already heard statistics on the number of Select Committee reports that are not considered. With the availability of that additional information, it is even more important that the reports are examined in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. If not, the considerable work that is undertaken by hon. Members will seem wasted, as will the benefit of the close examination and scrutiny of the Executive that Select Committees provide.
  I agree with most of the recommendations. The main benefit that will flow from a positive decision this evening is the additional time that will be made available to debate Select Committee reports. Paragraph 27 of the report says:
  "we see Westminster Hall as a forum which will provide additional opportunities for select committees."
  118
  Many hours are devoted to Select Committees by hon. Members. To debate only 10 per cent. of reports in any one year shows that the House is not functioning properly and not holding the Executive to account. This is not a new matter, as the Liaison Committee underlined the need for further examination of Select Committees in 1997. This theme has developed as the role of Select Committees has evolved.
  The British constitution is slow to change. The reform of the House of Lords has been agonisingly slow, and has taken the best part of this century. The evolution of Select Committees has moved at a faster pace. We are at a time of considerable change, with the procedural consequences of devolution and resource accounting and budgeting. Failing to allow Select Committee reports in particular to be examined as they should be means that we are not doing our constituents or ourselves any favours. I believe that not only Select Committees but Green Papers and other matters should be examined.
  Mr. Bermingham: Just to prove to the Liberal Democrats that I have read the report, I should point out that one of the problems is that people might say "Object" to Select Committee reports being debated in the new Chamber. It might be as well for the Government to take away that blockage. From experience, Select Committee reports and Green Papers are not debated, and will not be debated, if three people—or whatever the quorum is—ay "Object".
  Mr. Darvill: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the procedures are evolving. If hon. Members do not want the system to work, they can stop it. If so, the trial will not have worked, and it will be for us to come back and consider the matter. I hope that Members will not take those measures to thwart the will of the House, and that the real benefits that can be obtained from this experiment will be delivered.
  Mr. Stunell: Could I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the provision to object relates only to Government-proposed business and would not apply to Select Committee reports, meaning that the intervention by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was unfortunately mistaken?
  Mr. Darvill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that point, and I hope that the House supports the measures tonight.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I am somewhat reluctantly prepared to give this proposal a cautious welcome. One of the reasons for that is that it appears that, by and large, legislation will stay in the Chamber. I am cautious because of a number of proposals in the report, including that we should have a semi-circular arrangement. I thought that we had the perfectly sound principle of cross-Bench seating to allow those who wished to sit on the fence to sit squarely on it. I suppose that the Government, with their majority, will ram this through the House—have done with so many things—ill wind up with that arrangement.
  When matters are brought to the House, I often wonder what the real intentions of the Government are. I have been here for a number of years, and I have never yet

  119
  seen a Government making changes to the procedures to be helpful to the Opposition or to Back Benchers. I do not think that that is the intention in this case, either.
  I am somewhat curious about the type of debate that we may have. Some of us will want to probe, to ask questions and to be more constructive than is sometimes the case across this Chamber, but others will be doing a publicity job for their own area to boost their standing with their constituents. We all understand that that will go on; the question is how on earth we are to keep it under control.
  Guillotine motions have been an increasing feature of life in recent years. Does the move to Westminster Hall mean that there will be fewer of those and that there will be more public debate in the main Chamber, allowing all hon. Members to air their concerns, or will all such business move too, giving us an opportunity to speak there that has been denied us here?
  The Leader of the House said that she thought that there would be better scrutiny of legislation and of Government. How are the Government to be called to account in the Committee? Will those who take part in the debates be able to send for papers and persons, as in Select Committees?
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding, as I did not suggest that the new Committee would provide greater opportunity for scrutiny of legislation as such. I spoke merely of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny as a whole, in that there will be opportunities for hon. Members to hold Ministers to account in debate.
  Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that explanation, because it means that whenever we do not get an answer in Westminster Hall, we can bring the matter back here and put pressure on the Government by asking more questions.
  The Government clearly believe that the change will not be as popular as the trailers have suggested. The fact that a quorum of three is deemed sufficient says a lot about the importance that we are prepared to attach to the new institution.
  I know, and all but the most recent Members should know, that Governments hate debate, as it is very dangerous for them; that is why they always try to restrict it. They have a problem with legislation because they cannot retreat; they have to press on, and the longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that weaknesses and imperfections will be exposed. We saw the result of that only last week.
  We should always look for a longer time scale in legislation. I would much prefer to be in this Chamber. I would like the general public to have time to examine legislation as it goes through the House on a much longer time scale. Time is the vital consideration for the House; it is the enemy of Government, who know that Back Benchers will make use of it. The restriction of time is the weapon that Governments use to get their way before people have properly thought through what they are doing. We should consider how on earth we can extend the opportunities for debate.
  120
  The proposal has some advantages for minor parties and for those who want to raise issues that may be minor in the national context but are of local or regional importance. Northern Ireland Members will be glad of the opportunity to have more Northern Ireland business discussed in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
  Unlike some Opposition Members, I welcome the proposal to move the Wednesday morning debates to Westminster Hall. The loss of the chance for the public to see this place on a Wednesday morning has been a loss to the community at large, and I hope that the morning will be free again, because the more the general public can come here, the better for democracy.
  I regret the fact that we do not have the late-night debates that we used to have. That is a great loss to the community as a whole.
  9.39 pm
  Helen Jackson: I am pleased to have had the privilege of being a member of the Modernisation Committee. That is not because the word "modernisation" makes me think, "Oh, great, we can change everything tomorrow", nor is it because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) did not suggest—I am the sort of Member who thinks, "Modernisation? Oh dear. What can I do to prevent any change in what happens in the House?" I believe strongly that it is good for every institution, whether a family, big business or Parliament, to consider how it is fulfilling its role and how it wants to change. I also know from experience that nothing focuses the mind more than changing the furniture, moving to a different room, changing the bedroom that a child sleeps in or changing the room that someone uses as an office. That is why this has been a constructive and interesting debate.
  Using the same analogy, the usual excuse given for not changing something is cost. There is money in future budgets for upgrading the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall. If the House accepts the proposals before us today, I would be delighted to bring that money forward so that Westminster Hall, which is at the historical heart of this parliamentary building, can be made into a room of which we can be really proud. Some of us had the privilege of seeing it laid out as it would he, and we could also imagine the enhanced lift for the disabled—the current method of getting disabled people up to those rooms is not very dignified. The costs would be minimal. We are spending £250 million on Portcullis house and we are talking about much less than £1 million for a development that would enhance the Houses of Parliament as a whole.
  I agree with those hon. Members who have said that what happens in this Chamber is of paramount importance. These proposals can only enhance the Chamber. I agree with the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) who believes—as you do, Madam Speaker—that ministerial statements should be made to the House and not on Radio 4. These proposals will leave the Chamber free for Ministers to make their statements—[Interruption.] I agree with Opposition Members, who are laughing, that that is the correct approach.

  121
  Attendance in the Chamber has been mentioned, but it falls when the Chamber is abused. I find all-night sittings silly, time wasting and bad for the brain. They do nothing to enhance the reputation of the Chamber and a lot of silliness is often spoken during them.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am being unkind if I say that a lot of silliness is often spoken earlier in the day in the Chamber.
  Helen Jackson: A lot of silliness is spoken in many parts of this building all through the day.
  I strongly support the early, radical recommendation of the Modernisation Committee that the majority of Bills should be timetabled. I refer hon. Members back to last week, when we talked all night on an issue that aroused strong feelings on all sides. Hardly anyone was listening, and the media were not interested. When the debate was rescheduled in prime time on a timetable motion, good points were made by hon. Members of all parties. It was an excellent debate and, as it happened, the Government won the vote. People were able to listen to the arguments, and the time chosen was appropriate for discussion of an issue that interested everyone in the House. There was no question of poor attendance last Thursday.
  It is within our power to examine the way in which we discuss legislation and to ensure that this Chamber is used to discuss key issues in which everyone is interested. The new Chamber in Westminster Hall will release time in which this Chamber can be used better.
  I do not want to go over what has been said about the benefits to be gained from the proposals for Westminster Hall. From my time on the former Select Committee on the Environment, I know that discussion of Select Committee reports in this Chamber either happens too late, when the issue concerned has gone off the boil, or does not happen at all.
  The extra time that will be allowed for private Members' business means that the expertise that Back Benchers bring from their former professions and lives will be used more effectively. Also, although it may be heresy to some people, I think that it might be appropriate to move the Wednesday morning sittings to Westminster Hall as a pilot experiment. Wednesday is the most popular day for the public to come to Parliament, as Prime Minister's Questions are held on that day. At present there is no opportunity for people to see the Chamber in the morning.
  I agree with what has been said about debates on foreign affairs and estimates. However, I agree with paragraph 17 of the report's board of management memorandum, which expresses the hope that use of the second Chamber for Government business will not be ruled out. I shall be interested in whether discussion of some delegated legislation may be more suitably allocated to Westminster Hall.
  In addition, some of the early discussions of specialist matters arising from Green Papers may give rise to debates that are wider and better thought out than is possible here, where the lack of available time means that they are squeezed for space. I also want to add my voice to those hon. Members who have endorsed the idea that the Westminster Hall Chamber will be distinctly different. The format for debates will be different, and I welcome that.
  122
  Those hon. Members who are worried about whether the new forum will take off are right to ask whether the media will be interested. In the previous Parliament, I spent a lot of time on matters to do with water and the environment. The members of the media interested in those subjects tended to be the environmental correspondents and the specialist media, who did not enjoy the luxury of the facilities extended to the Lobby correspondents.
  That may not be popular with the Lobby correspondents, who like to feel that Parliament is about gossip, cut and thrust, and Prime Minister's Question Time—but the specialist media should be given enhanced facilities in the House, and this is an opportunity to provide them. This proposal could be good for Parliament, helping to persuade the public that we are not simply concerned with Prime Minister's Question Time, while the Chamber is otherwise empty. It should show that we are concerned to debate the key issues of the day, that all arguments are heard and that we are not just party hacks. It should show that whatever party we belong to, we are interested in raising arguments, listening to each other and discussing matters.
  I hope that Westminster Hall will provide a fresh and responsible approach. The reform is cost effective, brilliantly using a part of the House that embodies the heart of the old parliamentary buildings.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: I listened to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) with increasing incredulity. She said that decamping the House of Commons—not a Committee—on certain days to a poky room above the cafeteria off Westminster Hall would somehow enhance the status of the Chamber. Even if that poky room has a £1 million refurbishment, decamping to it will not enhance the status of the House of Commons. I oppose the report because I believe that it will, yet again, diminish the status of the House and of Madam Speaker. There is no need for it.
  My incredulity increased when the hon. Lady suggested that if a parallel Chamber met elsewhere, there would somehow he time for Ministers to make statements to the House. Ha! That beggars belief. The diminution of the status of this House has come not from evolutionary change but, over the past two years, from revolutionary change. Prime Minister's Question Time has been arbitrarily changed, without consultation with Madam Speaker. The other place is being destroyed although we have been given no model with which to replace it. Again and again, statements are made outside the House. Today's was another example. All that diminishes the status of this place.
  I do not believe that there is any need for a parallel Chamber to debate the issues mentioned. Time is available in this House if we wish to use it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out that we are rising a day early for the Whitsun recess. There was an attempt to give us an extra week's holiday before the Easter recess, and we took three days of it. Last summer, the recess was one of the longest in history. There is time to debate issues if the House wants to do so.

  123
  Fridays have also been reduced and are used purely for private Members' business. If there is an overwhelming demand for Adjournment debates, let hon. Members slot in 10 of them on a Friday. At half an hour each, we could easily do so.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have forborne to correct the many Conservative Members who have referred to the changes on Fridays. However, I recall that those changes resulted from the Jopling report, under the previous Government. They were nothing to do with the present Government.
  Mr. Maclean: I accept that those changes were consequences of the Jopling report, but not everything in that report was to the benefit of the House. If there is a demand for more Adjournment debates, let them be held on a Friday, or let them continue to be held in the Chamber on a Wednesday morning. Let us not detract even further from the status of the House.
  I will share a little anecdote with the House, which I think is instructive. When I was made an Environment Minister in 1992, we held the presidency of the European Union. We held an informal ministerial meeting here. We arranged a nice hotel to meet all the Ministers, which was the normal practice. I was waiting on the steps to greet the German Minister—one of the most important—who turned up in the British Government ministerial Rover Sterling, which we had allocated to him. The hotel flunkies jumped to help him with his bags. At that moment, a fleet of Daimlers rolled up. The hotel flunkies dropped the German Minister's bags, rushed to the Daimlers and treated the occupants like royalty. Of course, they were the civil servants from the Commission, who had decided to hire their own fleet. The point is this—as someone in the hotel said when we protested about the treatment of the German Minister—"If you drive around like royalty, you'll be treated like royalty."
  You are the Speaker of this House of Commons, Madam Speaker. If we move to a Committee room at the other side of Westminster Hall not to hold a Committee there but to hold what is effectively a sitting of the House of Commons, and it is chaired not by Madam Speaker but by a Deputy Speaker and by other Assistant Speakers, we will again be diminishing the status of the Chamber.
  Dr. Starkey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of his statement is that when Madam Speaker is, regrettably, unable to be in charge of the Chamber and one of her deputies is substituting, the status of this Chamber is somehow diminished?
  Mr. Maclean: That was not my point at all. This is the Chamber—[Interruption.] My point is that if the House of Commons is no longer meeting in this Chamber, which is adequate to hold most of the Members of the House, but decides to move to a Committee Room above the cafeteria on the other side of Westminster Hall, where Madam Speaker will never be in the Chair—at best it will
  124
  be a Deputy Speaker—that will be perceived by the media and others as a much lesser form of House of Commons, as indeed it will be because, at most, 51 Members—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am a little concerned about my right hon. Friend's derogatory remarks because I might be one of those hon. Members in the Chair.
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has many talents and qualities, but he is not the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our debates in this Chamber can be presided over by the Speaker; our debates in the Room above the café will be presided over by, at most, a Deputy Speaker. That in itself is another small but significant diminution in the status of this Chamber.
  Comments have been made about the furniture. Listening to some hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches telling us that the furniture, the design of the room and the colours are important, I thought that we were about to have another lecture on interior decorating and design.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an excellent speech. She proved that there can be complete agreement across the Floor of this House. I agree with everything that the hon. Lady said, both in her speech and in her interventions. We did not need to sit in some cosy hemicycle to come to that agreement. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talked about a semi-circle, but it is a hemicycle and there is a big difference, I understand.
  There is no need for this proposal because there is ample time if we want it. We must puncture a few myths. Hon. Members say that there is great demand for Select Committee reports to be debated. Let us be honest. Who are we kidding? The only demand comes from some of the members of the Select Committees, who want to take over another Chamber of the House to debate the same report that they have spent weeks discussing in the first place.
  Select Committee reports are important, not because they will be debated three weeks, six weeks or six months later but because, on the day of publication—if they have not been leaked—the Committees can hold the Government to account. At that stage, they can cause the Government some hurt or injury, put them on the back foot and make them defend themselves. That is when Select Committee reports matter, not when they are debated in the room above the café six months later.
  It is clear from what Labour Members said that they regard endless Adjournment debates as a major role for the new Chamber. Let us be honest again: Adjournment debates do not hold the Government to account. No Minister is terrified of them. I cannot recall ever swotting up for days worrying about an Adjournment debate; no one in this Government sweats about them either. Adjournment debates are loved by all Members, and we put in for them for one good reason: they are another justification for press releases because we can say that we raised an issue on the Floor of the House of Commons and give out a copy of our very important speeches to an almost packed House.
  Let us be honest. Our press releases are based on our questions and speeches. As we cannot get into many of the important debates, Adjournment debates are another legitimate avenue. If hon. Members want endless Adjournment debates, I say once again and in conclusion,

  125
  let them be held on Friday or Wednesday morning, but do not set up yet another Chamber that is supposed to be this House in miniature on the other side of Westminster Hall.
  I am sorry, Madam Speaker: when I used the words "in conclusion", I told a slight untruth. My final point concerns the furniture. I notice—I think in schematic 5 of the hemicycle that we are urged to agree to tonight—that there is provision for a pulpit. We now know where the Prime Minister will sit.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: I draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to paragraph 50. Should he venture into Westminster Hall, he will find that the Deputy Speaker and his colleagues have the power to discontinue a speech on the grounds of tedious repetition and irrelevance. Perhaps he should stay out altogether.
  I have a few points, but I will not speak fully in favour of the report. This evening has been an example of how badly the House of Commons does these things. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) eloquently discussed the Procedure Committee's report on the consequences of devolution. At the same time, we had the Modernisation Committee's report on finding extra time above the police café in Westminster Hall. It would have made more sense if both Committees had met so that the Procedure Committee could have given its views on the consequences of devolution and the Modernisation Committee its views on finding more time for debate. A joint report could have been produced for the House, rather than discussing the Modernisation Committee report—I call it the Tinkering Committee—and then discussing the Procedure Committee report. That is daft.
  I do not like members of the Modernisation Committee who wax lyrical with hyperbole and revolutionary fervour about what is nothing more than tinkering. I do not like many aspects of the proposals. I do not know how to overcome it but I do not like the fact that only 51 Members can get into the Room. What happens if 53 want to come? Will the Westminster Hall sittings be stopped and brought back to the main Chamber? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) probably has at least 50 acquaintances, if not friends, whom he could persuade to fill that Chamber every now and then to avoid debate. The modernisation debate is not served by hyperbole and revolutionary fervour when we are talking only of a couple more hours of debate elsewhere.
  I fundamentally disagree with the report about the House becoming a museum again on Wednesdays. Like other hon. Members, I take tours round, but above all, this must be a working Chamber. Its work must be paramount. I am disappointed that Wednesday mornings are excluded. When the private Members' Bill process is reformed, I should like such proceedings to be held on Wednesdays so that some of my northern comrades and Opposition colleagues could pop along and see what the process is all about. I come into the House every Friday, as do some other Members.
  The proposals are not revolutionary. It is a shame that the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee did not hold a joint meeting. We need to address the issue of furniture. I am not a hemispheric—
  126
  [Interruption.] I am hemispheric, but I am not a hemispheric. The notion that, if we arrange the furniture, the politics will change—that the adversarial will go and consensus will arrive—is absolute nonsense. Hon. Members should consider the Westminster city council chamber or the Harrow council chamber. I was a member of Harrow council and I made pretty sure that there was no such thing as consensus, unless, as leader of the Labour group, the consensus was what the Labour group said it should be. In that sense, I accept consensus.
  Let us not run a mile. The ideas are fine. The idea that there should be another Chamber in order that we can have more discussion is fine. If the amendments had been tabled by a Member whom I preferred, I might have supported them; I cannot, in all conscience, go into the Lobby to support an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, as a modernising party or a modernising Chamber, we should not run away with the notion that the proposals are revolutionary. For God's sake, will the Modernisation Committee start being a modernising Committee and stop being a tinkering Committee that goes along at a snail's pace? The Committee is not even Fabian; it goes along at a snail's pace—at a dead snail's pace. Let us modernise properly, but scrap the hyperbole.
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). I nearly spoiled matters by introducing a note of consensus, even though that is not my preference in politics either. The hon. Gentleman saved me from that, however. I oppose the motion, but support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—not only because the amendment could have no finer pedigree, but because any Members who take seriously the role of this Chamber must accept the arguments that have been advanced for the amendment. Those arguments include the following: that the meetings in Westminster Hall must be considered to be a Committee of the House and not in any way equivalent to what goes on in this Chamber; that we should hold Wednesday debates in this Chamber and that their removal would diminish the value of what goes on here; and that the seating in the new Committee Room should be on the same model as the seating in this Chamber. I have never disagreed with Labour Members simply because they sit opposite me—nor have I necessarily agreed with Members on the Opposition Benches because they sit on the same Benches as I do. Some of my hon. Friends have made the same point. However, the crucial point is that the seating arrangement matters. That is why it is essential that we retain the existing plan. The reason is that it assists scrutiny and makes it less likely that there will be cover-up and fudge. It makes proper questioning and debate more likely.
  Most important, I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that relate to the quorum. To suggest that there is a huge demand for sittings in Westminster Hall when the quorum is to be fixed at three gives the lie to the whole proposal.
  Mr. Pike: In this Chamber, the quorum is only invoked when a vote is called. There is no stated quorum, so the quorum is often only three—or even less.
  Mr. Brady: I am well aware of that point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. The proceedings in this Chamber might be improved if we had a quorum. The point demonstrates the problem in terms of the status of what we do and the attention that is paid to it. The issue is more about the quality of our proceedings and the genuine, intrinsic interest of debates—which sometimes draw only a small number of Members—than about the amount of time in which we have to deal with business.
  The role of Select Committees has been discussed by several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It has been pointed out that many of those Committees have difficulty in achieving a quorum for their meetings. Again, that demonstrates the fact that Members do not always bother to turn up to debate important matters or to attend important meetings. In considering the new Committee in Westminster Hall, we are also led to the inescapable conclusion that there will be even more difficulties for Select Committees, which, in many cases, are struggling to achieve a quorum, when the limited number of occasions on which they can currently meet will conflict further with sittings of this House. That will cause significant problems for the more active Members of Parliament.
  Some have suggested that the new Committee might serve as some sort of job creation scheme for Labour Members who currently have little to do, but I would counter that by arguing that many hon. Members who currently do rather a lot will find it impossible to participate fully in the additional work. Those who are involved in Standing Committees and Select Committees might want to participate in some of the meetings in Westminster Hall, but they will be unable to do so.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of those proceedings, pursuant to Order [21 May.]
  Amendment proposed: in line 3, at end add:
  "except for paragraphs 17 and 24, and considers that the new sittings should be known as the Commons Committee; that the Wednesday morning sitting devoted to private members' business should not be transferred to Westminster Hall; and that the seating plan to be adopted should be as set out in Appendix 2 of the Report.".—[Mr. Forth.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We were categorically assured at the start of the debate—I believe that you were present—that this was not a payroll vote and that Government Members were not whipped. Is it in order for Government Whips to act as Tellers on the vote?
  Madam Speaker: What Government Whips do is nothing to do with me. Hon. Members are free to use whichever Lobby they want—indeed, I am honoured because several hon. Members have, as they passed by the Chair, asked which way they should vote. That has never happened to me before.
  The House having divided: Ayes 43, Noes 144.

  Division No. 196]

  [10.11 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Lidington, David

  Barnes, Harry

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Brady, Graham

  Pickles, Eric

  Burnett, John

  Randall, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

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

  & Howden)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Swayne, Desmond

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Wardle, Charles

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Waterson, Nigel

  Flight, Howard

  Webb, Steve

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Wells, Bowen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Whittingdale, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Gill, Christopher

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Green, Damian

  Hammond, Philip

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Allan, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Baker, Norman

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Gapes, Mike

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Betts, Clive

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blackman, Liz

  Goggins, Paul

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gunnell, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Breed, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hancock, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Heppell, John

  (NE Fife)

  Hope, Phil

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hunghes, Ms Beverley Stretford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hutton, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnson, Alan (Hill W & Hessle)

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cotter, Brian

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darvill, Keith

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Levitt, Tom

  Dowd, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Drew, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  129

  Lock, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  McWaiter, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Merron, Gillian

  (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  Oaten, Mark

  Tong, Dr Jenny

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Wills, Phil

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rendel, David

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Salter, Martin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question Put:—
  The Houses divided: Ayes 145, Noes 36.

  Division No.197]

  10.24 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allen, Graham

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Baker, Norman

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ballard, Jackie

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dowd, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Drew, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Breed, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael, Jabez (Hastings)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell,-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Connarty, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phill

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darvill, Keith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  130

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham M)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quinn, Lewrie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Sanders, Adrian

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Soley, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Levitt, Tom

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Linton, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Livsey, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Lock, David

  (Dewsbury)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth, R (Harrow W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tipping, Paddy

  McNulty, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  McWalter, Tony

  Touhig, Don

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Maxton, John

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Merron, Gillian

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Watts, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Webb, Steve

  Mullin, Chris

  Willis, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Oaten, Mark

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Olner, Bill

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Pond, Chris

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Öpik. Lembit

  Blunt, Crispin

  Plaskitt, James

  Brady, Graham

  Randall, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

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

  & Howden)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Flight, Howard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Taylore, Matthew (Truro)

  Gibb, Nick

  Wardle, Charles

  Gill, Christopher

  Waterson, Nigel

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Whittingdale, John

  Green, Damian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hammond, Philip

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Sittings of the House in Westminster Hall (House of Commons Paper No. 194).
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [21 May]:
  That in the next Session of Parliament the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

  (1) On days on which the House shall sit there shall be a sitting in Westminster Hall—

  (a) on Tuesdays between ten o'clock and one o'clock;

  (b) on Wednesdays between half-past nine o'clock and two o'clock; and

  (c) on Thursdays beginning at half-past two o'clock and continuing for up to three hours (and in calculating that period no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or a committee of the whole House).

  (2) Any Member of the House may take part in a sitting in Westminster Hall.

  (3) Subject to paragraph (12) below, the business taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall shall be such as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint.

  (4) The Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy Chairman shall take the chair in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker; and the House may appoint not more than four other members of the Chairmen's Panel to sit in Westminster Hall as Deputy Speaker.

  (5) Any order made or resolution come to at a sitting in Westminster Hall (other than a resolution to adjourn) shall be reported to the House by the Deputy Speaker and shall be deemed to be an order or resolution of the House.

  (6) If a motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that an order of the day be proceeded with at a sitting in Westminster Hall, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, but such motion may be made only with the leave of the House and may not be made on a Friday.

  (7) The quorum at a sitting in Westminster Hall shall be three.

  (8) If at a sitting in Westminster Hall the opinion of the Deputy Speaker as to the decision of a question (other than a question for adjournment) is challenged, that question shall not be decided, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly; and any such question shall be put forthwith upon a motion being made in the House.

  (9) If any business other than a motion for adjournment is under consideration at a sitting in Westminster Hall, and not fewer than six Members rise in their places and signify their objection to further proceeding, that business shall not be further proceeded with in Westminster Hall, and the Deputy Speaker shall report to the House accordingly, and any order under paragraph (6) above relating thereto shall be discharged.

  (10) At the end of each sitting in Westminster Hall, unless a question for adjournment has previously been agreed to, the Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the sitting without putting any question; and proceedings on any business which has been entered upon but not disposed of shall lapse.

  (11) The provisions of Standing Orders No. 29 (Powers of chair to propose question), No. 36 (Closure of debate), No. 37 (Majority for closure or proposal of question), No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting), No. 40 (Division unnecessarily claimed), No. 41 (Quorum), No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), No. 44 (Order in debate), No. 45 (Members suspended, &c. to withdraw from precincts), No. 45A (Suspension of salary of Members suspended) and No. 163 (Motions to sit in private) shall not apply to sittings in Westminster Hall.

  (12) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past two o'clock, and paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect on Wednesdays; and Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), so far as it relates to business taken before two o'clock, shall apply only to sitting in Westminster Hall, and shall have effect as if paragraph (3) were omitted.

  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 26.

  Division No. 198]

  [10.39 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Allan, Richard

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Allen, Graham

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Kemp, Fraser

  Baker, Norman

  King, Ms Oona

  Ballard, Jackie

  (Bethnal Green)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Leslie, Christopher

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Levitt, Tom

  Betts, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Livsey, Richard

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Breed, Colin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Burnett, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Maxton, John

  (NE Fife)

  Merron, Gillian

  Caplin Ivor

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Mullin, Chris

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Mullin, Chris

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Oaten, Mark

  Clelland, David

  Olner, Bill

  Coaker, Vernon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  Pike, Peter L

  Connarty, Michael

  Pond, Chris

  Cotter, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Darvill, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  (Lewisham E)

  Davey, Valerie (Britol W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Dawson, Hilton

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Dismore, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Dowd, Jim

  Salter, Martin

  Drew, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Efford, Clive

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Etherington, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Stotate, Dr Howard

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Stringer, Graham

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Gapes, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  (Dewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Todd, Mark

  Hancock, Mike

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Heppell, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Twigg Stephen (Enfield)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Watts, David

  Hutton, John

  Webb, Steve

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Willis, Phil

  Illsley, Eric

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Mr. David Hanson and

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  133

  NOES

  Amess, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Barnes, Harry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Randall, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Brady, Graham

  Swayne, Desmond

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Wardle, Charles

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Waterson, Nigel

  Fraser, Christopher

  Whittingdale, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Gill, Christopher

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Hammond, Philip

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Lidington, David

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Business of the House
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 26th May—
  (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of Margaret Beckett or Mrs. Marion Roe relating to—

  (a) the First Report from the Administration Committee, on the Proposal to Re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC 394), not later than two hours after the Motion has been entered upon;

  (b) Members' Travel to EU Institutions not later than one hour after the Motion has been entered upon; and

  (c) Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon;

  and the last foregoing Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and
  (2) the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Select Committees (Quorum) may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Nursing Care (Eastbourne Hospital)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Clelland.]
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have this opportunity to highlight the concerns of many of my constituents. Let me begin by paying a warm tribute to the nurses, doctors and other staff who work at Eastbourne district general hospital. Their commitment to patient care, their expertise and their sheer hard work are commented upon by almost everyone who visits the hospital, whether as a patient or in any other capacity.
  Although I am raising some genuine concerns this evening, they should in no way be allowed to overshadow the excellent work of the DGH, to undermine staff morale or to cause apprehension among those who may be undergoing or awaiting treatment there.
  I want to touch on two specific cases, both tragic. Mrs. Marjorie Dyer was admitted to the DGH in October 1998 after collapsing at home. On 18 October, another patient alerted nursing staff to the fact that Mrs. Dyer was in difficulties—she was choking on a sandwich. First aid was given. A nurse obtained medical records—but, tragically, those relating to another patient. The records said that she was not for resuscitation. The cardiac arrest procedure was not implemented. Other attempts to revive her proved unsuccessful, and she sadly died.
  Another incident, which occurred in March 1998, attracted even more local publicity following the recent inquest. It concerned Mrs. Pauline Freeman, who went into the DGH for a hysterectomy. This is a major, but routine, operation. In the normal way, it should certainly not be life threatening—especially for a healthy woman like Mrs. Freeman.
  While she was recovering from her operation, a ligature used to tie a main artery slipped. As a result, she haemorrhaged badly, and later suffered a fatal heart attack. It emerged at the post mortem that there were 4,000 ml of blood in her peritoneal cavity. Expert evidence stated that that could have taken up to four hours to accumulate.
  At the time of her death, Mrs. Freeman was in a ward of 35 patients who were being looked after by just one registered nurse, with two nursing auxiliaries and a health care assistant. Her consultant gynaecologist—acting as an expert witness at the inquest—stated that, in his opinion, the ward was understaffed, and that more frequent observations of Mrs. Freeman could have identified the problem earlier.
  There seems to have been no proper care plan in place for Mrs. Freeman, post her operation. Instead of being observed every half-hour—as was thought appropriate by the expert evidence—she was observed only, at most, every two hours, and the decision was made to reduce the frequency to every four hours. An expert nursing consultant told the inquest that, in her view, staffing levels were too low. The obvious conclusion is that more nurses would have meant more frequent observations, but that is not accepted by the hospital.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he works in the interest of his constituents. He referred to the

  135
  terrible tragedy of Mrs. Pauline Freeman, a constituent of mine who died last year in the DGH after a hysterectomy. The House will appreciate how devastated her husband, Roy Freeman, and her family have been by the suddenness and the appalling circumstances of her death.
  After meeting Mr. Freeman and listening to his account of his painful experience and of his family's sense of total shock and loss, I was able to speak to the chairman of the NHS executive south-east and to the Secretary of State for Health and to communicate with the chairman of the local health authority, all of whom, I am sure, appreciate Mr. Freeman's feelings. I believe that they are trying to help.
  I know that my hon. Friend is working closely with the hospital trust. It may be helpful if I tell the House briefly what Mr. Freeman wants as an enduring tribute to his wife. He—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I feel for the hon. Gentleman—it is a very tragic situation—but the rules of the House do not allow an intervention to go on for so long, and I will have to stop him.
  Mr. Waterson: I know that my hon. Friend has been in contact with Mr. Freeman and has passed on his views to the authorities, and in particular to the Secretary of State for Health, and I am sure that he will continue to do what he can to look after his constituent in this time of great need.
  The trust has maintained that the decision to reduce the frequency of observation was a proper one in the circumstances. It also contends that, had there been more staff on duty at the time, it would have made no difference to the management of Mrs. Freeman's care.
  In a letter to me, the health authority's chief executive said:
  "It is the Trust's view that the staffing level on the night of Mrs. Freeman's death was deemed to be acceptable by the sister in charge of the evening shift, and the trained nurse in charge of the night shift considered the staffing levels adequate for the patients under her care at the time. That view is shared by the Trust's Chief Nurse."
  He also said:
  "at no time has the Trust advised the Health Authority of an inability to provide a safe service, although it would be fair to say that the Trust had requested funding to improve the quality of nursing cover above the current level."
  I view those claims with considerable scepticism. Can it really be the case that extra staff would have made no difference at all? Why was the decision taken to reduce observations of Mrs. Freeman to only once every four hours? If the trust is confident that it is providing a safe service, why is it requesting funding to improve the quality of nursing cover?
  I do not want to dwell too much on individual cases, but the cases have revived concerns that have been around for some time, about the total number of nursing staff on duty at any one time and the heavy use of agency and bank staff. The local community health council, to which
  I pay tribute for its concerned but balanced role, has raised concerns over a two-year period; I have expressed concern about the level of nursing staff in the past; and
  136
  many local people have spoken out, often through the columns of my local newspapers, the Herald and the Argus.
  Perhaps most worrying was the district audit report produced by the Audit Commission last September. I have retained a copy. The main conclusions are summarised as follows:
  "the Trust has on average significantly fewer nurses than other Trusts calculated on a like-for-like ward basis. While quality is being given an increasing emphasis, the lean staffing levels doubtless limit the quality of care that can be delivered to patients."
  The report goes on to talk of
  "staffing more than 10 per cent. lower than is the norm elsewhere … Eastbourne has 65 fewer nurses in post on these wards than the average elsewhere."
  In fairness, I should say that, at each of the inquests, the coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death, but we know that there are limits on the extent to which a coroner can apportion blame or indeed engage in detailed investigations. It may be that those were in truth tragic accidents that would have occurred in any case, whatever amount of nursing care was available, but I continue to be troubled by the expert evidence that has been adduced as well as by the fact that the concerns are not new.
  What action is being taken in the light of those findings and events? The trust and the health authority have challenged the findings of the audit report. Investigations were carried out after the two fatalities. The hospital's patient services director is reviewing her original investigation into the death of Mrs. Freeman in the light of the independent expert evidence at the inquest. The health authority has engaged the services of a former regional director of nursing to advise it.
  I welcome the fact that the south-east region of the NHS executive is carrying out an investigation. There is to be a report to the primary care group meeting on 21 June and to the health authority on 24 June.
  Mr. Norman Baker: My constituents, half of whom are also served by the DGH, view the situation seriously. While they endorse the good work done by the nurses, they are very concerned by the incidents that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. They are concerned about why those incidents happened and why they were not picked up earlier. Does he agree that serious questions need to be asked about the shortage of nurses at Eastbourne DGH and about the competence of the management? I assure the hon. Gentleman that, although we belong to different parties, I am willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with him on this issue of great importance to my constituents.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and I agree that there are serious questions to be asked. I intend to ask some of them shortly. I have received an update on nurse recruiting from Mr. Clive Uren, chief executive of the trust. He tells me that, of the 47 vacancies that exist, 18 have been offered to newly qualified students and a further 17 have been offered to, and accepted by, external candidates. They have offered 22 posts to overseas nurses and, in addition, a group of 19 Eastbourne student nurses will qualify in September. That is fine as far as it goes, and those figures relate to the current establishment for nursing staff.

  137
  We all know that there is a national shortage of nurses, and that problem is not limited to Eastbourne. I received a briefing for this debate from the Royal College of Nursing that states:
  "The RCN believes that this tragic case illustrates the potential dangers of inadequate staffing levels in hospitals, and thinks that there are some important lessons to be learnt."
  It also refers to its snapshot survey of 55 medical wards in September 1998.
  1 hope that we shall hear from the Minister what the Government are doing about the general problem. Is enough being done about nurses' pay? Why is only one nurse in 15 receiving the higher level of pay settlement? Why have some still not received it? Why will most nurses still be £53 worse off under this Government than at the time of the last election?
  In a parliamentary answer in April, the Minister of State, Department of Health mentioned a figure of £16.5 million that would be made available for the Sussex education consortium, but how many new nurses will that mean? It seems curious that Eastbourne DGH is going as far afield as Canada to recruit nurses, but only recently I had in my advice surgery two local young ladies who are unable to obtain the funding to qualify as nurses.
  In their attempts to return waiting lists to where they were when they took office, the Government have put enormous pressure on dedicated NHS staff and risk skewing clinical priorities. Such measures must be matched by appropriate resources, and that is the key issue. I ask the Minister for that commitment tonight.
  We are faced with two particular tragedies, and I make no apology for dealing with them in detail. There is a concern in my constituency and those of my neighbouring colleagues about what is happening at the DGH. The plain fact is that the staff who work there are committed to providing a caring, effective service to their local communities, and they should be praised and respected for that. However, as I have said, they are under intense pressure and there is a danger, given that pressure and the level of staffing—especially at night—that mistakes will happen and things will be overlooked.
  I ask the Minister to address the question of nurse recruitment and to say how he views the future of the DGH. How will he address and solve the obvious problems? I also extend to him a personal invitation to come and visit my local hospital to see for himself the pressures on the staff and the excellent care that they deliver under difficult circumstances.
  11.4 pm
  The Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on raising this subject tonight and on the constructive tone of his remarks. I am especially grateful for the praise that he extended to the staff at Eastbourne district general hospital, to which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) also referred. There is no doubt of the staffs commitment to the well-being of the patients in their care.
  In addition, I should also like to offer my sincere condolences to the families of Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Dyer on their sad and tragic loss.
  Mr. Wardle: Does the Minister appreciate that what Mr. Freeman wants as an enduring tribute to his wife is
  138
  to ensure that the lessons to be learned from her tragic death will be used to make a real difference for other women who go into hospital for the same operation? As Mr. Freeman said:
  "If you can't provide the package, you shouldn't start the project."
  He asks that much more be done to guarantee, as far as possible, that the mistakes that took away his wife's life are not repeated.
  Mr. Hutton: I certainly endorse those comments, and I shall say more about both cases in a moment. The hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) spoke movingly about the grief experienced by both families, and I want to associate myself with those remarks.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will agree that, overwhelmingly, most patients who use the NHS receive safe and effective treatment and care. However, I accept that we need a culture of openness in the national health service that acknowledges, highlights and responds to problems effectively and quickly.
  That is why quality is at the heart of the Government's strategy for modernising the national health service. In July last year, our consultation document entitled "A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS" was published, and we were very encouraged by the response that it received. Good progress is being made in putting the proposals into practice and we are already seeing attitudes and priorities begin to shift.
  For example, guidance was published in March on the new framework for clinical governance, and arrangements are being put in place across the NHS. That will bring a fundamental shift in the culture of the NHS to one that has quality of care at its heart. For the first time, quality will be enshrined in statute and the responsibility of NHS trusts and primary care groups will be reinforced with a new statutory duty of quality, framed in such a way to provide meaningful support to the continuing improvement of quality. A senior clinician will be responsible for quality for each health authority, trust and primary care group. Those clinicians will produce reports on quality in their respective organisations, and the first clinical governance reports will be published in April next year.
  In addition, the Health Bill currently being scrutinised in Standing Committee contains provisions to establish the Commission for Health Improvement. The commission's job will be to monitor quality standards and to intervene promptly, if necessary, when things are going wrong. The commission will be established later this year, and begin its first full-year work programme in April next year.
  An NHS performance assessment framework has been published for use by the NHS over the coming year, and will be followed soon by the first set of high-level performance indicators. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence came into being on 1 April, and the first two national service frameworks will be published later this year.
  Those points summarise the action that the Government are taking. Once the Health Bill becomes law, NHS trusts will be obliged to have in place systems to monitor and improve both the quality of treatment that patients receive and the outcome of that treatment. The measures should go a long way to ensuring that the constituents of the

  139
  hon. Member for Eastbourne can continue to have confidence that the services provided in Eastbourne are safe and of high quality.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised the subject of the recruitment and retention campaign for nurses, and I shall address my remarks to his concerns. The Government's target is to have enough nurses to provide the treatment that patients need. Our campaign to recruit up to 15,000 more nurses over the next three years has got off to a very good start. Since we set up our telephone hotline on 1 February, we have had over 53,000 calls from people interested in a career in nursing, and about 5,000 have been from qualified nurses who are showing an interest about returning to nursing. By the end of April, 650 had actually done so.
  On 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced additional funding of £5 million specifically to support return to practice initiatives in 1999/2000, focusing on getting former nurses back to the NHS. This builds on the similar initiatives already in place following funding of £4 million last year. In Eastbourne, 125 inquiries have been received as part of the return to practice initiatives since May 1998. That has resulted in 35 applications, of which to date 20 have been appointed to posts within the trust.
  We have taken the first steps to persuade former staff to return to the NHS, and we must keep staff. We will do that by valuing their contribution and recognising that quality of care for patients goes hand in hand with quality of care for staff. On 1 April 1997, the total nursing establishment for Eastbourne Hospitals NHS trust stood at 790. Through additional funding provided under the winter pressure initiatives, the number increased to 811 on 1 April 1998 and to 833 on 1 April 1999, an additional 43 nurses in total.
  On top of that, other initiatives are being taken by the trust. Eastbourne district hospital has made significant progress in increasing the number of full-time nursing staff. At the end of March 1999, the trust reported 47 whole-time equivalent vacancies, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne said. Since then, a number of appointments have been made. Eighteen have been offered to newly qualified students and another 10 to overseas staff nurses. With other external appointments, the trust predicts that vacancies will be reduced to approximately 12 whole-time equivalent vacancies at the end of June.
  Further efforts are being made by the trust to fill vacancies with a major recruitment initiative abroad, and a further group of student nurses is due to qualify in September. The trust is making significant progress to ensure that use of bank and agency nurses is kept to the minimum. However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that does not address the findings of the district auditors, that Eastbourne was below the average on its complement of nursing staff.
  Following receipt of the report, a detailed action plan was agreed between the trust and the auditors to address the issues raised in the report. East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority, as purchaser of the services provided in Eastbourne, conducted its own review of the report, and the trust and the health authority agreed to conduct a joint analysis of current nurse staffing levels. The discussions continue, and any recommendations will
  140
  be considered by Eastbourne Downs primary care group, which is responsible for advising the health authority on the commissioning of hospital services for its patients, at its public meeting on 21 June. The health authority will consider the matter on 24 June. In the mean time, it is the responsibility of the local trust management and doctors to ensure that services are provided in a safe environment.
  Over the past 18 months, we have provided Eastbourne Hospitals NHS trust with an extra £5 million of additional resources over inflation. The additional money includes £1.7 million on the waiting list initiative, £1 million for emergency activity and more than £500,000 for winter pressures. The money has enabled the trust to open more than 20 additional surgical beds and has enabled two five-day wards to be extended to seven-day wards. The money has also allowed the trust to recruit additional nurses to manage these wards together with the full range of supporting staff.
  I would like to turn to the tragic incidents raised by the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Bexhill and Battle that occurred over the past year at Eastbourne district general hospital, and I should briefly explain the action taken by the trust.
  Mrs. Freeman died in early 1998 following complications resulting from a hysterectomy operation. Following this tragic incident, the trust investigated the circumstances leading up to Mrs. Freeman's death. Following publication of the coroner's report, in which the verdict of accidental death was recorded, the trust agreed to reinvestigate the matter in the light of the comments made at the inquest and in the professional reports of independent witnesses. The review is in progress and the results are expected to be presented at the public part of the trust's board meeting on 18 June.
  In the case of Mrs. Dyer, who sadly died earlier this year, the trust again conducted an internal inquiry into the death and is currently reviewing its resuscitation policy to ensure that the tragedy should never be repeated.
  However, even with the work that the trust has done to ensure that these events are never repeated, and despite the reported views held by the Eastbourne, Seaford and Wealdon community health council
  "that the very great majority of people treated at Eastbourne achieve a perfectly acceptable clinical outcome and have a satisfactory hospital experience"
  there is obviously continued local concern about service provision.
  With that in mind, senior officials from the south-east regional office of the NHS Executive visited the trust last Thursday to discuss these events. Following the meeting, and after careful consideration, the regional director has asked the regional nursing director to carry out a review of nursing care at the trust.
  The review will provide the regional director with an objective assessment of the current position and provide recommendations that will form the basis of an agreed action plan for the trust. It will also take account of current work being undertaken by the trust and the health authority. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that its members will be completely independent from both the trust and the health authority.

  141
  The purpose of the review will be to assess whether the trust has in place appropriate policies and procedures to enable effective nursing care to be delivered. The review will also determine what quality standards are in place, including robust nursing policies and procedures supported by staff training, and assess whether these are monitored effectively. It will also assess the adequacy of investigation, documentation, reporting and follow-up of untoward incidents and it will consider, in the light of all of the above, the trust's progress in implementing the clinical governance agenda.
  Further details, announcing the terms of reference and membership of the review team, will be issued by the south-east regional office in the near future. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the hon. Member for Lewes that the review will be open and fully accessible. Its full report will be published by the end of September.
  142
  I hope that what I have said in the House today shows that we take quality issues seriously and that that is at the heart of the Government's strategy for modernising the NHS. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that the Government are taking, and will continue to take, action to ensure that the highest standard of care is delivered throughout the national health service. Nurses have a crucial role to play in that. For that reason, more nurses are being recruited, both in Eastbourne and in other hospitals throughout the country.
  We want the public to have full confidence in the local NHS. By taking action to raise the quality of care and by responding to local concerns in the way that we have, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be confident about our commitment to the NHS in his constituency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the ceiling on personnel numbers and (b) the actual strength of the Territorial Army in each month between May 1998 and May 1999; and if he will make a statement. [83629]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 12 May 1999]The following is the information.

  TA strengths by month May 1998 to April 1999

  Month

  Total

  May 1998

  55,735

  June 1998

  55,612

  July 1998

  55,070

  August 1998

  54,737

  September 1998

  54,145

  October 1998

  53,847

  November 1998

  54,430

  December 1998

  54,031

  January 1999

  53,466

  February 1999

  52,312

  March 1999

  51,456

  April 1999

  50,438

  Note:

  Figures do not include Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS)

  The establishment of the Territorial Army between 1 May 1998 and 1 May 1999 was 69,000. There is no ceiling on TA personnel. The drawdown in numbers evident from the start of 1999 reflects the gradual drawdown to the post SDR establishment of 41,204. It is our intention to recruit to the full establishment.

  RAF Aircraft (Sales)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many surplus RAF aircraft have been sold in each of the last five years; and to whom they were sold. [84567]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of surplus RAF aircraft including helicopters sold in each of the last five years by the MOD's Disposal Sales Agency were as follows:

  Year

  1994

  154

  1995

  54

  1996

  34

  1997

  61

  1998

  45

  A small number of these aircraft were sold to the armed forces of India, Oman, Uruguay and Sri Lanka. The majority, however, went to over 130 UK and overseas
  2
  commercial enterprises and individuals. To identify each of these, and to seek their agreement to being named, would incur disproportionate cost.

  Falklands Garrison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 1999,Official Report, column 19, on the Falklands garrison, what is the strategic reason for maintaining a garrison in the Falklands; and if he will make a statement. [84899]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our garrison on the Falkland Islands is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to ensure the security of the Falkland Islands and to uphold the right of the Islanders to determine their own future. We will continue to provide a garrison comprising air, and land sea assets, backed up by the capability to reinforce if necessary.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first full squadron of Eurofighter aircraft will be in service with the RAF; and what was the original date expected. [82522]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Defence, Security and International Relations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the increases in Members' salaries and office expenses from 1971 to 1999. [84123]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary Salary (£)

  Effective date

  3,250

  16 October 1964

  4,500

  1 January 1972

  5,750

  13 June 1975

  6,062

  13 June 1976

  6,270

  13 June 1977

  6,897

  13 June 1978

  9,450

  13 June 1979

  11,750

  13 June 1980

  13,950

  13 June 1981

  14,510

  13 June 1982

  15,308

  13 June 1983

  16,016

  1 January 1984

  16,904

  1 January 1985

  17,702

  1 January 1986

  18.500

  1 January 1987

  22,548

  1 January 1988

  24,107

  1 January 1989

  26,701

  1 January 1990

  28,970

  1 January 1991

  30,854

  1 January 1992

  30,854

  1 January 1993

  31,687

  1 January 1994

  33,189

  1 January 1995

  34,085

  1 January 1996

  3

  Parliamentary Salary (£)

  Effective date

  43.000

  1 July 1996

  43,860

  1 April 1997

  45,066

  1 April 1998

  47,008

  1 April 1999

  Note:

  Until 1 July 1996, Ministers in the House of Commons received an abated amount of the parliamentary salary.

  Allowance for office expenses (£)

  Effective date

  500

  1 October 1969

  1,000

  1 January 1972

  1,750

  1 April 1974

  3,200

  1 April 1975

  3,512

  13 June 1976

  3,687

  13 June 1977

  4,200

  13 June 1978

  4,600

  13 June 1979

  6,750

  14 February 1980

  8,000

  13 June 1980

  8,480

  13 June 1981

  8,820

  13 June 1982

  12,000

  13 June 1983

  12,437

  13 June 1984

  13,211

  1 April 1985

  20,140

  1 April 1986

  21,302

  1 April 1987

  22,588

  1 April 1988

  24,903

  1 April 1989

  27,166

  1 April 1990

  28,986

  1 April 1991

  39,960

  1 April 1992

  40,380

  1 April 1993

  41,309

  1 April 1994

  42,754

  1 April 1995

  46,364

  1 April 1996

  47,569

  1 April 1997

  49,232

  1 April 1998

  50,264

  1 April 1999

  Note:

  From 1 April 1980 an additional allowance of up to 10 per cent. of the sums shown has been available to provide pensions contributions for Members' employees.

WALES

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce measures to encourage farmers to shift to organic production methods. [84562]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Organic Aid Scheme provides direct financial support for conversion to organic production. Subject to the approval of the European Commission, the payments rates available under this scheme will be increased to the following:

  £s per hectare

  (a) Arable Area Payment Scheme eligible land

  (b) Improved grassland

  (c) Unimproved grassland/rough grazing

  Year 1

  225

  175

  25

  Year 2

  135

  105

  10

  Year 3

  50

  40

  5

  Year 4

  20

  15

  5

  Year 5

  20

  15

  5

  Total

  450

  350

  50

  4
  The Welsh Organic Food Sector Action Plan, launched in March, sets out an agenda for developing the organic sector in Wales, with the aim of encouraging an expansion of organic farming to 10 per cent. of Welsh agricultural produce.

  The Organic Conversion Information Service will continue to provide free advice to prospective organic farmers.

  In future, following the transfer of powers, these issues will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Health Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made, for each of the new NHS trust areas in Wales, of the number of posts which have been terminated in executive and directorate structures as a direct result of the recent reorganisation of the health service in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [84727]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Across the new NHS trusts in Wales the number of senior managerial posts has so far been reduced by a total of 80, as follows:

  NHS Trusts

  Senior managerial posts

  Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust

  12

  Pontypridd and Rhondda NHS Trust

  9

  University Hospital of Wales and Llandough

  Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  Cardiff and District Community NHS Trust

  4

  Swansea NHS Trust

  15

  Bro Morgannwg NHS Trust

  12

  Carmarthenshire NHS Trust

  5

  North West Wales NHS Trust

  4

  Conwy and Denbighshire NHS Trust

  5

  North East Wales NHS Trust

  9

  Further reductions in managerial and administrative posts are expected to take place throughout the year.

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

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present regulations applying to genetically modified trial crops in respect of the need to prevent cross-contamination. [74864]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]The risk of cross pollination is assessed for each case as part of the approvals process and consent would not be granted if cross pollination would cause harm to human health or the environment.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 240, on genetically modified organisms, what was

  5
  the name and position of the representative of the US State Department who made the representation to his Department. [80835]

  Mr. Meacher
  The US representative was Mr. Frank Loy, Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the State Department.

  Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he will employ in appointing new members of the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment. [81387]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 April 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 11 May 1999,Official Report, columns 106–07.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the outturn, estimated outturn or planned level of core investment excluding the Jubilee line extension in London Transport for the years 1993–94 to 1999–2000, in 1999 prices. [82419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The requested information is in the table.

  Constant 1998–99 prices in £ million

  LUL

  PFI1

  LTB and other LT Businesses2

  Total core business investment excluding JLE3

  1993–9444

  556

  0

  38

  594

  1994–954

  563

  0

  28

  591

  1995–96

  522

  122

  31

  675

  1996–97

  395

  145

  24

  564

  1997–98

  334

  165

  37

  536

  1998–995

  415

  53

  35

  503

  1999–20006

  335

  161

  29

  525

  1The PFI figures are not estimates of what the private sector is investing in London Transport. Rather they are London Transport's estimates of what investment in PFI projects would have cost had LT undertaken the investment themselves.

  2LTB and other LT Businesses include LT Buses, LT Property, Victoria Coach Station, PASS, LT Museum and Group Services.

  3 Also excluding other smaller ring fenced activities including Croydon Tramlink, Dial-a-Ride, Crossrail, LUL works at Kings Cross for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London River Services pier purchase and construction.

  41993–94 and 1994–95 include expenditure by London Buses Limited subsidiaries, which have since been sold to the private sector.

  5Estimate

  6Planned

  Conventional Plant Breeding
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of herbicide-resistant oil seed rape varieties created by conventional plant breeding methods; what controls exist on such plants; and if he will make a statement; [82071]
  6
  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulatory systems for crops created by conventional plant breeding in respect of their potential environmental impact. [82072]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]No formal assessment has been made of the environmental impact of herbicide-resistant oil seed rape varieties created by conventional plant breeding methods or the adequacy of the regulatory systems for crops created by conventional plant breeding in respect of their potential environmental impact.

  However, concern over the environmental implications of herbicide-tolerant crops (whether produced by genetic modification or conventional methods) have been raised on several occasions by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), in particular in their annual reports for 1996–97 and 1998.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is co-funding research on the management of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops through the so-called BRIGHT project.

  The guidelines developed by the industry grouping SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) for growing herbicide tolerant crops also applies to both conventionally bred and genetically modified crops.

  In their report on the EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture at paragraph 178, the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities recommended that, from now on, any crop with novel traits which may have the potential to impact significantly on the environment should be subject to an oversight system.

  In responding, the Government recognised that regulating on the basis of process rather than product could lead to anomalies and undertook to ask ACRE to advise what might be done to address the issue raised by the Committee. ACRE have now taken this task on. However the Government consider it right that the focus is on the genetic modification of organisms since this can result in the crossing of species barriers where potential risks have to be particularly carefully assessed and managed. The EC legislation on genetically modified organisms reflects this view.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the volume of road traffic which is accounted for by journeys to and from places of work. [83041]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]In 1997, the volume of road traffic accounted for by journeys to and from places of work was about 97 billion km, 26 per cent. of the total of 368 billion km for all car and taxi traffic in Great Britain.

  British Transport Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with representatives of British Transport Police on the future role and responsibilities of their service; and if he will make a statement. [84744]
  7
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government announced on 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 637, their intention to seek to establish, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, an independent national police authority for the British Transport Police (BTP). Subject to Parliament's approval the legislation would also place the jurisdiction of the BTP for all railway land (including the London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway) on a statutory basis. Following consultation the Home Secretary is also considering an extension to the BTP's jurisdiction outside the railways in specific circumstances. If acceptable this would also be included within the legislation. My officials meet regularly with senior officers from the BTP to discuss a range of issues.

  Limestone Pavements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to implement the measures to protect limestone pavements in the United Kingdom proposed by the Wildlife Trusts. [83843]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 May 1999]Limestone Pavement is a priority habitat under both the Habitats Directive and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Under the latter, the Wildlife Trusts are members of the Limestone Pavement Working Group, which is seeking to ensure no further losses in extent or quality. The Group is preparing a report on what further measures may be necessary, and I shall consider any recommendations carefully.

  Recycling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will specify in contracts between his Department and construction companies the use of a minimum percentage of recycled materials; and if he will make a statement. [84898]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department follows the advice of the "Green guide for managers on the government estate", published in March 1999 to promote more sustainable construction. This guidance refers to the importance of using recycled materials and ensuring future recyclability in obtaining best value. The Environment Agency has adopted a target for the engineering works it procures that 20 per cent. of the aggregates used should be from secondary sources, while the Highways Agency is encouraging the adoption of material specifications which make recycling technically practical.

  The Department is helping the Government Construction Clients' Panel to develop a methodology for assessing how well Departments and Agencies procure and manage their built assets against indicators of sustainability, which are expected to include criteria relating to the re-use and recycling of materials. In addition, the Department is working with representatives of the whole construction industry to develop a strategy for more sustainable construction. This strategy, which will set out how the industry intends to contribute to sustainable development, is due to be published later this year.
  8

  Butterflies (GM Pollen)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effect of genetically modified pollen on butterflies. [85285]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am aware of the recent report in "Nature" about the possible adverse effects of pollen from genetically modified insect resistant maize on the Monarch Butterfly in America. The maize in question has had a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium"Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)" inserted which allows it to produce a toxin that kills corn boring insects.

  Information from this laboratory study will be considered carefully, and ACRE will be asked to advise about the implications for existing approvals for the planting of this GM crop in the European Community. The GM crop used in the study is not being released in the United Kingdom, either experimentally or commercially. Since the European Corn Borer, the pest controlled by the Bt toxin, does not occur in the UK, this GM crop is unlikely to be grown here.

  DETR are aware of potential risks of GM insect resistant crops to non-target and beneficial organisms, and are funding research to investigate these. This research will underpin regulatory decision making and inform ACRE' s deliberations.

  SSA Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the objectives of the standard spending assessment review. [84968]

  Mr. Meale
  The broad objectives of the review of revenue grant distribution are set out in paragraph 5.16 of the White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People". These are:to investigate thoroughly whether there is a better way of determining the distribution of revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he has had with Ministers of other Departments in connection with the review of standard spending assessments. [84969]

  Mr. Meale
  Details of meetings between Ministers are not disclosed in line with exemption 2 of part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Local Authorities (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department has taken to develop mechanisms for sharing(a) information and (b) best practice between local authorities in the West Midlands. [85273]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have established the Beacon Council Scheme to spread best practice among all local authorities. Beacon councils will host a nationwide programme of open days and other events which will enable all councils to share their experiences and learn from the best. Applications for beacon council status, to
  9
  be made by 31 July, have now been invited with publication of the brochure, "The Beacon Council Scheme: How to apply".

  Walking and Cycling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are taking to increase walking and cycling in urban areas. [85260]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is supporting the implementation of the National Cycling Strategy and we are about to publish a national strategy for encouraging walking.

  We have made it clear to local highway authorities that we expect to see local cycling strategies and local walking strategies included in their Local Transport Plans. We have already issued detailed guidance to authorities on the features to be covered in Local Transport Plans.

  We shall continue to publish technical advice for local authorities on measures and designs which will benefit cyclists and pedestrians.

  Busking
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make a decision on London Transport's proposals for changes in their byelaws concerning busking. [85319]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Regional Transport and the train operating companies are in the process of making new byelaws. The majority of operators have submitted new byelaws to the Secretary of State. Once those from the remaining companies are received, the Secretary of State will consider all the representations from affected persons made in connection with the byelaws. In due course he will make a decision to approve, modify or refuse the byelaws.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to consult buskers on the proposed London Transport byelaw changes relating to busking; and if he will make a statement. [85321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no provisions in the legislation requiring the Secretary of State to consult interested parties before he makes his decision to approve, modify or refuse London Regional Transport's new byelaws. This was an issue for London Regional Transport to consider before they made their new byelaws. London Regional Transport were required to advertise the byelaws and invite persons affected to make representation to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will consider any representations, including those from buskers, before he makes his decision.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria London Transport intends to apply when giving permission for individuals to busk on London Underground. [85320]
  10
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Regional Transport have submitted new byelaws to the Secretary of State for his approval which would allow them to give written permission to buskers. The criteria to be applied would be a matter for London Regional Transport.

  Air Circulation (Aeroplanes)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what regulations exist concerning the frequency with which air is circulated in planes; and what changes there have been to these in the past three years; [84790]

  (2) what representations he has received about air circulation in planes; and what proposals he has to change the regulations relating to the circulation of air on planes; [84791]

  (3) what health risks are associated with inadequate air circulation on planes; and what monitoring activity he undertakes. [84792]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We regularly receive correspondence from Members of Parliament and the public on this issue.

  The standards for the ventilation of the passenger compartments of aircraft form part of the requirements under which individual aircraft types are certificated. The standard for new types of aircraft being placed on the UK register is contained in Joint Aviation Requirement 25—Large Aeroplanes. These requirements have not been changed in the last three years. However, they are in the process of being amended to reduce the maximum permitted amount of carbon dioxide to bring them into line with the equivalent US requirement.

  The degree of re-circulation is determined by the aircraft designer and in some cases may be adjusted by the crew. Even when the air conditioning is set at its lowest level, the air in a modern aircraft cabin is changed every three minutes on average. The oxygen used by passengers is a small proportion, approximately 5 per cent. of the oxygen supplied at the minimum flow rate. The oxygen level in the cabin therefore remains at around 20 per cent. for the duration of a flight, which is almost the same as normal atmospheric oxygen levels.

  There is no evidence of links between air quality, flow rates and the spread of disease. The filters used in most modern aircraft are similar to those used in critical wards of hospitals, operating theatres and burns units, and provide protection against the circulation of biological agents such as viruses. However, the spread of disease is facilitated when large numbers of people gather in close proximity. This has nothing to do with air quality but is a matter of personal contact.

  While the re-circulation of air poses no risk, the air pressure in aircraft in flight, which is roughly equivalent to the atmospheric pressure at 8,000 feet above sea level, can affect people with respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, emphysema and bronchitis. Those affected are advised to consult their own doctor and the airline before travelling.

  We have no plans to seek further changes to the JAR-25 requirements on air quality.
  11

  White Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress being made on banning the importation, sale and use of white asbestos. [84877]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 25 May the Health and Safety Commission will consider draft Regulations to restrict further importation, supply and use of white asbestos. I expect to receive their recommendations by the end of the month.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the levels of harassment and nuisance caused by misuse of fireworks. [84694]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Fireworks, provided they are used sensibly and safely, can provide pleasant entertainment. I am, however, aware that the thoughtless misuse of fireworks by a small element of the population, mostly unsupervised children, can result in local disturbance, nuisance and harassment.

  It is important, therefore, to regulate the sale of fireworks. Relevant legislation comprises the Explosives Act 1875, as modified by the Control of Explosives Regulations 1991 and as amended by the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Act 1976, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. Under the 1875 Act, it is an offence to discharge a firework in a street or public place. The 1997 Regulations, among other provisions, make it an offence to sell certain types of firework to any members of the general public and to sell other types to anyone under 18, or in some cases, under 16. There is a maximum penalty of £5,000 or six months' imprisonment or both.

  For over 20 years, Government-organised firework safety awareness campaigns run in collaboration with local authority trading standards departments, fire services and the fireworks industry have aimed to heighten awareness of the dangers from the misuse of fireworks. The Government consider the safety of the public as paramount and will keep under consideration the effectiveness and coherence of legislation, policies and strategies to ensure that problems and potential problems are addressed in a practical way.

  European Nuclear Installations
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what risk assessment exercises have been undertaken with other European countries concerning the potential threat to the United Kingdom population from their nuclear installations over the millennium period. [84256]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK has long been aware of the potential risks from nuclear installations over the millennium period and has been co-operating for several years with countries in Europe and beyond, both on a bilateral basis and through the European Union, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), to help ensure that any risks are properly addressed. The
  12
  UK's nuclear safety regulator—the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII)— keeps in proactive touch with the considerable activity in other countries to address safety issues and continues to follow developments closely.

  In the event of any nuclear emergency, the IAEA and the European Union have established and tested international systems for early notification of any overseas nuclear accident. The UK also has bilateral arrangements for the early notification of any nuclear accident with a number of overseas governments. The Government's National Response Plan, co-ordinated by the Development of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, makes arrangements for the UK's response in dealing with any consequences of an overseas nuclear accident. This is supported by the RIMNET national radiation monitoring system, which gives the UK a second independent warning mechanism, should for any reason the early notification system fail.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Army
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held with President Prodi on the establishment of a European army. [84092]
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of creating a European army and there have therefore been no discussions on this matter with Mr. Prodi. We have, of course, already identified a need for renewed debate on European Union common foreign and security policy and the statement of principles agreed at the British-French Summit at St. Malo was an important step forward. Our aim is clear: to enable the European Union to have a more united and influential voice in world affairs. This must be backed up, when the need arises, by effective military capability. We are taking a leading role in this debate. We have, however, made clear that the deployment of forces must remain a decision for national Governments.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to hold regular formal meetings with the first Ministers of(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) the National Assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [84629]

  The Prime Minister
  I will meet Ministers and Secretaries from the devolved administrations from time to time.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 May 1999,Official Report, column 309, for what reasons the Government have made no assessment of the effect of depleted uranium on the water supply, and water-table and on the health of the civilian population in Iraq. [84579]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]The Government have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data to support the claims that there has been an increase in ill-health in southern Iraq, attributed to the use of depleted uranium based ammunition by coalition forces during the 1990–1991 conflict.
  13
  The Government understand however that the World Health Organisation is in discussion with the Government of Iraq about proposals to improve health care in Iraq. The proposals—which are still at the outline stage—will only be developed into more detailed documents if the Iraqi Government decide to take the proposals forward.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to answer questions on the length of Cabinet meetings. [85062]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 30 April 1999,Official Report, column 281.

  Horse Industry
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the advantages of designating a lead department to deal with Government responsibilities in respect of the horse industry. [85209]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government recognise the economic importance of the horse industry in rural areas. A number of Government Departments currently have responsibility for different aspects of the horse industry and the division of these responsibilities is kept under review.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All doctors in the psychiatric speciality by ethnic group: England at 30 September 1997

  Numbers

  All staff

  White

  Ethnic groups Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Psychiatry Group

  6,620

  4,300

  310

  950

  620

  450

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  750

  570

  20

  70

  40

  50

  Forensic psychiatry

  280

  190

  10

  30

  20

  20

  General psychiatry

  4,220

  2,640

  220

  650

  410

  290

  Learning disabilities

  500

  300

  20

  90

  60

  30

  Psychiatry of old age

  710

  460

  30

  100

  80

  40

  Psychotherapy

  180

  140

  0

  10

  10

  20

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10

  2. '0' denotes 5 or less

  3. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health—medical and dental workforce census

  Number of staff in psychiatry group by ethnic groups and grade in England at 30 September 1997

  Numbers

  All staff

  White

  Ethnic groups Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  All staff

  6,620

  4,300

  310

  950

  620

  450

  Consultant

  2,450

  1,770

  70

  260

  180

  170

  Staff Grade

  300

  120

  20

  80

  60

  20

  Associate Specialist

  180

  60

  0

  70

  40

  10

  Registrar Group

  1,280

  910

  70

  130

  100

  70

  Senior House Officer

  1,380

  790

  120

  220

  130

  110

  House Officer

  10

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Hospital Practitioner

  60

  40

  —

  10

  0

  0

  Clinical Assistant

  980

  610

  20

  180

  110

  60

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10

  2.'—' denotes zero

  3. '0' denotes 5 or less

  4. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health—medical and dental workforce census
  14

  Cancer Treatment
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to co-ordinate a meeting to discuss new cancer treatment initiatives. [85077]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 20 May 1999,Official Report, columns 401–02.

HEALTH

  Psychiatric Staff
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many black and ethnic minority(a) psychiatrists and (b) community psychiatric nurses are currently registered in England and Wales. [84111]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available for England is given in the tables. These figures refer to England only. The statistics for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The Department is reviewing the collection of ethnic statistics with a view to improving the quality and coverage of the information we collect.
  15

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Nurses working in the area of community psychiatry, by ethnicity, in England as at 30 September 1997

  Wte

  All staff

  White

  Ethnic groups Black

  Asian

  Other

  Not known

  Total

  10,720

  9,200

  430

  190

  510

  390

  Manager

  190

  170

  10

  10

  10

  *

  Other 1st Level

  8,380

  7,120

  290

  160

  380

  250

  Other 2nd Level

  430

  300

  20

  *

  10

  20

  Nursing
  Assistant/Auxiliary

  1,720

  1,620

  110

  20

  110

  120

  Notes:

  1. Figures should be treated with caution as they are based upon the 68 per cent. of HCHS organisations reported 90 per cent. or more valid ethnic codes for non-medical staff.

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  4. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each type of cancer the type and effectiveness of the screening tests currently available on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [84688]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently two cancer screening programmes routinely available on the National Health Service.

  The NHS Breast Screening Programme invites women aged 50—64 years for screening by mammography every three years. Since 1988 when the programme was introduced the United Kingdom death rate from breast cancer has been falling faster than the European average. Based on current detection rates it is estimated that the programme is saving up to 1,250 lives each year.

  The NHS Cervical Screening programme invites women aged 20—64 years for a PAP test at least every five years. The test is designed to detect cervical abnormalities which if left undetected and untreated might develop into cancer. The incidence of cervical cancer has been falling at a rate of about 7 per cent. each year since the national programme was introduced in 1988 and experts estimate that the programme prevents around 3,900 cases of cancer per year. Further evidence from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund suggests that the cervical screening programme may have prevented 800 deaths in 1997.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the addition of fluoride to drinking water in Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [84767]

  Ms Jowell
  The Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", invited comments on the contribution which fluoridation can make to improved oral health. Of the 604 comments received from the West Midlands region 595 were in favour of fluoridation and nine opposed. We will be announcing our policy on fluoridation in a White Paper on public health which will be published shortly.
  16

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the elective waiting list totals for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for each month from May 1995 to date. [84861]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  Date

  Total waiting list

  June 1995

  4,201

  September 1995

  4,269

  December 1995

  4,481

  March 1996

  4,358

  June 1996

  4,325

  September 1996

  4,083

  December 1996

  3,990

  March 1997

  4,245

  June 1997

  4,047

  September 1997

  4,057

  December 1997

  4,653

  March 1998

  5,422

  May 1998

  5,482

  June 1998

  5,362

  July 1998

  4,996

  August 1998

  4,827

  September 1998

  4,601

  October 1998

  4,337

  November 1998

  4,095

  December 1998

  4,058

  January 1999

  4,050

  February 1999

  3,966

  March 1999

  4,083

  Eye Tests (Pensioners)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham have had free eye tests since their introduction. [84864]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate that there are some 21,000 residents aged 60 and over in Shrewsbury and Atcham and will therefore be eligible for a free National Health Service sight test. Some will have already been eligible for NHS tests on income grounds or because of predisposition to eye disease.
  17

  NHS Board Directors
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many directors serve on National Health Service trust boards operating in(a) Doncaster and (b) Barnsley; and how many of those directors reside in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency. [84988]

  Name

  Post type

  Appointment

  Term

  Post town

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Councillor Thomas Sheard

  Chairman

  I December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Barnsley

  Mr. Brian Key

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2000

  Barnsley

  Mrs. Josephine Ruth Lees

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996

  30 November 1999

  Barnsley

  Mrs. Margaret Michaels

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Sheffield

  Mr. Keith Ellis

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1998

  30 November 1999

  Barnsley

  Mr. William Newman

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Barnsley

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Gordon E. Firth

  Chairman

  1 November 1998

  31 October 2000

  Barnsley

  Ms Lynn Joyce Ambler

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Barnsley

  Mr. C. Barry Taylor

  Non-Executive Director

  9 November 1998

  31 October 2001

  Barnsley

  Mrs. Linda Burgess

  Non-Executive Director

  9 November 1998

  31 October 2001

  Near Barnsley

  Mr. Robert Walker

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Judith Watts

  Non-Executive Director

  4 November 1997

  31 October 2001

  Barnsley

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. David Bertram

  Chairman

  19 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mrs. Sheila Bryant

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Councillor Jean Maureen Elwick

  Non-Executive Director

  16 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mr. Graham K. Vaughan

  Non-Executive Director

  27 October 1998

  30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mr. David Charles Miller

  Non-Executive Director

  11 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. Richard D. Kitson

  Chairman

  1 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Mrs. Janet Conroy

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1998

  30 November 2002

  Near Doncaster

  Mr. Thomas J. Keegan

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1998

  30 November 2002

  Doncaster

  Mrs. June Hawley

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Near Doncaster

  Mrs. Carol Shekle

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Mr. Colin D. Ambler

  Non-Executive Director

  12 October 1998

  30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  Dr. Bernard Kingston

  Chairman

  16 January 1998

  31 May 1999

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Patricia Battersby

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1998

  30 November 2000

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Sandra Holland

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mr. Sean Mahon

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995

  30 November 1999

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Anita Cartner

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1998

  30 November 2001

  Rotherham

  Millennium Working
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national scheme to compensate nurses who will be working over the millennium period. [84977]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to agree any new specific national arrangements for staff over the millennium period. Guidance was issued to the National Health Service in Health Service Circular 1999/097, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Anaphylaxis
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice is issued by his Department to local education authorities over the treatment of children of school age suffering anaphylactic allergic reactions; [85264]

  (2) what advice his Department has received on the appropriate treatment of anaphylactic allergic reactions in school children, from (a) the Anaphylaxis Campaign and (b) professional bodies; [85265]
  18
  Mr.Denham
  The current non-executive directors serving on the boards of National Health Service trusts operating in Barnsley and Doncaster are shown in the table. Information is not held centrally on the Parliamentary constituencies in which directors reside.

  (3) what guidelines his Department has issued to local health authorities on the provision of advice to local education authorities in developing care plans for pupils suffering from potentially life-threatening medical conditions. [85266]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department and the Department for Education and Employment issued joint guidance in October 1996 on "Supporting pupils with medical needs in schools". The guidance, which was sent to health authorities and local education authorities, covers treatment and the development of healthcare plans for pupils suffering from potentially life threatening medical conditions, including anaphylaxis. It was produced after extensive consultation with interested parties, including professional bodies and voluntary organisations such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign.

  In March 1999 the Department and the Department for Education and Employment launched a new website, "Wired for Health", to provide teachers with health information on a range of conditions, including

  19
  anaphylaxis. The website gives direct access to advice from the Anaphylaxis Campaign on anaphylaxis and schools.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 321, concerning long-term care, if his Department will assist interested bodies in promoting a full public debate on the findings of the Royal Commission. [85057]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Commission's report has already stimulated an important debate on this complex issue and the Department has been happy to assist that, as well as responding to the hundreds of contributions received in correspondence from individuals and organisations. We will continue to take account of the views of all interested parties and use these to inform decisions we make on the proposals over the coming months.

  Cancer Treatment Initiatives
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to co-ordinate a meeting to discuss new cancer treatment initiatives. [85078]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 20 May 1999,Official Report, columns 401–02.

  Medical Student Places
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his list of new medical student places. [85079]

  Mr. Denham
  Allocation of student places to universities in England is the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Funding Council is working with my Department to produce recommendations for the allocation of additional medical student places, and an announcement is expected in the next few weeks.

  Investing in Dentistry
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reasons underlay the refusal of the bid for funding under the Investing in Dentistry scheme submitted by Paul Carlin of Shipley Bridge, South Brent, Devon; [84078]

  (2) how many dental practices in England and Wales have received funding under the Investing in Dentistry project in each year since its inception; and if he will provide a breakdown of what it has been spent on. [84206]

  Mr. Denham
  The Investing in Dentistry (IID) initiative only applied to General Dental Services in England. IID was launched in September 1997 and continued until April this year. Requests for funding could be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at any time during this period. To date, 282 IID funding requests have been approved, primarily to help towards the cost of opening new dental practices, relocating existing practices to larger premises, and providing extra surgeries. A further 140 are currently being assessed.
  20
  Mr. Carlin's Investing in Dentistry funding request was refused because it did not meet the requirements of the IID scheme. The criteria used in deciding on proposals is set out in the circular Health Service Guidance (97) 38, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nursing Homes (Care Costs)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average cost of four years' care in a nursing home. [75527]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average cost of four years' care in a nursing home for elderly people is estimated to be £73,000.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) those people who have been in long-term care or nursing homes for four years or more and (b) all people in long-term care or nursing homes continue to pay part or all of their fees. [75528]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected in the form requested, but we estimate that about 9 per cent. of people in nursing homes make no contribution to the cost of their care as they have been placed by the National Health Service. All others contribute in part or in full.

  Aricept
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of(a) the social costs and benefits of Aricept for Alzheimer's patients and (b) the savings in respite and other long-term care resulting from the use of Aricept. [84274]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no such assessment.

  The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is considering a research project looking at "new drugs for dementia". Full proposals will be considered at a specially convened meeting in June which will include Professor Tom Walley (Chair of the HTA pharmaceutical Panel) and Professor Kent Woods (Director of HTA). Due account will be taken of the findings of the AD 2000 project, a large trial organised through West Midlands National Health Service Regional Office, which has included consideration of the social costs and benefits of Aricept for Alzheimer's disease and the savings in respite and other long-term care resulting in the use of Aricept.

  Audiology Services
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost benefit analysis his Department has carried out or draws upon to inform its current policy towards the supply of digital hearing aids through the NHS. [84304]

  Mr. Hutton
  Digital technology in hearing aids is very new so at this stage only manufacturers' evaluations are available and there is no independent cost benefit analysis. National Heath Service trusts purchase hearing aids from a range that is supplied by the NHS Supplies Authority and they may also purchase hearing aids from commercial suppliers to meet individual clinical need.
  21

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  NATO Operations
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library copies of the external legal advice taken by Her Majesty's Government on the legality of the present NATO operations against Serbia. [85076]

  The Attorney-General
  Any legal advice taken by Her Majesty's Government on this, or on any other matter, is subject to legal privilege and thus confidential.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Postal Services (Pathway Scheme)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the implications for the Post Office of the Pathway Scheme; [84051]

  (2) what evaluation he has made of the role of information technology in developing postal and other services in rural areas; [84054]

  (3) what evaluation he has made of the benefits of the Pathway project for the viability of sub-post offices. [84052]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answers 13 May 1999]The Government today reached agreement in principle with ICL about the continuation of the Horizon project to computerise the Post Office network and automate the payment of benefits.

  The changes to the Horizon project are aimed to put it on a sustainable footing for the future and allow the Post Office to move as quickly as possible to the computerisation of post office counter services.

  The main elements of the agreement are:
  First, we will be moving forward as planned, as quickly as possible with the automation of Post Office Counter services. For the first time ever, Post Offices will have an up to date automation platform, helping them to provide a better service to their customers, and representing a major investment in the future of the nationwide network of Post Offices.
  We have agreed with ICL to remove the magnetic strip benefit payment card from the project. Given the delays, this is now an outdated concept and the Banks, among others, are already moving away from magnetic strip in favour of the next generation technology—the smart card. For the future, we intend to move from the traditional paper-based methods of payment to a more modern and efficient way of paying benefits through the Post Office network, building on banking technology. POCL and DSS/BA will be working together on plans to introduce the new arrangements in 2003. The Government can give an assurance that those benefit recipients who wish to collect their benefits in cash at Post Offices will continue to be able to do so.
  In the interim, we will be using bar-coding on order books to tackle benefit fraud. This will provide savings of around £100 million a year, a saving originally promised by the last administration but not yet delivered.
  We and ICL believe the target of achieving the computerisation of the network of 18,000 Post Offices by the end of 2001 is more realistic. This will give customers a better service and help to secure a viable future for the network of Post Offices.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton West, (Ms Kelly) of 12 May 1999,Official Report, columns 145—46, on parental leave, what estimate he has made of the average length of leave which will be taken by (a) mothers and (b) fathers. [85090]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  For the purposes of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill, it was assumed that the average length of leave for those taking parental leave would be ten weeks for mothers and for fathers. A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment was placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Structural Funds (Scotland)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protocols have been agreed between his Department and the Scottish Office in relation to the expenditure of European Structural Funds in Scotland and compliance with rules and conditions imposed by the European Union; and how he intends to apply such protocols to the funding of the proposed funicular railway on the Cairngorm. [85263]

  Mr. Wills
  There are no protocols agreed between my Department and the Scottish Office relating to European Structural Funds; the two Departments are working closely together to consider the impact of devolution. Administration of the Structural Funds in Scotland and funding of individual projects there are a matter for the Scottish Office.

  Fuel Costs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will request the Director General of Electricity Supply and Gas Supply to produce figures for the average annual cost of fuel used by(a) pensioners and (b) other domestic users. [84786]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 May 1999]Energy consumption varies from household to household across the whole population. It is dependent on many factors, such as energy efficiency of the home, time spent in the property, size of property etc. Accurate and timely data on energy consumption by pensioners are not available.

  Annual fuel bills for typical and low-volume household consumers are presented in the table. Bills are based on latest 1999 prices and include VAT.

  £

  Electricity

  Gas

  Typical consumption1

  263.70

  302.59

  Low volume consumption2

  187.68

  218.78

  1Annual consumption 3,300 kWh for electricity, 18,000 kWh for gas

  2 Annual consumption 2,200 kWh for electricity, 12,000 kWh for gas

  Partnership Fund
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give further details about the proposed Partnership Fund. [85474]
  23
  Mr. Byers
  The Government intend to make available up to £5 million over the next four years through the Partnership Fund. The fund will help develop partnerships at work by supporting partnership projects in the workplace and encouraging the spread of information about best practice.

  Statutory authority for funding in this area is being sought through Clause 26 of the Employment Relations Bill. Support will be available for up to 50 per cent. of total eligible costs of individual projects, up to a limit of £50,000 support per project. It will be a requirement of support that projects should have matching funding of at least 50 per cent. from non-public sector sources.

  The Fund will be launched and a first call for proposals announced once the Employment Relations Bill has received Royal Assent.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide a breakdown of National Lottery Funds distributed by Scottish local authority area for each year since the National Lottery was set up. [84366]

  Mr. Banks
  To date 6,164 awards worth a total of £615,445,091 have been made in Scotland. This total includes Scotland-wide projects and projects which cannot be allocated to a particular local authority. A breakdown by Scottish local authorities for each distributing body has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Awards information is also available on the Lottery website at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 17 and 18 May; and if he will make a statement. [85240]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended the General Affairs Council and the EU/Russia Co-operation Council on 17 May. There was a meeting of the European Economic Area Council on the 18 May. The Council adopted the A points listed in document 8136/99 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 12–16 April, listed in document 7187/99. Copies of the documents listing the A points and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  Western Balkans
  The Council adopted conclusions regretting President Milosevic's failure to accept the international community's conditions; reiterating its support for the elected government of Montenegro; welcoming President Ahtisaari's mission; stressing the need for a UN Security Council Resolution; highlighting the need for EU assistance to reach Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro quickly; and agreeing to begin work on an EU Common Strategy on the
  24
  Western Balkans. The Council also agreed that a Stability Pact for South East Europe should be established, and endorsed a draft text as the basis for further talks between the EU and other parties to the Pact.
  EU/Charter of Rights
  The Council had a preliminary discussion of Presidency proposals for an EU Charter of Rights. There will be further discussion at the 31 May GAC.
  Institutional reform
  The Council discussed the timing, scope and preparation of an inter-governmental conference, as envisaged by the Protocol on reform of the Institutions annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty. Final decisions will be taken by the Cologne European Council.
  Common European Policy on Security and Defence
  Ministers also discussed a draft Presidency report which will be submitted to the Cologne European Council. The report sets out principles to be observed when considering possible new defence arrangements allowing the European Union to take on crisis management, peace-keeping and conflict prevention tasks.
  EU/US Relations
  The Commission reported on the latest developments in the beef hormones dispute. The Council stressed the importance of handling the dispute in a constructive and positive manner and invited the Commission to intensify contacts with the US and Canada. The Council encouraged further efforts to secure agreement on compensation should the US and Canada pursue WTO authorisation for retaliatory measures. The Council welcomed the Commission's intention to evaluate, with Member States, possible next steps and to keep the Council fully informed.
  EU Assistance to Central America
  Council agreed the general outline of a Commission Action Plan to provide assistance to Central America in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. Ministers welcomed the opportunity to discuss the plan with the beneficiary countries at the EU/Central America Ministerial in Bonn on 20 May. The Council agreed that the indicative amount of 250 meuro in the Commission plan was without prejudice to the overall spending allocations under Category 4 (external expenditure) of the EC budget. The Council invited the Commission to bring forward an assessment of external spending priorities for the period 2000–2006.
  EU/Egypt
  The Council reviewed the progress made in the latest negotiating round with Egypt. The relevant Council bodies will examine the current package further with a view to conclusion at the 31 May GAC if at all possible.
  Russia Common Strategy
  Ministers agreed a Common Strategy on Russia, which will be submitted for adoption to the Cologne European Council. It sets clear objectives for the EU's relations with Russia with the aim of supporting democratic and economic reforms, and enhancing co-operation with Russia on international affairs and on matters of common concern such as organised crime and environmental problems.

  East Timor
  Ministers agreed the need for a substantial EU contribution to the UN Trust Fund for East Timor and asked the Commission to look urgently at options for funding.
  Belarus
  The Council adopted a declaration calling on the Government of Belarus to enter into political dialogue with the opposition.
  Nigeria
  In view of the progress made towards the transition to democracy and the impending installation of civilian Government the Council decided to repeal the EU Common Position on Nigeria (98/614/CFSP) containing the remaining sanctions with effect from 1 June 1999.
  25
  EU/Russia Co-operation Council
  The EU Common Strategy on Russia, and Kosovo, were the main topics discussed at the EU/Russia Co-operation Council on 17 May. Detailed points implementation of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Co-operation Committee.
  European Economic Area Council
  The 11th EEA Council assessed the 'functioning of the EEA Agreement, reviewed developments in regional issues and European integration, and discussed political issues.
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of the social security provision agreed at the Luxembourg General Affairs Council of 26 and 27 April. [83930]

  Ms Quin
  From time to time it is necessary to amend the EC Regulations, which co-ordinate the operation of Member States' social security schemes, to take account of changes in legislation of the Member States or to effect improvements in the provisions where a deficiency in the existing arrangements comes to light. The social security provisions agreed at the Luxembourg General Affairs Council on 26 and 27 April related to amendments of this type. The only amendment of direct concern to the UK was to an Annex of the co-ordinating Regulations. This was to clarify which is the competent State for payment of UK Family Credit and Irish Family Income Supplement for workers who are resident in Ireland and work in the UK, or vice versa.

  Mr. Mohammed Fayed
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the authorities investigating the unauthorised publication of the identities of British security agents plan to take evidence from Mr. Mohammed Fayed. [84738]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Metropolitan Police are conducting investigations into possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1989, but these investigations are an operational matter for the police and it would not be right for me to comment on any inquiries they may be undertaking.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Greek Cypriot(a) men, (b) women and (c) children up to the age of 16 years are living in the Karpas area of occupied northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [84951]

  Ms Quin
  According to UNFICYP figures there are 450 Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas. We do not have figures showing the proportion of men and women. In addition to the 30 children who attend the Greek school in Rizokarpasso, there are a number of pre-school children in the, Karpas.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken in conjunction with the British High Commission in Cyprus to support projects to encourage contacts between Greek and Turkish Cypriots living in Cyprus; and if he will list the projects that have been supported in each of the last three years. [84963]
  26
  Ms Quin
  Until December 1997 bi-communal contact was possible but difficult. The High Commission worked hard in the period May 1996 to December 1997 to bring members of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities together. They created the Westminster group to promote the principles of democracy through bi-communal contacts with members of all professions and organised its meetings, arranged meetings of Chevening scholars, and brought members of both communities together through other events such as the Queen's birthday party and the Education fair. In addition, members of the High Commission have assisted with and participated in many other events sponsored by the UN and other bodies to bring members of the two communities together.

  Since December 1997 most bi-communal contacts have been banned by the Turkish Cypriot side. We have therefore found it effectively impossible to arrange bi-communal contacts on-island. But we arranged a meeting on 24 March in London of Cypriot Chevening scholars in co-operation with the Friends of Cyprus. We also continue to support the work of other in this field, notably the Trade Unions.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when an official of the British High Commission in Cyprus last visited the Karpas area in occupied northern Cyprus; and what report of that visit has been produced. [84964]

  Ms Quin
  A member of the British High Commission last visited the Greek Cypriot community in the Karpas on 7 May as part of a regular series of visits to that area. The High Commission reports no significant changes in living conditions since the previous visit in October 1998.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what surveys have been carried out to establish the number of Turkish Cypriots who were born in Cyprus, and still live in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [84939]

  Ms Quin
  In November 1997 the Turkish Cypriot authorities published the results of a census carried out the previous year which found that, of 200,587 people resident in the northern part of the island, 137,398 had been born in Cyprus.

  These figures are accepted among Turkish Cypriots as generally accurate, but we have no means of independent corroboration.

  Overseas Posts (E-mail and Internet Links)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Embassies and High Commissions and (b) Consulates have e-mail and internet links available to hon. Members. [84941]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO has provided 112 of its Embassies and High Commissions and 43 of its Consulates with facilities to send and receive internet e-mail.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy
  27
  is on changes to the membership of the permanent members of the UN Security Council; and if he will make a statement. [84895]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government support early enlargement of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories. It supports the addition of five permanent seats: one each for Germany and Japan, and three for developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. It also supports the addition of up to four non-permanent seats, making an expanded Council of 24.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he has made to provide advice and guidance to UK-based relatives of persons involved in the Kosovo crisis who wish to bring their families to the United Kingdom. [84852]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Advice and guidance for United Kingdom-based relatives of persons involved in the Kosovo crisis has been drawn up by the Home Office in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council. This has been distributed to all Government Departments and non-governmental organisations concerned including any ethnic Albanian organisation that requested it.

  The Kosovo Unit of the Home Office has dealt with in the region of 1,000 telephone calls from United Kingdom-based relatives of persons involved in the crisis and offered appropriate guidance on the steps they, and their relatives, should take. This advice is that those members of the public who wish to bring their families to the United Kingdom from the Kosovo region should contact the British Red Cross United Kingdom Family Reunion Service who are liaising with UNHCR and the Home Office in the compilation of family lists.

  UNHCR have recently confirmed that they are unable to undertake this role other than in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In order to help UNHCR and at their request, a Home Office team went out to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 9 May to assist with the process of registering refugees. We are considering how this initiative might be widened to assist with family reunion applications in the wider region. These will be considered in accordance with our family reunion concession. This provides for close family members (spouse and minor children and in exceptional circumstances, a family member who formed part of the family unit before fleeing to seek asylum) to join any persons who are settled or granted asylum in the United Kingdom. This concession is being extended to families in the United Kingdom who have been granted exceptional leave to enter as part of UNHCR's Humanitarian Evacuation Programme.

  Revised guidance is being prepared to reflect these new arrangements, also in consultation with UNHCR, the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council. The initial advice to family members to register details of relatives in the region with the offices of the British Red Cross in the United Kingdom remains valid.
  28

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the(a) total hours of education study and (b) total teaching hours bought in the Prison Service in 1998; and what was the percentage change for each on the previous year. [84748]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The total number of taught student hours for 1998 was 9,483,889, an increase of 6.19 per cent. on the 1997 figure.

  The total number of teaching hours purchased by the Prison Service in 1998 was 1,254,040, an increase of 7.69 per cent. on the 1997 figure.

  In addition to this, just over £10 million per annum for the three years from 1 April 1999 has been allocated to enhance education provision. It will be used to deliver an additional 2,000,000 hours of basic and key skills education which will produce 17,000 accreditations.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage liaison between the Prison Education Service and the University for Industry. [85267]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are very positive discussions currently taking place between the Prison Education Service and the University for Industry. It is the intention of the Prison Service to respond to the University for Industry's call for partners and apply to become a learning centre hub with local learning centres being developed in individual prisons in partnership with education providers.

  Prison Violence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) self-inflicted deaths, (b) incidents of self harm, (c) reported assaults of prisoners on other prisoners and (d) reported assaults of prisoners on members of staff took place in each young offenders institution and in total in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [84747]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  1997–98

  Young offender institutions

  Self-inflicted deaths

  Incidents of self-harm

  Assaukts(prisoner on prisoner)

  Assaults (prisoner on staff)

  Aylesbury

  1

  32

  54

  45

  Castington

  0

  13

  40

  8

  Deerbolt

  0

  87

  65

  11

  Dover

  0

  10

  16

  9

  Feltham

  2

  292

  11

  5

  Glen Parva

  0

  136

  78

  16

  Guys Marsh

  0

  28

  11

  2

  Hatfield

  0

  1

  10

  0

  Huntercombe

  o

  18

  20

  7

  Onley

  0

  75

  102

  25

  Portland

  0

  16

  10

  1

  Reading

  1

  72

  18

  8

  Stoke Heath

  0

  61

  21

  6

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  13

  13

  8

  Thorn Cross

  0

  1

  17

  3

  Wetherby

  0

  24

  34

  5

  Totals

  4

  879

  520

  159

  29

  1998–99

  Young offender institutions

  Self-inflicted deaths

  Incidents of self-harm1

  Assaults(prisoner on prisoner)

  Assaults (prisoner on staff)

  Aylesbury

  0

  71

  39

  78

  Castington

  0

  22

  70

  32

  Deerbolt

  0

  75

  44

  13

  Dover

  0

  7

  20

  8

  Feltham

  0

  275

  17

  5

  Glen Parva

  2

  107

  152

  39

  Guys Marsh

  0

  23

  7

  4

  Hatfield

  0

  2

  10

  0

  Huntercombe

  0

  9

  27

  8

  Onley

  0

  71

  119

  40

  Portland

  0

  34

  12

  5

  Reading

  1

  31

  4

  1

  Stoke Heath

  0

  102

  22

  9

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  8

  19

  11

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  31

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  40

  48

  14

  Totals

  3

  877

  641

  267

  1Provisional figure based on 98 per cent. of expected Prison Service establishment returns received to date.

  Note:

  Incidents do not equate to numbers of prisoners since an individual prisoner may self-harm more than once.

  Total number of reported incidents (all prison types)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Self-inflicted deaths

  74

  82

  Incidents of self-harm

  7,023

  6,603

  Assaults—prisoner on prisoner

  2,902

  3,673

  Assaults—prisoner on staff

  1,387

  1,640

  Notes:

  1. Establishments have been categorised according to their primary role. However, it should be noted that there are a number of other prisons that hold young offenders (e.g. male remand centres) which are not included.

  2. Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  Prisoners (Employment)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are employed on work which involves payment from the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [84749]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of prisoners employed in public sector prisons on work which involves payment from the private sector is approximately 4,500. In addition, 3,400 prisoners in privately managed prisons undertake activities, including education, work in the prison kitchen, cleaning and employment in industries, for which they receive payment.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve recruitment and retention of health care staff in(a) Feltham Young Offenders Unit and (b) other young offender units. [84848]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Conventional recruitment and retention measures are now supplemented at Feltham by arrangements with the local NHS mental health secure unit to provide a number of qualified psychiatric nurses to assist Feltham's delivery of health care. Meetings are also being held with the local health authority to produce a specification for the provision of nursing services at Feltham.
  30
  The Prison Service's Directorate of Health Care has commissioned research to look at the current national problem of recruitment and retention of health care staff within the Service. This will produce recommendations on the best way forward.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the speed of transfer of inmates sectioned under the Mental Health Acts from young offender units to other institutions. [84845]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have accepted the recommendations in the report of the joint Prison Service/National Health Service executive working group on the future organisation of prison health care, published on 29 March 1999, aimed at providing that the National Health Service takes a greater role in the provision of health care to prisoners, especially those with mental health problems.

  Implementation of the recommendations should greatly assist the assessment and transfer process. The Department of Health strategy document "Modernising Mental Health Services—Safe, Sound and Supportive", published last December, indicated that, among other measures, steps were being taken to expand the number of secure psychiatric places within the NHS.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a specific profession of prison officer for young offender institutions and for young offenders in prison. [84850]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have no plans to introduce a separate profession for prison officers working with young offenders. However, the Prison Service is developing accredited training specifically for staff who work with young offenders. It is also revising its selection criteria to enable establishments with offenders under 18 to recruit the most suitable staff.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek funding from local education authorities for the education of young offenders who are in custody. [84851]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans to seek funding from Local Education Authorities for the education of young offenders who are in custody.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding is available for the Sex Offender Treatment Programme for juveniles and young offenders in Feltham Young Offenders Unit; [84837]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that the Sex Offender Treatment Programme continues to be provided at Feltham Young Offenders Unit. [84838]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Feltham has until now been able to provide the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme without specific funding.

  However, the current review of the secure juvenile estate will bring about changes to Feltham's accommodation and regime that may make it difficult for the establishment to continue to provide the Programme without extra funding. Its continuation will, therefore, depend on the outcome of the reviews which are currently taking place of the juvenile estate and regimes for young offender institutions, and the outcome of a bid for capital funding.
  31
  Feltham will, in any event, endeavour to provide one further Sex Offender Treatment Programme this year.

  Dr. Cable
  >: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has (a) to provide education and (b) to improve the provision of education to young people on remand other than those under school leaving age in (i) Feltham Young Offenders Unit and (ii) other young offenders units; [84834]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the provision of education to convicted inmates over school leaving age in Feltham Young Offenders Unit. [84836]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no plans to increase the provision of education to either convicted or remand prisoners over school leaving age at Feltham.

  Governors of Prison Service establishments have delegated budgets from which they purchase teaching and induction hours against a national contract for educational services which is managed at a local level. Prison Education for all prisoners focuses on the core curriculum of basic educational skills (literacy and numeracy), life and social skills and computers. The Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 (as amended) require education arrangements appropriate to his or her needs to be made for any prisoner aged 17 or over who has special educational needs, if necessary within the normal working week. Otherwise, education for prisoners over school leaving age is entirely voluntary. Prisoners aged between 17 and 21 should be offered at least two hours a week of physical education.

  Other important developments to enhance education for young offenders generally include:
  A broader model educational curriculum for juveniles to include an action plan and timetable for each juvenile based on an in depth assessment;Work with the Basic Skills Agency to develop ways of delivering basic skills training to prisoners in the workplace, to support the Service's Welfare to Work pilots and to develop family literacy projects and prisoner literacy mentoring; and Work with specialist educational consultants on how best to screen prisoners for dyslexia and then how best to support prisoners with this learning need.
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available to young offender units for the young offenders training programme; and how it is allocated [84839]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Young Offender Treatment Programme is a new offending behaviour programme being developed under the Prison Service programme accreditation scheme. Finance has been earmarked to enable a number of young offender establishments, including Feltham, to pilot the programme. The Prison Service is currently considering how this work should be taken forward and no decisions have yet been taken on allocation of earmarked finance.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the recommended ratio of probationary and qualified prison officer staff to juveniles in young offender units; and what plans he has to change this. [84840]
  32
  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no recommended ratio for the number of probationary and qualified prison officers to under 18 year olds in young offender institutions, and we do not have plans to introduce one. The proportion of newly appointed to experienced staff varies from one establishment to another because the turnover of staff varies. The Prison Service is preparing to introduce selection and training arrangements tailored to the needs of establishments in the new under-18 estate which should help address some of the recruitment and retention difficulties some establishments experience.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations and guidelines are issued on the education of(a) juveniles and (b) young offenders other than those under school leaving age who are in young offender units. [84833]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 (as amended) require the provision of 15 hours academic education per week for sentenced prisoners under the age of 17 years. The education provided includes English, Mathematics, life skills relevant to their age, and Information Technology and a minimum of five hours of physical education per week. In the case of sentenced prisoners aged 17 years with learning difficulties, there is a requirement to provide education appropriate to their needs.

  The core curriculum is set out in a Prison Service Order called the Prison Service education national curriculum framework, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Prison Service is currently developing new regime standards for young people under the age of 18. They will include the development of a broader education curriculum for young people under school leaving age which will take into account their particular learning difficulties, especially dyslexia, attention deficits and hyper-activity disorder and any statement of educational needs. The Comprehensive Spending Review has made additional funds available for achieving these new standards.

  The Prison Service is also planning to introduce an individual programme for each young person. It will be based on a thorough assessment and will include an action plan and programme suited to individual needs, ability and aptitude.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) recommendations and (b) guidelines he has issued on convicted juveniles sharing cells with remand juveniles in young offenders institutions. [84849]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Prison Service policy on the separation of different classes of prisoner is set out in the Instruction to Governors 48/1995 which was issued on 11 May 1995, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of education were provided at Feltham Young Offenders Unit in each of the last three years; and how many hours are planned for the current year. [84835]
  33
  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of teaching hours purchased at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in each of the last three years was:

  Teaching hours

  1998

  17,605

  1997

  13,131

  1996

  112,000

  1This is an approximate figure

  As part of the new education contract which was awarded to North East Surrey College of Technology to commence on 1 January 1999 the number of teaching hours ordered for the 12 month period to 31 December 1999 is 17,500.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at the Feltham Young Offenders' Unit Health Centre who have been assessed as having mental health problems are currently waiting transfers to(a) hospitals and (b) other secure institutions. [84841]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 18 May 1999 eight prisoners at Feltham Young Offenders Institution for whom mental health assessments had been completed were awaiting admission to hospitals under provisions of Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983. Prisoners who require in-patient treatment for mental disorders are only transferred to psychiatric hospitals.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to prison boards of visitors about the publication of their reports. [84847]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Boards of Visitors Secretariat issues detailed guidance to Boards of Visitors about the publication of their annual reports. Since

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for rape offences, England and Wales, 1995–1997

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Rape of a female

  Proceeded against

  1,585

  19

  1,691

  5

  1,868

  12

  Convicted

  547

  13

  551

  1

  576

  —

  Rape of a male

  Proceeded against

  37

  —

  60

  1

  80

  1

  Convicted

  9

  —

  24

  42

  —

  Note:

  Generally, attempting, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting a crime is classified under the heading of the crime itself.

  Drug Treatment Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment orders have been(a) made and (b) breached in the three pilot areas for the orders; and in how many of the cases where an order has been breached the offender attended the breach hearing.[84891]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As at 20 May 1999, courts in the pilot areas had made 67 drug treatment and testing orders; and 10 orders had been revoked. A breach hearing cannot be held in the absence of the offender.
  34
  September 1987, Ministers have urged Boards to publish annual reports. Boards of Visitors are independent, and it is up to each Board to decide whether it will publish its annual report or not. Boards are urged not to publish information which would risk compromising the security of the prison. They are also urged not to identify individual members of staff or prisoners by name.

  Guidance is issued on the preparation of press releases, and how to deal with the media. Boards of Visitors also have access to advice from the Boards of Visitors Press and Public Relations Officer.

  Case Allocation Unit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 May 1999,Official Report, column 189, how many files were received by the Case Allocation Unit; and what were the locations, apart from Case Management units, to which files were sent in the week ended 8 May. [84886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the week ending 8 May, the Case Allocation Unit received a total of 10,032 files. 1,251 files were sent to the Work in Progress Store and 22 files were sent to lay by. A further 272 files were sent to other locations, but information about the locations to which they were sent is not collected.

  Rape Charges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were charged with rape in courts in England and Wales during each of the last three years; and how many were convicted. [84759]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available data, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, showing the number of defendants proceeded against the convicted are given in the table.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the Fire Service Training College in Moreton-in-Marsh. [84935]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 757.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the latest version of
  35
  the agenda for the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 and 28 May, prior to the meeting.[85081]

  Mr. Straw
  Draft agendas for Justice and Home Affairs Councils are provided to Parliament as early as possible before each Council. The current draft agenda for the Council on 27–28 May was sent on 19 May to the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, as well as to the European Communities Committee in the House of Lords. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Daniel Morgan
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on developments in the investigation of the case of murdered private investigator Daniel Morgan. [85052]

  Kate Hoey
  The investigation of this case is an operational matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He tells me that the case remains open, and that inquiries are continuing.

  Immigration Act 1971
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) of 22 April 1999,Official Report, column 666, on the Immigration Act 1971, if the answer included applications made by people who did not have current leave to remain at the time of application; what was the average time taken to decide a non-asylum application made out of time; and how many applications were made (a) in time and (b) out of time in each year since 1994. [85039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information given in my reply to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 22 April 1999,Official Report, column 666, related to all decisions. It is not possible to identify how many of the applications were made by people who did not have current leave to remain at the time of application.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 1999, Official Report, column 383, which tenders for the computerisation of IND reached the final stage of consideration; and if he will make a statement. [84373]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Two companies were invited to submit Best and Final Offers for this contract. They were Andersen Consulting and Siemens Business Services.

  The National Audit Office report on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Casework Programme concluded that the Directorate's handling of negotiations and the evaluation of bids was thorough. The Directorate became aware at a late stage in the competition that Andersen Consulting's NIRS2 project for the Contributions Agency was running into difficulty, but after consideration
  36
  concluded that although the NIRS2 situation might have presented a handling problem, it was not so significant as to undermine Andersen Consulting's bid for the Casework Programme.

  Of the seven companies listed in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 25 March 1999, Official Report, column 383, one did not pre-qualify, three were eliminated at the short-listing stage and one more withdrew by agreement before contract negotiations began.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Mr. Garter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) of 13 May 1999,Official Report, columns 187–88, on the Macpherson report, if he will publish the report of the leak inquiry with the names of the officials and advisers who had access to the relevant papers omitted. [85054]

  Mr. Straw
  No. As I informed the House in my reply to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 32, it is not the practice to publish leak inquiry reports.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the most recent communications she has(a) sent to and (b) received from the UN special rapporteur with responsibility for human rights and states of emergency. [84782]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 20 May 1999]I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 20 May 1999,Official Report columns 413–14, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Security Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 15 May the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [85049]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended Saturday 15 May the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [85048]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of security incidents during the period 9–15 May 1999 are as shown.

  Security incidents

  Number

  Deaths

  0

  Shootings

  1

  Bombings

  1

  37
  The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows.

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  4

  0

  Shooting

  0

  0

  Total

  4

  0

  Note:

  Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  The shooting incident cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  New deals for schools funds allocated to schools in Hendon

  School name

  New Deal for Schools phase 1 allocation(£)

  New Deal for Schools phase 2 allocation(£)

  New Deal for Schools phase 3 allocation(£)

  Project details

  Broadfields Junior School

  3,000

  —

  —

  Improve information and communication technology access

  St. Joseph's

  20,200

  —

  —

  Refurbish toilets

  Broadfields Junior; St. Mary's Junior St. John's Infants

  —

  —

  —

  Package to renew boiler systems at 4 schools including Our Lady of Lourdes School which is not situated within the Hendon constituency: the allocation cannot be disaggregated. The total package amounted to £197,581 and was allocated in the second phase of New Deal for Schools

  Colindale Junior Mixed and Infant

  —

  50,000

  —

  Replacement of 3 structurally unsound timber demountable classrooms

  Copthall School

  —

  642,000

  —

  Structural repairs to, and rewiring of, 1930s school 1,388,500

  Deansbrook Junior School

  —

  —

  1,388,500

  New extension and replacement of demountable units

  Parliamentary Democracy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the documents produced by his Department for distribution to schools in England and Wales, which detail the workings of the British parliamentary system. [84739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department has produced no such documents. The Department's role in the area of educational materials and resources is one of advice and guidance. It remains the responsibility of school governing bodies to decide on the materials and resources they wish to use. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment published proposals on 13 May for consultation as part of the review of the National Curriculum on a framework for citizenship education in schools. This includes knowledge about the working of parliamentary democracy.

  NVQs
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many NVQ Level 3 have been de-accredited since 1 September 1998; what is his estimate of the number of small and medium-sized businesses which no longer have their preferred NVQ available to them for modern apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement. [85125]

  Mr. Mudie
  Since 1 September 1998, 99 level 3 NVQs have exhausted their agreed accreditation spans, and 101 re-accreditation or new accreditations have taken
  38

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in Hendon which have received funding from New Deal for Schools, indicating the work concerned and the amount awarded. [84931]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  place. Since 1 September 1998, four new Modern Apprenticeship frameworks have been agreed, and ten have been revised. There is no statistical information on the NVQ preferences of each small or medium-sized business, so I cannot give the information requested.

  If the hon. Member has particular cases in mind, I would be very happy to investigate them.

  Hospitality Sector (Training)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to co-ordinate further Government support for training programmes in the hospitality sector. [85294]

  Mr. Mudie
  Government recognise the Hospitality Training Foundation as the National Training Organisation (NTO) for the hospitality sector. NTOs are independent employer-led sector organisations working strategically with their sectors and with Government on education and training matters.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Political and Human Rights
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding has been given by her Department to develop political and human rights parliamentary discussion groups in Commonwealth countries in each of the last three years. [84745]
  39
  Clare Short
  We support the strengthening of parliamentary institutions in order to develop political and human rights. In 1997–98 we allocated £280,000 to the Commonwealth Secretariat to develop the awareness of parliamentarians in political and human rights. In 1998–99 so far, we have provided £600,000 in South Africa and £312,000 in Uganda in support of open accountable government and improvement in parliamentary administration.

  We are not able to identify what portion of these grants was spent specifically on discussion groups.

CABINET OFFICE

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what changes he proposes in the modus operandi of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee following the establishment of joint working between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. [84680]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 316, on the Joint Consultative Committee, if he will publish the unclassified minutes of the JCC. [84679]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None of the minutes of the Joint Consultative Committee are unclassified.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the membership of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee. [84982]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1998, Official Report, columns 1123–35.

  Biotechnology Presentation Group
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will set out the terms of reference of the Biotechnology Presentation Group; [85284]

  (2) if he will set out the objects of the central co-ordinated rebuttals strategy in respect of genetic modification; [85279]

  (3) on what date he decided to establish the Biotechnology Presentation Group; [85282]

  (4) on what dates the Biotechnology Presentation Group has met; and who was present on each occasion. [85283]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government agree with the Science and Technology Select Committee that we need an informed, balanced debate on biotechnology. As Ministers, we meet regularly to discuss how we can promote such a debate.
  40

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he has contacted the National Consumer Council to seek its endorsement of the Government's approach to genetic modification; and if he will make a statement. [85280]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have spoken to the National Consumers Council and to other interested organisations to explain to them the measures which I announced to the House on 21 May 1999.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what purposes he proposes to make alterations prior to publication to the report of the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on genetic modification. [85281]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The joint paper by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser on genetically modified foods and public health was published on Friday 21 May 1999. The authors revised the paper to ensure that it was intelligible to the lay reader and included recommendations for action.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 17 to 18 May; and if he will make a statement. [85239]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Agriculture Council in Brussels on 17 May 1999.

  The Council formally adopted all the legal instruments giving effect to the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as agreed by EU Heads of Government in Berlin in late March. Now that this important stage has been reached, work can begin on the detailed texts which will put the CAP reform measures into operation with effect from next year.

  The Council discussed the present state of the EU pigmeat market. The Council requested experts to examine the issues affecting the market further at the level of the management committee, a position I supported on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Agriculture Commissioner Fischler informed the Council of the current position with regard to WTO rulings on bananas and growth hormones in beef. On the former, I stressed the need for a WTO-compatible outcome which also had regard for the interests of the vulnerable Caribbean ACP producers. On the latter, I urged the Commission to take a measured approach with the US authorities, and to conduct a full exchange of information between the two sides on the underlying science.

  On veterinary medicines, the Council supported a resolution calling for action on the problems of antibiotic resistance in veterinary and human medicine. The resolution will be taken forward to the EU Health Council in June for adoption. The Council adopted a resolution setting out measures designed to avoid the loss of

  41
  veterinary medicinal products when the deadline for setting maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin expires at the end of December 1999.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with EU partners on the subject of bovine somatotropin in milk. [85058]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have as yet been no bilateral discussions but the issue was raised by Germany at the May meeting of the Agriculture Council. The Commission will submit a proposal before the expiry of the moratorium at the end of the year for discussion by the Agriculture Council. Meanwhile, we have asked the Veterinary Products Committee to report on the latest scientific evidence on human and animal safety in order to inform the Government's position on the future of the moratorium.

  Food Advisory Groups
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to change the membership of food advisory groups; and when they expect these changes to take effect from. [85059]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans at the present time to change the membership structure of its food advisory groups.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to ensure that consumer interests are represented on food advisory groups. [85060]

  Mr. Rooker
  All food advisory groups reporting to the Government include members with consumer interest backgrounds. These members also regularly meet together with others with consumer interests in the Consumer Panel which I chair.

  Upland Grazing Areas (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of when all upland grazing areas in the United Kingdom will be free of contamination from the fall-out from Chernobyl. [84894]

  Mr. Rooker
  Regular assessments are made of radiocaesium levels in sheep in affected areas to determine the prospects for removing controls and further reducing the areas subject to restrictions.

  Whilst generally declining, radiocaesium from the Chernobyl accident is still present in some upland areas in the United Kingdom. The rate of decline is dependent on the complex interaction between such factors as soil type, vegetation, weather, drainage and grazing preference. Consequently it is not possible to specify a time at which all these areas will be free of Chernobyl contamination.
  42

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reported cases of foot and mouth disease there have been in the UK in each of the last five years. [84760]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been no cases of foot and mouth disease in the UK in the last five years. The number of suspected cases of foot and mouth disease in farm livestock investigated in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of suspected cases

  1994

  26

  1995

  18

  1996

  13

  1997

  12

  1998

  8

  1999 (to date)

  Nil

  Total

  77

  On each occasion the possibility of foot and mouth disease was ruled out.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84197]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  There were 7 Civil Servants in my Department involved in Media relations as at 1 May 1999. Special Advisers in my Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

  Quarantine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to bring into force the new legislation concerning the control of quarantine of pets. [84571]

  Mr. Rooker
  On 26 March 1999, my right hon. Friend announced that the Government's objective is to bring new arrangements into operation throughout the United Kingdom by April 2001. We also plan to launch a pilot scheme or pilot schemes by April 2000.

  CAP Reform
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the Berlin Summit agreement for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy relating to beet and cereals. [84552]
  43
  Mr. Rooker
  A range of representations have been received concerning the recent CAP reform in the cereals sector. Consultations will be held shortly on implementation of the discretionary elements of the arable reform. The Berlin Summit agreement made no reference to sugar beet, as the arrangements in this sector will be reviewed next year. Representations on sugar are already being made. The Government believe that this sector too requires reform and we will be consulting shortly on what shape that reform should take.

  Farming (Women)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the role of women in farming. [84554]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since May 1997 we have had some inquiries about the role of women in farming. These dealt with a wide variety of issues including sources of EU funding to help women enter agriculture, levels of remuneration, taxation and succession. Women in farming are treated strictly in accordance with the principles of equal treatment which are firmly established in UK law.

  Slaughtering Industry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis he decided to set five working days as the consultation period on the impact of proposed charges on the slaughtering industry. [84076]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]I recognise that we have allowed only a short period for responses to the consultation document issued by my Department. However, as my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 21 April 1999,Official Report, columns 982–88, we are anxious that the review be completed quickly. We can then make decisions on the outstanding charging issues, and remove some of the current uncertainty from the industry by providing a framework in which businesses can make commercial decisions about their future development. We will, of course, accept late responses but cannot guarantee that detailed points received after the deadline will be able to be fully taken into account.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria have been used to select organisations consulted by his Ministry in studying the impact of proposed charges on the slaughtering industry. [84075]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 21 April 1999,Official Report, columns 982–88, this study involves a close examination of the dynamics of the slaughtering sector and of the impact of charges on abattoirs and on producers. Selection of the organisations to be consulted therefore reflected this specific remit and concentrated on organisations, such as those represented on the MHS Industry Forum, who would be able to comment on the direct economic impact of charges on individual businesses. A second mailing to those who had responded to our earlier consultation on charges for specified risk material enforcement, was carried out on 10 May.
  44
  To provide an opportunity to any others who may wish to comment, the consultation letter has been placed on the Ministry's Internet site, and its availability announced by MAFF News Release. As a result, more copies have been issued to organisations and individuals who were not on the original lists.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on employment of the policy of ensuring an economic link between quota hoppers and populations dependent on fisheries and related industries. [84529]

  Mr. Morley
  It is too early to make such an assessment, as under the arrangements announced in July 1998 vessel owners will have until July 2000 to let us know which of the available options they intend to use to demonstrate an economic link. One of those options requires 50 per cent. of the crew to be normally resident in a UK coastal area and would, if used, have a direct impact upon employment opportunities for British fishermen. Other options include either the landing of fish at UK ports or the purchase of goods and services here, either of which may impact indirectly upon onshore employment opportunities. Some early indications suggest an increase in landings at UK fishing ports and the offer of fish quota for the use of the inshore sector. These measures should have beneficial effects on employment in fisheries related sectors.

  Environmental Disputes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation his Department has undertaken of methods of resolving disputes relating to environmental matters.[83317]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]None.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to publish the performance indicators for the environmentally sensitive areas in England. [83481]

  Mr. Morley
  I am today publishing for consultation objectives, indicators and targets for the 16 Stage I-III Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England. A copy of the papers has been placed in the Library of the House. The Ministry's policy is to focus uptake under the scheme on the biodiversity, landscape and historical and archaeological priorities in each ESA. In future, where applications do not offer value for public money, the Ministry will exercise its discretion not to accept them into the scheme.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the US administration between 1 January 1998 and 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the name of the US counterpart. [81083]
  45
  Mr. Nick Brown
  Ministers in my Department met their counterparts in the US Administration twice between 1 January and 1 June 1998. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met Mr. Gus Schumacher, the US Under-Secretary for Trade, in London on 25 February 1998 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) met Mr. Dan Glickman the US Agriculture Secretary and us Schumacher the US Under-Secretary for Trade in Paris on 6 March 1998.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training will be provided for those people reviewing disability living allowance awards under the new periodic review process. [83995]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to ensuring that the new periodic inquiry process is delivered sensitively and fairly. In consultation with disability organisations, we have developed a comprehensive training package for all staff involved in the new process. The training covers impairment awareness and the particular needs of individual groups and is being delivered with the assistance of Pauline Thompson of the Disablement Income Group.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations she has received on disability living allowance. [84012]

  Mr. Bayley
  We routinely receive, and welcome, representations about benefits for disabled people, including disability living allowance.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the backlog at the Disability Living Allowance Unit concerning cases where the Disability Appeal Tribunal has upheld an appeal against(a) refusal of disability living allowance, (b) the rate of mobility component and (c) the rate of care component; what the figures were (i) six and (ii) 12 months ago; and what steps are being taken to deliver a more efficient service to claimants; [84880]

  (2) when he expects to pay Mr. Edward Turner (Ref. ZM897757D) the disability living allowance with lower rate mobility component and middle rate care component he was awarded by the Disability Appeal Tribunal on 26 February; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in payment. [84879]

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

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Robin Corbett, dated 20 May 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about the backlog of cases at the Disability Living Allowance Unit requiring action following an appeal, what steps are being taken to deliver a more efficient service, and when Mr. Edward Turner is expected to receive payment following the decision of the appeal tribunal hearing of 26th February 1999. As Mr. Mathison is away on leave, I am replying.46 At 30th November 1998 there were 706 Disability Appeal Tribunal decisions outstanding and 695 at 31st April 1999. These figures encompass all decisions reached, including award decisions, disallowance decisions, and decisions where existing entitlement remains unchanged. It has not been possible to break down the figures into the type of decision made or the specific Disability Living Allowance component. Figures from an earlier date are not available.Under the Government's programme of welfare reform, a range of measures is being introduced to improve all aspects of claiming Disability Living Allowance. These include the Decision Making and Appeals initiative which will introduce new adjudication procedures to enable disputed decisions to be reconsidered without having to go to appeal. It is anticipated that this will result in fewer numbers of appeal cases.I can confirm that instructions were issued on 18th May 1999 for all arrears of benefit, and future monthly payments, to be made to Mr. Turner's bank account.Implementation of a Disability Appeal Tribunal decision may be suspended if there is reason to believe that the decision has been made in error of law and that an appeal to the Commissioner may be appropriate. I regret that implementation of the Appeal Tribunal's decision was suspended incorrectly in this case and I apologise for the delay that has occurred.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with Ministers from the Department of Health on the documentation required by claimants seeking exemption or partial exemption from prescription charges. [84006]

  Angela Eagle
  None. Discussions between officials from both Departments took place in February.

  All Work Test
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the all work test application forms; and if he will make a statement. [84007]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Benefits Agency regularly reviews the content of forms and leaflets to ensure they meet their purpose and that they are user friendly for customers. There are currently no plans to revise the questionnaire, which claimants complete for the all work test. Some improvements to the form were made in 1997 to make it easier for claimants to complete and to help them provide full information about the effects of their medical condition.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on plans to change the all work test. [84029]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill contains provisions to replace the all work test with the Personal Capability Assessment. The Personal Capability Assessment will continue to determine, in the same way as now, whether the person meets the threshold of incapacity for entitlement to incapacity benefits. That threshold will not change but the Personal Capability Assessment will also be able to provide additional constructive information about what a person can do, despite their medical condition or disability. This additional information will help personal advisers give their clients the support they need to move back to work.
  47

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the reform of housing benefit. [84008]

  Angela Eagle
  We set up the Housing Benefit Simplification and Improvement Project with local authority representatives last autumn to review the existing rules; administration; and service delivery of Housing Benefit. We have received written and oral representations from a number of professional, voluntary and charitable organisations with an interest in Housing Benefit.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on the review of housing benefit. [84023]

  Angela Eagle
  We have worked with local authorities to consider ways of simplifying and improving the current system of Housing Benefit. Details of the proposals are being considered and will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of local authorities have agreements in place with the Post Office to prevent redirection of housing benefit girocheques. [85227]

  Angela Eagle
  The national agreement with the Post Office not to redirect Social Security related local authority post came into operation on 1 February 1999. To date 56 local authorities are operating the do not redirect service.

  Appeals Procedures
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [84009]

  Mr. Darling
  We have made clear our intentions to modernise the welfare state. As part of our plans for improving the Social Security system we are introducing important changes to the decision making and appeals processes. On 22 March this House debated and approved the necessary regulations. The changes will be implemented during the latter half of this year, starting with Child Support on 1 June. The changes aim to help get decisions right first time, resolve disputes at an early stage and deal with appeals more efficiently and quickly.

  European Social Model
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans for reforming the European Social Model. [84010]

  Angela Eagle
  There is no single European Social Model, since member states have developed social provision in different ways, reflecting their own circumstances and traditions. But we want to see social protection systems across Europe modernised by national governments in line with changing needs and circumstances.

  Retirement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to improve the quality of information available to individuals on making adequate provision for retirement. [84013]
  48
  Mr. Timms
  The Pensions Green Paper published last December set out our proposals for improving the quality of information on pensions for individuals, both in general and in the information people are given about their own pension position. We are taking action in co-operation with employers and the pensions industry to provide both integrated pension forecasts and fuller and better information on projected state and private pension rights.

  Occupational Pensions
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to increase members' confidence in their occupational pensions. [84015]

  Mr. Timms
  The Pensions Green Paper we published last December proposed measures to strengthen occupational pension schemes and to increase members' confidence in them. The general direction of the reforms has been widely welcomed. We are working closely with the pensions industry and others in taking the detailed proposals forward.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the potential cost benefits to those working in industries with high labour turnover rates of using the new stakeholder pension. [84016]

  Mr. Timms
  Our proposals for stakeholder pension schemes establish a framework which will ensure that schemes reflect the needs of those who change jobs frequently. Members will be able to ensure that members can stop and restart contributions and, if necessary, transfer their funds to another scheme, without penalty.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rules will govern the use of funds which have been transferred into a stakeholder pension from a personal pension, with particular reference to (i) the use of the fund for a tax-free lump sum and (ii) the nature of the annuity which may be bought with the fund. [84548]

  Mr. Timms
  The rules applying to transfers into stakeholder pension schemes are currently being considered in the light of responses to the Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions".

  Benefit Payment Delays
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what remedies are available to people whose(a) social security benefit and (b) child support payments are delayed through no fault of the claimant or applicant. [84017]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Department's standing compensation scheme, the terms of which have been agreed between the Department and the Ombudsman, compensation may be considered where official error or unreasonable delay have led to an actual financial loss.

  Where benefit or child support payments are unreasonably delayed (delay must exceed a set period which depends on the benefit concerned) due to official error a special payment can be considered, in recognition of the fact that the customer has lost the use of the sum owed. In such cases the compensatory payment is

  49
  calculated in the form of interest on the arrears of benefit when they are paid. A copy of the Department's guide to special payments, known as the "Financial Redress for Maladministration", is held in the House of Commons Library.

  In addition, if a parent with care of a child is receiving Income Support or income based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and the non-resident parent does not pay the child support to the parent with care, Income Support or JSA can be paid in its place pending the recovery of the money from the non-resident parent.

  As a last resort, if a customer is without funds to cover the period between a claim for benefit and the first payment that is due, crisis loans are available to prevent risk to the health or safety of the applicant and his family.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets he has set for reducing fraud in the benefits system. [84018]

  Mr. Timms
  For the first time we have set a measurable target for reducing fraud and error. Our target is to reduce the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker' s Allowance, two of the most vulnerable benefits, by 30 per cent., by 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set targets for the numbers of lone parents who leave income support as a consequence of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [84020]

  Angela Eagle
  In addition to the 12,500 lone parents who have already found jobs as a result of the New Deal for Lone Parents, we have set the Employment Service a target for 1999–
  2000—to place a further 15,000 lone parents into work.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the publication date is for the draft legislation for the reform of the Child Support Agency. [84021]

  Angela Eagle
  Final decisions on the shape of the reformed scheme and the associated legislative process will be announced shortly.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had in response to the Green Paper on the Child Support Agency. [84024]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received 1,564 written responses to the Green Paper. My noble Friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham has also held meetings with more than 40 organisations, academics and other groups with an interest in child support.

  Motability Cars
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the value for money provided by Motability cars. [84022]
  50
  Mr. Bayley
  The Motability contract hire scheme, which covers about 95 per cent. of the vehicles provided, represents substantial value for money for disabled people. Lease costs cover maintenance, comprehensive insurance and roadside assistance. Over 25 per cent. of the over 300 model variants supplied under the scheme by 23 manufacturers are available for less than the weekly higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance of £37 week, and the cheapest vehicle available under the scheme can now be had for less than £24 per week.

  Pensions Green Paper
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the responses to the pensions Green Paper. [84025]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on 17 May 1999, Official Report, column 252.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies his Department has carried out into the disincentives to save created by means-tested benefits. [84026]

  Angela Eagle
  All those who can save, particularly for their retirement, have a responsibility to do so. In our Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, we are taking steps to ensure that people of working age are encouraged to save so that they can retire on incomes above anything benefits could ever be expected to provide.

  New Technology
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on improvements proposed through the introduction of new technology in his Department. [84027]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of our commitment to modernise the Welfare Service the Department is seeking to transform the way Social Security is delivered. We aim to provide a system which is focused on work for those who can and security for those who cannot, providing a customer focused and integrated service which operates across organisational boundaries to improve quality and integrity.

  New Information Technology (IT) is at the core of these modernisation plans. The key elements of our strategy for IT are a corporate data set that holds the necessary information on citizens and a set of front-line systems which allow staff to access that information to deliver the full range of welfare services.

  Through this IT strategy the Department will meet the longer term objectives of designing services around people; achieving leverage against fraud and abuse; integrating and improving the accuracy and efficiency of operations and of accounting across the Department; and creating a more joined-up welfare service for the public spanning other Government Departments, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
  51

  Carers
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he is making on the introduction of a citizenship pension for carers. [84030]

  Mr. Timms
  In December 1998, the Government published a Green Paper, "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions". This included proposals to give carers the opportunity to build up a second pension, by awarding them flat rate credits to the new State Second Pension scheme. The proposals cover recipients of Invalid Care Allowance, carers of people receiving Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance who qualify for Home Responsibilities Protection and Child Benefit recipients where the youngest child is aged five or under.

  The consultation period for the Green Paper ended on 31 March 1999. Since then we have been considering the responses received and will provide further details in due course.

  Disabled People (Incomes)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the intended minimum weekly income for(a) a single adult who is disabled and unable to work and (b) a single adult who is considered partially disabled but who is unable to find work. [83999]

  Mr. Bayley
  Income Support (and income based Jobseeker' s Allowance) is available to assist disabled adults who have a low income. The overall weekly amount of benefit payable will depend on the individual's circumstances, such as their age, their savings, income, the severity of their disability and so on. Our proposals for a new Disability Income Guarantee together with measures in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill will provide more help for disabled adults and children who need help most.

  Widows (SERPS)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the amount which widows are due to receive under SERPS from 2000. [84019]

  Mr. Timms
  Legislation introduced by the previous Government in 1986 provides for widows to receive 50 per cent. of their late husbands' SERPS entitlement from April 2000. We will make an announcement in due course.

  Customer Service
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures are followed to ensure the delivery of a high-quality service in his Department's offices in Essex. [85252]

  Angela Eagle
  Working with the Employment Services, Child Support Agency, Local Authorities and other customer representative groups, is a key element of the Benefit Agency's (BA) current modernisation programme. The standards of customer service the BA sets out to achieve is published in the BA Customer Charter. This, together with other internal agency targets, provide the clear measurable standards that BA offices in Essex are expected to provide in delivering a timely, effective and informative service to customers.
  52
  The Child Support Agency has many improvements underway, planned specifically at improving customer service and efficiency. Greater use of the telephone is being made to improve the way information is collected. Opening hours have been extended to offer a more accessible service at evenings and weekends—this further improves service by being able to contact parents at times which suit them. Dedicated staff offer face-to-face interviews and this service is being extended during 1999–2000. The Agency is convinced that this will mean the more effective progression of cases and a better service.

  Payment Books
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of his Department's payment books issued in Essex in the last 12 months were produced(a) manually and (b) by computer. [85253]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available shows that during 1998–99 a total of 2,790,657 computer order books were issued in the East London and Anglia Area. In 1998–99 3,282 manual order books were issued in Essex.

  Complaints
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints were received in the last 12 months by his Department's offices in Essex relating to(a) delays in payment book issue and (b) breaches of confidentiality. [85256]

  Angela Eagle
  In the period 1 April 1998 to 21 May 1999, a total of 23 written complaints were received about the late issue of payment books. A further 3 complaints related to breaches of confidentiality.

  Demographic Charges
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the ratio of persons working and paying income tax to persons in receipt of state Retirement Pension in (i) 1978–79, (ii) 1988–89 and (iii) 1998–99. [85286]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Estimates of the ratio of the numbers of persons working and paying tax income to the number of persons in receipt of Retirement Pension

  Year

  Number of taxpayers

  Recipients of Retirement Pension

  Ratio

  1978–79

  25,900

  8,600

  3:1

  1988–89

  25,200

  9,300

  2.7:1

  1998–99

  26,100

  10,000

  2.6:1

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are in thousands. Estimates for the numbers of taxpayers are from "Inland Revenue Statistics" 1998. Figures for Retirement Pension are for those resident in Great Britain.

  2. The ratios of numbers of taxpayers to recipients of retirement pension are rounded to the nearest 0.1.

  3. For Retirement Pension, the figures for 1978–79 and 1988–89 do not include those who are in receipt of graduated retirement benefit. The numbers of taxpayers counts husbands and wives separately.

  53

  Information Technology
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action he is taking to improve IT provision in his Department's offices in Essex; [85255]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reliability of IT systems in his Department's offices in Essex; [85257]

  (3) if the computer system in his Department's office in Chelmsford is compatible with that in his Department's office in Southend; [85254]

  (4) if his Department's offices in Essex are linked via a Wide Area computer network. [85258]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has an agreed strategy for improving its Information Technology (IT) services throughout the Department in support of its modernisation programme. This includes providing improved quality and consistent data from mainframe systems as well as improved IT tools in the office and on the desktop.

  The agreement of reliability is contained within a number of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the Benefits Agency and Information Technology Services Agency. These SLAs also form the basis of contractual agreements between the Department and its private sector service providers.

  The Department also maintains and supports a common infrastructure providing a system of computerised benefits across all Benefit Agency offices including Chelmsford and Southend and these items are compatible. Local Districts have some freedom to implement local desktop solutions, typically work management and administrative systems, to complement their main IT systems for benefit delivery.

  The Department's offices in Essex are linked via a Wide Area computer network.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the minimum pension guarantee. [84028]

  Mr. Timms
  The Minimum Income Guarantee, delivered through Income Support, provides an income threshold below which most pensioners with no savings, or only a small amount saved, should not fall.

  The increase in the Income Support rates for pensioners this April represents an increase above the normal prices-linked uprating, of £160 over the year for a single pensioner. Our undertaking to increase the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with earnings next April further underlines our intention that the least well-off pensioners should share in rising national prosperity.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham will benefit from the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [84866]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that around 2,500 pensioners were in receipt of Income Support in the constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham in November 1998, the latest date for which this data are available. We are unable to forecast with any reliability how many will be in receipt 54
  from April this year in the same area, because the sample size on which the estimates are based is too small. However, we estimate that nationally, an additional 65,000 pensioners will become eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee, through Income Support, as a result of the above-inflation increases this year, and a further 20,000 next year as a result of uprating the Guarantee in line with earnings.

  Notes:

  1. "Pensioners" refers to pensioner benefit units, which are single people aged 60 or over or couples where one or partners is 60 or over.

  2. Figures exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  3. The estimate of 2,500 cases is rounded to the nearest 100 cases, and is subject to a degree of sampling error due to the small numbers involved.

  4. The Parliamentary constituency data are based on constituency boundaries as of 1 May 1999.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 1998.

  2. Family Resources Survey 1996–97.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of single pensioners aged 80 years or above who are currently in receipt of income support; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for(a) 1994, (b) 1989, (c) 1984, (d) 1979, (e) 1974 and (f) 1969. [84758]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Single supplementary benefit/income support pensioners aged 80 and over 1974 to 1998

  Year

  Total claimants

  Proportion of population Percentage

  1974

  335,000

  25.4

  1979

  351,000

  24.4

  1984

  434,000

  25.4

  1989

  407,000

  20.1

  1994

  531,000

  23.4

  1998

  617,000

  26.7

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner refers to single claimants only, aged 80 and over.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand cases, percentages to one decimal place and are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in April 1988.

  4. Numbers are given at a point in time. For 1974 and 1979 the month was November. For 1984 the month was December, and from 1989–1998 the month was May.

  5. Population figures are based on total population (regardless of marital status) aged 80 years and over.

  6. Proportion of population percentages have been calculated using the relevant year of mid-term population estimates, apart from 1998 when mid-term 1997 population estimates were used.

  7. Sample sizes: 1974: Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 160; 1979: Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 200; 1984: Supplementary Pension cases 1 in 200; 1989: 1 in 100; 1994 to date: 1 in 20.

  Sources:

  1. Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries, 1974–1994.

  2. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1998.

  3. Office National Statistics population estimates mid-1974 to mid-1997.

  55
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals received an age addition to the basic state pension(a) in the year in which it was introduced, (b) at five year intervals thereafter and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [84757]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Number of people in receipt of the basic state retirement pension and an age addition payment (for those aged 80 and over) as at the end of each month

  Inquiry date

  Number of people

  December 1971

  1.2

  November 1976

  1.4

  November 1981

  1.6

  September 1986

  1.9

  September 1991

  2.2

  September 1996

  2.4

  January 1999

  2.4

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  Sources:

  1. December 1971 and November 1976: Figures from Social Security Statistics based on a 10 per cent. sample excluding clerical cases.

  2. November 1981-September 1991: 10 per cent. sample of Central Pensions Branch system.

  3. September 1996 and January 1999: 5 per cent. sample of Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  Sheltered Housing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received from social landlords and independent care providers on the Government's proposals for funding sheltered housing under new housing benefit arrangements.[84832]

  Angela Eagle
  In response to the publication of the consultation document "Supporting People: A new policy and funding framework for support services" on 10 December, we received a total of 128 representations about our proposal for including sheltered housing in the new Supporting People funding arrangements. Sixty-five of those representations were from Registered Social Landlords and independent care providers, and 31 from local authorities.

  Responses from providers of sheltered housing welcomed the integration of support services for older people, as well as the fact that access to support funding would no longer be tied to type of tenure. The main concern expressed related to the practicalities of implementing the new funding regime.

  We decided to include sheltered housing in the long-term proposals because our aim is to improve the integration of supported and sheltered housing within local strategies for housing and community care. Working alongside existing Government programmes, the new Supporting People funding regime will give the provision of support services, such as those provided by wardens in sheltered accommodation, the priority it deserves. Supporting People will bring long-term stability to the sector by placing for the first time the funding of support services on a secure, sustainable and legal footing.
  56
  We recognise the importance of getting the practical details right. That is why we are committed to working with interested parties to ensure that the new system delivers on its objectives and becomes an effective and workable reality.

  We hope to publish the analysis of responses to the consultation paper shortly.

TREASURY

  Anti-smuggling Equipment
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current guidance for the use of bulk X-ray equipment by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to combat smuggling. [85107]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise do not presently use bulk X-ray equipment.

  If such equipment becomes available for Customs, guidance for its use will be drawn up by operational managers in consultation with the Department's technical and Radiation Protection advisers.

  Tobacco Sales
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the marking of tobacco products for sale in the United Kingdom. [85106]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The marking of tobacco products for fiscal purposes is not currently required in the United Kingdom. The report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review, published in July 1998, recommended that marking should be considered. While the form of marking proposed by that Review has proved impractical for legal reasons, Customs and Excise is currently reviewing other marking options.

  Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 1999,Official Report, columns 387–90, on taxation, if he will publish the figures on the basis of the assumptions for household spending and council tax payment which were used in the answer to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) of 11 December 1996, Official Report, columns 190–202. [81712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes on the basis of average assumptions about household spending is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, only around one third of adults are smokers. This can be contrasted with direct taxes and benefits where at specified earnings and for particular household types there is a known benefit entitlement or tax liability.
  57

  VAT
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the reasons for not applying the VAT (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 from 1 April; and when he expects to bring it into force. [85110]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following discussion of the proposed legislation with sports representative bodies, HM Customs and Excise are making changes to the draft Order. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received regarding the Online VAT Return. [85099]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This year's Finance Bill allows Customs and Excise to provide new electronic services including VAT returns on the internet.

  In response to an announcement in the VAT Notes, issued to all VAT registered businesses, over 300 representations have been received, 99 per cent. of which not only welcomed this initiative but also stated a preference for an internet-based service.

  No formal consultation exercise is planned. Some businesses and individual taxpayers will wish to send tax information on paper and we will continue to offer this option.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for the VAT (Input Tax) Order 1992 of the judgment of the European Court against the Republic of Italy (Case C-45/95). [85098]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This European Court judgment does not directly affect the VAT (Input Tax) Order 1992, as the effect of the judgment is to introduce new exemptions from VAT. However, implementing these exemptions will involve some consequential changes to the Order. Details of these, and of other proposed related changes, are set out in a Technical Note issued by HM Customs and Excise on 21 April 1999, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what external legal advice he has received regarding the VAT treatment of the supply of an interest in land and buildings following the judgment of the European Court against the Republic of Italy (Case C-45/95); and if he will make a statement. [85097]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have met with Treasury Counsel over this issue and they are awaiting his written opinion. Most property transactions are, however, already exempt from VAT.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the VAT liability in respect of(a) room hire, (b) crèche facilities and (c) catering franchises contracted out by local authorities. [85109]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The VAT liability of supplies made by local authorities is no different from that applying to other suppliers. VAT charged on supplies made to local authorities can normally be reclaimed from Customs and Excise.
  58
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to continue reviewing the VAT registration threshold; and if he will make a statement. [85108]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the recent Budget, I asked Customs to work further with business to explore whether it is possible to cushion the impact of VAT registration on growing businesses. This further work, together with representations received during the 1998 consultation exercise on the VAT registration threshold, will inform future Budget decisions on this issue.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on VAT exemptions for trade unions following the European Court ruling in the Institute of the Motor Industry case (No C-149/97). [85111]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Subscriptions to trade unions remain exempt from VAT.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what dates he expects the VAT (Goods Used for Exempt Supplies) Order 1999 to apply; and if he will make a statement. [85117]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In their technical note which asked businesses for comments on the changes covered by this Order, Customs expected that the Order would take effect from 1 September 1999, but this will depend on the comments received from businesses and on the process of parliamentary drafting.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue implications for the Exchequer following the judgment of the European Court against the Republic of Italy (Case C-45/95). [85113]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise expect there to be a revenue gain of around £15 million per year, because some businesses will be unable to recover input VAT on expenses associated with the newly exempt sales of business cars. They expect this to be offset in the first year by a revenue loss of £10 million, arising from repayments made to certain non-profit making bodies, under a related change that will permit them to recover VAT on publications supplied to members.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the definition of a car for VAT purposes following the judgment of the European Court against the Republic of Italy (Case C-45/95). [85112]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This European Court judgment does not directly affect the definition of a car for VAT purposes, though the proposed legislation to implement the new exemption will make certain minor—and unrelated—technical changes to the definition. Details of these, and of other proposed related changes, are set out in a Technical Note issued by HM Customs and Excise on 21 April 1999, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  59

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the Beer Orders as a result of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review. [85105]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Amending the Beer Orders is not a straightforward matter. Customs are still considering the costs and benefits and will be reporting their conclusions to me in due course.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the effects on traffic and road safety of cross-channel smuggling and section 1.5.3 of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review; [85102]

  (2) what assessment he has made of section 1.5.3 of the report of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review and the effects on traffic and road safety of cross-channel smuggling. [85103]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs work closely with the Traffic Commissioners, the Police and other agencies who tackle a range of enforcement issues through their joint exercises. The issues raised by section 1.5.3 of the report are among those addressed by such exercises.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the methodology used by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for estimating the total volume of fraud and smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products. [85104]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimates of alcohol and tobacco smuggling by cross-channel and air passengers are based on data from Customs' own surveys of international passengers. The methodologies are detailed in a technical report placed by HM Customs and Excise in the House of Commons Library on 19 November 1998.

  Republic of Ireland GDP
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the per capita gross domestic product in the Republic of Ireland as a percentage of the EU average, for the most recent year available. [84956]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, dated 24 May 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking about the per capita gross domestic product of the Republic of Ireland.

  The latest figures published by Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Community) are the preliminary results for 1997. These show the Republic of Ireland with a per capita gross domestic product of 102 per cent of the EU average. These estimates are subject to revision and definitive results will be published later this year.
  60

  Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make available replacement income through working families tax credit or benefit to persons normally in receipt of working families tax credit who take unpaid parental leave under the provision of the Employment Relations Bill. [83610]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]There are currently no plans to provide replacement income through the Working Families Tax Credit for families where a person takes up their right to unpaid parental leave. But we continue to consider whether help should be given to people taking unpaid parental leave and how such help might be delivered.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how families(a) in receipt of and (b) not in receipt of the working families tax credit will make up for wages lost due to unpaid parental leave being taken under the provisions of the Employment Relations Bill. [83611]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]Families may make up for wages lost due to unpaid parental leave in a variety of ways independent of whether they are in receipt of the working families tax credit. Consequently it would not be possible to make the assessment that is envisaged.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total annual expenditure on legal aid in each of the last five years and the annual real terms change; what is the expected total annual expenditure on legal aid in each of the next three years and the expected real terms change; and if he will make a statement. [84750]

  Mr. Vaz
  Net expenditure on legal aid in each of the last five years was as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  1,299

  1995–96

  1,391

  1996–97

  1,476

  1997–98

  1,526

  1998–991

  1,600

  1 Estimated

  The annual upward percentage change, in real terms, was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1994–95

  5.5

  1995–96

  4.5

  1996–97

  3.5

  1997–98

  0.7

  1998–991

  3.3

  1Estimated

  61
  Over the next three years the Government expect to spend on average £1,600 million each year. That is £248 million more than the previous Government planned.

  The measures contained in the Access to Justice Bill will ensure that available funds are targeted on priority cases. Conditional fees will increase access to justice for everyone. This will release legal aid moneys which otherwise would be expended on cases that will now go forward under conditional fee agreements, to support cases of greater priority, for example, cases which should in the public interest be supported.
  62

  Community Legal Service
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the consultation paper setting out the proposals for the community legal service will be published.[85442]

  Mr. Vaz
  Copies of the Consultation Paper will be placed later today—Monday 24 May—in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be available on the Lord Chancellor's Department website at www.open.gov.uk/lcd.

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

Habitual Residence Test
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will revoke the habitual residence test, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Swaddling case that it is illegal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have previously explained that our review of the habitual residence test would need to take account of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Swaddling case. This was given on 25th February and we have been assessing its implications, not just for Mr. Swaddling, but for those whose circumstances are similar to but do not exactly match his case. We shall bring forward our recommendations for the future soon, certainly no later than the Summer Recess. I shall be delighted to write to the noble Earl when this happens.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first perhaps I may have the pleasure of wishing the Minister many happy returns. I also thank her for the promise of jam tomorrow. Is the Minister aware that the concept of habitual residence is so imprecise and uncertain in law that the Government should not be confident, even though I have no doubt that they are, that they will avoid a further such judgment in future? Does she also recall that in opposition her party commented so severely on this test that it is difficult for it to continue it without appearing to be lily-livered?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first I thank the noble Earl very much. However, if he really had had my best interests at heart today of all days he might have postponed his Question until after the European elections. To deal with the first part of the Question, the noble Earl is absolutely right. This is a very complex area. for two reasons. First, unlike most other countries we do not have a written constitution and therefore a clear definition of what a British citizen or national may be. Secondly, given a country with a long imperial past we have at least six different statuses of British national under British immigration law, all with different rights. The noble Earl is correct about that. For that reason, he and I when in opposition joined together and said that there must be a review, and that is what has happened. The Swaddling case went to the European Court in February 1997, just before we came into power, and was determined two years later in February 1999. In the light
630
of that we are seeing to what extent the habitual residence test could and should he thoroughly overhauled.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford:: My Lords, acknowledging that there are many grey areas and that this is a difficult matter, can the Minister explain how the habitual residence test bears upon, for example, aid workers who work overseas for a long period of time and members of Asian families who may go to the Asian subcontinent for a long period, perhaps to get married, before returning to this country?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is exactly right in identifying those groups. I read the judgment in Swaddling yesterday. It makes clear that, first, it should help UK nationals who work abroad, like Mr Swaddling and missionaries. When they come back they do not have to live here for an appreciable period of time in order to establish their rights to income-related benefits. Secondly, it will also help UK nationals with overseas links, particularly people from ethnic communities in this country. Thirdly, it will help UK nationals who return, perhaps because of misfortune like a broken marriage or ill-health. Fourthly, the Swaddling judgment should also help those UK nationals who were taken abroad as children to establish right of residence. We expect it to have a substantial effect on people who so far have had a shadowy claim to establishing right of residence here.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say what the habitual residence test can do that the "actively seeking work" rules cannot do better?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the habitual residence test entitles people to a range of income-related benefits: housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, some disability benefits and JSA. After six months one is entitled to child benefit as of right. Even if one fails the test it does not prevent one from residing here, finding a job and making national insurance contributions towards contributory benefits. The Swaddling judgment will ensure that anybody with an established connection with the UK does not have to serve a period of time—in Swaddling's case, about eight weeks—before he or she is entitled to income-related benefits. But there are still very many people with fairly nebulous or sketchy connections with the UK who want to come to this country, and we must balance their wishes for financial support against the rights of the taxpayer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister able to give some form of undertaking that if the law is changed as a result of the Swaddling case it will have no effect on revenue law?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Swaddling case will reduce the savings that would otherwise come from benefit reductions. Nonetheless, under the habitual residence test at present if people are ineligible for income-related benefits they have rights

631
under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act. The test has not generated many savings. At present savings are about £18 million a year. The Swaddling judgment may reduce the figure to half that sum. However, we wait to see the full read-across implications of Swaddling to the range of people who apply for habitual residence in this country.

Hepatitis C Infection
2.42 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent assessment they have made of the special needs of people with haemophilia who were infected with hepatitis C during NHS treatment, and the dependants of those for whom the infection proved fatal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government made a thorough assessment in 1998 of whether it would be right to introduce a special payment scheme for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment. We concluded that this would not be appropriate and that such patients should continue to obtain support as necessary through the benefits system in the same way as other NHS patients who have suffered non-negligent harm.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Health said last July that the social stigma of HIV and the danger of infecting partners were "important considerations" in granting special payments for HIV infection which do not apply in the hepatitis C cases. Can my noble friend point to where that was officially stated when the Major Government announced their HIV compensation scheme? Is my noble friend aware that governments elsewhere see no such distinction, and that Canada, Italy and Ireland already have special financial schemes for hepatitis C infection? How many NHS patients infected with hepatitis C have since died of liver disease? And when can we expect a response to the Haemophilia Society's urgent request for a public inquiry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the strength of feeling. The campaign that the Haemophilia Society waged was moving and forceful. However, we concluded that a public inquiry was not the way forward and would not help prevention of future transmission. That has been covered by advances in screening and the ability to make blood products safer. I recognise the belief that there is a comparison with the HIV special payments. But there are also comparisons with large numbers of other patients who have suffered non-negligently as a result
632
of treatment given as the best at the time. It is a difficult area but we do not believe that it would be appropriate to offer special compensation.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this is a clear breach of a pre-election pledge given by her party? Can she explain why countries such as Australia, the US, Ireland, New Zealand and Germany—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned others—have circumstances which are quite different from the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is difficult enough to answer for one government. I am not sure that I should answer for six others. Recompense for non-negligent injury varies from country to country. In this country it has been well established that we do not compensate for non-negligent harm caused through NHS services. Although that is difficult for people who have suffered a great deal, we have to recognise the implications as regards resources available for patients at present were we to adopt a different attitude.
My noble friend asked about the number of haemophiliacs infected. It is estimated that some 4,000 people were infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment. About 90 of those have died; and about six or seven are awaiting liver transplants.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the only guaranteed non-infectious material that can be given to haemophiliacs is Recombinant Factor VIII? Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us the present position. I understand that because the product is chemically manufactured rather than being a natural product, it carries VAT. Many of the centres working with haemophiliacs find that a heavy burden on their NHS budget. Is anything being done about that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. We can guarantee a lack of risk with the synthetic Recombinant treatment. It is because of the anxiety about a possible rather than proven risk that the NHS provides that treatment to children and new patients. I shall make inquiries about the VAT issue and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the worry about hepatitis C goes wider than just haemophilia? The problem as regards liver transplant units and the transfusion service is very great. When will the Government bring out guidelines about testing treatment, and counselling for patients?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Liver disease affects people other than those with haemophilia and causes an enormous strain. It is a very unpleasant disease and the difficulties of transplantation are enormous. I met the British Liver Trust about the way forward and improving

633
guidelines. I believe that there is the opportunity to give better advice throughout the health service as to patterns of treatment for people with liver disease.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to look at the experience of other countries? One is under the impression that they do a great deal more than we do in this respect.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I undertake to consider whether there are specific differences in the treatment of people with haemophilia infected through blood products with hepatitis C to see whether lessons can be learned. Different jurisdictions deal in different ways with non-negligent injuries. Those issues were considered at some length by the Government in 1998. However, I shall look at them again.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if I and thousands of reports in medical journals over the past 100 years are correct about the anti-infective properties of oxygen therapies, many of these sad cases might not have proved fatal? Will she consider encouraging research into whether ozone or hydrogen peroxide could be used to purify blood products in order to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House will be aware that detailed expert committees are examining the safety of blood products across a range of activities. We take the best possible advice in ensuring the safety of all the products used. I know that the noble Lord has a particular interest in hydrogen peroxide therapy and the benefits it may offer. I shall undertake to see whether there is literature which suggests that it might be possible in this case.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we all hope that the welfare state can take up the problem of non-negligent injuries. However, is my noble friend aware of the erosion of unemployment benefit and pension provision to half their real value that occurred under the previous government? Will my noble friend make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether there can be recompense for that erosion?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me into wider areas of welfare reform. The Government's policy in providing extra help to severely disabled people in the greatest need may help some of the people with haemophilia to whom reference has been made, particularly haemophiliacs under the age of 20 who have not had the chance of working. In future, they will receive incapacity benefit at a much higher level than the old severe disablement allowance.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can the Minister say how much the Government save by not extending to those infected with hepatitis C a scheme similar to that available to those with HIV?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, estimates made at the time indicated that the cost of such a scheme would be in the order of £220 million, excluding start-up costs and the costs of managing the process.

Indecent Assault: Protection of Young Women
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations the Minister for Women has received about the potential consequence of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill on the reduction in the age of consent for an act of buggery committed on a woman, and whether it remains government policy to reduce the level of protection for young women against this form of indecent assault.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we do not have a breakdown of the thousands of letters received. However, officials estimate that only a very small number referred to buggery involving a female. We remain committed to the measures in the Bill. These would have provided for greater protection for young people by removing the criminal liability of those under the age of consent for buggery with someone over that age.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving his usual courteous and clear Answer, but I must admit that I am extremely disappointed and astonished that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister for Women, is not answering the Question, as it is essentially a women's issue. I searched her glossy publication, Better for Women, Better for All, and can find no mention of this issue; nor can I find a reference to it in the fact sheet, Teenage Girls, accompanying the publication. If it is such good news, as the Government say, why is it not included?
Recognising that detailed consultation is essential in such a sensitive matter, can the Minister assure the House that all the major women's organisations were consulted? Can he also give the House the view of the Women's National Commission?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was felt that it would be more helpful if I replied, because the Home Office is the lead department dealing with these issues. Furthermore, as a matter of background, any letter on this issue sent to my noble friend the Leader of the House would automatically be transferred to my department rather than be dealt with by hers.
It may well be that there is no such reference in the documents referred to by the noble Baroness because such incidents are relatively low in number. In 1997, there was one caution and two prosecutions, resulting in no convictions of males aged 16 or over for buggery with a female aged 16 or 17, so the numbers disclosed by prosecutions are low.

635
I have made the Government's position plain: we believe that the Bill which was introduced was properly introduced. We remain of that view.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the Minister's remark about lack of convictions, might that have some connection with the difficulty of gathering evidence about consensual acts?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is undoubtedly a feature. A further feature is that if those who might otherwise have complained are in danger of being criminalised following their complaints, that reluctance might well point to the low level of prosecutions and convictions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it not the case that, irrespective of the law, girls must have the protection of sound advice on sexual health? Therefore, does the Minister deplore the fact that the Health Education Authority, which has recently issued this jazzily colourful pamphlet, repeatedly presents girls with anal and vaginal sex as equally commendable alternatives, with not the slightest hint that one of these alternatives carries many thousand times greater risk of damage; for example, of anal lesion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course young girls and young boys of this age and above require protection. That was the whole point of a significant part of the Bill, which was cast aside by your Lordships despite my suggestion that we ought to improve the protection specifically in respect of the abuse of young people by those in positions of trust. That is not the only publication; the Sex Education in Schools circular, No. 594, following the Education Act 1993, deals with the appropriateness of sex education in schools at a point appropriate to the age and maturity of the pupils. It stresses that education about HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases is extremely important.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can the Minister help the House by answering the question put by my noble friend Lady Seccombe as to which organisations were consulted about this major change in the law? Does he agree that although it is desirable in law to have some protection against abuse, had the Government not considered changing the law, protection in this particular case would not have been necessary?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not. We put out the document for consultation, and on many occasions I have read out a list of those organisations which responded. With respect, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I believe that the Bill was a very notable step forward in the protection of those who are particularly vulnerable and who now will remain so,
636
I am sorry to say, perhaps for a considerable period of time because they are subject to abuse from those who are in positions of trust in respect of them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this matter has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Ministers, so the new Bill in the next Session will not include Scotland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are examining that issue and do not believe that it should present a problem. In fact, it may be of help to point out to your Lordships that Scotland does not have an offence of buggery with a woman, so females there would not be affected by changes in the Bill.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it seems that the Minister is unable to answer the question about organisations which were consulted and the view of the Women's National Commission. Therefore, will he write to me about that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course. I should have made that plain because the noble Baroness's question was perfectly courteous and to the point, as always. I shall answer her question more widely than the particular focus of it, dependent on the answers which I receive to the research. As always, I shall place a copy in the Library.

Single European Currency: Non-partisan Statement of Arguments
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 10th May (HL Deb, col. 960), concerning the United Kingdom joining the single European currency, whether they will arrange for the publication by a non-partisan body of a statement of the arguments for and against joining.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have already published a report by my noble friend Lord Currie entitled The Pros and Cons of Emu. We agree that the issues surrounding UK membership of the single currency need to be widely understood and debated. That is why we published the Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests setting out the conditions which must be met before the UK could join a successful single currency. The Government have no plans to arrange for the publication of a document by an outside body.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer today shows a very modest improvement in relation to the Question which I now raise for the third time? One must regret that the noble Lord is not allowed, perhaps, to use his own intelligence

637
and skills in handling this matter rather than being forced to comply with the regiment of spin doctors who contrive to cloud counsel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on two previous occasions, the noble Lord complained that I did not answer the Question. He is now acknowledging, I think, that I did answer the Question, but he does not like the Answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if my noble friend cannot be rather more positive to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as a matter of saving time and expense, will he consider giving the utmost publicity to the recent IMF report No. 44 of 1999, published a week or so ago, which, at pages 51 to 67, set out the IMF's complete view of the single currency, for and against, in so far as it affects Great Britain? Is it not in the interests of the general public that the Government should permit, and indeed encourage, the publication and dissemination of a source of information which has hitherto been regarded by them with very great respect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's assiduity is a credit to him and he does a service to the House. I am sure that the publicity which he has now given to the IMF report will help it to be more widely known. Certainly, we have no intention of doing anything other than encouraging the kind of debate in which the IMF has participated.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I commend to the noble Lord the course of action which was followed for the referendum in 1975 of eventually allowing both sides to put their case to all the people of the country? That had the great advantage that rather than a so-called non-partisan point of view, which nobody would have trusted, both sides were given the clear opportunity to put their case. It is true that the compelling and conclusive arguments of those on the "yes" side carried the day, but that is no drawback from my point of view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life has made recommendations about the conduct of referendums. We have undertaken that a draft Bill and a White Paper on the subject will be published before the Summer Recess. Of course, the noble Baroness will recall also that the Neill Committee said that the Government are entitled, and indeed under a duty, to make their position clear in relation to the referendum.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, did the noble Lord have an opportunity yesterday morning to see his colleague, the Leader of another place, on television? She appeared, during the course of that interview, to sign up fully to the Conservative Party's present policy on European and monetary union. She implied that
638
before a referendum is held and a decision made by the Government, at least one more Parliament should elapse. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government have performed that U-turn in the past 24 hours?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not see the broadcast and I am astonished by the noble Viscount's interpretation. The Government have been absolutely consistent in their view and I am not aware of any change.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not apparent that the Chancellor's conditions are easy to fudge, even more so than the original Maastricht criteria which a number of those joining the single currency clearly fudged? More particularly, is it not important that the Government should set out not only the ways in which we should prepare if we decide to join the single currency but, equally, the ways in which we should prepare if we decide not to join? Is not the bias in the Government's present approach very dangerous?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The best expression of the Government's point of view was that of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on 23rd February. He said in relation to the economic conditions that our inflation performance is consistent with the ECB's definition of price stability but that it is essential that convergence is settled and sustainable, and that we cannot yet say that. When the Government believe that we can say that, we shall make up our mind on the point. We shall then take the steps which we have undertaken to pursue on many occasions. We shall seek the agreement of Parliament and then of the people in a referendum. That time has not yet been reached, as the Prime Minister made clear.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree, however, that Ministers are as incapable of giving an objective analysis of the issue as Business for Sterling? What is the reason for that strenuous objection to an independent, serious analysis of what would happen to Britain if it did go in and what would happen if it did not, so that there is some objective, non-partisan view. I speak as someone involved with one side of this argument. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that anyone in the street reads the two-sides case which will give them a blinding insight into the whole issue is fanciful. There is a need for an independent analysis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that there had been a plethora of statements on the pros and cons of our joining the European currency. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked me whether the Government would arrange for a non-partisan view. Surely, by definition, a non-partisan view arises from the general quality and standard of public debate. It is not for the Government either to take over such a debate or to attempt to suppress it.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the freedom of information draft Bill.

Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their message of 21st May that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm 4298), and that the committee should report by 31st July 1999.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating (Valuation) Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rating (Valuation) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords,
I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Commission]:
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, after ("effect") insert ("either—

(a) at the end of 30th June 1999 unless, before that day, relevant information has been provided to the Commission which has led to the location of remains to which the information relates, or

(b) if the information mentioned in paragraph (a) has been provided,")

The noble Viscount said: At Second Reading I made clear how much I disliked what the Bill does and the reasons for it. Therefore, I shall not repeat those arguments. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is wont to remind us on such occasions, we are in Committee and should therefore make Committee stage speeches.
Suffice it to say that I feel strongly that the Bill before us is one in which the Government are enabling the Provisional IRA to take advantage of the compassion we all feel for the families of the disappeared. As we know, those families have suffered the tragedy of knowing that their loved ones have been murdered under the most distressing circumstances possible. The failure of the murderers even to tell the families where the bodies are buried has ensured that an open wound has remained open—in some cases, for many years. No one, on either side of the debate today, would yield to the Government for a second in the compassion and feeling that all of us have for those families.
My amendment puts a deadline on the effect of the Bill—I have suggested 30th June this year. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be aware that it is no coincidence that I have chosen that date. It is one which the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister suggested is the deadline by which the Good Friday agreement should become operative. At Second Reading, the Minister made it clear, in his as ever courteous speech, that as far as the Government are concerned, this is very much a confidence-building measure. If the Bill is to become law, now is a good time for confidence to be built on both sides. If we have that deadline of 30th June, it seems appropriate that it should also be a deadline for other matters.
We should remind ourselves that it is the Provisional IRA which asks for the immunities the Bill grants. In exchange for the immunities which the Government of the Republic of Ireland and now our Government are in the process of granting, the Provisional IRA has given no guarantees that it will provide information which will close the open wounds in the hearts of the families concerned. If it fails to do that, I suggest that it is doing no more than acting in character.
In another context, the peace process raised hopes and aspirations among all of us. I refer not only to those in the Province where people have suffered far more than we on this side of the water as a result of the activities of terrorists from both traditions, but to those over here. Such hopes were based on the unequivocal—a word much used in the context of the negotiations—cessation

641
of violence. Those of us who have taken an interest in Northern Irish matters for many years have been looking for such an unequivocal cessation, above all from the terrorist organisations on both sides which have been responsible for the tragedy of the past 30 years. What do we get? Weasel words which try to imply that the terrorist organisations, notably Sinn Fein/IRA but also terrorist organisations on the other side, are in favour of peace. They want to deliver peace. Nevertheless, they never go quite as far as saying that they have given up the armalite wholly in favour of the ballot box.
That is the cruellest deception of all. Many of us believe that the real pre-requisite for a return to parliamentary government in the Province is that people should give up the weapons which they hold like a sword of Damocles over the rest of us. That has been proven in other contexts and conflicts to be the pre-requisite for a return to parliamentary government. Nevertheless, the organisations concerned still refuse to give the unequivocal undertaking for which we have asked and which seems to be the minimum they should give before being able to take part in what seems to us to be everyday political activity.
In the context of the surrender of weapons, we are treated to phrases by terrorists given to their own supporters such as, "We haven't gone away, you know". That is just to remind us that unless the governments do what they are asked, they will go back to bombing. Exactly the same case applies in the Bill. I fear, beyond anything else, that the families of the disappeared, who have suffered so much in the past few decades, will find, just like the rest of us in a broader context, that their hopes have been raised and nothing has been done to provide the information under the immunities granted by the Bill. The terrorist organisations will be stringing us along and stringing governments along, asking yet again for more concessions; for us to take yet another step for peace in a way with which we have all become so tragically familiar. We have become hooked on making concessions so that we should not be accused by the very perpetrators of violence of being against peace. That is the ultimate obscenity. I fear that the Government are laying themselves open in this most sensitive and difficult of areas—particularly so for the families concerned—to finding themselves in a similar position.
It has been made plain during the past few weeks that the information to which the Bill refers is available. The Provisional IRA, in particular, has made plain that it has spent a large part of the past few years gathering information so that it is in a position to deliver it. Whether or not that is true, I do not know. I cannot help feeling that if it is as compassionate as it says it is, it would not have waited for immunity before giving the information.
However, let us just go along with it for a moment and allow that terrorist organisations need that protection. In that case, if they have the information and the Bill gives the protection that they say they need, they will need very little in the way of time to submit it and for the families to be able to know that they can bury their disappeared in graves they can visit and honour.
This amendment in no way contains an extreme request. In fact, it is a request which astonishes me in its moderation. The very least that we can ask is that we have some kind of assurance that if once again we are let down by the Provisional IRA for sticking our necks out when they have refused yet again to stick out theirs, we will know that they will not have the ability to string us along beyond 30th June, asking for more and more concessions in exchange for keeping alive the hope of the victims' families that they will be able to bury their loved ones.
I am sorry that the Government did not feel, during the course of their negotiations, that they should impose a time limit; I am sorry that another place did not feel during the course of its consideration of this Bill that it ought to impose a time limit, for the reasons that I have attempted to give the Committee this afternoon. It is fortunate that at least Members of this Committee will have the opportunity to consider the question of a time limit. I hope that, if the Minister is not able to meet me on this modest request, the Committee will at least allow me to take the opinion of the Chamber on a matter which, above anything else, is one of common decency. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As the noble Viscount so ably explained to the Committee, his amendment specifies a period of approximately one month before the Bill ceases to have effect. My amendment proposes a slightly longer period of three months. However, in the light of representations that I received over the weekend, and in view of the case made by the noble Viscount, I have come to the decision not to press my amendment.
Emerging information indicates that, as a result of secret, detailed negotiations between the IRA on the one hand and the MI6 successor to the agent formerly known as "the mountain climber" on the other, agreed arrangements are already in place. They were in place before this Chamber and the other place began deliberations on this Bill. Just as in the case of earlier legislation—for example, the prisoners' release Bill—the bargains have been struck with the terrorists in great detail. That explains why your Lordships were not permitted to carry even modest amendments to any of the long chain of Northern Ireland Bills which have come before this House over the past 18 months. Each and every Bill was set in stone.
We were told by the Minister—I never envied him his role—that it was not possible to substitute, for example, the word "may" for "shall" because it would do violence to the much-heralded Belfast agreement and the confidence-building measures in Northern Ireland. As the noble Viscount said, they are confidence-building measures designed to assist terrorists and disadvantage the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, whatever their political views or their outlooks.
Given that the bargain has been struck with the terrorists, the sole function of your Lordships is now to seal the deal. There is therefore no need to delay the conclusion of the deal. It can begin immediately Royal Assent is given and in the unfortunate event of t hi s Committee approving the situation as it stands in the

643
Bill, accepting the time limit of four weeks will be more than sufficient. It will have the all-important effect of shortening the period of agonising being suffered by the unfortunate families.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendment No. 2 is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
Lord Vivian: I apologise to the Committee for not attending the Second Reading of this Bill; it was impossible for me to do so. However, I have read the report of the debate carefully and, though I have sympathy with the bereaved families, I agree completely with many noble Lords that this is a repugnant Bill of appeasement giving amnesty to Sinn Fein/IRA murderers.
I support this amendment because it applies pressure to the IRA and should force the murderers to show that by 30th June they genuinely wish to reveal the locations of the victims that they have executed. I do not agree with the Minister and his reasons for not imposing a time limit for the disclosure of information. This amendment overcomes his arguments. If this amendment is put to a Division, I shall vote for it.
Lord Chalfont: As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said in his typically moderate and thoughtful speech in moving this amendment, we must avoid making Second Reading speeches at this stage. I find it difficult to do so because, at Second Reading, one thing struck me very forcibly, and it was this. On nine separate occasions in the Second Reading debate this Bill was referred to with revulsion and contempt. The kind of words that were used were "shoddy", "odious", "offensive", "cynical", "sordid", "disgusting", "obscene" and, finally, "an insult to Parliament". Legislation which attracts that type of language is not run-of-the-mill legislation. It is something at which we must look much more closely.
However, we gave the Bill its Second Reading and must go on from there. Perhaps I might mention my reasons for intervening in this debate at this stage. My main reason is that for the greater part of my active life since the war I have been, in one guise or another, engaged in counter-terrorist operations. I fought terrorism in the Middle East, Africa, Malaya and in Cyprus as well as in Northern Ireland. I learnt many lessons in those operations, but the most important lesson I learnt, and I learnt it on almost every occasion, was that it is almost always a mistake to bargain with or make concessions to terrorists. All we will get in response are demands for more concessions, time wasted and a cynical and almost contemptuous attitude coming from the other side.
It is no good asking terrorists who set about this kind of operation for political ends to compromise. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said in the Second Reading debate, the object of terrorism is to terrorise, not to compromise. I am sure nobody in this Chamber
644
accepts that puerile, school-debating society line of thought which says that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That is rubbish and we should all recognise it as such. Freedom fighters do not murder, mutilate, maim and torture. Terrorists do, and then they have the insolence to speak of execution and interrogation instead of murder and torture.
That is the reason I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said at Second Reading: six months is more than long enough for them to deliver what we must take as their promises. It is much more than long enough. The information which they need to supply to fulfil their side of the bargain is already available, and there is no reason why there should be any great delay.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, stated, whether one describes the Bill as odious, shoddy, cynical or whatever else one might like to call it, there should be a deadline to force these people to deliver on their promises; otherwise, as they might say, "The deal is off'. There are no guarantees yet. The hopes of the families have been raised, in a cynical and cruel way, and unless we are prepared to set a deadline the Provisional IRA will have every reason to prolong matters. It has no sympathy with the families. This is not a gesture of humanity or compassion; it is something which it thinks is in its own interests. We must ensure that it is not in its interests.
I support the amendment very strongly. If the occasion arises and the noble Viscount goes in to the Division Lobby, I shall certainly be with him.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fitt: Over the past few months noble Lords will have been aware of protest meetings that have taken place in relation to the General Pinochet case. One of the banners that I saw every time I left this House read, "Justice for the Disappeared". Whatever the arguments that relate to the situation in Chile, I had no idea then that we would be standing in this House, talking about the "disappeared" much nearer to home.
People who have voted for me at successive elections have been taken out of their homes and been brutally and viciously murdered and then buried by their murderers. The Bill contains no justice for the disappeared of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, quoted what was said at Second Reading in the other place and in this House. I stated on that occasion that it was very difficult to find words in the English language adequately to convey my detestation of this legislation. This is not democratic legislation. We are flouting every concept of law and democracy in these islands by making this further appeasing concession to the most brutal murderers that I have seen in my lifetime in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has made repeated eccentric forays into Northern Ireland. He continually writes letters to all and sundry in Northern Ireland; in fact, he has written more letters than St. Paul. I did not hear the conclusion of his remarks because whenever he starts to make eccentric speeches in relation to Northern Ireland I switch off because I have heard them all over

645
many years. The next day I saw in Hansard that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton had said in his concluding remarks:
"There is perhaps a certain degree of self-indulgence among those speakers who have denounced the outrages and violence of the IRA and other terrorist bodies from the safety of this House".—[Official Report, 18/5/99; col. 181.]
To whom was he referring? Was he referring to me? I have been harassed by the IRA. My home was burned. I had to have police protection over many, many years, because I denounced violence, not from this House but from where I was living on the Antrim Road in Belfast.
The majority of noble Lords from Northern Ireland who have spoken from this side of the House go home at the weekends. They live in Northern Ireland. They too denounced violence at Second Reading. I do not think they were doing so through any form of self-indulgence. They were speaking with the authority of their former constituents and of their experiences in Northern Ireland.
I go to Northern Ireland at weekends. I do not rest when I go there: I talk to people and go to their homes. They come to my home, and I talk to people on the telephone. The only people who are opposed to the Bill, and the only people who are opposed to the amendment, are those who are in association with terrorists. They are the people who have continuously terrorised people over the past 30 years. They will continue to do so with the help of the Government through the Bill.
In the other place, Dr. Norman Godman, in an intervention during a speech made by Douglas Hogg, said:
"The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the clause offers an amnesty for killers. A friend in Northern Ireland suggested to me that that was an unintentional consequence of the clause".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/99; col. 349.]
How can there be an "unintentional consequence" of a clause which grants amnesty to murderers in Northern Ireland?
I know that the Government are embarrassed by the Bill. I have carefully read the speeches made in the other place, and I can see that their hearts are not in the Bill. If that is so, why did they engage in some back-street dealing with people from the IRA? It was said that they had to act through intermediaries before they thought of drafting the Bill in conjunction with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and bringing it before this House.
Who were the intermediaries? Who made the first contact? Who discussed with the intermediaries what the intermediaries had said to the Provisional IRA? Did the Government consider the dreadful consequences of the Bill before bringing it before this democratic Parliament?
The Government can give only one answer. I resent it bitterly when any member of the Government, either in the other place or here, asks me what I would do. That is throwing down the gauntlet; it is saying to me that I do not want these bodies returned; that I am taking steps which will prevent the IRA identifying where the bodies are buried. In Belfast there are rumours that part of the M.1 is being dug up by contractors, supported by the police, because a body may be found there.
646
What is to prevent the IRA saying, "There is Loch Neagh and there are bodies down there"? There is no guarantee that the IRA will at any time tell us where those bodies are. There is no guarantee that if the location of a body is given it will be the body the relatives are looking for. Why is there a restriction on autopsies and the post mortem examinations of those bodies? The whole thing is absolutely sickening and flies in the face of every decent concept that has ever been debated by noble Lords in relation to Northern Ireland.
I am certain that there are many noble Lords on both sides of the Committee who agree with the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—not because it has been spoken to by the noble Viscount or myself or others, but because they have read the reports and studied the Bill; they have analysed what it means and its consequences. They then have to make up their minds whether or not to support the amendment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is a member of the Conservative Party. Both he and his ancestors have not been very helpful in matters concerning Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland. But I find no difficulty in associating myself with this amendment. Someone telephoned me this morning from Belfast. I said that the reason why the 30th June has been put into the amendment is due to the Prime Minister in another place. He is lecturing the elected representatives, for whom people went to the polling stations to vote, and telling them that they must find agreement by 30th June; otherwise, a threat of some description is there. If he can say that to the elected representatives, why cannot he and the Taoiseach in the Republic go to the intermediaries, or the IRA, and say, "We have set a date for 30th June. We think that those bodies should be returned by that date"?
The IRA has already stated in its own words that it knows where these bodies are buried and that it is prepared to say where they are buried provided—and this is the sickening thing—that we do not prosecute the people who murdered them and provided that we do not even look for their murderers. In other words, the IRA will give these bodies back but, in return, we are about to make one of the most disastrous concessions to this terrorist organisation that has ever been made in the history of this Parliament.
Lord Redesdale: During his speech the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made an assertion that those who are opposed to this amendment and for the Bill are in some way appeasing terrorism or acting on behalf of a terrorist organisation. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention, but that is the way that his words could be read in Hansard.
Lord Fitt: What I said then—and I repeat it now—is that those who are opposed to this Bill, not the amendment, have been accused of preventing the return of the bodies.
Lord Redesdale: I support the Bill. It would not be my intention to support terrorism in any shape or form. I realise that many noble Lords in this Chamber will

647
have considerable difficulties with the Bill. The legislation makes challenging statements about real justice. However, the Bill is also about stopping some of the agony that has been suffered by the victims' families.
Many of us agree with the Government and support them. We actually believe the Government when they say that they are putting this forward as a humanitarian Bill. Indeed, the victims' bodies will not be found without it. However, I should like to challenge the idea of appeasement. Last Wednesday there was a meeting in the Committee corridor of Friends of Ireland, which Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness attended. After the meeting I went and asked Mr. McGuinness when he thought that the IRA would actually give back the bodies. I did this not in any great expectation that he would come forward with any definite details, but to prove a point; namely, that questions will be asked of these organisations. People have accused the Government of falling into a naïve trap and have warned that games will be played—
Viscount Cranborne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As he was kind enough to favour Members of the Committee with an account of the question that he asked of Mr. McGuinness, it would be extremely interesting to many of us to know how it was answered.
Lord Redesdale: Of course, the answer Mr. McGuinness gave was that Sinn Fein is putting all its pressure on the IRA to come up with this information as quickly as possible
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Redesdale: Laughter may greet that reply, but, if games are played, it will be very difficult for Sinn Fein to answer the question that will be asked by its own communities. If a brown envelope is not given to the commission containing the names and the details of where the bodies are buried, what will be the reaction of noble Lords? Moreover, what will the communities in Northern Ireland think? It is a very dangerous game. It will be a public relations disaster for the terrorists if they do not come forward with this information.
The first amendment, which, I believe, the noble Viscount said he would vote on, stipulates the date of 30th June. I find that an unsettling date because there will be so much pressure on all the parties in Northern Ireland on that day that, if the amendment were to be carried, it would add just one more difficulty to those which already exist. On Second Reading, the Minister gave some of the reasons why a time limit is inappropriate for this Bill; indeed, such reasons were also given in another place. We on these Benches do not like the detail of the Bill, but we will support this Bill because the victims' families need to get these bodies back.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Blease: We have just heard what Members of this Chamber think about what is happening in Northern
648
Ireland and what has happened over the years. I can tell Members of the Committee that there are many in Northern Ireland with bleeding hearts, suffering minds and suffering bodies. Noble Lords must believe me when I say that that does not reside only in this House.
The Bill has been welcomed in many areas of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Memorial Fund made a full statement in this respect. Professor George Bain of Queens University, lawyers and representatives of the various clerical groups—and, indeed, a host of others—have said that the Northern Ireland victims' Act meets the situation. A grant of £4,000 out of the memorial fund has already been given to some of the persons involved. So it meets the approval of the vast majority of people who undertake community work and who know all about the suffering that is going on. In no way do those people help to support terrorism either by voice or by way of written material.
There is one other point that I should like to make. I should like to know how many noble Lords from this Chamber took part in the march yesterday in which something like 100,000 people marched to cemeteries to reiterate the need for a memorial for the dead in this respect. Indeed, one report in the Irish News this morning states that around 30,000 people turned out to attend a church service on a cold and wintry day at Miltown cemetery. Those people support this legislation, and the report says that the spokesmen of several of those organisations have said so. The people of Northern Ireland are those who have suffered. Many of them support this particular aspect of the Bill.
Perhaps I may explain where I support the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in this respect. I think that a time limit should be stipulated. We should know in some way when this commission will be established. The machinery is already there. The Bill is about a commission and how it should operate. I feel that we ought to have some information about when the commission will be established. Under the terms, it is supposed to be set up within 12 months, but I think that an interim report should be made within six months as regards what has happened in that time.
This Bill is not intended to solve the terrorism and the problems of Northern Ireland; indeed, as far as I am aware it will take about 50 years to do so. I am someone of 85 years of age and I know all about the suffering that has gone on in this community. In no way will it be over in three or six months. It will take the people of Northern Ireland, and those who have been elected to represent them, a long time to get down to the business of looking after those who have suffered. I have in mind such matters as unemployment, medical and mental healthcare, and so on. The issue is certainly about the concern that justice should be done and that mercy should be shown to those who want to mourn their dead, just as people did yesterday. Let us look at the Bill in a sensible way and let it pass through its various stages, even if we do stipulate a timescale.
Baroness Strange: I should like briefly to express my support for my noble kinsman Lord Cranborne. I should also like to apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that I did not speak on Second

649
Reading, but I had not at that time consulted with my ladies of the War Widows Association in Northern Ireland to discover what they thought. I have now done so, and we all feel that the terrorists have been given enough, with no sign of anything back, neither bodies, nor information, nor weapons.
Some years ago an associate member told me, "I would give anything to know where the IRA has buried my son." Last week I asked, "Would you pay the terrorists to reveal your son's grave and return the remains to you?" She said, "Do you not think it is bad enough I have to run the risk of meeting the four released terrorists walking this small town every day of my life? I do not wish to have them paid bounty money for giving information about the whereabouts of the last resting place of sons and husbands."
it takes two to make a quarrel; it takes two to make a peace also. I should perhaps add that everyone I asked said that they would go along with anything the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. Well, so would I, and so I do.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It is worth reminding ourselves what this amendment—which I for my part support—will achieve. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, described it as very moderate. I believe that we must all agree with that because it says in effect that the Bill shall cease to have effect unless before 30th June,
"relevant information has been provided … which has led to the location of remains".
The term "relevant information" is defined in Clause I of the Bill as,
"information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim".
Therefore this amendment asks only for information as to the remains of a single victim which will lead to its discovery to be made available to the commission. That is a moderate imposition upon the IRA and upon any other terrorist organisation to whom it may apply.
Further, we need to remind ourselves of the genesis of this Bill. As I understand it, some months ago the IRA declared that it knew the whereabouts of a number of the "disappeared." It indicated—if not expressly, by implication—that it needed some protection from prosecution if it was to make that information available. I do not think that it is unduly cynical to suppose that its motivation in this initiative was to rid itself of an embarrassment. Time and time again one has heard condemnation of the IRA on the grounds that it will not even afford the relatives of those whom it has murdered the basic satisfaction—if that is the word, but I do not think it is—of being able to give them a burial. I believe that that was an embarrassment and was seen to be a severe embarrassment to the IRA. It may well have played a major part in leading the IRA to take this initiative.
I speak as someone who listened to all but the closing stages of the Second Reading debate. I did not feel it proper to intervene in that debate because I was not able to be present for the reply to the debate. But had I done so, I would have supported the Government on the principle of this Bill. I would have done so with as heavy a heart as those of many who spoke from the
650
other side of the Chamber. I would have supported them because I hold to the view, which I held during the time I carried responsibility for Northern Ireland and in particular for people's lives, that it was necessary to go several extra miles not in order to achieve a realistic possibility that all violence would thereafter be banished from Northern Ireland for political purposes—I do not believe, at any rate in the short or medium term, that that is a realistic possibility—but because the few who nonetheless resorted to violence would be condemned throughout the world and see their position considerably undermined. It might even have been a practical possibility—had our ability to impose internment not been removed in the course of this Parliament—to have internment on both sides of the Border. I would therefore have supported the Government. I believe that the humanitarian purpose they espouse is a worthy one. Although there would have been some gain to the IRA in the removal of that embarrassment, l thought that the balance justified, perhaps by a small margin, the principle of the Bill. Had I spoken to that effect, I believe I would have been alone—certainly on the Back Benches—among your Lordships who spoke.
As to the amendment, what is being asked to be provided? The organisations concerned are being asked to come forward with information in respect only of one victim. We know that the IRA has acknowledged that it knows the whereabouts of nine victims, possibly more. What is the practical difficulty? On the other hand, if the amendment takes effect and is not complied with, what will be the consequence? The consequence must be that reasonable and right thinking people everywhere throughout the world will say, "They are not genuine and they made this offer only for cynical, self-seeking reasons." Therefore notwithstanding that I continue to support the principle of the Bill, I believe that confidence-building measures may properly he called for from each side and that they should operate in each direction. It is therefore entirely consistent with support for the principle of the Bill that I also support the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, touched on a subject that I wish Ito mention. The matter that galls so many of us in Northern Ireland—and, I suspect, here—is that the Bill as drafted is not so much a government Bill but has come about perhaps at the instigation of the IRA. That is why it contains conditions and that is why the IRA. was after appeasement. It is difficult for us to accept the terms and conditions of the appeasement, as it appears to us.
I support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of principle. Why should vie conform to an IRA timetable? We have conformed to an IRA timetable for the past 30 years. The IRA has dictated everything. The incidents that we are discussing have been committed by terrorists. I cannot think of a good reason for us to continue to conform to their timetable. If this Bill is to succeed—I may be one of the doubters in this respect—it must be implemented for the sake of the families concerned. The speedy resolution of the issue of the "disappeared" is all important. If, as we are told, PIRA now feels humanitarian responsibility

651
for the families involved in this matter, it should have no objection to the imposition of a timetable. However, I question whether the IRA feels such humanitarian responsibility. I do not believe that is the case but let us see. Let us give the IRA a timetable. The IRA has provided nine names and perhaps the location of just one body. I am not fully aware of those details. Where are the rest of the names? We are not talking about dropping a notebook or throwing something over a hedge when getting away from a murder. We are talking about the practical problem of picking up a body, removing it, driving it to another place, digging a hole, covering it over so that nobody will find it, and the terrorists burning their own clothes so that they can provide no forensic evidence. All that does not happen in two minutes flat.
People are pretending that perhaps PIRA cannot remember where it put the bodies. That is inconceivable and ridiculous. What about the other bodies without the time-scale in the Bill? Will they drip-feed names and locations, each time gaining more appeasement? If the Bill goes through, we can give real protection to the families by inserting a time limit, so that we achieve that which the Government aim to achieve. I am sure that relatives in Northern Ireland will be eternally grateful to us for doing that.
If the terrorists' memories are failing, what will waiting longer and having an open-ended, year-on-year arrangement without a time limit achieve? I suggest that their memories will not improve.
An indication of what might happen appeared in an article in a Northern Ireland paper last Wednesday, headlined, "French dig fails to find remains". It was INLA who said where the remains of a body were to be found in France, yet it was not found. So the quicker that we get on with this, the better. If it is to be, let us have a time limit now.
4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: I rise to sound a warning note. It is many years since I was involved in Northern Ireland affairs, but like all noble Lords I have watched with great anxiety and horror the events of the many years since a Labour government—remember that, a Labour government—put soldiers into Northern Ireland. Ironically, if my memory is correct, that was done to protect the Catholics from the Protestants. The British forces have paid a very heavy price there.
Like many noble Lords, I have been heartened by the great progress that has been made in Northern Ireland in recent months. Like affairs in many other parts of the world, there is no easy or quick solution, but one has a feeling that, slowly but progressively, advances are being made. Perhaps the most significant among them has been the general welcome throughout the Northern Ireland community for what has been achieved by the British Government, British Parliament, Irish Government and Irish Parliament.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I support the Government with this Bill. I do not like it, but this is not the first time that I have been confronted
652
with something in a Bill that I do not like. However, if the motive has been accepted and that is the judgment of the Government, I will go along with it.
I have no criticism of noble Lords who moved the amendment and support it, but I wonder how it will be seen in Northern Ireland if the Committee has its way, as I suspect it might, if inevitably we are led into a Division. That could only send one message—that we are divided on what is seen as an important gesture. Nobody would suggest that the Government have acted other than in the best interests of the women and families who have lost their loved ones. However. suppose that the Committee passes the amendment. Do your Lordships really believe that the Government would accept it in another place? Do your Lordships believe that the Government, with their majority, would allow such an amendment to remain in the Bill? If that happens, what are your Lordships going to do? I suspect that you would use the wise judgment of this House over many years—that if the other place makes a judgment on anything that we may have done, we accept it. Therefore, the Bill will be as it has come to the Committee now, without the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will take my view that, as a result, damage will have been done in Northern Ireland.
I ask the Committee whether it is worth the candle. Is it really worth the risk? This House has expressed its views sufficiently to know that most of us acknowledge that the Government are acting to the best of their abilities for a small group of people. We do not wish to do damage—certainly not to a Bill that is connected with Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will give close thought to the potential damage that would be done if his amendment secured a majority in the Committee this evening. I ask him whether it would be worth it.
Lord Glentoran: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the decision to bring the British Army into Northern Ireland in support of the police and the Roman Catholics on that dreadful day was one of the worst that they made. It led to Bloody Sunday, when the soldiers did not know which way to face. Those same soldiers will be paying the price again because of another bad decision by the present Labour Party.
Back to today's Bill. I spoke my mind clearly on Second Reading. I did not like the Bill for all the reasons that many noble Lords have stated. I said that our role in this House is to do our best to improve government legislation, and today's debate is in the process of doing that. Having been cynical about the Government's motive for introducing the Bill in the first place, and having accepted the Minister's word that it is nothing but sincere and helpful, I sincerely believe that the Bill will become really useful to the families of those victims only if it has a time limit.
My Amendment No. 3 will probably fall, so I am speaking now. I felt that six months was a practical time to set up the commission, run the show for a while and see whether our cynicism was justified and the IRA were going to play true to form. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has introduced an amendment

653
supported by others that calls for a determination date of 30th June. I have no problem with that. I believe that can still be achieved and that the IRA., if really pressed, can deliver what is required to meet that deadline.
I am saying now to the Government, "You've said that you are sincere. You've said that this Bill is directed at the welfare of the families. You've intimated by that that the Bill is not politically motivated." I say to them, "Be on your mettle; do not again give way to the IRA; have the courage of your convictions; set the deadline and let us see what is delivered".
Lord Tebbit: I, too, should express my regrets that I was not here last week for the Second Reading of the Bill. I was abroad and unable to get back. Had I been here, the list of pejorative adjectives from the speech today of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would have been rather longer and perhaps somewhat more harsh.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the amendment should be approved. The idea that your Lordships should not enact an amendment to a Brill merely because it is possible or likely that the other place might vote it down is one of the more extraordinary constitutional theories. After all, we know that this assembly will be made into a poodle before very long, but we are not yet a poodle which has not even got the guts to bark. That was a most extraordinary argument.
If the Bill goes through, it is right that the IRA should be given a window of opportunity—and it should know when that window will close; otherwise it will string it out: there will be another concession or two, something more that it will want, and something more that it will get. In the meantime, the families of the victims—we all understand their feelings and have the greatest sympathy for them—will, like this place, like Her Majesty's Government, be strung along once again by the IRA. If the IRA was not interested in stringing us along, we would have seen a surrender of arms by now. We have seen no evidence of any willingness. Indeed, we are told constantly by the IRA and its representatives that it has no intention of giving up any arms, only the intention of stringing us along.
The worst thing about the Bill is, of course, that it is a demonstration of the power of the IRA to extract concessions from the Government. That demonstration of power will be heeded in Northern Ireland. People will be once again reminded of who is in charge of the so-called "peace process"—not Her Majesty's Ministers, but the friends of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, implied—I am not sure whether he meant to say it—that he believed that perhaps it was even more important that murderers were convicted of their crimes than that the bodies of their victims should be recovered. That is a perfectly plausible proposition. It would not be thought extraordinary by anyone—unless it was made in the context of Northern Ireland. It is only in that context that it is believed it is more important in the interests of justice and peace that the remains of a murder victim should be recovered than that his murderer should be brought to justice.
654
Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, when I read the report of the Second Reading debate, I noticed how often the critics of the Bill were asked "Well, what would you do?" It is perfectly simple. The matter could have arisen during the talks which became the Belfast agreement. It could perfectly well have been signalled to the IRA that, as it has owned up to knowing where the remains are, there would be a slow-down in the release from gaol of criminal terrorists unless it revealed where the remains were. But, of course, at every stage the Government have thrown away or given to the IRA every bargaining lever they possessed.
The amendment would give back to those who believe in justice, as opposed to those who believe in murder, the smallest degree of power, influence and bargaining strength.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Slim: Having reflected since our previous debate on the matter—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has said what I was about to say—I believe that the Bill will be only the start of concessions. I do not go along with a number of noble Lords who have said that if the terrorists do not deliver they will lose face and be embarrassed. In my experience, terrorists never get embarrassed; terrorists use failure with great cunning and great viciousness and throw it back at democracy. I often wonder how much more punishment democracy has to take. A terrorist displays great cheek and viciousness when he has been slightly or completely wrong-footed. We can expect no niceties or anything like that if terrorists do not deliver one body, all the bodies, or even information about the bodies.
There are many great lawyers in your Lordships' House. I am not a lawyer, but I do not see that the Government have the power to break our hard rules on criminal and terrorist investigation—such as forensic examination and DNA profiling—and suddenly to exempt terrorists from such investigation. Will the Government exempt other criminals next?
I find that the Bill is unsuitable. I am only slightly heartened by the speech of the noble Viscount. I consider his amendment to be a wise, sensible and moderate one, as many noble Lords have said, and I support it. However, I find it difficult still to support the Bill.
Lord Monson: As my name is to Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may say a brief word about it and the other two amendments in the group. In order to forestall any claims to the contrary, I should say, first, that none of the amendments in any way contravenes the Good Friday agreement. Secondly, if the terrorist organisations are sincere in their resolve to reveal the location of their victims' bodies, it is not necessary that the Act should remain operative for more than six months at the most. If, on the other hand, the terrorist organisations are insincere, it is not justifiable that the Act should remain operative for more than six months. Surely the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Shepherd, would concede that point.

655
In theory, Amendment No. 1 is perhaps preferable to Amendment No. 3. Whether it is preferable in practice, I am not quite so sure; possibly the time-scale is fractionally tight. However, if the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, decides to press his amendment to a Division, I shall certainly follow him into the Division Lobby.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I expressed my abhorrence of the Bill at Second Reading and I do not propose to do so again, especially as I have three amendments down for debate later. However, I strongly support Amendment No. 1 because I believe that the IRA has the information. It started thinking about this in 1997. It said in September 1998 that it already had a great deal of information and was setting up a unit to get more. So there is little doubt that it has the information. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not set a time limit and force it to come to the point. I shall support the amendment if there is a Division.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: It is very difficult for those of us born and brought up in Northern Ireland to express or to explain to others just how strongly we feel about the Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a very good attempt. I am not sufficiently articulate to improve on what he said. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has suddenly eased my mind. I now understand why I feel so strongly about it. This is an IRA Bill. This is not a government Bill. I have no doubt that it was the IRA's demand on the Government to have these concessions, a most dreadful thing to consider, as so well expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim.
No matter how hard we try, I doubt that we shall reject the Bill. It will go through. However, if it is to go through, this period should be over in the shortest possible time. What are we talking about? The IRA says that it knows the location of the remains of nine people. How long would it take to hand over that information? One day. If it knows, why cannot this be done in one day? If we allow until 30th June, that is more than enough time. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. When I originally saw Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 I wondered whether 30th June was pushing too hard on a door. I was not able to take part at Second Reading but I share the distaste and discomfort which many noble Lords feel about the Bill. When it came to thinking about the date I was very much persuaded by what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said in relation to the use of 30th June by the Prime Minister with regard to putting a deadline to discussions that are now going on. If the Government are prepared to put a deadline of that nature to elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is every good reason why the Government should not balk at putting a deadline on the Bill. The Bill lacks that more than anything else. It lacks a good many other things, but not to have a deadline leaves the people who could string along the victims'
656
relatives at every opportunity to continue to do so. If I had been writing a last will and testament—there are a number in this House and in another place who could well have been victims—I would certainly have been concerned about my family. However, I would have been very concerned not to give those who had murdered, abused and tortured any chance of getting off without having a very tight deadline. I support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for introducing the amendment so ably supported by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Fitt, and others. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. However, as many noble Lords will agree, we in this House are quite entitled to give our considered view on any Bill except a money Bill. Huge majorities do not necessarily equate to great wisdom or even to considered decisions.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, 30th June is a rather steep test. I wish I could speak to relatives tomorrow and say, "We have passed an amendment that will let you know where you stand by 30th June." But perhaps 12 weeks might be more appropriate. The point is that we want to see the legislation working. We want to see results. The critical point is that terrorists either have the information that they are ready to give to the commission or they do not. That information could be handed over almost on the day the commission is up and running. If we obtain information on the nine, it would be appropriate to let the Bill run on to cover the possibility that more victims may be located.
Amendment No. 1 meets the Minister's likely criticism of Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 2 would preclude the location of future remains. All the amendments meet the need of avoiding relatives and families being strung along. If the Minister is minded to accept an amendment in this group, I would suggest that Amendment No. 1 is the best one. Amendment No. 2 has the advantage that no action will be required. Clause 2 and the commission will be extinguished automatically without the need to involve Parliament again. There would be no difficult decision for the Minister to make or for Parliament to make.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke to Amendment No. 3. It has the advantage that the Government cannot be strung along and be forced into extending Clause 2 by order when it is said at that time that information is just about to be released to the commission. We have only to consider how often we have to extend the Northern Ireland decommissioning order to know that that is the case. Unfortunately, I have to work from the position that I assume the Minister has information or intelligence that leads him to believe that the Bill will work as drafted. I believe that to be unlikely. However, if the amendment is taken to a vote, I shall abstain because interference with the Bill may make it unworkable and could be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I echo the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, regarding timescales. When does the Minister expect the commission to be up and running? Does he

657
see any merit in early reports from the commission—say, at three and six months—in addition to the 12 months provided for in the agreement?
Lord Dubs: In the course of this debate a number of your Lordships made points about the general principles underlying the Bill. Although I do not want to trespass for more than a minute or two on the time of the Committee in dealing with those points, I feel it would be discourteous if I were to ignore them altogether. It might also seem that the Government did not wish to rebut some of the points that were made.
The Government have one single motive for bringing forward the Bill—and that is to lessen the pain and agony of those families whose loved ones have been murdered and whose bodies have never been found. That is our sole and single motive on the Bill. The origins of the Bill lie not in any demands or threats from the IRA or any other paramilitary organisation. The origins of the Bill lie in the pain and agony of the families and their constant requests over many years that the bodies of their loved ones should be identified and revealed. Indeed, I remember it was nearly two years ago that my noble friend Lord Fitt made an impassioned speech to this House, stressing how important it was for something to be done to help the families concerned find the remains of their loved ones. I am sure it was not the first time that my noble—
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that the only reason for the Bill was a humanitarian one for the families. I accept what he says. However, he may remember that at Second Reading I pointed out that there had been a newspaper article to the effect that the revelation came after the IRA leadership announced that it would not reveal the location of the secret graves unless it received an amnesty. I am not arguing about the word "amnesty", but it was clear that it wanted immunity in return for the information about the graves. That was the only reason for the Bill. If it solely wished to come forward with the information, and if it was not after immunity, it could do so without a Bill. Why is the Bill here? The Bill is all about what it gets out of it. If I may refer to col. 189—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Shepherd: The noble Viscount has intervened, and I think it is the custom that when a noble Lord is making a point he makes it briefly. Noble Lords should not seek to argue with the Minister or with anybody else.
Lord Dubs: I am most grateful. I was simply trying to make clear why the Government had brought the Bill forward, and the motive is to lessen the pain and agony of the families. It is perfectly clear that the IRA indicated—it was not done directly to the Government—that it would be prepared to reveal information about the nine bodies if through that process the individuals bringing that information
658
forward would not be incriminated in terms of any evidence that would be there on the bodies or associated with the bodies.
There is no question of the perpetrators of these crimes being granted immunity from prosecution. It is simply in relation to one piece of evidence—evidence that will be found as a result of information indicating where the bodies were. That evidence, and only that evidence, could not be used as a basis for prosecution. Any other evidence that might be forthcoming would result in charges being brought and therefore prosecutions following. That is the origin of the Bill and it was the pressure, and the very vocal pressure, from the families which made everybody realise just how much those families were suffering, and that is why the Bill was brought forward—
Viscount Cranborne: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I ask him this: what is it that is so different about the victims of IRA terrorism whose bodies have not been recovered and the victims of other criminal acts, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at Second Reading? There was the murder of Suzy Lamplugh. What is so different about Irish "disappeared" from English "disappeared"?
Lord Dubs: What is different is that. tragically there happen to be a rather large number of people in Northern Ireland who are grieving for their loved ones whose bodies have disappeared and have never been found. It is the scale of what has happened in Northern Ireland and the expressed wishes of the families that they should be helped in finding the bodies. That is what is different about Northern Ireland. That is not to say for one moment that I wish to suggest that the families of other people whose loved ones have disappeared are not also suffering. But the noble Viscount asked me a particular question, and that is the answer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew., put it clearly when he said that the IRA wished to rid itself of an embarrassment—an embarrassment which was manifest throughout Northern Ireland. One has only to read the newspapers, as I am sure your Lordships will have done, and listen to what was going on to see how much concern there was on the part of those families. And of course there are many more than nine. Nine was the number which the IRA came forward with in a statement, and two of those had not previously been recognised as being among the "disappeared". There may still be others.
One of your Lordships juxtaposed the importance of finding murderers and the importance of finding the bodies of those they had murdered. This was put to the House as an alternative. I do not believe it ought to be an alternative. However, if any prosecutions follow and if the evidence is there, we want to find and prosecute the people who have committed these murders, but not on the evidence that may be forthcoming as a result of this Bill. We are not in any way saying one is instead of the other: we are saying that both are important, and I have indicated how that might happen—
Lord Tebbit: I thank the Minister for giving way. But what he has said is quite extraordinary. Indeed. he said

659
one or two extraordinary things. One is that if you murder enough people and conceal their remains you can bargain with the Government. I venture to suggest that in the past 30 years a good many people have been murdered in Great Britain and their remains have not been found—and now the Minister suggests once again that he is holding a balance between conviction and recovery of the bodies. Indeed, he says that if the bodies can be recovered he is willing to forgo forensic information which might lead to conviction. The noble Lord nods his head: the argument is complete.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord simply quotes what is in the Bill. We shall be coming on to forensic evidence later, but in terms of the principle, yes: because if we did not do that it would be most unlikely that the bodies would ever be found. That is the thinking behind the Bill. The motive is a humanitarian one.
I shall now continue with specific points on the amendment. I have made these remarks because of the general arguments that were put forward earlier. Clause 2 makes provision for the commission to remain in being until the Secretary of State, after consulting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the Government of Ireland, makes an order appointing the day on which it should cease to have effect. The amendments seek to put some limits on the life of the commission: one month, four months, six months or a period to be determined by Parliament. That would mean that in one, four or six months' time, or at a date chosen by Parliament, the commission would no longer have a basis in domestic law. It would, however, continue to exist as an international body by virtue of the British/Irish agreement signed on 27th April and would still be underpinned by legislation in the Republic. However, it would be deprived of the provisions of the United Kingdom legislation relating to its status as a body corporate, the immunities which it would require and the financial provision for the Secretary of State.
This would create an anomaly and it is for this reason that the provision in Clause 2(1)(6) has been made: to enable action on winding up the commission to be taken in conjunction with the Irish Government, ensuring an agreed and co-ordinated approach to ending the existence of the commission in both jurisdictions. I can appreciate the desire for the commission to have a limited lifespan. I would clearly hope that information about the "disappeared" will come forward quickly, but I do not believe it would be helpful to set deadlines.
I very much hope that the commission will receive information before 30th June but, if it does not, I do not want to slam the door by closing down the commission. That would be seen by the families as the end of their last piece of hope to get information about their loved ones. I believe that we owe it to them to keep open the prospect of news for rather longer. Further, as drafted, the amendment would require the commission to be disbanded on 30th June, even if it had received information but no remains had been discovered by that date because the search was still under way. Clearly, that
660
would be unreasonable. I suggest that the effective deadline would be several days before 30th June if this amendment were passed by the Committee.
A further point in considering deadlines is that we need to have regard to the range of cases with which we may be dealing. There is another issue. So far the debate has centred on bodies the whereabouts of which may be known to the IRA. But there are other paramilitary organisations: the INLA and others on the Republican side and a number on the Loyalist side. We are not dealing simply with bodies that have been buried or hidden by one organisation; there may be others. That is another reason why I believe that a tight deadline may make it unduly difficult for the whereabouts of the bodies to be made clear.
The commission is being set up to deal with information about any victim of violence within the meaning of the Bill who disappeared before the date of the Belfast agreement. The IRA list contains nine names. The names of other known "disappeared" have not been included. There could also be further "disappeared" whose names are not known to us. As I said earlier, the names of two people on the IRA list had not previously been known to the police as missing persons. We do not want to agree now to a closure date for the commission which could prove premature.
We recognise that Amendment No. 3 seeks to give Parliament the ability to vary the life of the commission if it considers that, in the light of experience, the suggested life of six months is not appropriate. This also runs the risk of action being taken unilaterally, leaving the commission in the anomalous position that I have already described. Given the international status of the body, it is necessary that its lifespan be agreed between the sovereign governments.
Article 3(2)(c) of the joint agreement between the governments requires the commission to report on its activities to both governments no later than one year after its establishment and annually thereafter. I believe that that is reasonable. However, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is quite possible for the commission to report earlier if it so wishes. We expect the commission in its report to comment on its operation and workload, and it is that report which would trigger a decision by the two governments on the future of the commission.
I believe that it would be most unfortunate and wrong in principle if the House decided to pass one of these three amendments. It would not even do what many noble Lords are concerned about. I do not believe that it would lessen the pressure on the IRA or any other terrorist organisation; or maybe your Lordships think that it would increase the pressure. I do not believe that it will make that kind of difference but I do believe that the only ones to suffer will be the families who desperately await news of the victims.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I am most grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy and reasonable tone in responding to the debate. I am sorry that I must disagree with him yet again. I have known the noble Lord on and off for 20 years and have always found

661
our exchanges agreeable, if not agreeable in the fullest sense. I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate particularly (if I may be invidious for a moment) to those noble Lords who have participated with the benefit of many years' experience of terrorism. The record of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is known to all of us, but we have also had the benefit of the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim—who cannot be described as "gallant" in this Chamber because he did not rise sufficiently high in the hierarchy of the Army, which is an omission for which I entirely blame his superiors—the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who has suffered more than any of us in this Chamber.
It is significant that the victims of, and experts on terrorism have been on this side of the argument. I would have said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if he had been here, that the very act of standing up in public in either House of Parliament had been proven to be a provocation to terrorism, because terrorists do not like people drawing attention to their methods. All of us have friends—I think particularly of Mr. Ian Gow—who have suffered as a result of attacking terrorism from the safety of a House of Parliament.
As the speech of the noble Lord the Minister progressed and interventions were made I concluded from what he said—I say it with the greatest respect to him—that under this Government a terrorist is given immunity if he murders nine or more people, but if someone is not a terrorist and murders nine or fewer, immunity is not given. One has only to say it to see that under this Government, sadly, it pays to be a terrorist.
Lord Redesdale: Does the noble Viscount agree that his remarks could be viewed by many in this Chamber as offensive?
Viscount Cranborne: I tried to make clear during the course of the Second Reading debate, which I believe the noble Lord attended, and in my remarks here, that there is nothing in the least personal in what I say. What I have said is unacceptable to the noble Lord because the truth of the matter is that terrorism is intended to attack the very roots of parliamentary government. Terrorists assume as part of their attack that it is likely to provoke a reaction and that unless we engage with terrorism we are being unreasonable. It is that taking advantage of our good nature which is so scandalous about the methods adopted by terrorists all over the world, but in particular in Northern Ireland.
I did not intend to be offensive to the noble Lord the Minister, and I am sure that he knows that. I have the greatest respect and liking for him and have made that clear. In spite of listening carefully to what the noble Lord has said, I find it very difficult, for the reasons that I have tried to explain, to accept the arguments put forward by the Government and am driven to ask the opinion of the Committee.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lang of Monkton, L,

Ailesbury, M.

Lauderdale, E,

Ailsa, M.

Leathers, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lucas, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lyell, L.

Ashbourne, L.

McConnell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marsh, L.

Biddulph, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Biffen, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Middleton, L.

Brentford, V.

Milverton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cadman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Calverley, L.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Moran, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Chalfont, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northesk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Palmer, L.

Cranborne, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B

Croham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Drogheda, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Dunleath, L.

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Ridley, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Exmouth, V.

Rowallan, L.

Fitt,L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gardner of Parkes,B.

St. Davids, V.

Glentoran, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Slim, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Tebbit, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tenby, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Jopling, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Weatherill, L.

Kintore, E.

Westbury, L.

Laming. L.

Wharton, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Young, B.

663

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood,B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Bach, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett. L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Blease.L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Bragg, L.

McNally, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Maddock, B.

Brookman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Burlison, L.

Molloy, L.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L [Teller.]

Montague of Oxford, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Christopher, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newby, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Dholakia. L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dixon, L.

Puttnam, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea,L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Richard, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Russell, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Goodhart, L.

Sewel, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Grenfell. L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Uddin, B.

Hayman, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Freedom of Information
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about freedom of information, on which I have today published a draft Bill and consultation paper. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"In December 1997 the Government published a White Paper entitled Your Right to Know. I should like to pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Member for South Shields for his work on that document which underpins the draft Bill. I am also very grateful to the Public Administration Select Committee for its consideration of the White Paper's proposals.
"In drafting this Bill we had to strike a careful three-way balance between extending the public's access to information; protecting citizens' own privacy; and preserving confidentiality where disclosure would be against the public interest.
"This is a difficult balancing act, but one I think we have got right. The scales are weighted decisively in favour of openness and will radically change the relationship between the Government and their citizens.
"These proposals are not just about abstract rights which may benefit academics, historians or constitutional theorists alone. They will benefit everyone, and provide access to the kind of information which people really want to know.
"Parents will be able better to find out how schools apply their admissions policies. Patients will be able to understand how hospitals allocate resources between different treatments and how they prioritise waiting lists. And citizens will be able to find out more about the actions of their local police force.
"Under this Bill, for the first time, everyone will have the right of access to information held by bodies across the public sector. There will be a duty on public authorities to adopt a scheme for the publication of information about their work; a positive duty on public authorities, even where they are not obliged to provide such information, to consider disclosure on public interest grounds; and a new information commissioner together with a new information tribunal to enforce the rights created.
"Let me now explain to the House how the draft Bill compares with the White Paper's proposals. On which public bodies are to be covered, the Bill's proposals are a little wider than the White Paper. All the functions of the police and police authorities are to be covered as the Select Committee proposed, with

665
specific exemptions for information gained as part of an inquiry, or which relates to informers. The security and intelligence agencies—along now with the National Criminal Intelligence Service—will remain outside the scope of the Bill. "On the question of including Parliament, we are discussing how this can be done without prejudicing parliamentary privilege.
"The White Paper also promised access to specific documents and actual records, unlike the current code. The Bill delivers that promise. Applicants for information may express a preference for the means of communication: inspection of originals, a copy, or a summary of the information sought.
"The White Paper set out seven areas to be covered by exemptions, together with other information which would be excluded from the Bill. It also set out conditions on the right of access. The Bill delivers broadly the same exemptions as the White Paper, but the tests involved do differ.
"There has never been any expectation that Cabinet documents, inter-ministerial correspondence and official papers on developing policy would ever be disclosed under freedom of information. As the White Paper said:
"Now more than ever the Government needs space and time in which to assess arguments and conduct its own debates with a degree of privacy".—(Your Right To Know, page 19, paragraph 3.12.)
Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind that the product of such private deliberations is almost always a public announcement of policy.
"Under this Bill, there will be a class exemption for the formulation of government policy in place of the simple harm test in the White Paper, which we believe will achieve the same purpose in a more straightforward way.
"On the substantial harm test, after careful consideration, we reached the view that a single omnibus test could not work properly for the range of exemptions proposed. What is 'substantial' in relation to law enforcement may not be in relation to international relations. The harm concerned must be capable of being interpreted in relation to the subject matter it covers.
"Where therefore national security is an issue, the test proposed is whether the exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding that. Where the health and safety of an individual is at issue, the test proposed is whether disclosure would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual. Elsewhere the proposed test is whether disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the criteria set out in the relevant exemption.
"The tests proposed will result in a more open regime than under the existing non-statutory code of practice. Under the code the test is the possibility of harm being caused. Under the draft Bill the test is one of probability.
666
"Generally, the information commissioner will have the power to substitute his or her judgment for that of the public authority. He or she will be able to ensure that public authorities are not able to claim that prejudice would be caused in circumstances where this would be trivial or frivolous. The prejudice has to be real, actual or of 'substance'. In respect of policy advice, the commissioner will be able to challenge the reasonableness of a Minister's decision against disclosure.
"There are two areas where the White Paper suggested that a harm test would apply where in fact such a test turns out to be impractical: personal information and information supplied in confidence.
"First, the disclosure of personal information is governed by our obligations to comply with the European Community Data Protection Directive and the European Convention on Human Rights—and the Human Rights Act. The convention and directive do not provide for the application of a harm test, and we cannot therefore unilaterally provide for one.
"Access to personal information about oneself is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998, whose provisions we are in fact extending under this Bill. Where personal information is sought about third parties, there will be a right to it under the Bill, if the Data Protection Act permits disclosure.
"Secondly, it would be wrong to overturn, in this Bill, duties of confidence which arise at common law. Those doing business with public authorities have the right to ensure that their confidences are respected. In many cases, public authorities need access to information held by others, which they in turn will only be prepared to release if given an undertaking of confidentiality. Where information is supplied to a public authority in these circumstances, the public authority should not be required to disclose it, if this would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by the supplier of the information.
"Let me turn now to the enforcement provisions. There will be an information commissioner who will enforce the FoI regime, and there will be rights of appeal against decisions of the commissioner to a tribunal, with a further appeal, on a point of law, to the courts.
"The Public Administration Select Committee said there was a need for there to be coherence between the data protection and freedom of information regimes, with a 'simple and comprehensive' right of access. A great many requests for information will be for a mixture of personal and general information. We are therefore providing that the office of the Data Protection Commissioner will be merged with that of the information commissioner.
"The cost of these proposals when enacted is forecast at between £90 million and £125 million per year.
"The Bill will now be subject to extensive public and parliamentary consultation, including by the Select Committee on Public Administration.

667
"Madam Speaker, I have spoken today of the need to balance rights. There is a right to know, there is a right to privacy and there is a right to confidentiality. For too long we have given insufficient weight to the right to know. The proposals in the draft Bill seek to redress that balance.
"This Government have done more than any other to open their workings to greater scrutiny by the public. In our manifesto we promised a programme of constitutional reform to get citizens more closely involved in the decisions which affect their everyday lives. We have delivered, as promised, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. We are bringing rights home through the Human Rights Act which will be implemented in October 2000. Today, we are taking forward our pledge on freedom of information.
"Madam Speaker, I commend these radical, and balanced, proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It was perhaps more appropriate than usual that the Statement should have been thoroughly leaked beforehand, as has become habitual with the Home Office. However, in this case we were spared the sight of the Home Office seeking an injunction; I believe that Home Office lawyers were busy with another injunction.
The issue of freedom of government information—for that is what it is—has become more important as spin doctors have multiplied and been allowed to assert themselves more so that the accuracy and completeness of government information cannot be relied upon to the same extent. None of us has had much time to study the detail of the Statement, but it seems that the Scottish Parliament and Ministers appear to be exempted from the Bill, but not the Northern Irish or Welsh Assemblies. I should be interested to know the reasons why that should be so.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, in the course of delivering the Statement, added a sentence which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was perhaps too modest to mention. The Home Secretary mentioned the taskforce to be set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It would be helpful to know more about its work.
It is clear that there will be substantial resource implications, not so much for central Government but for the police; the National Health Service; local government including educational authorities; and those in private industry who contract with the Government. It looks as though an individual who wants information about himself may have to cover some of the costs but there will be heavy costs on the budgets of the police, the NHS, the other bodies which I mentioned and contractors to pay for a new army of people to hand out paper and deal with the inquiries. I am not clear from the Statement whether the Government will pick up the
668
bill for the local authorities and, indeed, for the contractors too. The statement of the costs—£90 million to £125 million—seems very low if the Government are to pick up those costs.
Am I right in thinking that the requirements of existing contracts will not be altered unilaterally? That was not clear, but I presume that the confidentiality rules will apply to contracts. That is important also in the case of defence contracts. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, from the Ministry of Defence, is in his place. I am not clear—although it seems to me it would be wise—whether defence contractors are to be exempt from those provisions, either through the confidentiality clause or in some other way.
Those are all matters of detail which may be answered by a more lengthy study of the document as a whole. The publication of a draft Bill in this manner is a helpful way in which to bring forward legislation. The Home Secretary's Statement did not say anything specific about the Government's proposal for consideration of this draft Bill in your Lordships' House. The document itself suggests that for this House, the normal consideration by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would be sufficient. The remit of that committee covers every Bill, but it is extremely specific and limited in what it normally considers. In view of the importance of this whole issue to the proper conduct of government and to citizens, and in view also of the expertise available, we believe that the House will wish to consider this draft Bill very carefully. A special Select Committee may be the right way in which to proceed analogous with the committee which is to consider the matter in another place. I hope that that will be discussed through the usual channels, otherwise, this House will effectively be opting out of the next stage of this important consultation process.
Lord McNally: My Lords, in introducing the Statement, the Minister put the proposal for a freedom of information Act in its constitutional context. Before the general election, I was a member of what became known as the Cook-Maclennan Committee. The now Home Secretary, Jack Straw, was also a member of that committee. It was a Labour-Liberal Democrat joint committee which looked at constitutional reform. A plank of the joint statement before the general election was a freedom of information Act. Therefore, on these Benches, we welcome the introduction of this measure by the Government.
When we were discussing constitutional reform at that time, we wanted to see two outcomes: we wanted to see a breakdown of the confrontational nature of politics, and the Minister referred to reforms in Scotland and Wales which have taken us along that road; and we wanted to see an end to the culture of secrecy in our public service. We saw a freedom of information Act as an important part of that process.
I am sure that the Minister and the House will agree that it is only a step along the way because we need to change a whole culture and attitude of mind in Whitehall and in our public services that not only should the man in Whitehall know best but he should also know most.

669
Concerns were expressed on all sides of the House that Dr. David Clark, to whom the Minister paid tribute, lasted a very short time in office, although he did a great deal of work on the draft Bill while there. The business of looking after freedom of information was moved from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office. In a debate a few weeks ago, I. perhaps rather unkindly, suggested that that was like putting Dracula in control of a blood bank. But the Minister was extremely hurt by that suggestion and said that the Home Office was a safe guardian of freedom of information.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned, there has been the usual plethora of spin and counter-spin which is one of the most irritating aspects of this Government's attitude to Parliament and to serious business. I hope that if we are to proceed on a genuinely all-party basis on this important legislation, the spin doctors can be kept under control.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, it is an extremely weighty document to absorb in a short time. Therefore, I make just a few headline points. Obviously we understand why security and intelligence services and the National Criminal Intelligence Service must be protected. But they must not become a refuge for government departments protecting their secrecy. As I said, we must break down that culture of secrecy.
The Minister may wish to expand further as to why the "substantial harm" test has been watered down. As he will have noted from all the leaks, that is seen as the Home Secretary's great triumph. He will be aware that those campaigning for a freedom of information Act are very suspicious about that.
Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, hinted, advice to Ministers will be withheld, but will factual and statistical information also be withheld? We have concerns about the promise that many of the powers will be contained in secondary legislation. We do not want to open the door only to find that through secondary legislation, it is readily and easily closed again.
The Minister mentioned the Data Protection Act. It is probably a good idea to bring together the two commissioners, but there will obviously be strains and tensions between the rights given under a freedom of information Act and the powers and defences conferred by the Data Protection Act.
There are obviously other matters with which one could deal in detail. However, I wish to associate myself most strongly with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In no way has there been collusion between us. In fact, I was rather annoyed that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, ran off with my one original idea. It occurred to me that while it was stated clearly that the Public Administration Select Committee in another place would be given the opportunity to examine the draft legislation in detail, no similar provision is made for this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly said, that misses an opportunity to make use of the considerable expertise which lies in this House in that area. We have the procedure to set up ad hoc Select Committees. I hope that the "Cope/McNally proposals" can be properly considered through the usual channels. It is important, in the light of history, to put one's name to these matters early on.
670
The Bill, as with the old sixth-form essay, is a challenge and opportunity. As I have said, it is a challenge to break down the culture of secrecy in our public service. We welcome the draft Bill and the process. We believe that with such a process, in which pressure groups and political parties take par, we shall build a freedom of information Act which will stand the test of time. All the parties who work on it will, I presume, with the ambition of politicians, hope to work in Government under this Act. Therefore there is a need for both Government and Opposition to approach this opportunity constructively. If we do that. I believe we shall have a freedom of information Act of which we shall all be proud. I wish the process well.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord McNally. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that things had been leaked beforehand. There certainly has been speculation. Most of it seems to have been resoundingly wrong on almost every point. The noble Lord spoke about the freedom of government information. I should like to underline that this is a much more fundamental approach.
In the Statement, which I repeated, my right honourable friend Jack Straw spoke about matters which are of infinitely greater importance to the ordinary individual than we sometimes think. Many people want to know about local schools, local hospitals and delivery of services by local authorities. They are much more interested in and touched by those matters than the kind of headline investigation that we see in newspapers. So, this is not about government information but about information that affects the ordinary member of the public, day in and day out.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about Wales and Scotland. The Bill will not apply to any public authority wholly or mainly concerned with devolved matters in Scotland or transferred matters in Northern Ireland. The Parliament and the Assembly will determine the regime to apply there. The National Assembly for Wales has no power to pass primary legislation. Therefore, the Act will apply in full to Wales and to the National Assembly.
The noble Lord also asked about the task force. That was set up recently by the Home Secretary who asked me to chair it. Its membership is quite wide and has been published but I shall give a few names, almost at random. It includes the General Secretary of the First Division Association; Mrs. Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Registrar; Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit; Dr. Dilys Jones, Clinical Strategy Director of the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board NHS Executive, and Mr. John Mills, Chief Executive of Cornwall County Council. As observers, it has Miss Santah Rasaiah of the Newspaper Society and Mr. Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for FOL So, I do not believe we have been wholly exclusive in the membership. The Home Secretary wanted us to get on with matters and issue a report by the end of this year. I refer not simply to dealing with the nuts and bolts of legislation,

671
which is for others to do, but to dealing with what he rightly identified, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as a complete change in the culture of operation. Everybody in this country knows that the English vice has always been excessive secrecy for no useful purpose. That is what we want to get away from. It will take a very long time indeed.
A question was asked about costs. They will be of the order I stated. They are greater than those mentioned in the White Paper because we expect many more people to want to use their rights. We firmly believe that managing any organisation properly—whether governmental, a health trust, a local authority education department, or any organisation of that kind—can be done only on the basis of openness. Quite apart from the fact that we speak of public rights, in my view and that of the Government, they are useful management tools. If one knows that one's decisions will be challenged, one tends to make better decisions in the first place.
Of course, we have to think carefully about confidentiality in defence contracts and prison service contracts. Perhaps I may give an example. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wanted to see the contract on Campsfield House, the detention centre. The original response was that that was subject to commercial confidentiality. It was not; it was published simply with the prices taken out. The fundamental point of the question raised by the noble Earl was, "What sort of regime does the state require for those in a detention centre in the immigration context who have not been convicted?" It seems to me that he was perfectly entitled to see the contract. I provided a copy for him and placed one in the Library of the House. Therefore, one can draw such distinctions, as long as one draws them scrupulously on the basis that there is a presumption of openness.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, spoke of the fact that having a draft Bill was helpful. It was intended to be such. I repeat what I have said on earlier occasions, and, I believe, to the noble Lord. If, after Second Reading, noble Lords want to come and see me, with or without advisers, with or without officials, we are more than happy for that to be a continuing process.
Both noble Lords spoke about a question for the usual channels. It is probably best if I leave it for them. I have no desire to resist anything being discussed by any Committee in your Lordships' House if by such means we get a better Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said that this is a step along the way. I believe that is fundamentally true. He also said that this is part of a constitutional settlement. I agree with him on that point. I repeat what has almost become a hobby-horse of mine. When we speak of devolution we do not speak of devolution to a parliament or an assembly; the information and the parliamentary rights are to go to the individual. It is devolution—devolved power by way of information to the individual—of which we are speaking in this context.
672
Importantly, when the Bill is able to be studied in greater depth, the information commissioner has to make an annual report. That is another extremely important discipline.
I am not sure about Dracula, a much-maligned person. Perhaps it is time for the revisionist historians to conclude that Dracula, just like the Home Office, was perfect in every way.
I certainly agree that we ought not to seek for refuge by simply saying, "This is national security and is within the remit of the intelligence agencies." I am bound to say, from my own experience of talking generally to one director of the intelligence services, that I was agreeably surprised to see the way in which they deal with their public duties, as well as their duties to maintain security in the service of the realm.
The noble Lord asked me, quite reasonably, why we have changed from "substantial harm" or "simple harm" to "prejudice". We believe that prejudice will be a much better concept. It will be focused on the particular rather than the general. I remind noble Lords that success in securing and continuing an exemption from disclosure depends on the probability demonstration of prejudice, not the possibility demonstration of substantial harm. That is a critical difference. Perhaps I may recapitulate. To rely on the "prejudice" ground of exemption—I use the words in the Bill—would, or would be likely to, cause prejudice. That is important. It is a higher hurdle than "possibility".
Statistical and factual information is already readily available. In the Home Office, for instance, contrary to what I am led to believe was earlier practice, the statistical department issues the statistics, whether they are convenient, comfortable or uncomfortable for the Home Office. To give an example, once the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons have been checked for factual accuracy, I can warrant that I sign them off immediately whether or not they are happy reading for us.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned two matters of importance. First, I welcome his approach, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in stating that they want to work constructively with all Members of this House to achieve the best possible Bill. Secondly, he raised the question of whether it is appropriate for the information commissioner to be the same person as the data protection commissioner. We thought about that for quite a long time. We paid attention to the recommendations of the Select Committee in another place. We came to the conclusion that the argument was correct to look for a single point of access. There are strange intentions, as the noble Lord identified. It is fair to say that Mrs. France received the admiration of everyone for her independence. We want someone of experience and independence in this field. The probability is therefore that we will have a single commissioner, if the Bill goes through unchanged.
There is also another point. Quite a few of our fellow citizens are afraid of government; they are unaware of their rights and become confused by officialdom. We believe it is helpful to the individual to have a single point of access with a modest charge. Some people want

673
data protection information about themselves, but also want other material pertinent to themselves which is not covered by the data protection regime but which ought to be disclosable by freedom of information regimes. It is much better for someone in those circumstances to go to a single point and be assisted—I underline that word—by a single institution; namely, the joint information commissioner.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend, not only on the Statement that he repeated, but also on his clear personal commitment to the issues underlying this draft Bill.
I wish to ask specifically about environmental information. As I understand the provisions in the draft paper, modification to comply with European Community Directive 1990 in the Aarhus Convention on access to information and other allied issues will be required. Is my noble friend able to specify a little more clearly the reasons for making that assertion? I am sure it is required, but it is without any specific further and better particulars.
I thank the Home Office also for the comparison with other regimes that is set out in the document. That is most helpful. Finally, perhaps I may express some amazement at the extraordinary eagerness of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to be allied with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is a most agreeable man, for whom I had a great deal of affection in the other place as well as here, but it is extraordinary that the noble Lord's request to achieve fame should be based on that alliance. I suggest he seeks other allies.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is sick and tired of being told by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that he is not surprised that he has jumped into bed with the Labour Party and thought he would trump the observation. I have every sympathy.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has much greater experience than I of the environmental information area in the European as well as the domestic context. He is quite right. The environmental information regulations implement in our law the provisions of an EC directive on access to information. The Aarhus Convention is a further development in this area. It was signed in June 1998. We are trying to match to and marry our obligations in those contexts to make sure that we are not falling behind in the delivery of material to our citizens through our domestic FoI regime.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for saying that there are comparisons to be drawn between our regimes in prospect and those abroad. If one studies it with care, one realises that we have not made a bad fist of it; for instance, we are providing an information commissioner. That commissioner will be able to assist the citizen, without recourse to litigation—and that is not a feature one finds in all other jurisdictions. We have therefore made an important step forward.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I should like to raise a small but important point; that is, the cost limit for
674
providing information. Under Clause 12 of the Bill, there is no duty to disclose information if the cost of providing that information is above a ceiling to be fixed by regulations. The discussion papers suggest that the Government are thinking of a ceiling of £500. One cannot obtain an enormous amount of information for £500.
I can understand why the Government feel it necessary to impose some sort of ceiling on the information available for a £10 application fee. Again, I recognise also that under Clause 14 an authority which is not required by virtue of Clause 12 to provide information must, notwithstanding, consider whether or not to exercise its discretion to do so. But if the applicant is willing to pay the full cost of providing that information, should not the authority be required to produce it?
I have in mind in particular the position of the press. It is likely that the principal effect of the freedom of information Act will be that information will get to people not directly, but through the press as an intermediary. Unless the information is extremely expensive, the press will be in a position to pay the full cost of obtaining it. Should not there be an automatic right, therefore, for applicants to obtain whatever information they seek within the limits of the Act, if they are willing to pay for it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is an extremely telling, well made point and one that I discussed with representatives of the newspaper publishers. We took the two figures—first, the £500—as representing the amount at which it becomes unreasonable to answer a parliamentary Question. We then set the prospective fee quite low because we do not want to discourage people. The prospective fee is not intended as a revenue-gathering exercise; it could not be. It is to exclude the completely vexatious, of which we are all well familiar, which is normally written in green ink, heavily underlined in red and with more exclamation marks than one could shake a stick at! That is covered by Clause 12.
We should take forward this question. If the press have a legitimate request to make that is not vexatious or frivolous (that is covered in Clause 12) and it would cost £5,000, should not they be able to say to the authorities in question, "We are willing, as part of our public service function, our public information function and Article 10 duties as well as privileges, to pay the full amount?" I should welcome that in principle although I cannot make any further commitment because it may well be the outcome.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the right to know extend to the result of inquiries into the deplorable leaks that there have been in breach of confidence from public bodies in circumstances other than the intelligence agencies being involved? Or will they continue to be masked, in the words of the noble

675
Lord, Lord McNally, in the "culture of secrecy" so that the public are merely told, "We have not been able to find the culprit"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no global answer to that pertinent question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Self-evidently, if there is a leak in a department—for instance, the Ministry of Defence—it might be impossible to publish the full report because one would thereby be jeopardising a legitimate interest. It is quite different in other cases.
One comes back to this: we must stress the importance of the presumption of disclosure in favour of openness. It must then be demonstrated, except in the excluded cases, that there is something by way of prejudice which must be of substance which would, or would be likely to, inure. The noble and learned Lord cannot expect me to say that all reports of investigations into leaked inquiries will be published in full. In some cases they could do serious harm. They may bring about a prejudice which was of substance to an interest which ought to be safeguarded.
But I take the noble and learned Lord's point. I am in favour of openness because it is a useful discipline to concentrate the mind before one comes to conclusions; and if conclusions have been badly reached or sometimes properly reached, at the end of the day it is public information; in other words, it is public property.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at its best freedom of information goes far beyond simple access? It is about empowering citizens. For example, the more patients know about the diagnosis of their illness, its treatment and prognosis, the more they can be involved in their own care and thus help their recovery. That information is also of great value to the families and carers of such patients. Can the Minister give an assurance that the need for families to have such information will be addressed in the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a very delicate area. I tried to indicate earlier to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, why this matter is so important.
For many of the people described by my noble friend, this kind of information will matter to them more than anything, and they will never be interested in freedom of information on any other occasion in their lives. One then has to ask whether patients are entitled to patient/doctor confidentiality, and the answer is plainly that they are. I would not be able to say that families and carers would be entitled to information as of right, information which perhaps the patient did not want to be disclosed. That is a legitimate balance to be drawn. If I were ill, I might want to know the situation, but I might not want my relatives to know because it might be burdensome or harmful, or it might be none of their business.
These matters have to be worked through. The Bill is concerned with the empowerment of citizens and that is why it is very important that the thousands of public
676
authorities should have systems in place that will be vetted by the information commissioner. This will entitle people to know what is presently kept from them without any sensible basis.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
My wife, who was brought up as a civil servant and is very much opposed to freedom of information, quite naturally, also welcomes the Bill because a great deal has been done since the White Paper to weaken the effects of the Government's intent and to make it possible for the Government to avoid disclosing information that it finds inconvenient. The wording of the Bill in relation to departmental information exempts information from disclosure where it would be likely to inhibit free and frank provision of advice or prejudice effective conduct of public affairs. That is a very Sir Humphrey way of saying, "anything I say shall not be disclosed—shall not be disclosed".
I cannot see any presumption of openness in the Bill that applies to that, or balance of public interest, or the words "on balance". Had those words been applied to the information which MAFF had on BSE, which is the case that I know most intimately, it would have resulted in greater disclosure and in avoidance of the harm which occurred. I hope the Minister can give me some comfort in relation to that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that I can because one needs to look at Clause 8 which states quite boldly:
"Any person is entitled on making to a public authority a request for information—

(a) to be informed by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request and,

(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him."

I do not think it could be put any plainer than that. Furthermore, I share the noble Lord's caution about what he calls the Sir Humphrey phrase. Time being as it is, he had a closer acquaintance with them for a longer period of time than I have had, so perhaps he is an old lag. However, it is further stated that even where a public authority is entitled to say there is an exemption, it nevertheless has the statutory duty to consider whether it ought to exercise its discretion to give the material out in any event.
That links, in two ways, to the very important position of the information commissioner. He or she can substitute his or her own view as to the propriety of the exemption, in other words decide whether it is made out. The important question is this: if the authority in question fails to exercise discretion, the information commissioner can come to the conclusion that it was not done on any rational ground.
It is critical that there is an information commissioner to assist; there are then the statutory powers and a further right of appeal to the tribunal. Thereafter, quite properly, there is a right of appeal on legal grounds only to the court.

677
There is the bold statement in Clause 8, subject to exemptions. and there is further protection: if they have upheld the exemption they are nevertheless obliged to exercise their discretion about release of the information.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, I remain a little concerned. The noble Lord is well aware of my fields of interest, particularly the activities of the Scientific Advisory Committee.
The deliberations of that committee will be excluded on the basis of economic interests because they are provided in confidence because of commercial interests and because of Section 118 of the Medicines Act. Can the Minister give some assurance that where deliberations are important to people who have, for example, been exposed to pesticides and are ill as a result, the information will be disclosed as it is in the United States of America, from where I obtained most of my information?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this will have to be developed on a case-by-case basis. Not every assertion of confidentiality will be sufficient. What I was saying earlier was that if there were a breach of confidentiality which was actionable, that would be a reason for not disclosing. Not all commercial interests, if they are simply barely asserted, are sustainable, but if we want scientific committees of inquiry to do a thorough job of work, it is idle to think that those with legitimate commercial interests or those with legitimate requirements for commercial confidentiality will volunteer the information unless they are obliged to do so at the point of a statutory gun.
The noble Countess has asked some extremely important questions, and they are the kind of questions that we would expect to be asked during the two-month consultation period. It is not so long that it will be kicked into the long grass; it is short enough to be focused. I hope that we will return to such points of detail when we scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Government are to be commended for making it quite clear that there will be an extensive consultative process not only in public but also in Parliament. It is very difficult to go through the Bill in any detail, but can the noble Lord give an assurance, in view of his emphasis on the information that can now be demanded from the public bodies listed at Schedule 1, that the emphasis will not be confined to the National Health Service, the police services and the local authorities, but that they will also comprise the public departments mentioned in part of Schedule 1?
I ask the noble Lord for an assurance that, although these other matters will be considered, and properly so, equal attention will be given to the provisions of Section 26 which deals with law enforcement and Section 24 which deals with the exemption of certain economic information:
"Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a) the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom."

678
That is a very broad exemption, and we would appreciate reassurance that it will not unduly restrict those whose business it is from finding out as much information as possible as to how the economy is working.
Section 29 deals with the way in which Government departments arrive at decisions. Can the noble Lord assure us that these matters will also receive the Government's attention because the origins of the demands for a Freedom of Information Act centred on the secrecy in Government departments? Will these matters also receive very considerable attention in the course of consultations and presentation of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that that will be so. If we want to maintain secrecy, confidentiality and privacy—whatever term one uses about the workings of government—my belief is that we ought to be able to demonstrate that it is legitimate to do so. I take the point about economic interests very much to heart. That is something that we have particularly in mind regarding whether or not we need to define or refine what we mean by "economic interests", and do not simply hide behind a general concept.
I do not know what the outcome of the consultation will be. It is a good document, which has been put out allowing a reasonable time for consideration. However, I stress that Parliament remains paramount. We want the outcome of the consultation to be of assistance to our deliberations and those in another place. Nothing in the consultation responses will dictate anything to your Lordships or, indeed, to the other place. Nevertheless, if I may say so, my noble friend's point about economic interests is a particularly pertinent one.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
5.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved manuscript Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) No order may be made under subsection (5) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that all witnesses giving evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry will be guaranteed anonymity.")
The noble Lord said: As I was abroad last week and, therefore, unaware of the accelerated progress of the Bill, I was unable to table this amendment until this morning. So it is a manuscript amendment. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall read through the wording of my amendment, which reads:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) No order may be made under subsection (5) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that all witnesses giving evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry will be guaranteed anonymity")".
My amendment is about justice. It is about justice in Northern Ireland. I know that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway objects to it, not because he is against justice but because this is a somewhat untidy

679
way, to a lawyer's mind, of legislating to achieve justice. However, if untidiness is the price that we have to pay for justice, it is a price that I, at least, am willing to pay.
The Bill before us now is about "The Disappeared" and about sheltering from justice those responsible for the disappearances, provided that they reveal the locations of the bodies of those whom they murdered. I should say in passing that I hope that General Pinochet is not receiving copies of the Hansard reports of our debates. Surely to contemplate the differing standards of treatment given to the friends of this country and the enemies of this country would be a cruel and unnatural punishment.
The renewed inquiry into the events of so-called "Bloody Sunday", some 30 years ago, can be described either as a sop to the IRA, or as something akin to the recovery of the remains of "The Disappeared"—an effort to discover the truth about what happened on that day and to understand how the deaths were caused—in order to give satisfaction to the bereaved of that day.
Let us accept that second explanation, for it brings this most closely into a parallel with the Bill. Then let us contrast the protection given to deliberate, sadistic murderers—that is, the IRA—and to soldiers who were trying to do their duty in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. Almost all of those soldiers—indeed, perhaps all of them—are now retired from the Army. Many are married with families. A good number married Northern Ireland girls from either side of the religious divide. Those wives have borne children. As I said, they have families. Some of their families are living in areas which are still effectively controlled by the IRA; that is to say, areas where punishment beatings and other sanctions against those who offend the IRA are still being carried out.
I hesitate to prejudice the safety of those wives and families by even referring in too great a detail to the links which some of them have with Republican families. But I know of at least one case regarding a former soldier. He is expecting to be called to give evidence and he has every reason to fear for the safety of his family, should his identity become known.
What are we to do about such people? Unless those men are granted anonymity, the IRA will be given, by courtesy of the Government, a hit-list of victims. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the IRA is still fully armed; indeed, not a gun, a bullet, or an ounce of semtex has been given up. It is still fully operational and, as Ministers know, it is still engaged in reconnaissance and preparation for the resumption of hostilities should it not gain its way. It is still in control of what it calls its "areas" and its "people".
Today, the legal status of the military action, which is being taken in Serbia, is still somewhat unclear to me. The airmen who are carrying out the policies of the Government, and who inadvertently kill innocent civilians in Serbia and in Kosovo, are given anonymity. Whoever programmed in error the missiles with the address of the Chinese Embassy is protected. Those concerned killed innocent civilians, but their names are
680
not to be known. Whether it is because there is a fear that reprisals might be taken against them or whether that decision has been taken merely on the principle that their names should not be given, I do not know. Why are the Paras to be treated differently from the IRA or our soldiers and our airmen who are carrying out the Government's instructions today? What message will this inquiry give to those soldiers and airmen who are today fighting on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and who may be fighting in far more dangerous circumstances at some time in the future? Will their anonymity be taken aside when it suits the Government?
My amendment would not in any way affect this Bill, unless the Government choose it so to do. Indeed, there would be no change to its provisions. There is nothing in it about the location of bodies nor about the protection against justice for the terrorists. It is very simple: it merely requires that Her Majesty's Government treat our soldiers with at least part of the courtesy and the respect which they give to the IRA. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I asked my noble friend Lord Tebbit whether he would allow me to group my Amendment No. 13 with his manuscript amendment. I am glad to see that he nods his head and confirms that that is so. I hope therefore that the Committee will allow me to speak not only to his amendment but also to my Amendment No. 13. I hope that the Committee will approve of that because, quite apart from anything else, it should save a little time.
During the course of some of the remarks that I ventured to make on Amendment No. 1, which stands in my name, I detected a feeling—this was expressed most strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—that I had been gratuitously offensive to the Government. I hope that I made it clear that the last thing in the world that I wanted was to make any personal remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the reasons I explained. My charge against the Government is not that they are nasty, but that they are too nice. They are too nice to deal with gangsters, whether they be in the Balkans or in Northern Ireland. After all, I venture to suggest with the greatest of respect to the Minister, that prolonged exposure to the niceties of parliamentary procedure and the way we conduct our politics here is not a good preparation for dealing with cut-throats. If I may say so, that is greatly to the credit of the Government.
As I rise to support my noble friend's amendment, I feel most strongly, for the reasons he explained, that what is sauce for the IRA goose should certainly be sauce for the parachutists' gander. I shall not repeat my noble friend's remarks in which he made a connection between the two cases, as I believe that that connection was perfectly clear.
My amendment is not as specific as that of my noble friend. Had I not had the opportunity to group my amendment with that of my noble friend, I would have said that Amendment No. 13, which gives the power to anyone who applies to the commission to force the commission to disclose the name of any person providing relevant information to the commission, was

681
directed at exactly the same spot as my noble friend's Amendment No. 3A. If the Minister had been so kind as to give the same amount of protection to the former British soldiers who will be forced publicly to give evidence under their own names to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, I would have withdrawn my Amendment No. 13.
I hope therefore that the Minister will recognise—as my noble friend said—that the Government, like all of us, pay tribute to the extraordinary gallantry and courage of the people we in this Parliament send to do difficult and dangerous jobs on our behalf. No one is more forward in paying that tribute than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. However, I have to say that those words are often belied—I am afraid I do not except Conservative governments from this accusation, any more than I do Labour ones—by the substance of what governments commit. Under the circumstances which my noble friend has described, it is inevitable that those who served in Northern Ireland for 30 years of the Troubles, those who are still serving, and indeed those who are about to serve, will wonder whether the words which governments of both persuasions have poured on to our Armed Forces in tribute are words that are meant when it comes to the point and when political expediency dictates the opposite.
If my noble friend's amendment fails, we should be aware that whatever the rights and wrongs of Bloody Sunday, it is perfectly possible that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, will find that the Parachute Regiment is innocent—I know that that is not a fashionable point of view, but it is perfectly possible that it could be innocent—in which case innocent people would be exposed (particularly those who live in the Province) to the kind of dangers that my noble friend enumerated. If it is found guilty, the sin would be just as great because it is not for us to rely on the IRA to exact its own particular kind of retribution. We must hope that any punishment that is meted out—or is thought right to be meted out—should be according to the law of this land rather than the law of the gun and the armalite.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will realise that they are not playing in the play-pen of Westminster where a standard gavotte is danced—and thank goodness it is. We are dealing here with the world of gangsters, just as we are in the Balkans. For those who want to defend the liberties which this Parliament has historically defended, that requires the kind of tough-minded approach which I fear governments of both persuasions have failed to show. It is by being nice rather than by being nasty that we deliver ourselves into the hands of the terrorists.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I agree with the purpose of the manuscript amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, which seeks to give anonymity to those who appear before a judicial inquiry. However, my concern is that governments have not yet intervened in Northern Ireland in the procedures followed by a judicial inquiry. I suspect that my noble friend will say that there is a great difference between the commission, where the rules can be laid down by Parliament, and
682
telling a judge how to run his inquiry. Therefore, as much as I want to see anonymity granted to the Parachute Regiment and to any other soldier, I believe that my noble friend may have to recommend that the manuscript amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord accept that law made by Parliament provides anonymity to victims of, for instance, rape? There is nothing unusual in what is proposed.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I was coming to ways in which we could circumvent the provision. I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I should know that in the House of Lords there are others who are knowledgeable about this subject. I shall proceed. The purpose of the manuscript amendment is to provide a means whereby the soldiers of the Parachute Regiment can gain anonymity. I hope that my noble friend will describe to the Committee means by which anonymity can be provided for the soldiers of the Parachute Regiment in the inquiry into Bloody Sunday. So much flowed from Bloody Sunday; the parliament of Northern Ireland was ended by a Conservative government as a result of what happened in that and other incidents.
I ask my noble friend what he can offer us in this regard. What can he tell us can be done? Could rules which provide anonymity be laid down for the judicial inquiry? Even Amendment No. 13 provides that anyone can appeal to the commission to ask for informants' names to be disclosed. I would not walk around Northern Ireland for long if I had asked for such disclosure. We place those people in great danger also. That is the nature of Northern Ireland; it is a place apart, which is not to be confused with this part of the United Kingdom in this respect. Some 3,000 people have been killed over a period of 25 years. Governments of all persuasions have failed in one sense to overcome the problems in Northern Ireland. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will suggest means by which that can be done because such is the purpose of the amendment. People such as myself support it emotionally, even though we may not be able to support it in practical terms.
Some of us have emotions about this matter. My father was a private soldier in Dublin an 1916. When I was studying Irish affairs in school, my father said to me, "I realise what a mess the British Government made of it in 1916, by executing the mutineers''—or whatever is the correct word. Thirty or 40 years later on an airfield in Naples, when shelling or anti-aircraft fire was causing problems, and I considered that I had not joined the Royal Air Force to be in that sort of position, the Catholic padre said to me, "The Irish problem wouldn't have existed if it had not been for 1916". I said to the padre, "The last thing I'm worried about at the moment is what happened in Dublin in 1916".
Governments of all persuasions can make mistakes. I have always worked on that assumption. Holiness about Irish affairs ill becomes any politician on this side of the water. However, I believe that the principle, if not the precise amendment, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, should have the support of the Committee.

683
I ask my noble friend the Minister to be positive and to say what can be done to protect persons giving evidence before the inquiry.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: What has been said thus far should convince all of us that when governments of any complexion institute inquiries, they ought to get right before they begin the ground rules of what might be called the "standing orders" for the protection of all concerned. I know that philosophy would not appeal to my noble and learned friends but, as a layman, that seems prudent and a necessity to me.
The main thrust of the Bill is to avoid publication of the identities of some who are murderers and who are known to be murderers, with the object of protecting terrorists from the due process of law. The purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, which I am happy to support, is to preserve confidentiality with regard to the names and addresses of all witnesses giving evidence to an inquiry, thereby protecting such witnesses from assassination by terrorists. There is not a shadow of doubt that that would be the outcome unless we can avoid the trap into which the inquiry has got itself.
The noble Lord the Minister will probably maintain, rightly, that the present rules may not empower Her Majesty's Government to implement the amendment. In the past, governments have employed what one might call "fast-track" procedures. Shortly after I was honoured to enter your Lordships' House, it spent a great deal of time discussing and eventually approving the European Convention on Human Rights, which has a provision to remedy a defect within 48 hours. I respectfully suggest—as did the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—that we would all support the Minister if he could give an undertaking that there is the possibility of providing, by some legal method, protection for those who will unfortunately be in the front line, whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, about the likely consequences for witnesses who have given evidence without the benefit of anonymity in some circumstances. I endorse also the comments of my noble friend Lord Tebbit about the inevitable perception that will flow because of the contrast between the protection offered under the Bill and that withheld in the case of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. I add a small gloss: not only is anonymity to be withheld but the evidence that has to be given without the benefit of anonymity will in all circumstances have to be given in the city of Londonderry. It does not need the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, or other of your Lordships to know the dangers to which that will give rise.
I have always greatly regretted that it was said by all sides when the inquiry was announced, by way of justification, that it is essential to get at the truth. Most of your Lordships realise that one cannot get at the truth after eight years, let alone 28 years. What one can get
684
at is whether or not evidence has been presented that could sustain a prosecution, given that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. A tribunal could say that the prosecution's case was made or that the evidence was not sufficient. We are told that the inquiry is to get the truth.
There will be a stark contrast between the carefully honed, beautifully dove-tailed statements in evidence which, if not instigated by the IRA, will at least have been rehearsed by the IRA. Those who are called to give evidence and who were in the Armed Forces—and that goes far beyond the Parachute Regiment—will have time and time again to say, "It is too long ago. I do not remember. Somebody who could vindicate what I say is dead or is not available". Day after day, the media will be drawing attention to that contrast. In the eyes of some of the media, it will be a question of whether or not British soldiers have proved themselves innocent—something impossible to do and which in our jurisdiction, fortunately, no one is called upon to do.
As the rationale of the immunity afforded under the Bill is that one cannot expect people to come forward and give information unless they are given anonymity, among other protections, similarly an enormously heavy burden rests upon the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who we all so greatly respect in seeking to argue against the case that has been made.
It was perfectly possible—it remains perfectly possible—to instruct the tribunal that evidence shall be given with the benefit of anonymity. That instruction should have been given before and it could be given now. If that takes a bit of time, I would still support the amendment. It can be overturned in another place or be got rid of in some other way, if the necessary procedures to secure the same result can be achieved through the workings of ministerial channels.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tebbit for moving the amendment with his usual clarity and vigour. His key point is that retired and serving members of Her Majesty's Forces and others will be exposed to unnecessary danger. That applies especially to persons who live in the Province in peace.
We need to make progress tonight, so I shall not weary the Committee with a detailed speech. I fear that the Minister will be unable to explain why, when giving information to inquiries and commissions, terrorists will enjoy anonymity while members of Her Majesty's Forces and others will not. The Minister will say that anonymity is essential if the commission is to obtain the information that it desires. Surely information is all that the Bloody Sunday inquiry requires as well. If my noble friend is minded to test the opinion of the Committee, I and my noble friends will support him.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment. Apart from the fact that evidence will be given, on the one hand, by soldiers and, on the other hand, by terrorists, there are other great differences between the two groups. The people who will come forward to give information about the bodies will be either murderers or associates of murderers who were involved in the killing of people and the disappearance of their bodies. They

685
are, if you like. very much on the ball in that particular game. The soldiers should obviously have anonymity. Any inquiry will want to interview soldiers who were widely dispersed from the events of Bloody Sunday—they may have been drivers who delivered soldiers to the scene two hours before the event or they may have been taking food to soldiers throughout the day—and an incredible number of people will be interviewed who were simply not associated with the action on the ground, every single one of whom will be exposed. We must have an amendment such as this if we are to expect our soldiers to carry out their duties again.
The inquiry will be based on whether at the time a soldier reacted in circumstances in which he believed people's lives were under threat. It may be discovered that one or two soldiers over-reacted, but we cannot expose every soldier who took part in Bloody Sunday and who is alive today. We must give anonymity. I support the amendment.
Lord Vivian: I strongly support the two amendments. I think the Committee is aware that I am deeply disturbed by the Bill. I patrolled the streets of Belfast in I973 and 1974. If I had had to explain the provisions of the Bill to my soldiers, I would have found it very difficult. The Bill can only damage the morale of our servicemen, especially in relation to the inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. By disclosing the name of any person providing relevant information to the commission, there is some likelihood of building up a case against murderers. However, I must stress, as have some of your Lordships, that to allow anonymity to the IRA or to those providing relevant information and to reject it for those members of the Armed Forces who were carrying out their duties and who may be witnesses in the Bloody Sunday inquiry, is nothing but scandalous.
It is especially so in this shameful inquiry when the security services have already stated that any witness who is named will face a significant terrorist threat. If the Government are to allow anonymity for the IRA, only one conclusion can be drawn: that the Government are prepared to protect the IRA and yet sacrifice the lives of our servicemen. If the amendments are put to the vote, I shall support them.
Lord Redesdale: I am grateful for the fact that the two amendments are grouped together. I had slight difficulties with Amendment No. 13 which, without the clarification, I believed was a wrecking amendment which went to the heart of the Bill.
We on these Benches have considerable support for the idea of anonymity for those giving evidence to the inquiry. However, the problem with the amendments is that they deal with an entirely different situation from that set out in the Bill and perhaps should be brought forward in a different format. Therefore, we cannot support the amendments.
Lord Elton: The issue seems simple. The Bill as drafted offers almost certain security from prosecution
686
for known terrorists and something approaching the certainty of a death sentence for people who were trying to protect Her Majesty's subjects.
Lord Glentoran: I have to declare an interest as a former Para. I spoke strongly against the setting up of the new inquiry into Bloody Sunday. At the time I warned the Government that it would cause them nothing but trouble. I ask the Government to think about what will happen if we do not achieve anonymity for those giving evidence and one or two or more are murdered by the IRA. What about their families? I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit as a mechanism for gaining anonymity for those expected to give evidence to the inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendment No. 3A. The inquiry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is totally independent of the Government. I have a difficulty in that I cannot comment on its proceedings or its decisions. If the Government were to dictate how the inquiry should be conducted, we could no longer maintain that the inquiry was totally independent.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. If Amendment No. 3A is passed and becomes part of the Bill, and assuming that the Bill is passed into law, would not the judge conducting the inquiry have to follow the dictates of the law as passed by Parliament and therefore grant anonymity?
Lord Dubs: The answer is probably not; he would not. It is an independent inquiry. Another outcome of passing Amendment No. 3A would be this: the amendment would not place a duty on the Saville Inquiry, but would prevent the commencement of the commission's task; the commission to be set up under the Bill would be unable to start its work. That may be the intention of some of your Lordships but, taking the speeches at face value, which I always do, it seems to me that the more likely outcome would be that the commission would not proceed.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to another point. I understand that last Friday some paratroopers requested a judicial review of the decision of the Saville Tribunal. That is still pending. I tried to find out a few minutes ago whether the court had reached a decision; I understand that it has not. That is a further difficulty. I am not saying that we are barred from discussing the matter, but there is a difficulty in that the Paras have adopted a course of action that they would normally be advised to adopt in the circumstances in which they find themselves. The Government will let that particular process take its course. We cannot tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, how to conduct his inquiry, but I am sure that he will quickly be made aware of the arguments used in the Committee today.
I am afraid that I cannot help. I wish that I could be more helpful to my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees who asked for guidance on the matter. I am afraid I cannot

687
be helpful. I have stated the Government's position. My answers are determined by the independence of the inquiry and the legal action initiated by the Paras.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 13, which would reverse the intended outcome if it were taken at its face value. The Committee will be aware why this amendment is also unacceptable to the Government. It would negate the purpose of the Bill. Those with direct information about the locations of victims' remains will not come forward if there is a possibility that their identity will be disclosed. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is aware of the argument because he took part in the Second Reading debate when the argument was deployed.
I see no reason why those with indirect information—perhaps an intermediary, which is conceivable—should have their names publicly known unless they are happy for that to be the case. The Committee will be aware that the Attorney-General has already given an undertaking—
Viscount Cranborne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am delighted to hear that he sees no reason why conveyers of information should want their names to be known. How would he feel if he were a former Para? Would he not feel exactly the same way?
Lord Dubs: I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment. It is an independent inquiry. I am quite sure that the Paras and their legal representatives can speak for themselves. The whole point of an independent inquiry—I am sorry to labour the point—is that the Government do not seek to influence the procedures or the outcome of the inquiry. That is the position the Government adopt and that is the position that I am endeavouring to explain to the Committee. I am sure that the Committee understands it and accepts it.
Lord Tebbit: I may be wrong in this matter but I believe that the original Widgery Inquiry into these events was an independent inquiry and had a requirement to give anonymity to those who gave evidence. Did that suddenly make it not independent?
Lord Dubs: No. I bow to the noble Lord's memory of the details of the Widgery Inquiry. But that was an independent inquiry. It came to one conclusion as to the basis on which evidence would be given to it and the Saville Inquiry has come to a different conclusion as to the nature of the procedures under which Paras or their representatives give evidence. It is as simple as that. They are both independent and they are acting slightly differently from each other.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Is he saying that one government can give terms of reference to an inquiry which they establish and another government can give a different set of terms of reference and guidelines to an inquiry? Can there be a contradiction or is there—I hope
688
that noble Lords who are learned in the law will forgive me for my ignorance—a standard set of terms of reference for all inquiries?
Lord Dubs: As far as I am aware, there is not a standard set of terms of reference. Each inquiry that is set up by any government is treated on its merits in terms of the procedures under which it will operate. It so happens that the Saville Inquiry has decided to operate in a particular way.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am probably being naïve about this but perhaps I may ask a question. On the one hand, the Minister says that the Government cannot interfere with this inquiry because it must be independent. Is it not true that with regard to the criminal law and terrorist events the judiciary is independent? I am not quite sure what gives the Government the power to provide anonymity to terrorists within the terms of the Bill when they do not have the power to suggest that the commission should do this in secret. I do not understand.
Earl Attlee: I have to confess that I failed to declare an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. The Minister said that the amendment would stop the commission from being set up. That may be the case, but the Committee is right to explore the inconsistencies between the commission and the inquiry. Furthermore, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew explained to the Committee how the amendment could be disposed of if it were agreed to today.
Lord Dubs: I have almost lost the thread of the various comments that were made, so I apologise if I do not deal with them fully. Perhaps I may return to Widgery. As far as I have been informed, the Government did not indicate at the time that Widgery was to operate in a particular way. The method of operation of the Widgery Inquiry was determined by Widgery himself. It was as much out of the Government's powers to influence as it is out of the present Government's powers to influence the nature of the Saville Inquiry. I hope that that helps.
Would the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mind repeating the point he made so that I can do justice to it? I apologise for having lost the thread of his point.
Viscount Brookeborough: How can it be that the judiciary of this country is independent of the government of the day yet the Government are prepared to interfere by directing that no evidence that is obtained or might be obtained as regards the discovery of the bodies may be used in a criminal court to obtain a conviction? They have directed that. Yet when the commission is simply a commission of inquiry, the Government, although they have the power to give it guidelines along which it must work, appear not to be willing to direct that the people giving evidence may do so anonymously. Is it a fact that in law or constitutionally they may not do so?
Lord Dubs: At one level, the noble Viscount asks a deeply philosophical question. I am not sure that this is

689
the appropriate time for me even to endeavour to answer it even were I capable of doing that or qualified to do it, which I am not sure that I am. This Bill affects criminal procedures. It is not concerned with the independence of the judiciary. The Bill simply lays down certain elements to do with how criminal proceedings might arise or the basis of the evidence on which they might arise. Those are set down in statute. It is the rule of law in so far as if Parliament chooses to pass the Bill it determines how a particular commission will operate and how the courts would operate in relation to evidence that might come before them.
Lord Carrington: I have some knowledge of this subject as it so happens that I was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of Bloody Sunday. I remember very well the problems and horrors as a result of it. The noble Lord will have heard the feeling of the Committee on this subject. He is—I am sorry for him in a way—in a rather lonely situation. May I ask him this direct question? Do the Government believe that these soldiers should have anonymity? If they do not believe that, they should do nothing. If they believe that they should have anonymity, they should do something about it.
Lord Dubs: The Government do not have a view on that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dubs: The Government do not have a view on the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is conducting his inquiry. But, as I said earlier, some of the Paras themselves have initiated judicial review proceedings precisely on this issue. Even if the Government had a view, it would surely be proper for the Government to await the outcome of the judicial review proceedings before even commenting. But in any event it is not appropriate for the Government to comment in such instances. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I thank him for allowing me to intervene. I wish to make two points. First, is there any reason why, independent though the inquiry is, the Government should not say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, "This is the effect of the decision you have made at a time when it is particularly offensive that there should be this double standard"? Surely there is nothing to prevent the Government from putting that fact before him and leaving him to consider it. Secondly, it seems entirely wrong that the only thing that should have been done should have been done by the Paras. Something should have been done by the Government, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said.
Lord Dubs: The noble Baroness puts me in yet another difficulty. All I would say is that, given the strength of feeling expressed in this debate, it is inconceivable that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, would not be made aware of what had been said and that he himself would not consider the arguments
690
that have been put forward. That surely is the proper way forward—for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, to take into account what has been said in the House in a debate of this kind. I do not think it is useful for me to add much to that.
Lord Marlesford: I wish to ask the Minister a very simple question. Does he agree that the decision to set up the inquiry into Bloody Sunday was a political decision? It was not a judicial decision to set it up. At the time that political decision was made, did the Government not take account of the issue of anonymity? The noble Lord says that the Government now have no view on anonymity. It is inconceivable to me that that was not one of the issues that was considered in deciding whether or not to have such an inquiry at all.
Lord Dubs: The question was asked: Why did the Government set up this inquiry? The Government felt that it was proper to do so and that it was proper that the inquiry should be independent. The inquiry is under way and I really do not think that it would be helpful for me to get into the realm of speculation. I am not aware of all the detailed discussions that may or may not have taken place within government at the time the inquiry was set up. I do not know in how much detail that was considered, or whether it was simply felt, "Let Lord Saville himself decide how best to conduct the proceedings"—
Lord Swinfen: In an answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, a few minutes ago, the noble Lord the Minister said that once this Bill is passed, any evidence gathered when the remains were found could not be used because the provisions would be in statute. Earlier in this debate I asked the noble Lord whether, should this amendment be passed into the Bill and should the Bill become law, that would not become binding on the judge carrying out the inquiry. The noble Lord the Minister said "no". Why is statute predominant in one case and why does statute not dominate in the situation that I suggested? Surely they are both the law of the land and therefore the judge undertaking the inquiry would have to do what the law of the land said at the time.
Lord Dubs: I would ask the noble Lord to read the wording of the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read it out, because I think it gives the answer. The amendment says:
"("( )No order may be made under subsection (5) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that all witnesses giving evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry will be guaranteed anonymity".)
The onus is on the Secretary of State to be satisfied before taking further action; the onus is not on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, to behave in any particular way, if this amendment were to be passed.
I think that is very clear. It is surely the intention that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had in mind when he put down his amendment. It was never intended to insist that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, should

691
behave in a certain way even if we had the power to do so. It was intended to put a constraint on the way the Secretary of State acted.
Viscount Brookeborough: May I ask one last question? Am I right in saying that the commission may possibly reveal a criminal act on the date of Bloody Sunday? If it does, would not that become a judicial issue? Under the circumstances, does not the Minister agree that there should be anonymity, in exactly the same way as there is to be for the Provisional IRA with regard to the bodies? However, it will then be too late: they will already have lost their anonymity in the inquiry.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I can make any new point in answer to the noble Viscount's question. Let me restate what I said earlier: the amendment does not place any duty on the inquiry to grant immunity. It is as straightforward as that. It places a duty on the Secretary of State in relation to what she has the power to do, but it does not impose any duty on the inquiry. Perhaps I may say, to be as helpful as possible, that the inquiry was set up because there appeared to be new evidence about the events of 30th January 1972. The Government decided to set up the inquiry. They also decided that the best way to investigate the matter would be by way of an independent judicial inquiry. That is what is happening.
To conclude my remarks, which deal with the substance of Amendment No. 13, one needs to ask what effect the amendment would have on the Bill before us. The amendment has a very wide scope and it would allow anyone to ask the commission for the names of the persons from whom it has received relevant information. A commission would be required to disclose that information, regardless of whether the person seeking it has a legitimate interest. Further, I would say to the noble Viscount that one needs to know to what legitimate use the information would be put. The information given to the commission will not itself be admissible in criminal proceedings. I believe that the arguments to justify both amendments contain serious weaknesses and that the implications of our passing them are serious. I believe that the amendments ought not to be accepted and I invite the Committee to reject both amendments.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I believe that I am the only person speaking from these Benches so far—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I am wrong; I believe that there was another speaker who I am sure said things much better than I shall say them. However, I believe that the sentiment of the Committee has been expressed in a way which is very clear; namely, that a duty is owed to the Paratroopers about whom we have been talking. There is no doubt about that.
From these Benches, speaking only as an individual and having no other right, I would have thought it was unanimous that justice should be done so far as those
692
Paratroopers are concerned. When you talk in terms of justice, you talk in terms of justice that would be administered by a judge in charge of the inquiry. There is nothing—would my noble friend not agree?—to stop counsel, who undoubtedly will be appearing for those Paratroopers—indeed, we understand that lawyers have already been engaged on an application for judicial review—from making a submission at the very start of the inquiry that anonymity should be granted. That is the way to proceed, I respectfully suggest, with faith in the judge to have precisely the same views of fairness as this Committee has.
Lord Dubs: I thank my noble friend for that information and the answer is, yes; he is absolutely right. I should like, if I may, to add one or two further comments because I believe there are questions which I have not answered as fully as perhaps I might have done. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked whether the Government should not have taken the necessary steps to bring about a judicial review of the procedures. Only the Paras really have the necessary standing to bring about a judicial review. The Government have no standing in respect of that decision at the inquiry.
Perhaps I may also make it clear that if Parliament decided—Parliament being sovereign—that it wanted to change the law, it could put any specific duty on an inquiry that it wished. These amendments do not do that: that is my point. However, the Government believe that it is better for the inquiry to be independent and to be free to decide for itself how it operates. That is the Government's position. Of course, it is perfectly possible for Parliament to think otherwise and to put forward specific legislation for this or any other inquiry. I hope that Parliament would not he so minded. I give way to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that the Committee wants to get on. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has already said in answer to inquiries that he is not minded to do what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested. That of course adds to our anxieties.
Lord Dubs: So far that is what he has said, but there is of course the judicial review process and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, might change his mind if he felt so inclined. That is why I said that, of course, he would take note of the debate which has taken place in the Committee this afternoon. The Government's position is clear, and I would urge the Committee to reject both amendments.
Lord Tebbit: I should like, first, to express my gratitude to all those who have taken part in the debate on these amendments and, most particularly, if I may say so, to the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Mishcon, for making plain their feelings about this matter although they feel they cannot follow me into the Lobby this evening—for I will undoubtedly seek to divide the Committee on this matter.

693
Let me emphasise that it is not just the soldiers who will be put at risk. Soldiers are used to being put at risk and they do not complain too much about it. It is when their wives and their children are put at risk that they complain. We know that those given protection under this Bill as it stands are murderers to a man, or to a man and a woman perhaps.
We also know that, even if the soldiers in this inquiry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, are shown to be lily-white and innocent as new-born babes, once their names are known to the IRA they will be on a hit list.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise for intervening. The noble Lord has indicated that he intends to divide the Committee. As a consequence, will the Long Title of the Bill also have to be altered?
Lord Tebbit: I believe that on matters of that kind we should defer to the judgment of the Clerks of the House and others rather than the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have every sympathy—he finds himself in a very exposed and difficult position this evening—told the Committee that it would not have been possible to give instructions on these matters. I find that pretty incredible. As a former Secretary of State, before I appointed anyone to conduct an inquiry, I would discuss with that person the manner in which he would conduct it. If I was not satisfied that that inquiry would be carried out in an appropriate manner in my judgment, I would not accept it.
The argument that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, cannot be told is pretty thin. The noble Lord the Minister has just said that, if Parliament enacted a provision that these witnesses should be given protection, they would be. If this amendment were to be carried, that would be an option for the Government. The noble Lord shakes his head but that would be so, and I have every reason to believe that the Opposition would not obstruct a measure to that effect.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who suggested it was inevitable that, if the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranborne was accepted, it would be reversed in the other place, so there was no point in carrying it. I am fairly sure that, if my amendment is accepted this evening, it will be reversed in another place. But the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also advanced the argument that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, would hear what had been said in the Committee this evening and would undoubtedly take it into account. Quite so. I believe that he would especially take it into account if he could see from the Division list that those who had voted for this amendment vastly outnumbered those who had voted against it. The noble Lord shakes his head, but even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, might be more impressed by people going through the Lobby than people on the Benches nodding their heads sagely. That is the only way that we can give him the flavour of the views of the Committee. Therefore, seek the opinion of the Committee.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Lucas, L.

Addison, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Luke, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lyell, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

McConnell, L.

Astor of Hever, L

Mancroft, L.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V

Biddulph, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Biffen, L.

Mersey, V.

Birdwood, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Boardman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bowness, L.

Monson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montrose, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Morris, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mountevans, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Buscombe, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Northesk, E.

Caithness, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carew, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Canington, L.

Palmer, L.

Chalfont, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleridge, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cox, B.

Rawlings, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Reay, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Ridley, V.

Davidson, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Denham, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dunleath, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fookes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glentoran, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harlech, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Higgins, L.

Tebbit, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Laming, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Weatherill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury, L.

Leathers, V.

Wharton, B.

Leigh, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

695

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Burlison, L.

McNally, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Maddock, B.

Christopher, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

Crawley, B.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dixon, L.

Newby, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Geraint, L.

Rea, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goodhart, L.

Richard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Goudie, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hanworth, V.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Thurso, V.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warner, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Judd, L.

Winston, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.2 p.m.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: I shall curtail my remarks in view of the progress on the Bill still to be made.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seek to transform into positive form a clause which is at present wholly negative. The entire clause is an affront to the rule of law of the United Kingdom. It amounts to the suppression of facts, blatantly informing Her Majesty's judges that they must suspend the principles of justice to placate those known to the intelligence service as terrorists, some of whom would be guilty of murder and worse.
Subsection (1)(b) adds to the offensive provision by asserting that,
"any evidence obtained (directly or indirectly)",
may not be admissible. That would appear to place any court in the position of being challenged to prove that indirect information stemmed from the operation of some part of the Bill. I suggest that the court would be placed in an impossible position.
Amendment No. 6 is linked with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. As if the cover-up provisions of Clause 3(1) were not enough, giving as it does immunity for persons who were possibly connected with the torture and murder of their victim, there is an absolute ban on the disclosure of information which might expose them to prosecution. But then subsection (2) guarantees that, although information may not be made known to the authorities, it will be made available for the defence if the accused for any criminal offence considers that the information might assist in his defence. As drafted, Clause 3 protects an accused from evidence obtained but provides him freely with such evidence, rigidly withheld from the courts, if he feels that disclosure would assist him in escaping justice. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Clause 3 provides the first key protection for relevant information provided to the commission. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a mechanism which will facilitate the provision of information about the whereabouts of the remains to the commission so that the many, many years of suffering endured by the families can finally be brought to an end.
If we were to legislate in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in Amendment No. 4 without the necessary protection which this clause provides, it is certain that information would simply not be forthcoming. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the first of this group of amendments. It would negate the purpose of the Bill.
On Amendment No. 5, we believe that it is essential in securing the confidence of those who hold the information about the location of the victims' remains to impose the evidential restrictions set out in Clause 3. As I have stated, without this assurance it is likely that no relevant information would be forthcoming.
The amendment would render evidence inadmissible only in criminal proceedings relating to these victims. I can understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in tabling this amendment and his reasons for doing so but, in our view it would undermine the inadmissibility protections to such an extent that those with the information would refuse to come forward, thereby again negating the purpose of the Bill.
I bring Members of the Committee back to the underlying principle of the Bill: that no one should be disadvantaged by providing relevant information to the

697
commission about the location of these remains. Some noble Lords no doubt find the limited protections in Clause 3 at the very least regrettable. But I hope that they will agree they are an essential requirement if we are to achieve the desired purpose of the Bill. For that reason, I cannot accept Amendment No. 5.
Having resisted those amendments, I also urge the Committee to resist Amendment No. 6. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, would not wish to prevent information which could acquit an innocent person from being adduced in criminal proceedings. I am afraid that that is the risk if Amendment No. 6 were to be accepted. I should also point out that Clause 3(2) is based on a similar provision in the decommissioning legislation which Parliament has, of course, approved.
1 hope that in the light of that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As the Minister pointed out, Amendment No. 6 in particular was designed to draw attention to the anomaly that, whereas protection could be given to murderers by withholding or concealing information, if the same murderer discovered that it would be to his advantage for the information to be disclosed, presumably even in open court, he has the option of doing so.
I cannot conceal my disappointment. However, in view of the fact that all three of my amendments run counter to the Bill as debated in another place and thus far in this Chamber, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fitt: I associate myself with the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord. I realise that we cannot have a vote. The time for that has passed. But I wish to associate myself with those amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Those amendments are not before the Committee. It is not possible for noble Lords to speak to an amendment unless it is put before the Committee. I understand that those amendments have not yet been moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Restrictions on forensic testing]:
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, after ("inquest,") insert ("or to satisfy any legal requirement arising on or connected with possible claims under legislation relating to compensation,")
The noble Baroness said: This is a brief amendment to attempt to make some use of the Bill. I recognise that, as the Minister said in another place:
"The post-mortem report will usually be read out in open court and questions put to the pathologist".
However, it is not clear under what circumstances it may be used. I note also that the Minister, when rejecting the
698
clause on compensation put forward in the other place by Mr. Lembit Öpik said:
"the families of persons whose remains were recovered would not fall within the compensation scheme because of the three-year time limit".
But he also said:
"We have asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to undertake a detailed examination of the compensation scheme and its fitness for its purpose".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/99; cols. 363–75.]
I tabled the amendment to ensure that should changes in the law of compensation be made which could favour these unfortunate families, the right to information relevant to compensation would already appear on the face of the Bill. It is particularly important since the review is taking place now.
However, I have one concern on which I should be glad of reassurance from the Minister. Sir Kenneth. Bloomfield is reviewing the existing compensation scheme and has acquired, as part of his excellent work on his report We Will Remember Them, a considerable knowledge of the problems of victims, including those of the Disabled Police Officers' Association on whose behalf I shall be approaching both the noble Lord and the Minister for victims in the near future.
Now Sir Kenneth has been named as one of the two commissioners charged with dealing with the IRA on the question of the location of victims, can the Minister assure us, first, that his new task will not place such a burden of work on him that the review of compensation and much else that he is doing for victims, not just for families, will be shelved or seriously delayed? Secondly, can he assure us that his new task will not be held to disqualify him from working for victims in general on grounds of conflict of interest?
Finally, I wish to remind the noble Lord, whose genuine concern for the families and victims of terrorism we recognise, that under Article 5(5) of the Convention on Human Rights, which is part of the Human Rights Act 1988:
"Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article, the right to liberty and security, shall have an enforceable right to compensation".
That should surely apply to the family where the victim is no longer alive to make any claim. I beg to move
Lord Redesdale: I have put my name to the amendment. I realise that as the review of compensation procedures is now taking place, the Minister may not be able to give us any reassurance on the future provision of compensation for victims' families. As I spoke on the subject on Second Reading, I wonder whether the Minister can indicate any movement as regards compensation for the families? Can he give an assurance that if compensation is available he will make every effort to supply it to the families, considering that during the past few years they have suffered intimidation and threats if they talked about their loved ones?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in identifying a serious gap in Clause 4. She and I know from long experience that flaws in compensation

699
legislation are too numerous to catalogue. Endless complications, totally unexpected, are a common feature in nearly all such cases. Those engaged in litigation will demand much more than meaningless phrases such as "it is believed that" or "there is reason to assume". There must be something more specific because such phrases will be of no avail. Only verifiable facts will suffice. Those facts can be obtained only under the headings of paragraphs (a) to (f). However, the Bill as it stands would suppress such information. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Park, I take the view that there is an unanswerable case for the adoption of her amendment and I strongly support it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: The noble Baroness's amendment cannot be accepted by the Government for two reasons. First, it undermines the likelihood that the Bill will result in the remains of victims being located. Secondly, it would not in fact assist the families should they wish to make a claim for compensation.
The purpose of the Bill is to find the remains of victims and to end the suffering of their families. As I said during our Second Reading debate, achieving that aim is a delicate balance, but our starting point for the limited protections at Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill is that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission. Clause 4, therefore, places restrictions on forensic testing on the remains of the victims and items found during the search.
The noble Baroness's amendment would widen the circumstances in which forensic testing could be conducted. It would allow the families to commission testing for the purpose of making a claim for compensation. I shall turn in just a moment to why I do not believe that the amendment would assist the families.
My fundamental difficulty with the amendment is that it would make it very unlikely that information would come forward. It would enable testing to take place outside the confines of the inquest process, with the attendant risk that information other than that necessary for the inquest would be discovered and disclosed. That cuts across the principle that no one should be disadvantaged by the giving of information to the commission. It defeats the purpose of the Bill and it is self-defeating because, if the location of the graves are not found, there would be no remains or items on which to conduct tests.
I have considered carefully the practical benefit to the families should this amendment be accepted. But I can find none. The issue of compensation arises in two ways: through the statutory scheme and through the possibility of civil proceedings.
During our Second Reading debate and in another place, the Government have said that they believe that the families are time-barred from receiving compensation under the statutory scheme. The ability to conduct forensic testing would not alter that position given that the date of death would be a matter fully aired at the inquest. Extra testing would not be necessary. In any event, the
700
ability to commission tests would not be relevant to a claim under the statutory scheme, even if the time limits did not apply.
It may be open to the families to commence civil proceedings if other information is available to them and if the courts are willing to use their discretion to waive time limits. I do not see, however, how this amendment would assist the families in any such civil action. They will already have available to them the inquest findings and are free to use them in civil proceedings. This amendment does not seek to widen the information which might be gained by the families from forensic testing.
Under this amendment, forensic testing remains limited to the information available at the inquest; that is to say, the identity of the victim and how, when and where he died. The amendment is aimed ultimately at compensation, but the amendment would not help to establish the identity of the persons responsible for the killing and it would not therefore assist the family to establish against who an award of compensation should be made. More fundamentally, without an idea of the identity of the person responsible, there would not be a defendant against whom proceedings could be brought.
I was asked about the possibility that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield might suggest changes to the statutory compensation scheme. Yes, that would enable the people claiming under the terms of the Bill to benefit from any changes in the compensation scheme suggested by Sir Kenneth and brought into effect. I was also asked about the many responsibilities placed upon Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I understand that he is happy to take on the role of commissioner and that it would not in any way be detrimental to his review of compensation. In other words, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield is happy that he will not be over-burdened by his new responsibility.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment with the assurance that the inquest findings are available to the families.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I shall withdraw the amendment, particularly in view of the lateness of the hour. But I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's response. I had hoped he would say that the Government would take steps to change the compensation laws. That may be what he meant when he suggested that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield may recommend it. I hope that that means that the Government would listen to him favourably. But it seems to me that it would not be asking too much to have that assurance given to us because this is an important issue. We are totally debarred from advancing the interests of the families because of the other issues involved in the Bill. That no one should benefit but the evil ones seems to me quite wrong. I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure that we have a positive statement of support from the Government on the issue of compensation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I regard Clause 4 as the core of this extraordinary measure. It is made all the more alarming by the remarks of the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Ingram, in another place. When asked about the dangers of setting an undesirable precedent, in response to a question from one of his own Back-Benchers, the Minister said:
"there are no such things as absolutes. We are dealing with a sensitive and difficult subject which we must address in the best way available to us. As for setting precedents, the Bill deals with a specific set of circumstances and it is not for me to determine".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/99: col. 38.]
He went on to say that he could not give an assurance that this Bill would not be built upon by others at some stage in the future.
We have already seen how Ministers have used non-traceability of weapons legislation as a precedent for this clause. Will this Bill in turn, which is much wider and more objectionable than the weapons model, be used as a means of doing the will of criminals and terrorists in the future?
In addition, I must draw attention to the absence of any safeguards against what one might call vexatious claims in regard to the location of remains. I know that terrorists' code-words are in fairly common use in contacts between certain authorities. I do not doubt that in the course of the secret bargaining between the aforementioned MI6 and Sinn Fein/IRA, some thought may have been given to the opportunity for cheating. For example, if the foundations of the waterfront building or a section of a busy motorway, as has been referred to earlier, are alleged to be the burial place of remains, will expensive explorations be initiated? Will the families involved be informed? It would seem to me to be the depth of cruelty for families to be given false information and then have to wait for a long time before they know whether the claim or the information can be substantiated.
Finally, in regard to identification of remains, will the Minister inform us—and I am sorry to bounce this on him—whether the testing of remains will include DNA testing? Unlike the general run of forensic investigation, DNA would provide the only certain means of convincing families that the remains were really those of their own loved one.
Viscount Cranborne: I rise briefly to ask a question additional to those which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has posed. Will the Minister tell the Committee what would be the position of the commission and, indeed, the instructions to the commission were it to turn out, as a result of forensic testing, that the information and forensic tests would put the authorities in a position to clear an innocent person who had already been convicted? Is there enough latitude in the Bill to permit that or would a vow of silence be maintained on that matter?
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may put one question to the Minister before he replies to my noble friend and to the noble Viscount. Clause 4 prohibits the families of victims from carrying out or commissioning forensic tests to ascertain whether, for example, their loved ones
702
had been tortured or where they were imprisoned before being murdered. Let us suppose that one or more of those families, after the Bill becomes law, says in effect, "To hell with the Act. We will go ahead with our investigations whatever the Act may say". Will they be committing a criminal offence? I imagine not, because no penalties are laid down in the Bill and I cannot recall ever coming across a criminal offence where no penalties for transgression are specified? Perhaps the Minister will tell me either whether I am correct in my assumption or whether I am mistaken and if so, exactly how I am so mistaken.
Lord Fitt: The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, has brought to the notice of the Committee a question which is disturbing many people in Northern Ireland. This Bill is referred to as the Location of Victims' Remains Bill. I understand that at the beginning, it was suggested that it should be called the Location of Bodies Bill. Where are those bodies going to be? As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, said, they may be under a stretch of motorway or a major building. In fact, the noble Lord will know that in today's press in Northern Ireland, rumours are circulating that a major road outside the city of Belfast has beer built on some of those bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, has quite rightly referred to the fact that the location of the bodies may be pointed out by the IRA, and it may be an extremely inaccessible location. Will the Government bear the expense of shifting whatever needs to be shifted or using whatever machinery is necessary to bring those bodies from where they are at present to give them back to their loved ones?
One can readily understand that if the IRA, the terrorists, brutally tortured their victims and killed them, they will not be very concerned about giving them a decent burial, even by IRA standards. They will want to get rid of the bodies, particularly at the time they committed the murders. In those circumstances, the terrorists, were hoping that the bodies would never be found.
The families of those victims will be greatly distressed by the fact that they are unsure whether or not the bodies or bones, or whatever the remains may be, belong to their loved ones—those who have been murdered. It is only right that the Government should acquiesce in the requests which have been made that DNA testing should be carried out; that the remains which have been located should be identified as such to the families who have fought for so long to have those bodies identified.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I shall be brief. Unfortunately, I shall have to be content with the Question that Clause 4 stands part of the Bill. Opposing the Question would wreck the Bill and, despite our distaste for it, we are not prepared to do that.

703
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned DNA testing. I would be very unhappy if the Minister could not assure the Committee that DNA testing will be undertaken. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, stated, that is a reliable test and may be the only one available.
Lord Dubs: As with Clause 3, this provision is an essential element of the Bill to ensure that information is forthcoming to the commission. The starting point for these limited protections is, as I have said on other occasions, that no one should be disadvantaged by giving information to the commission.
The construction of the clause is similar to the equivalent provision in the decommissioning legislation, but it may help noble Lords to read it in the following way. Subsection (2) provides that forensic testing for the purpose of the inquest is allowed. The inquest test may determine the identity of the deceased; how, when and where he died. That would also deal with the question of DNA testing. If thought appropriate—it would be the coroner's decision—the coroner could subject the remains to DNA testing for the limited purposes of establishing who the deceased was and, as I have stated, how, when and where he died.
Subsection (1) provides that testing for other purposes is not allowed. The other purposes are then listed at paragraphs (a) to (f). Subsection (3), however, allows an item to be tested to determine whether it can be safely removed. The reasons for that are clear.
In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, tabled an amendment which provided me with an opportunity to confirm that the inquest findings will be available to the families and that there is no bar on the use of those findings in civil proceedings. At the end of the debate the noble Baroness asked whether the Government would give an undertaking as regards giving effect to the findings of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in his review of compensation arrangements. The noble Baroness will be aware that governments cannot commit themselves in advance of a review to giving effect to the outcome of such review. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield is proceeding in good faith. We are pleased that he should be doing so, but I do not believe I can go further than that as regards the possible outcome of his inquiry.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank the Minister for giving way. I perfectly understand his comments. However, I should very much like to hear a powerful statement from the Minister that the Government intend to urge that it should be so.
Lord Dubs: I am reluctant to do that for the following simple reason. If Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has been asked independently to review the compensation arrangements, it would not be helpful if in the middle of the review I make announcements intended to influence him. It would surely be discourteous to him, at the very least, to be given a remit and then to have his position undermined by statements made by me from the Dispatch Box. It is a discourtesy which I do not wish to enter into.
704
There was some concern in another place that while Clause 3 of the Bill enables a defendant to adduce evidence in criminal proceedings, Clause 4 does not allow the defendant to commission forensic testing in his defence. I referred to this issue at Second Reading, but should like to take this opportunity to reinforce the fact that conducting forensic tests may throw up intelligence or information which would be disadvantageous to those giving information to the commission. Allowing forensic testing other than for the purpose of the inquest could result in no information being provided. Clause 4 is one of the key provisions of the Bill. Without it, the fact is that information is unlikely to reach the commission and the suffering of the families will continue.
I have been asked one or two specific questions. I have dealt with the question of DNA testing. If there is difficulty about finding where the bodies are, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, or, indeed, whether the commission has been given misleading information about the location of the bodies, the commission will have to come to a view as to how to handle that. Clearly, if the information appears to the commission to be misleading, it will not want to take further action. However, that is for the commission to decide.
There might be a cost of recovery. The sad fact is that we simply do not know where the bodies are. People have suspicions, and rumours, unfortunately, abound. However, the precise purpose of the Bill is to establish where the bodies are. Each case will have to be considered to determine the problems and costs involved in attempting to recover the bodies. To give a blanket answer would not be helpful. It is up to the commission to take that work further in the light of the information that it has.
Another aspect concerns informing the families. It is my understanding that it is the wish of the families to be informed of where the remains might be, once information comes to the commission. From the point of view of the families, I understand that that would be preferable to not carrying out a search. The families accept that they might have to wait for the results and that there could be disappointments in the process, but they want to be involved in this from the start. That is information given to us by the families. If it is their wish to be informed, even if some of the information may then be rather difficult for them to deal with emotionally, I do not believe it is appropriate for anyone to deny them that information. Of course there can be difficulties, given the examples quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The commission would have to use its discretion and be sensitive in such circumstances, as I am sure it would be. Having disposed of those arguments, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, he has not answered my question about what happens to somebody who contravenes the provision of Clause 4. Has a criminal offence been committed and if so what penalties can be imposed, if any?
Lord Dubs: My understanding is that a criminal offence has been committed but I am not totally clear

705
as to the penalties. Here we have in statute a clear statement of how the commission should behave. If it ignores that, it is in breach of the statute. Therefore, I would judge that to be a criminal offence.
Lord Monson: I should like to give the Minister a little more time in which to receive his reply. Does he know of any other instance where a criminal offence is laid down in statute without any penalties being specified?
Lord Dubs: My knowledge of other comparable situations is so limited that even if I say I do not know of any it does not mean that there are not any; it simply means I do not have the breadth of information with which to answer the noble Lord's question.
I say this to be frank. In contrast to what I believed to be the case a few moments ago, I understand that it would not be an offence if the commission was in breach. That is why there appeared to be no penalties. I am sorry if I misled the Committee. It was entirely unintentional. I have now been informed that it would not be an offence.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The Minister has done his best to reassure us on certain vital matters. This short, mini-debate has been useful. I thank the Minister for his courtesy.
Clause 4 agreed to.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has kindly agreed to withdraw his Unstarred Question. Another date has been found for it. I am sure the House will be extremely grateful to him and agree, through the usual channels, that there will be no dinner break. We will finish debating this Bill and go straight on to the Tax Credits Bill.
Clause 5 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) shall not prevent either the family or the state, once remains have been found and identified, from such action either to commemorate the victim or to publicise the event as they may think fit.")
The noble Baroness said: My object in tabling this amendment is to ensure that the IRA will not be able to use the restrictions on disclosure of information to prevent the families from burying their dead how, when and where they wish; nor the state and the media from stating and writing about the victims as they think fit.
The Explanatory Notes state that this subsection is intended to prohibit the disclosure of relevant information other than for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains and to prevent disclosure of such information to a third party with no legitimate role in
706
the process of locating the remains. The Minister explained in some detail in our discussions on Clause 4 the further extensions of that decision.
I suppose we have to accept that if the press is able to be present when a body, on information given, is discovered and disinterred, the IRA would simply not provide the location. I see some sense in that. But I fail to see why,
"The prohibition on disclosure will continue to apply after information has properly been passed by the Commission to a third party, such as the police";
that is, after the recovery of the remains from the secret location.
Can a family, receiving back the remains—perhaps only a few bones—be required to say nothing, ever, about the fact that they were found, say, in a concrete mixer or some other burial place which denied them all dignity? My main object is to ensure that the IRA will not get away with ordering the families to have midnight services with no publicity and to say nothing about an event which has utterly destroyed their lives I do not propose to press this amendment, but it is a point I wish to make about which I feel very strongly. I beg to move.
Lord Fitt: The terrorists who murdered these victims have already said that they will tell us where the bodies are, but in so doing they have demonised their victims. They said that the people they murdered were guilty of some offence against the IRA: that they were traitors or broke some of the laws laid down by the IRA.
It is well known that when the IRA has murdered someone and that person is buried, very few people will attend that funeral. That is not because they do not want to; hundreds and indeed thousands may want to attend the funerals about which this Bill is concerned. But there is still intimidation in Northern Ireland. If ordinary people associated themselves with the funerals of the victims they would be putting themselves in danger of further intimidation by the IRA. One has only to think of Eamon Collins, a former IRA man who was murdered recently in Newry. Few people attended his funeral. One needs only to recall the brutality with which his death was carried out. The IRA made contradictory statements; that is, that it would not prohibit any decision made in relation to the funerals.
The relatives of the victims, when they receive back the bodies, should be entitled to bury those remains in whatever way they think fit. In doing so I urge the people of Northern Ireland to turn out in force to attend those funerals, to show their distaste for what has happened.
Viscount Cranborne: I support my noble friend's amendment for exactly the reasons she gave, and for the reasons given also by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his reply, was able to give us a reasonably full account of the conditions imposed by the IRA.
A number of newspaper reports over the past few weeks have made extraordinary reading, suggesting that all sorts of conditions would be imposed on the families as to how they could bury the remains of their

707
relatives—those conditions being imposed by the murderers. That gives a new and dark meaning to the Alice in Wonderland politics of Northern Ireland.
It would be helpful if the Minister were, first, able to assure us—I am sure that he will be able to do so without equivocation—that the Government have not been party to promoting conditions of that kind as a means to coming to agreement with the murderers; and, secondly, to give us some account, in so far as he has been able to glean it, of the internal conditions imposed through intimidation by the IRA and its representatives on the families of the victims, particularly those victims who live in easy reach of IRA intimidation, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
I hope that the Minister will also make clear that the Government will do everything they can to publicise what those conditions are, and to express their contempt for anybody who imposes those conditions. I hope also that they will invite as many Members of your Lordships' House who are able to do so to attend as public a funeral as possible in the event of those funerals taking place.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. In following the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I take this opportunity of saying a little of what I said at Second Reading because I produced the newspaper reports mentioned. Several noble Lords after Second Reading said that reporters are reporters. There were numerous reports and one cannot discard that issue in quite such a simple way as saying, "They are reporters". One was a Guardian reporter; so it was not just the Province's press; neither was it a one-sided issue within the Province, be it on the so-called "Unionist" press.
At Second Reading, I was reported as saying,
"This is not the Real IRA".—[Official Report, 18/5/99; col. 175.]
I repeated "real IRA" a couple of times, but Hansard took it to be "Real IRA" (with a capital "R") when I meant, "This is the Provisional IRA truly". The Real IRA is a different issue. I am not even sure whether it is on cease-fire; it may be. The consequences of the Provisional IRA, the people who murdered these people so many years ago, issuing threats and trying to organise what goes on, must mean that they are not renegade groups; they are the centre core. Are they on cease-fire or are they not? If not, what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Monson: Like other Members of the Committee throughout the Chamber, I thoroughly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, which she moved extremely well. I suggest that if she fails to receive a satisfactory assurance from the Minister that this amendment is unnecessary, she may reconsider her decision not to seek to divide the Committee.
Lord Blease: It must not be forgotten in this aspect of the work of the commission that it will be managed and advised by the RUC, which will be given the task
708
of looking after this aspect of the matter. The commission will not be left completely alone in terms of advising the relatives and others.
A further aspect is that the commission will be advised about the form of funeral arrangements or commemoration arrangements and that that will be a family matter in which it would not interfere. Families will know whether or not it is wise to have large gatherings or mass funeral arrangements, or whether the arrangements should be private.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. His use of the word "wise" proves my point.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for moving this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, inadvertently referred to the "laws" of the IRA. I am sure that he will agree with me that only Parliament and in due course the Assembly can make laws; terrorists make illegal diktats.
My noble friend made an important point and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will be proper funerals in accordance with the families' genuine expectations.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment because it would give essential protection to the families. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has testified to the bullying and sheer intimidation of families in the aftermath of the abduction and torture of their relatives. In several cases this was the only publicity, coming from deliberately leaked information from terrorists, giving details of how the victims were tortured to death. As the noble Lord stated, the object is to terrify the Roman Catholic population into remaining silent. I know from bitter experience of similar practices employed by so-called Loyalist killers against their communities.
The state surely has a responsibility and an obligation to apply the heaviest possible sanctions against those who seek to silence families who may be fortunate enough to gain possession of the remains of their loved ones? That duty must be discharged, whatever shady deals may already have been agreed between the various agents who worked together to produce this obnoxious Bill.
Lord Dubs: I very much sympathise with the concerns of noble Lords and the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
We were all aware of the rumours that the families of the victims were yet again to be treated cruelly by those responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. It was said that they were not to be permitted to hold the funerals of their loved ones in public but were expected to bury their dead in secret.
I am sure that when we read those comments in the papers, every one of us was appalled. I do not know specifically of any family who has been pressed in that direction. I am not saying that it has not happened because some of the pressures in Northern Ireland do not always surface publicly or become known to the

709
Government, but I am not aware of any conditions that have been imposed on the families except those contained in the limited protection afforded by the Bill. I can give the assurance that the Government have not been party to any conditions that have been placed on the families.
The view of the Government is that it would be wholly wrong to deny the families the opportunity, with their friends and community around them, to lay their loved ones to rest in a proper, public manner. If that is their wish, then surely that is their right. I utterly condemn any suggestion that anyone should seek to interfere with the family's right in that respect, and I say that in the strongest possible terms.
I accept the concern that there are those who would seek to have these families forgotten once their remains are returned. There are people who have a vested interest in that approach, but people cannot be forced to forget, and it is no part of the Government's intention to wipe the face of these victims from memory.
The intention of the amendment is understood, and I have absolutely no quarrel with it. However, it is not necessary to include this permissive power in the legislation. There is nothing in the current legislation to prevent the family or the state from taking action to commemorate the victims or to publicise their fate. The Government are totally against anyone who would seek to apply pressure on the families in an effort to prevent them burying their loved ones as they wish.
Viscount Cranborne: The noble Lord has been extremely patient, if I may say so. Can he give an undertaking that if families were to be intimidated and if they asked for protection in order to allow them to conduct a public funeral, that protection would be forthcoming?
Lord Dubs: The RUC would take the strongest action against any intimidation of any sort, with the support of the Government. If there was evidence of such intimidation or if the RUC came to hear of it, it would be empowered to take the strongest possible action to resist that intimidation on behalf of the families. That gives the noble Viscount a clear assurance.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment, and I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I find it impossible to understand, since he clearly accepts that the spirit of the amendment is right, why it cannot be incorporated in the Bill. If it were contained in the Bill the families would have something to appeal to in law, whereas the Minister is suggesting that they could go and tell the RUC. All noble Lords know that that is precisely what they dare not do. That is why I am urging that their clear right to take certain action should appear on the face of the Bill, with the implication that if people challenge that right, they will be in breach of the law.
710
I will not divide the Committee at this hour, although I am tempted to, but I beg the Minister to accept the amendment. There is nothing in it which the Government do not agree with; hence I cannot see why he cannot accept it.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The argument in support of the amendment is that people must not behave in a manner which is already criminal. It is already criminal to intimidate people in the way we have discussed. We do not need therefore to put on the face of new legislation that something is a criminal offence when it is already a criminal offence and when the RUC does its best to stop that type of offence from taking place.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I will not prolong the discussion, except to ask: how is it, if it is already unlawful, that it has been happening for goodness knows how many years, with no one having anything in the way of protection? If the provision is contained in the Bill it will be much more difficult for people to break the law rather than to say that it is something that is not done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 5 agreed to
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth moved Amendment No. 14
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT
(" .—(1) Sections 3 to 5 of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out why, in his opinion, the provisions in question are compatible with the Convention rights, as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998, and that report has been approved by a resolution of each House.")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is intended to challenge the statement on the face of the Bill that it is compatible with the Human Rights Convention embodied in the schedule to the Human Rights Act 1998.
I should like to cite some of the rights and freedoms that are breached. Article 2.1 states:
"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally, save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law".
Article 3 states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Article 5 states:
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person".
How does that square with the IRA's admission of so-called execution of its victims? Do the families who have been terrorised into silence all these years and consistently intimidated for no other crime than the wish to know whether their sons, husbands or mothers were alive or dead have no rights under Article 5?
Article 17 places a duty on the two Governments and states:
"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention".
Are the two Governments not in dereliction of their duties?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Can I assist my noble friend, while she is looking for her notes, by saying that the point she is making is a very important one for the Government to take on board; namely, that the interpretation of the Convention on Human Rights must never be made in a narrow and legalistic manner; after all, it is not written in narrow and legalistic language; it is written in very broad, conceptual language.
Therefore, is not my noble friend making an important point? She asks the Government not to look narrowly at the application of the convention in the context that we are discussing under her valuable amendment, but to look, with a broad and generous mind, to see whether or not the convention also applies to those in whose interests the Bill is brought forward—namely, the relatives. They have so far been denied what one had always thought of as a fundamental human right; that is to say, the right to know the whereabouts of the bodies of those who have been wantonly murdered. Is that not the thrust of the matter?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank my noble and learned friend for that intervention.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Like the noble and learned Lord I, too, support the proposed new clause, especially subsection (1). I am also much interested in subsection (2) of the amendment. On the face of the Bill the Minister has provided the required certificate which reads:
"In my view the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord's assurance in that certificate. However, whatever side we may have been on during our earlier arguments today, I am sure we would all agree that this is a Bill the like of which has not been seen since Norman times. I have Norman blood in my veins, so that is perhaps why it rankles with me. However, the convention which may be called upon to adjudicate has a reputation for acting in most peculiar ways. Therefore, I agree with
712
what the mover of the amendment and the noble and learned Lord have said. I fear that we have not seen the last of this Bill.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may complete what I intended to say earlier, and I shall be very brief. My question is: are not the two Governments in dereliction of their duty to the majority in condoning what the IRA has done in destroying the rights and freedoms of both the dead and their families? I put it to the Minister that, on a number of accounts, the Bill is not compatible with the convention statement of rights of the victims, the families or the law-abiding members of the community.
Unless she can produce cogent counter-arguments, the Secretary of State should surely be acting in conformity with Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, which requires her either to make a statement of compatibility, which she has done and which I challenge, or, to,
"make a statement to the effect that although [she] is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill".
That is what the Act provides. That is what the Act requires and it would be true. I urge the Minister to recognise that, or to explain just how the Bill is compatible. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Dubs: The noble Baroness's amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the compatibility of Clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill with convention rights. The report would then have to be approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. Only then could those clauses be brought into force. That would, of course, create a delay in information reaching the commission, but I leave that aside at this stage.
The noble Baroness will be aware that both the Secretary of State and I have given our opinion in the matter of compatibility with the convention by signing the required statement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. That statement appears on the face of the Bill. I should point out to the noble Baroness that I was given a detailed assessment of the Bill in relation to various elements of the human rights convention. I felt that I had to consider the matter in complete detail before it would be proper for me to sign, as I have signed, the certificate which now appears on the face of the Bill. I considered the matter in some detail and followed the very complicated arguments that were put to me, but I was satisfied that I could sign the statement now on the face of the Bill, which states that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
The purpose of a Section 19 compatibility statement is to focus the Government's and, in turn, Parliament's attention on convention issues at the pre-enactment stage. The requirement which the noble Baroness seeks to impose through this amendment would not be consistent with the scheme of the Human Rights Act, as it would shift the debate on convention issues to the post-commencement stage. If queries are raised as to

713
compatibility with the convention rights during debates on a government Bill, the Minister in charge will do his best to answer them. Under the Human Rights Act, it will ultimately be for the higher courts, and the courts alone, to rule on whether a particular measure is incompatible with the convention rights by the Human Rights Act.
Therefore, even if the Committee were to accept the amendment, which I suggest would not be helpful, I believe that the noble Baroness would not really achieve her main intention; namely, compatibility with the human rights convention. Surely that is something that should be done before the Bill is even presented to the House rather than being done at the end of the proceedings when it has been passed.
The most fundamental rights of the victims of these dreadful murders were violated by terrorists when those people were abducted, tortured and murdered. That is quite a separate question to that now before the Committee when we consider whether the scheme of the legislation is compatible with the Government's obligations under the European Convention. We are satisfied that the rights of the families in particular are respected by the Bill.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should like to thank all those who have spoken in support of my amendment, especially my noble and learned friend who saved my life earlier when I lost my place. I listened to what the Minister said with great interest. I find it deeply interesting that all his legal advisers saw no incompatibility between the provisions of the Bill and those in the Human Rights Act. It will make me look at the Human Rights Act with much greater care in the future.
However, I accept that it is not possible either to divide the Committee or, indeed, to pursue the amendment further. My object was to bring out, as I hope I have, the very real incompatibility which undoubtedly exists, at least in any lay mind, between human rights and what we are doing in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 20th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Tax Credits Bill
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
PASSPORTED BENEFITS
(" . Recipients of a tax credit shall be entitled to the benefits to which claimants of family credit and disability working allowances were entitled under the National Health Service (Traveling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1988 as they had effect immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving Amendment No. 15, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I believe that originally they were grouped separately, but that it would be helpful to discuss the three amendments together as they are in many respects similar.
Much of the subject matter which arises with these amendments was discussed at col. 237 on 18th May when I suggested by way of an amendment that the consideration of the Bill on Report should be deferred until we were given more information on the Government's intentions with regard to the provision of passported benefits. I had hoped that as a result of tabling that amendment it would be possible for the Government to reach some conclusion with regard to what they propose to do on passported benefits. We have made some progress. I must at this point congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on her birthday as I did not have the opportunity to do so earlier this afternoon.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. As a birthday present, I should like to have no Divisions tonight. I hope that we shall also go home early.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give that undertaking, but I hope that we can make reasonable progress in the light of the replies given by the noble Baroness on this happy occasion.
The words the noble Baroness originally used in Committee were that we would return to this issue before the Bill left Parliament. We seem to have made some progress in as much as she has stated clearly that the position will be made clear by the time we reach Third Reading. However, I in no way go back on what I said earlier; namely, that it is deplorable that the House should still be uncertain as to the position on this issue months after the Bill was originally introduced. I do not accept the point which the noble Baroness made on previous occasions; namely, that this is not an important aspect of the Bill.
When passing any legislation, the House must necessarily consider the repercussions of changes. What appears to have happened here is that the Government are moving from family credit to working families' tax credit, but it is not the least bit apparent, even now at this late stage, what the position will be with regard to those benefits which previously have been received automatically under the old scheme by those who are entitled to them. It is not clear to what extent they, or indeed new claimants, will receive those benefits in future under the system which is proposed in this Bill. We believe that it is important that that situation is

715
clarified and that the House should have an opportunity to express a view with regard to the solution which the Government will eventually produce.
It is said, on almost every issue of moment in this House, that if something seems to be wrong we have a duty to ask the other place to think again. On this occasion, the other place has had no opportunity to consider the appropriateness of the Government's proposals. Members of the other place have put forward their own views, but they have not been able to comment on the Government's position. It is not even clear whether any passported benefits will be obtainable automatically under this Bill, or whether or not they will be means tested.
Having said all that, I understand that the noble Baroness is still no more able to give us any further guidance on what the Government's intentions are than when we met on the first day of Report stage. It is likely that the Third Reading will take place soon after we return from the Whitsun Recess. Therefore, we shall have little opportunity to frame any amendments. It is important that the Bill should be open to amendment and that the House should be able to express a view on whether what the Government propose is or is not satisfactory.
Earlier in our debates the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that the Government might—as they have commendably done on a number of other occasions—put forward specific statutory instruments in draft which we would consider. It appears that that will not now be possible. Does the noble Baroness envisage that by the time we reach Third Reading draft statutory instruments will be available on which we can comment? If they are satisfactory, that is the end of the matter. However, if they are not satisfactory, the position becomes more difficult because one cannot amend a statutory instrument.
I have another point which I hope the Minister can clarify at this stage as that would be helpful. She has laid great stress on the difficulty of obtaining interdepartmental agreement between Ministers, or indeed—as far as one can gather—between officials. I believe that she mentioned six or seven departments. Which departments and which benefits are involved? I have experienced some difficulty in "totting up" the number of departments that are involved and equating that with the number that she mentioned. Some of the departments come under the Department of Health and others come under the Home Office. It would be helpful to know exactly which departments will be involved.
These are probing amendments. They have been tabled in the hope that we shall obtain a little more information on the Government's intentions before we reach Third Reading. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. We debated this matter at some length on the first day of Report stage. It is clearly unsatisfactory not to know the position until Third Reading when there is no possibility of tabling an amendment to discuss the
716
subject. As I understand it, we shall not have draft regulations before Third Reading. We may simply have to grin and bear it in the circumstances. Nevertheless, this is not a satisfactory situation. I hope that it will not happen again.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with regard to our discussion in this Chamber on a previous occasion, it seems to me that noble Lords on this side of the Chamber are not, as I fear the noble Baroness suspected, simply trying to be difficult and to be awkward legislators. We are thinking about the individuals whom this Bill will affect and the Government's aim of trying to ensure that people see that work pays. However, they will not see that work pays if some benefits which they have received under the family credit scheme may no longer be payable. The working families' tax credit may then be worth less to them. We need to know as much as possible about this matter.
If the noble Baroness cannot answer my next point now, I hope that she can give me the answer at Third Reading. What will be the position with regard to the Scots Parliament, to which health is devolved and therefore—I take it—the matter of funding free prescriptions? How will it know the amount for which it will have to budget if it does not know what the Westminster Parliament is doing from day to day about working families' tax credit? That could create an awkward situation for the Scottish Parliament. I may be wrong. There may be some interlinking of which I am not aware. Presumably the Scottish Office is one of the departments that is being consulted. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
The Scottish Parliament is not yet in a position to make decisions and has not had time to consider its budget. Supposing that a decision is made in relation to working families' tax credit that involves Scottish Parliament expenditure. How will that legislature know how to budget? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House, or write to me.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when this subject was last raised, the Minister said that she could not answer for other departments. I remind her that Ministers in this House speak for the Government, unlike Ministers in the other place who speak only for their own departments. That is something of which the noble Baroness used to remind Ministers in the previous administration.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say that I could not speak for other government departments but that because it was a matter for other government departments, I was not yet in a position to inform the House of the proposal. That is entirely different. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, should know better than to misrepresent my words.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says, but this House has not had the opportunity properly to discuss the matter, which means that Members of the other place have not done so either.

717
We must put some form of amendment into the Bill before it returns to the other place so that its Members have the opportunity to discuss the proposals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I acknowledge, as I did a week ago, that this matter is of concern to your Lordships, who will recognise that the issue is complex. The Government are committed to providing help through the low-income scheme to those who need it. Replacing family credit and disability working allowance with WFTC and DPTC represents a major policy shift in the target group for, and delivery of, in-work support. It raises the question of whether tax credits continue to be an appropriate means of identifying the target group for other benefits such as the low-income scheme. There is no longer such an obvious alignment between family credit as an indicator of low income and the recipients of benefits through a low-income scheme. The Government have given careful consideration to that question and how any change to the current passporting arrangements might work in practice.
I cannot go further than I did a week ago when I made it clear that we will be coming back to the issue at Third Reading, not on the second day of Report stage. The Government have no wish to discourage your Lordships from having the opportunity properly to debate the proposals. I reiterate the commitment to set out the Government's intentions on Third Reading and I am happy to take a relaxed view of the discussions at that point on that issue. That will give the House the opportunity to discuss our proposals.
Amendments are not necessarily appropriate because it is not appropriate that this is part of the primary legislation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I doubt that draft regulations will be ready in time. Nonetheless, that will not stop your Lordships, when you see fit, seeking to debate the regulations in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about the array of passported benefits and the interrelationship between the territorial departments. Apart from passporting on to free prescriptions, which is the biggest item in terms of the cost to government, recipients of family credit are otherwise currently entitled from the Department of Health to welfare foods, such as cheap baby milk; cheap home insulation, which is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; legal advice and assistance, which is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department or its Scottish equivalent; the remission of court charges, which is also a matter for the LCD; help with travel costs for prisoners' wives, which is a matter for the Home Office; and maternity and funeral grants, which are matters for the DSS.
Given that all those passported benefits have different implications for the territorial departments, it would be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Baroness, with a copy to the noble Lord, setting out the arrangements for each of them.
718
I am sure that there will be adequate and appropriate time for discussion on Third Reading, and in light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, one understands the difficult position in which the Minister finds herself, but so does the House. This is not in any sense a partisan matter. If the outcome from the Government i s satisfactory, there will be no problem, but it is important that the House should have the opportunity to discuss and, crucially, to amend whatever the Government propose because that will be the consequence of the change from one system to another.
I had some difficulty getting the number of departments up to six. I identified the Department of Health, the Home Office and the DSS. Presumably they include also the Inland Revenue—although, understandably, the Minister did not mention that department.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, then there are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in which case the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for her comment about devolved responsibilities. Unless I misunderstood the Minister, she did not say whether responsibilities would be devolved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the six or seven different passported benefits and the seven or eight government departments if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included separately, each has different arrangements and reserve matters. I thought it would be more helpful to write to the noble Baroness, with a copy to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is an important point. As the noble Baroness did not give a categoric reply one way or the other, my understanding is that some responsibilities will be devolved. I do not know which. No doubt we shall discover that in the Minister's letter. If some responsibilities will be devolved, presumably any decision that this House makes on, for example, prescription charges, would create one situation in Scotland and another elsewhere.
We are all in new territory as far as devolution is concerned. But am I right in thinking that some decisions on passported benefits will not necessarily be the same in England as in Scotland, if the Scottish Parliament were to take a different view from that taken in this House with regard to England?
One hopes that the Government will come forward with statutory instruments. It seems extraordinary that at this stage the Government are still not ready. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with whom we are otherwise much in agreement, that we must grin and bear it. If we do not like what the Government propose, we shall have to consider moving and voting on an amendment that will take the matter back to the other House, so that there is time to consider the Government's proposals. That would seem only fair

719
in the circumstances, given the dilatory way in which the Government have been moving. Subject to that—unless the noble Baroness wishes to intervene on the particular point I have made—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF TARGETS
(" .—(1) The Board shall publish annually targets for the speed and accuracy with which claims are to be processed and payments are to be made.
(2) Targets published under subsection (1) above shall include targets for—

(a) the speed and accuracy with which initial claims are to be processed and paid by the Board;

(b) the speed and accuracy with which renewal claims are to be processed and paid by the Board;

(c) the speed and accuracy with which claims are to be processed and paid by the Board where the employer has failed to make a payment;

(d) the speed and accuracy with which claims are to be processed and paid by the Board where the claimant is involved in a trade dispute lasting more than one pay period.

(3) The Board shall publish annually a report showing how it has performed against the previous year's targets set out in subsection (1) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. We have not previously considered the amendment, which reflects concerns that have been expressed outside.
The amendment seeks to set fairly specific targets for the Government so far as concerns the way in which the Inland Revenue carries out with speed and accuracy the tasks imposed upon it by this legislation, particularly the way in which claims are processed and payments made. A fairly major change will take place when the responsibility passes from the DSS to the Inland Revenue. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that I am right in saying that the computer arrangements and the staff involved, with some augmentation—new members of staff will need to be trained—will be transferred directly from the DSS to the Inland Revenue. In that context, I am not clear whether their location will also be changed or whether they will stay physically in the same place, albeit with expanded accommodation.
One cannot help but feel that, in some respects, speed and accuracy are not likely to be improved as a result of the change. To give credit to the Department of Social Security—if not to its computer system—one recognises that, at the moment, family credit payments seem to arrive fairly much on time, unlike some other social security benefits. The speed of the Inland Revenue—its fleetness of foot, one might say; perhaps I should not say that in my present circumstances—is not
720
remarkable. Very often one finds Inland Revenue payments and adjustments being carried out years after an event.
The amendment proposes that targets should be published so far as concerns these various matters. That proposal is very much supported by outside bodies such as the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Targets should be set not only with regard to initial claims, but particularly with regard to renewal claims—as the amendment makes clear—and to the speed with which the department deals with problems when an employer has failed to make a payment. That problem does not arise at the moment because payment is made directly. If the Government remain adamant that payment is to be made by the employer, we should have targets in order to check that it is being done speedily. One particular problem which has been drawn to our attention concerns the making of claims during a trade dispute.
As I understand it, there are existing targets for payments in some of the Benefits Agency's various operations. Indeed, in some cases they are quite tight targets which historically have been met. In short, while the CAB and others draw to our attention significant delays in the present arrangements, one cannot help but feel that both in the transitional period, and perhaps in the longer term, matters will be not dealt with as they have been previously. As there are already targets, I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government.
I have two final points. First, apparently there is already a considerable backlog as far as concerns Benefits Agency payments. I am not referring to pensions and so on, but to a more general backlog. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am a little puzzled. The noble Lord said that it was not a backlog of benefits. Clearly, we are not talking about a backlog of appeals or of compensation. What backlog did the noble Lord have in mind?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as I understand it there is a backlog with regard to payment of the existing benefit which the working families' credit will replace; namely, family credit. If that is not so, I am quite prepared to accept the noble Baroness's assurance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is not
SO.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am quite happy to accept that.
I wish to raise one further point. The Inland Revenue's plans have been published and it has suggested that it might not be possible to arrange payment promptly because an employer may not have the money, a point to which we shall no doubt return later. Generally speaking, one hopes that the Government—mindful of the difficult circumstances of many of those receiving working families' tax credit and disability benefits and so on—will

721
introduce a system of targets. If the Government do not like the targets suggested in the amendment, perhaps they will suggest something more quantitative at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend has put flesh on the bones of a question which was asked in Committee but not answered. I made the point that the Inland Revenue currently takes a number of weeks to get someone off the PAYE emergency code on to his proper code. In extreme cases, that can take between six and eight weeks. That does not bode well for the transfer of family credit to the Revenue.
I should like to make two points. First, how quickly is family credit paid to a recipient at the moment? Let us imagine, for example, that I was unemployed and that I went for an interview and was accepted for a job starting on, say, Thursday week, and I then filled in the form for family credit and sent it off. Assuming, of course, that the application was accepted—which goes without saying—when could I realistically expect my first family credit payment to be made?
Secondly, does the noble Baroness expect any changes in payment times to occur as a result of the changes made in this Bill in transferring the responsibility from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue? As I said, the precedents are not terribly good.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I support the amendment. First, it is very important for recipients of the benefit to know that they will get a quick and good service. It seems to me that the setting of targets is a very good way of making those responsible for the payments sharpen up their act and ensure that there are no delays. Most of us are able to point to previous delays in various matters by the Inland Revenue; the precedents are not good.
Secondly, today the Government have announced their intention to bring forward a freedom of information Bill. It seems to me that this kind of information falls very neatly into the categories where one would expect more open government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment provides that the board shall publish annually targets for the speed and accuracy with which various categories of claims are to be processed and payments are to be made and shall publish annually a report showing how it has performed against the previous year's targets. We are fully in sympathy with the concerns behind the new clause and we agree absolutely that it is right that the Inland Revenue, in taking responsibility for the new tax credits, should not only set targets for its performance in key areas but should also be open to scrutiny as to how well it measures up to those targets. The success of the tax credit scheme will depend very largely on the speed and accuracy with which the Revenue gets the tax credits to the people entitled to them. It is only right that these matters should be in the public domain. So I have no hesitation in giving noble Lords the assurance that they seek that the board will be publishing details of key
722
operational targets and of the performance against the targets set for working families' tax credits and disabled person's tax credit.
We are considering at the moment what the targets should be. Again, I can assure noble Lords that the concerns expressed in the debate will help the Government's deliberations about the priority to attach to different areas of work on tax credits and how best to ensure that the Inland Revenue's performance reflects those priorities. In particular, I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about initial claims and renewal claims is a valid one which ought to be considered for inclusion in the targets to be published.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about the processing time. The intention is that the processing time should be five days and that the payment could be made on the Tuesday a week after the claim has been made. The noble Lord will be reassured to be reminded that once a claim has been processed it stays at the same figure for 26 weeks, so there is some security in that sense.
We are also taking account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about an employee who is involved in a trade dispute. If it lasts for less than a whole pay period, the employer will pay the full amount of tax credit due even though the pay might be reduced because of the dispute. If it lasts for the whole of a pay period or longer, the employer will not be expected to pay the tax credit but must, as soon as possible, provide the employee with a certificate of payment showing the amount of tax credits paid and the period they cover. The employee will be responsible for passing that to the Inland Revenue, which will then pay the tax credit direct to the employee until informed by the employee that he or she has returned to work. We are already giving detailed consideration to what targets and what measures of speed and accuracy will be involved. We are grateful to those noble Lords who have participated in this debate for pointing out particular cases.
As for reporting on performance against any targets which the Government set, the subject of the third part of the amendment, I am glad to confirm that the board will, as a matter of course, be reporting on how well the tax credit targets are being met. The board already lays before Parliament an annual report covering the aims and targets of the department in all the areas of its work. That will include working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit and those will be reported separately because the tax credit office will be a separate division within the Inland Revenue. The board's report is the appropriate place for setting out both targets and performance in relation to tax credits. I hope I have persuaded your Lordships that there is no need for another report as is called for in the amendment and therefore that noble Lords will not seek to press the amendment.
8.45p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if he expects that the Inland Revenue or the separate division of the Inland Revenue dealing with

723
tax credits will be able to act on them within five days, why does it take six to eight weeks for an emergency code to be translated into a real code?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is reasonably well accepted that the existing family credit is paid fairly well up to date. It is the family credit staff who are being transferred to the Inland Revenue who will be responsible for these payments. On behalf of the Government, I do not accept any criticism about emergency tax codes, but I do suggest that that is outside the scope of discussion on the Bill.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Minister was doing extremely well until the very last minute. One of the reasons why I was prompted to move the amendment is the number of cases in which the time for payment has amounted to six weeks or three months. I accept that that may not be typical, but it was important to raise the matter. The Minister has given a very forthcoming reply. I am a little worried that this kind of report may be buried in the department's annual report. He said that the information will be set out separately, which is of some advantage. The way in which departmental reports are now produced, which is due of course to the activities of the previous government, is vastly better than it was before. From years on the Treasury Select Committee, I know that we have made a good deal of progress there, but it is important to have this information, particularly for the transitional period.
I have one final point to make. Concern has been expressed about what will happen when industrial disputes occur and industrial relations are not likely to be at their best. It may be difficult for someone who is in fear of losing his job to bring to the attention of the authorities the fact that he has not been paid on time. No doubt the noble Lord will wish to consider that point.
This is the first amendment to which I have actually had a forthcoming reply in the sense of seeing movement. I think that we are making progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Payment of tax credit by employers etc.]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall not provide that an employer shall pay tax credits to an employee unless he has received, either directly or by way of deduction from remittances which he is otherwise obliged to pass to the Board, finance to pay the tax credit.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather inelegant amendment, for which I must be held responsible. We are saying that we should not have regulations which require an employer to pay tax credits to an employee if he has not received the money which he will pass to the individual employee. Earlier in our proceedings we discussed at some length the whole issue of cashflow and so on. I do not wish to delay the House any longer on that point. Perhaps I may therefore use the amendment to ask the Minister whether the Government accept that it would not be appropriate for
724
the regulations that will implement the proposals in the Bill to require the employer to pay money to an employee if, either by way of changes in the specific remittances made to the company or by way of deducting from the positive cashflow that the employer has already received as a result of collecting PAYE and NICs, the employer has not received it. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this is an important matter to which it is well worth returning. The CBI and the representatives of small businesses are worried. One of the reasons for their worry is the wording of Clause 6(5)(d). It states:
"for the funding by the board of tax credit paid or to be paid by employers (whether by way of set off against income tax or national insurance contributions for which they are accountable to the Board or otherwise)".
It has been pointed out by the CBI that where there are a number of low paid people in a smaller business the amount of tax they pay is often considerably less than the working families' tax credit would be. That could mean that they would be in deficit for a while until they received money from the board. This point has been answered in different ways at different stages already, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord would make it very plain that in fact employers will not be in deficit on this. They really are concerned about the point because they fear that they might be paying money to the recipients which they will have to fund themselves. I hope that we shall get a very clear and unequivocal answer on this.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. It is extremely important that this amendment, or something similar, is put into the Bill for those firms, no matter how large they are, which are operating very close to being profitable or unprofitable. If they find they are having to fund tax credits out of their own pockets it could just push them over the edge into unprofitability. That in the long run could lead to large numbers of people becoming unemployed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not at all complain about any inelegance in the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred. I complain about myself, because obviously I did not make myself clear at the Committee stage. I thought I had given the most complete and absolute assurance that the circumstances which the amendment supposes would not actually arise. So I was rather surprised to find the amendment on the Marshalled List again. However, I must try again. The amendment provides that an employer would not pay tax credit to an employee unless he had received direct funding from the Inland Revenue or indirect funding by setting off the tax credits against the amount he was due to pay to the Inland Revenue: presumably PAYE, national insurance contributions and any student loan repayments.
This is exactly what is already provided for in Clause 6(5)(d) of the Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred and in the draft Payment by Employer Regulations. Therefore an amendment of this

725
kind is completely unnecessary. The phrase, "paid or to be paid" simply reflects the fact that the funding is either direct or indirect but it is still funding, and funding in advance. No employer is required to pay any money in the form of tax credits which is not already to hand either in the form of his setting off against the amounts due to be paid to the Revenue or in the form of direct funding.
Let me tell your Lordships again about the way in which employers will receive funding to pay tax credits. All employers who will be asked to pay tax credits through the payroll will already be operating a PAYE scheme and so they will all have some PAYE or national insurance contributions liability to the Revenue. In addition, some employers will be deducting student loan repayments from their employees' pay and they will be responsible for paying these amounts also to the Revenue. Therefore the draft Payment by Employer Regulations provide for employers to set off any tax credits they have to pay against their total tax, national insurance contributions or student loan liability. When they are paying over PAYE, NICs and student loan recoveries to the Inland Revenue they will simply reduce the total by the amount of tax credits they have paid.
This mechanism is explained in the Inland Revenue booklet on Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit and is clearly set out in draft Regulation 6 of the Payment by Employer Regulations. Of course we recognise that some employers will not have a large enough liability to the Inland Revenue to cover the tax credits that they have to pay. Such employers will be able to apply for funding from the Inland Revenue in advance. So the Inland Revenue will provide funds where they are needed to ensure that employers are not out of pocket. Draft Regulation 7 covers the arrangements for advance funding.
Applications for funding will be made on a special form which the Inland Revenue will provide. From April 2000 this form will be sent to an employer who is being asked to pay tax credits for the first time. From January 2001 onwards the forms will be included in the Inland Revenue's annual employer's pack. If any of your Lordships have been employers and have seen this pack you will know that it is a weighty one. All employers will be prepared in case they need to apply for funds. I hope it is clear that the Government have no intention of asking employers to dig into their own pockets in order to pay tax credits.
I have been asked what happens if the employer has no money to pay the tax credits. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in particular talked about a firm which is on the brink. Employers of course will have a duty to see that the money is available on pay day, and when they are notified to start paying tax credits they will need to do two things. First, they will have to make arrangements as soon as possible to pay tax credits, ensuring that the person processing the payroll has all the tax credit information that is needed. If they have any doubts they will have to check that there will be enough money available to pay the tax credits, and apply for Revenue funding if necessary. As soon as it is clear that the money will not be available, the employer must
726
tell the Inland Revenue and in certain circumstances—in other words when it is necessary—the employer may step in to ensure that the payments are maintained. We are not talking a very large number—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but surely he has got that wrong. It is not the employer who has to make certain: it is the Inland Revenue which has to make certain.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. Yes, of course, the Inland Revenue may step in to ensure that payments are maintained. We are not talking about a very large number of employers. Our estimate is that between 50,000 and 70,000 employers throughout the whole country will have to receive funding because their payments on PAYE, NICs and student loan recovery will not be enough to cover the tax credits. But even in those cases there is no question of employers digging into their own pockets, and this amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, can he tell us how accurate employers are going to have to be in assessing the money they will need? This is one of our great concerns. The noble Lord said that if an employer reckons he is going to be out of funds for paying the working families' tax credit: he will be able to apply for more money. Will he have to prove in detail what he requires or can he make a general assessment? I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that because it is quite important to individual employers, especially small ones.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the employer will get from the Inland Revenue all the calculations: these will all have been done by the Inland Revenue and so the employer will get a single figure. He will know how many employees it applies to and it will be very straightforward for him to calculate how much he will have to pay out in tax credits. I have dealt with a payroll for many years and one of the easiest things to calculate month by month is the amount that you have to pay out in PAYE and national insurance contributions. It is in a book with 12 monthly pages. You keep a record on the inside front cover of what you pay out, and I can assure your Lordships that every employer knows exactly what he is paying out. He will have no difficulty in assessing whether the cashflow benefits that he gets will cover the tax credits.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if the Inland Revenue needs to step in to provide funding, how long will that take?—because if the employee is paid on a weekly basis he will want to paid at the end of that particular week.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the employer must make the application in time, and it depends on whether his staff are paid weekly or

727
monthly. Provided he makes the application within the time specified in the regulations he will get the money on time.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will understand that the noble Lord is overcome with nostalgia for his previous calculation of PAYE forms. I always found it extraordinarily difficult, but obviously he is much better at these matters than I am. The noble Lord has given a clear undertaking on the basis of the amendment and confirmed what he said previously. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) for the funding by the Board of an additional sum (calculated as a percentage of the tax credit paid by an employer) to be set off (as provided in paragraph (d)) by, or paid to, employers or any category of employers by way of compensation for the administration cost of paying tax credits;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 20. These are probing amendments which will provide the House with the chance to debate the administrative burdens of the WFTC on business and to hear the Minister's reply—I am not certain who is to respond to the debate—in the light of a recent and sensible comment by Jack Cunningham. In a speech to the Social Market Foundation on the new government approach to regulation and reform of the Regulatory Impact Unit, he said that,
"government must be more realistic about how much time small businesses have to cope with regulation".
He went on to say,
"small firms need to be able to concentrate on running their business and securing new work".
He was determined that,
"the Government's new approach to regulatory control will take account of small firms' concerns".
Small firms are concerned at the administration costs of paying the credits, and I hope that the Minister will take account of their concerns. The time and paperwork involved in being unpaid tax collectors are ever-increasing and weigh disproportionately on small firms. These amendments would allow for small firms to be reimbursed their costs, which is commonplace on the Continent.
Amendment No. 20 proposes the 'funding of the costs of employers of less than 500 employees. We have chosen the figure of 500, which is the CBI's definition of a small and medium-sized enterprise. Small businesses in particular are not attempting to avoid their responsibilities. Many small firms simply do not have the resources or back-up to administer the system effectively. Large firms have payroll systems and
728
personnel departments, but this kind of work becomes a nightmare on the kitchen table for a small business owner.
We wish to ensure that when employers are asked to administer these tax credits the system is workable. All that will happen is that smaller firms will have to seek expensive professional help or divert resources and manpower from core activities to comply with this requirement and the other burdens of legislation that affect them. We do not feel that this can possibly pass the test set by Jack Cunningham.
At the rate the Government are going, businessmen in small companies will cease to be entrepreneurs as they will have to spend so much time as unpaid administrators of the Government's welfare system. The Minister has just maintained that the work to be done by employers in administering tax credits is minimal. That is disputed by employers' organisations, who point out that employers will have to log each start and stop notice so as to take the right action on each pay day and insert the correct amount on the payslip of each claimant. They will then have to add up the total tax credits paid to all employees on any one pay day and deduct that total from the PAYE tax and national insurance that they have to pay to the Revenue. An employer who will be out of pocket and therefore able to claim an advance of money from the Revenue will have to estimate the amount needed and get the evidence together for his claim.
In addition, there will be mistakes and the employer will be blamed. An employer may pay the wrong person on the incorrect instructions of the Revenue and will have to spend more time correcting that mistake. Small business organisations are incensed by the misleading statement that the Revenue rather than the employer will do all the work. One suggested to me that Ministers should be conscripted into small companies' payroll departments for a month and they would then understand. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it seems to me that the Government have accepted the principle of reimbursing employers for the work that they do in relation to benefits in the case of maternity benefit. I remember operating the system for somebody on maternity leave, paying her salary while on leave and claiming it back from the department. Extra was paid back to cover the administration that I had had to undertake. I forget the proportion but I regarded it as very reasonable and human of the department. There is a principle within the Department of Social Security that may be related to this point.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches—in view of the absence of my noble friends perhaps I should say "I"—recognise the problems of small businesses. The problem that this Bill creates for small employers is, at any rate for the time being—although I fear what may happen when this Bill goes back to another place—much reduced by the amendment passed at Committee stage to exclude small employers from liability to make payments of tax credits through the payroll.

729
I find a good deal of difficulty in supporting Amendment No. 20, or Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, which have not yet been spoken to but which I would have difficulty with for the same reason. Apparently they are all based on the idea of refunding to the employer the actual costs incurred. I believe that that would involve massive bureaucracy and an opportunity for fraud and would give employers no incentive to minimise their administrative costs. Further, Amendment No. 20 gives help to quite large employers who could well afford to carry the costs involved. A business with, say, 499 employees could have a wages bill comfortably in excess of £10 million a year.
Amendment No. 19 seems a good deal better, perhaps not surprisingly, as it is similar to an amendment which I tabled at Committee stage. It proposes to set a percentage addition to the tax credit payments so that the calculation is simple and an incentive to minimise costs is preserved. That idea is based on the funding system for the administrative costs of statutory maternity pay. The amendment gives the Government power to decide where the dividing line falls between the small and large employer and a discretion in deciding the appropriate percentage rate.
The Government have argued that there is no compensation for the cost of administering PAYE or national insurance contributions. That is perfectly true. But, in that case, why make an exception for statutory maternity pay? The answer must be pragmatic. An employer of any size cannot escape paying PAYE or national insurance contributions. The only employers who do not do so are those employing perhaps a gardener, or a cleaner in the house, for a few hours a week. Small employers employing up to 10 people can seek to avoid employing pregnant women, or women likely to become pregnant. So they have had their costs refunded in order to avoid the disincentive of employing those members of their staff.
For the same reason, we should not give small employers an incentive to avoid payment of tax credits through the payroll. In addition, PAYE and NIC deductions compensate employers to a limited extent by the cash flow effect. The payment of the deducted contribution occurs some time after the payment of the wages. That cash flow effect is reversed in the case of tax credits.
However, I am somewhat ambivalent about Amendment No. 19 at this stage. The exclusion which we have already achieved of employers with fewer than 10 employees makes the amendment largely unnecessary. That was why we did not table our amendment again on Report. We look on it effectively as an alternative to the amendment passed during Committee stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was amused by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that Ministers responsible should be conscripted to the payroll department of small firms for a month. It was not just the idea that small firms have payroll departments—they do not; the boss does the work—but because I have done so not just for a month but for many years. I have to repeat what I have said in previous
730
stages of the Bill. The burden which is supposed to be imposed on small employers from the tax credit proposals is very small indeed. The burden imposed by the requirement on all employers to operate the PAYE and national insurance contribution system is substantially larger than what is proposed in the Bill. And even that is dwarfed by the burden imposed by value added tax, which is a transaction-based activity which requires every financial transaction to be recorded and calculated for a VAT return on a quarterly basis. As a matter of practical experience, I cannot accept the accusations about the burden of tax credits on small employers.
I have difficulty in speaking only to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. Amendment No. 18, which was withdrawn, and Amendment No. 23 are clearly alternatives which set a threshold of the amount of the annual national insurance contribution payments. Amendments Nos. 20 to 22—they appear, illogically, to be in different groups—are three alternatives which set the threshold of the number of employees. Amendment No. 19—it was not moved by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, not because a previous amendment had been carried but because the Liberal Democrat Front Bench was empty at the time and no one was present to move it—seeks to achieve exactly the same objective by calculating the sum as a percentage of the tax credit paid by the employer. I have only to speak briefly of the cost of the amendments to make it clear why the Government cannot accept them. Amendment No. 19 would cost £35 million per 1 per cent of compensation paid. Amendment No. 20 would cost £60 million.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of my original paternity of Amendment No. 19, perhaps I may ask how the Minister can come up with any figures at all since it depends on the level at which the Government decide what is a small business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is not about small businesses; it is about all businesses, large and small. It sets the figure as a percentage of the tax credits paid by the employer, whether the employer has five employees or 5,000.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment states:
"employers or any category of employers".
Therefore, the Government could say that it would apply to employers with fewer than five employees, fewer than 10 employees or fewer than 20 employees.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, having accepted paternity of this amendment, ought to have thought a little more about what he meant by "percentage" and by "categories". The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who has moved the amendment and taken over paternity. I have made the simplest assumption that there will be some percentage and I have assumed that it applies to all employers. If I had really wanted to, I would have constructed a table, but, frankly, it is not worth the effort. However, to say only that it is £35 million per

731
1 per cent of compensation paid makes the case. Amendment No. 20 would cost £60 million; Amendment No. 21 would cost £50 million; Amendment No. 22 would cost £40 million; and Amendment No. 23 would cost £30 million. Therefore, the amounts of money are not insignificant.
Our objection to the amendments is primarily one of principle. As I explained in Committee when similar amendments were proposed, the tax system does not provide, and has never provided, for a direct subsidy or compensation payment to employers who fulfil their obligations in relation to tax. Tax credits will be part of the tax system and the normal tax rules will apply.
As regards the comments about statutory maternity pay, perhaps I may say in parenthesis that it is not part of the tax system; it is a benefit. Tax credits are part of the tax system and it would not be appropriate to introduce an anomaly into that system. There is no reason why tax credit administration should be treated differently from PAYE administration, for which no compensation is paid or has been paid for a period of more than 50 years.
To change the rules here and provide compensation would be the thin end of the wedge because it would be very difficult to draw the line between tax credits and other parts of the tax system. The knock-on effect could therefore be extremely expensive for the Exchequer and for taxpayers generally once the "no compensation" principle had been undermined.
Although I have no direct knowledge, I do not deny that in other countries employers may be compensated for their time; but not in this country. They never have been and no government of any political persuasion have sought to do so.
Amendment No. 23 singles out employers with an annual national insurance liability of less than £20,000, presumably because these will tend to be small businesses which, so the argument goes, will incur disproportionate costs when they pay tax credits through the payroll. While I am on that point, I cannot accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that the burdens of being unpaid tax collectors are ever increasing. The burdens of national insurance contributions and PAYE have not changed for many years. The increase proposed here is minimal and does not involve employers paying the tax credits out of their own pockets.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 would go much wider, providing compensation in one case for all employers. However, I accept what the noble Lord said about the provision which could be made in different cases. In the other case, it would provide compensation for up to 500, 100 or 50 employees.
We do not deny that there are some costs, although they must be seen in the context of advantages to employers of an enlarged labour pool as a result of the working families' tax credit and the disabled persons' tax credit. But the way to minimise burdens on employers is surely not to introduce a potentially expensive anomaly into the tax system, which is what these amendments do. A far better approach is to
732
continue what we have been doing for the past year: consulting representative employers and payroll providers of all sizes in order to ensure that the details of the scheme meet their concerns and impose minimal costs on employers generally.
When I debated these amendments in Committee, I gave a long list of the fiscal measures which the Government have introduced in recent Budgets to protect and help small businesses. I shall spare your Lordships that list again today. But if anybody thinks that this Government are not concerned about the health of small businesses, they are very wrong indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, recognised by his use of those very apt quotations from Jack Cunningham's speech.
The amendments do not have any sound basis. They would damage the whole principle on which we have calculated the tax system for a period of 50 years or more. I urge the noble Lord not to press the matter to a Division.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I take the point of his personal experience in those matters. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for mentioning the precedent of statutory maternity pay.
The Minister referred to my comments about Jack Cunningham. I said that Mr Cunningham stated that the Government must be more realistic about how much time small businesses must spend in coping with regulation.
Both myself and most small business organisations are not sure that the Government, with the exception of Jack Cunningham, understand fully how onerous and costly it will be for small firms to administer those tax credits. However, I said that these are probing amendments and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) for funding the administration cost incurred in paying the credit by employers of less than 100 employees;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accused me of having shot my fox. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out when speaking in support of the amendment, the Government have made it clear that in the other place they will overturn the amendment allowing small employers to opt out. The business community is also expecting that.
Bearing that in mind, and mindful of the fact that the Social Security Select Committee recommended that small employers should receive an additional reimbursement to alleviate their administrative costs, we offer these amendments to the Government as an alternative. They could agree that the funding should apply to employers with fewer than 100 employees, as

733
provided in Amendment No. 21, or they may wish to opt for Amendment No. 22, which relates to employers with fewer than 50 employees. However, the Government may prefer Amendment No. 23. There is a precedent for small firms' exemption for employees whose earnings and national insurance contribution payments do not exceed £20,000. Those employers recover 100 per cent of the statutory maternity pay paid out, plus 5 per cent to compensate for administrative costs. My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to that.
Why should small employers receive compensation for administering SMP but not WFTC or DPTC? Those companies are not charitable institutions and they should not have to sub the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in Committee, making small employers act as paying agents would be a serious burden for them, and it is appropriate that the public purse should fund the administrative costs which they have to bear.
While this Government came to office promising an enterprise culture for businesses, the practical effects of so many of their actions have been wholly negative through a combination of administrative and financial burdens. Nowhere is that more apparent than the acute effects on small businesses. Not only do they provide a vital part of the UK economy but they provide also a high proportion of jobs for those who are low-skilled or semi-skilled and who desperately want the opportunity to work.
Recent research by the University of Bath on behalf of the Inland Revenue quantifies the burdens which firms face, despite what we have just heard from the Minister, by administering income tax, national insurance and statutory sick and maternity pay. It also illustrates that these burdens are a significant barrier to job growth in smaller firms. The pattern of compliance costs is highly regressive against smaller employers in that the bottom 30 per cent (by PAYE and national insurance collected) shoulder 75 per cent of the costs. To help them, I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister seemed, in a strange way which I did not understand, to reply to these amendments before they were moved. Perhaps he had not noticed the grouping.
However, that gives me an opportunity to take issue with him on his argument that the reason why the principle applies with statutory maternity pay and cannot apply to this is that this is part of the tax system. It is only part of the tax system in that the Government are giving it to the Inland Revenue to do. It is an earnings supplement. We had this discussion in Committee. If it was a tax rebate, it would be part of the tax system. I do not believe that is merely nit-picking. It is an earnings supplement and is one way of doing it. That is the way the Government have chosen. It seems to me that it is a benefit and not part of the tax system.
734
I am sorry that the Minister used that argument. Perhaps it is because it is an Inland Revenue brief and it hopes it will become part of the tax system in due course; I do not know. However, he should not really have used that argument.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose it would be fair to say that I shot my own fox. The noble Baroness is quite right. I could not find any difference in the arguments to be used on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 from those to be used on Amendments Nos. 21 to 23. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are alternatives to Amendment No. 20. Amendment No. 23 is an alternative to Amendment No. 18 which has been withdrawn. The noble Baroness is entirely right. In order to put the case properly, I felt it necessary to respond to all the amendments together. If I had heard any particular new points I would have sought to respond to them on this occasion, but I do not believe I have.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has quite rightly drawn attention to the importance of small businesses in our economy. As I believe I made clear, the Government entirely agree with that. We seek to reduce the burden on small businesses.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was not just drawing attention to what small businesses do but to the costs on them in administering the tax credits.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I accept that. However, the arguments I used, based on experience as well as the principle upon which we oppose the amendments, have made it clear that the additional burden involved in the administration of tax credits is very small compared to the burden which has existed for many years. Indeed, it is significant that the burden of tax credits on employers is not incremental. In other words, the smaller employers are much more likely to have no employees with tax credits than larger employers.
This gives me an opportunity to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I repeat the arguments I used before. Statutory maternity pay is a benefit. The purpose of compensating employers for the administration of statutory maternity benefit is precisely as she set out in her speech on the previous group of amendments. The Government wanted to ensure that employers were not deterred from employing people who are entitled to statutory maternity benefit. That is simply not the case with tax credits or disabled person's tax credits. It is not possible for employers to know the financial circumstances of their employees from the fact that they are entitled to tax credits.
There are many reasons why a family should be entitled to working families' tax credit. The calculation is done entirely by the Inland Revenue and there is no possibility of disclosure of the financial details of the individual employee from the fact that a tax credit is payable. The objection in principle which applied to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 applies equally to Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 and the Government cannot accept them.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am sorry that he was not more receptive to our amendments. I am sorry also that he could not agree with what Jack Cunningham said; that is, that small firms need to be able to concentrate on running their business and securing new work rather than administering these tax credits.
I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for once again mentioning the precedent of SMP. We have received strong representations from organisations that represent small businesses and they are extremely unhappy on this point. However, at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall not require an employer to calculate the tax credit to which an employee is entitled during the period when the employer will be responsible for payment of tax credit to that employee, other than to relate the calculation made by the Board of the employee's entitlement to tax credit to the length of time the employee is employed.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was a little mystified by the earlier discussion and perhaps the Minister should inquire who suggested the grouping. The whole set of amendments were somewhat similar but we did not think it appropriate to dissent from the groupings.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for writing to me in relation to specific points relevant to this amendment. Indeed, throughout the proceedings they have been helpful in that respect and the noble Baroness, replying on behalf of her colleague, was kind enough to write to me and my colleagues to explain precisely how the Government envisage the system working with regard to payment of tax credits by employers.
This amendment seeks to spell out that explanation in black and white. If I understand correctly, the Government are saying exactly what is stated in the amendment. If that is on the record it will be helpful should there be any subsequent dispute. The noble Baroness was good enough to send me an extract of one of the statutory instruments setting out the way in which the regulations will operate in relation to the employer.
Perhaps I may make one point which is relevant to both this debate and the previous one. It is not helpful for the Minister to say, "We did not worry about the cost of operating this system in small businesses because it will be mostly done by the employer". I believe that was his argument, but it is a strange argument. If the entrepreneur of a business is being distracted by becoming an agent for social security payments—or in this case Inland Revenue payments as defined by the Government—that is a higher cost than if he were employing someone who did nothing else. Adam Smith and the pin factory suggest that a degree of specialisation would be more efficient. If the
736
entrepreneur is having to do it, that is a disadvantage rather than, as the Minister was seeking to suggest, an advantage.
I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer. Perhaps the Minister can confirm my understanding that the Government envisage precisely what is said in Amendment No. 24. In that case it will not be necessary to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly hope that I did not say we do not need to worry about the cost to small businesses, because those costs are incurred by taking up the time of the entrepreneur. I was simply making the perhaps trivial point that small businesses do not have payroll departments. It is still a cost and we worry about all costs. I used to work on a Saturday afternoon when I had an office in central London and I would find from time to time that the landlord had locked the outside door and that I could not get out. Having completed my VAT return and the PAYE and NIC entries, I had to climb out of the window, jump down about 10 feet and get out though the fire escape. I do not recommend that to any entrepreneur, and it is a definite deterrent that the Government do not in any way support.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, invites me to put on record in Hansard the assurances and explanations which were given by my noble friend Lady Hollis in her letter, and I am delighted to do that. The main point I should like to make is that under no circumstances will employers be involved in processing applications for tax credits or in assessing the level of tax credit awards. That will always be the business of the Inland Revenue.
From October 1999, when the tax credits are introduced, the Inland Revenue will process all applications and will do all the calculations necessary to work out the level of tax credit awards. The Revenue will pay the awards direct to all successful applicants, whether they are employees, self-employed or non-earners.
From April 2000, when employer payment begins, there will be no change to the application and assessment procedure. The Revenue will continue to process and assess all applications and inform all applicants of the level of their award. The only change after April 2000 will be that, whereas self-employed and non-earning recipients will continue to receive their tax credit direct from the Revenue, employees will receive theirs through the payroll where appropriate.
What will happen when an employee is awarded a tax credit? The Inland Revenue will notify him of the award and tell him the daily rate at which payments will be made over the 26-week period of the award. The notification will also explain that initial payments will be made direct by the Revenue but that after a certain date the employer will take over payment.
At the same time the Inland Revenue will notify the employer when to start paying tax credit, how much to pay and when to stop. Employers will always be given enough time to adjust their payrolls before starting to pay tax credits (14 days notice in respect of weekly paid employees, 42 days in all other cases).

737
The start notification will include the daily rate of tax credit payable to the employee and a table showing the 1–31 multiples of the daily rate. The daily rate refers to calendar days, not working days. The only calculation the employer will have to make is to read off from the table the amount of tax credit payable, according to the number of days in the pay period for which he is responsible. For example, if the employer's responsibility starts on 21st June for an employee paid monthly at the end of the month, he will have to pay 10 days' worth of tax credit up to the end of June (21 to 30 June). Therefore, he will need to use the Revenue-provided table to arrive at the tax credit due; that is, 10 times the daily rate. In subsequent months he will read off the 30 or 31 multiples of the daily rate to find out the appropriate tax credit amount for a particular month. That amount will be added each month to the employee's net pay.
If noble Lords are interested, this is all neatly illustrated in a table on page 9 of the Inland Revenue booklet, Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit. Draft regulations 3(2) and 4(2) of the Payment by Employer Regulations also set out the information which the Revenue must provide to the employer and employee respectively. Draft regulation No. 5 spells out what the employer needs to do.
I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords. I have stated publicly what was contained in the letter and therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 29, after ("which") insert ("shall in the case of the first regulations made under any subsections of this section be made only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and in the case of subsequent regulations")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of two amendments; similar amendments were discussed in Committee. This amendment concerns the approval of regulations to be made under Clause 6, while the other amendment relates to the approval of regulations to be made under Clause 15. Clause 6 will be implemented through regulations. The Government have produced draft regulations and that is helpful; but it is not yet enough. Those regulations are still open to change. I believe that the principle should be that the final regulations should be approved by Parliament, rather than Parliament relying on drafts which are not finalised at the date of the relevant debates.
Of course, these are very important regulations which are central to the whole operation of the tax credits system; for example, Regulation 5 of the draft regulations contains the employer's obligation to pay tax credits through the pay packet. Regulation 6 provides for the employer to fund the tax credits by what can be described as "deductions from deductions". Regulation 7 provides for the funding of the employer by the Inland
738
Revenue where the employer cannot cover the tax credits by deductions from PAYE or NICs. Therefore, the regulations are plainly at the heart of the Bill.
It seems reasonable, therefore, that on the first occasion when the regulations are made, if not subsequently, the affirmative resolution procedure should be used so that Parliament has an opportunity to debate and confirm them without having to rely on a Prayer against the regulations under the negative procedure. That is what the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation recommended. I am a member of that committee, and we said:
"This is a wide-ranging power with considerable administrative and financial implications for employers, including small employers. The House may wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to provide for the affirmative procedure to apply on the first occasion that the power is exercised".
That proposal was rejected by the Inland Revenue. Indeed, the Revenue did so in a letter which I shall paraphrase, although I shall paraphrase only slightly because the following is pretty much what it said. The recommendation was rejected on the basis that the Inland Revenue did not think it was appropriate for its regulations to be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure. I must say that I do not believe that that is an acceptable response. I am not blaming the noble Baroness because it is not her department. She has no responsibility for what the Inland Revenue says. However, whether or not those arguments are correct, I repeat that I do not think that is an acceptable response.
The Inland Revenue argued that the PAYE regulations involve the negative resolution procedure. But, of course, PAYE was introduced in wartime and I think that it is at least possible that people were not thinking in as much detail in 1943 as they do now about whether the affirmative or negative resolution procedure is more appropriate.
The attitude of the Inland Revenue is all the more surprising because the Government have accepted that the affirmative procedure should be used for the first regulations to be made under Clause 15 on childcare. Those regulations will also be important. However, I believe that they are no more important to this Bill than are those which are to be made under Clause 6. The difference is that it is the Department for Education and Employment and not the Inland Revenue which is responsible for the regulations under Clause 15.
The latter increases our concern that the Inland Revenue culture is inappropriate for the payment of tax credits. Whether or not you call tax credits a "benefit", they are clearly a distribution of money which is contrary to the Inland Revenue's basic purpose, which is to collect money. The Inland Revenue is not used to making payments out. Indeed, it is not used to the rather different emphasis which applies to the making of regulations which are involved in the distribution of money—whether called "benefits" or "tax credits"—in a similar form to benefits Therefore, I ask the Government: whether they are prepared to reconsider the method by which the first regulations to be made under Clause 6 will be approved. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his amendment. He specifically refers to the recommendations of the committee. I must say that the response which we have received from the Inland Revenue—namely, that this is not something the Inland Revenue is concerned with—does not seem to me a reasonable response. After all, we are concerned with ministerial responsibility, not that of officials. One presumes that the Revenue's response was endorsed by Ministers. But certainly a doctrine that no Inland Revenue order could be subject to scrutiny and voted upon in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, described does not seem to me to be acceptable, whatever the precedents may be.
As regards this Bill, the idea that we are switching from a situation where the affirmative resolution procedure is permitted to a situation where it is not permitted because the Inland Revenue is involved does not seem to me to be acceptable. As the noble Lord rightly stressed, that underlines our concern that the attitude, regime, ethos—call it what you will—of the Inland Revenue may pervade what has previously been that of a government department with a rather different approach to these problems.
On the first occasion the regulations come before the House we should be able to consider them. However, they are still not amendable. We have already expressed appreciation of the fact that the Government have published the draft regulations, but that does not resolve the problem of their not being amendable. I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. If he felt inclined to register a protest by calling a Division, I would be inclined to support him. But be that as it may, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope very much that he can accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last thing I wish to do is to seek to hide behind departmental differences, or indeed seek to hide behind the view of the Inland Revenue as opposed to the view of Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly says, the response of the Inland Revenue to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee was given on ministerial authority. I speak on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of any particular department.
Therefore it is with great sadness that I have to tell the House that our response has not changed since the lengthy debate we had on this subject at Committee stage. Before I repeat the reasons which I gave on that occasion I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the issue here is not one of scrutiny, voting or amending; we are talking about the difference between negative and affirmative resolutions. Both of them are forms of scrutiny. It is perfectly possible for negative resolutions to be prayed against in this House or in the other place. They have to be scrutinised by Parliament in exactly the same way as affirmative resolutions.
Similarly, although this House passed on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a resolution that this House has an unfettered right to
740
vote on secondary legislation, it has been the convention of this House for many years—both on affirmative and negative resolution procedures—that we do not vote against these orders for the very straightforward reason that a vote against them would require the order to be relaid because there is no opportunity for the other place to reconsider the matter. An order falls if it fails to be passed by both Houses.
I shall repeat my explanation of why we provide for the negative resolution procedure through both Houses. That is the usual process in the tax system and it is more usual for tax regulations to be laid only before another place because of the limitations on this Chamber's powers in respect of money matters.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was slightly surprised to hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Is it the case that Inland Revenue resolutions are never by affirmative resolution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that to be the case. It is the case also that they are not even subject to the negative resolution procedure before this House. I may be able to expand on that point in a minute.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am a little concerned that in future, because this could be construed as a money matter, a negative resolution will not come before this House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is entirely possible. It is for Madam Speaker to rule whether it is a money matter. If the noble Lord will hear me out, it would be better if I pursue my arguments without interventions that try to anticipate what I am going to say.
These regulations for payment through the pay packet are setting up a similar administrative structure to that for PAYE currently in the tax system. Therefore, we take the view that it is appropriate for the regulations also to use the negative procedure. As I said in Committee, the powers in social security legislation frequently provide for regulations to be made by the negative procedure.
I am sure that noble Lords are motivated by concerns that there will not be proper scrutiny of the regulations. Your Lordships and Members of another place will be able to study the draft—as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, fairly acknowledged. In addition, the Inland Revenue intends shortly to publish formally the draft regulations which will give many interested parties the opportunity to comment. The Inland Revenue has spent considerable time over the past year consulting representative groups on details of the scheme. The document published in December and the draft regulations were developed as a result. The Inland Revenue will continue to consult on the draft regulations.
I hope that noble Lords accept that it is with no sense of defiance towards the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—for which we have

741
individually and collectively the highest respect—that we suggest on this occasion that it may have got it wrong and that it would be better to stick with procedures that have worked well in the past.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can clear up some confusion in my mind. He told my noble friend Lord Swinfen that the statutory instruments flowing from the legislation would not be discussed by this House. I seem to recall that in answer to a similar question on. Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said exactly the opposite. Who is correct?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for the Government to determine whether any particular regulation or piece of legislation is ruled to be a money matter. That is for Madam Speaker to rule, not for us to say. The regulations will be available for scrutiny by this House unless they have been ruled by Madam Speaker to be a money matter. All I did in response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was acknowledge that that might be the case.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the thought that he gave to my amendment. I was tempted when he suggested that he might support me if I sought a Division. I might have accepted his invitation if we did not have the draft regulations before us. The draft regulations are of considerable importance. Although I said that I thought they were not enough, the difference between us would not justify my seeking to divide the House. The amendment was brought forward as a protest at what we regarded as the somewhat high-handed attitude of the Inland Revenue rather than with the intention of dividing the House and seeking to have the amendment placed on the face of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
PAYMENT OF TAX CREDITS BY BOARD
(" .—(1) Section 6 above shall not apply to the payment of tax credits to employees whose contract of employment is for less than ten weeks.
(2) The Board shall make payments of tax credits directly to the employees specified in subsection (1).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by this stage of the Bill we know a lot about the change from family credit to the working families' tax credit, and about the disabled person's tax credit. We know who is to receive it; how steep the angle of the taper is to be; how it is to be paid; by whom; the daily rate and so on. We have come a long way.
However, there is a further issue that I wish to probe. On the second day in Committee, I said that I regarded the amendment of my noble friend Lord Astor on agricultural workers as the most important on the Marshalled List: and that, by definition, it went much
742
further than he intended. In the event, he did not move his amendment. But, by tabling the amendment, he clearly regarded the method of payment of short-term casual workers as a definite worry.
Under the current scheme of family credit, when such workers are in work they are paid straightforward family credit. If they are in work for the 26 weeks for which the credit runs, there is obviously no problem. The same applies under WFTC. If, however, they have several periods of work with lay-offs in between, they still get family credit for the full 26 weeks, if necessary topped up to income support levels when they are not working. Whether or not they are working, they currently receive their money through the Post Office.
However, it seems to me—as, I suspect, it does to my noble friend Lord Astor—that there is a problem with WFTC. As we have been told over and over again by the Minister, this replacement benefit is to be paid by the employer through the wage packet. That is all well and good if the employee is working but, by definition, the people that the amendment seeks to address are not working continuously for the full period of their award. Two questions therefore arise. First, who is to pay them when they are not working? Secondly, should the same payment method be used throughout the award? I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 26, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
My noble friend referred to my Committee stage amendment on agricultural workers, which covered casual and part-time workers. Although I did not move it—much to the disappointment of the noble Baroness—I agree with my noble friend that the method of payment for short-term casual workers is unsatisfactory. I have in mind such people as agricultural seasonal workers who come and go throughout the year. The NFU has pointed out that paying the WFTC through the pay packet will involve farming employers having to keep signing their workers on and off the payroll, which will be an administrative nightmare. Other examples of workers with intermittent employment are seasonal packers for clothes, Christmas Post Office workers, waiters (in some cases) and shop workers taken on for busy periods.
The replacement benefit is to be paid through the wage packet. I agree with my noble friend that that will be fine if the employee is working. But, as he said, the people the amendment seeks to address are not working continuously for the full period of their award. look forward to the Minister's reply to my noble friend's questions, particularly on who is to pay employees when they are not working.
10 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. As the Bill stands, it will be impossible for employers to take on casual workers, very often for only a few days at a time. The noble Baroness the Minister shakes her head. She will no doubt put me right when she rises to reply to the amendment, or perhaps her

743
noble friend will do so. The amendment is purely a matter of practicality. I hope that the Government will either give a satisfactory explanation or accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not what my brief says, but I think that the amendments are intended to be helpful. I am quite sure that they are. However, I am sorry to say that they strike at the heart of what we are attempting to do and would have perverse effects which would be undesirable.
We recognise that in practice some employees on very short contracts may well find that they are paid their tax credits direct by the Inland Revenue rather than through their employer. I shall come on to show how that will be the case and the examples given by noble Lords are relevant to that. But that will happen because their particular circumstances make the payment by the Inland Revenue the only sensible approach. It does not mean, as the amendment would provide, that all employees on short contracts must be paid directly from the Revenue. Perhaps I may repeat the arguments for paying working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit through the payroll.
The employer scheme will reinforce the message that tax credits are a reward for work. It will emphasise tax credits as part of the tax system and will help to break the link with benefits, thus reducing the stigma of claiming in-work support. So we should not be looking for ways of excluding any category of employee from the scheme. In particular, since the tax credits scheme is a work incentive measure, it seems perverse to try to exclude all employees on short-term contracts. For many of these people, a short-term contract may be the first step on the employment ladder. These are just the people we are anxious to encourage to stay in work and move up the earnings scale rather than relying on out of work benefits.
Of course, as noble Lords have said, many employees on short-term contracts are casual, part-time or seasonal workers, but many of them will have their contracts renewed. Indeed, we hope that will happen frequently. For those employees, payment through the payroll will be the norm. I can assure noble Lords that the tax credit scheme has been carefully designed with the interests of tax credit recipients in mind. Although payment through the payroll will be a key feature of the scheme, the Inland Revenue will never ask an employer to pay tax credits unless we can ensure that entitled employees receive their tax credits on time and without hassle.
Two conditions will have to be met before employer payment is instigated. First, the Revenue will give employers adequate time to adjust their payroll before they can start paying tax credits—14 days in respect of weekly paid staff and 42 days for all other cases. Secondly, no employer will be asked to pay working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit unless there is time for at least three tax credit payments before the end of the employee's tax credit award period or the end of the employment contract, if earlier. That means that a very substantial number of the cases to which the amendment refers will be paid by the Inland Revenue.
744
The point of setting these conditions is not only to make things as convenient as possible for employers but also to ensure that we do not jeopardise the prompt and efficient delivery of tax credits to employees who are entitled to them. In the case of employees on contracts lasting less than 10 weeks, there may not be time for the Inland Revenue to ask the employer to pay tax credit. In that case, the Revenue will pay the employee direct throughout the 26-week tax credit award period. The tax credit scheme, therefore, already adopts a pragmatic approach which will ensure that payment via the employer will not be attempted when it would clearly be inappropriate. What I have just said about it being through the 26-week period deals with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the period in which the employee is not an employee; in other words, when he is not working. A special provision in the Bill would be quite unnecessary. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not sure which of the "heavenly twins" was going to answer my amendment. Had it been the noble Baroness, I would have sympathised with her on having to work at this hour of night on her birthday, but I would have pointed out too that I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on my fifth wedding anniversary. Nobody listened to a word I said. The only comment that was made included congratulations to my wife on getting rid of me!
That said, I am very comforted indeed by the response of the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip to my amendment. Indeed it was intended to be helpful. My interest was not on the employer's side; it was on the practicality of employees—perhaps one might call them erratic employees in this case—getting their family tax credit on time. I am interested by the noble Lord's comment that unless three continuous tax credit payment periods are completed, the automatic assumption will be that throughout the 26 weeks this will be paid by the board. I rather think that that is a mistake because the second period of employment might well be for the rest of the tax credit grant award period: in other words, for the rest of the 26 weeks. In that case it would be entirely logical and would fit in with the purpose of the Bill, which has been emphasised over and over again that the employer should pay.
I readily accept that my 10 weeks is the wrong period. I shall have to think it out again. But I was also slightly worried by the noble Lord's formulation of the words "three tax credit payments". Are these weekly or monthly payments, or does it depend on—there is no need for an answer now because we can come back to it—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, either.
Lord Skelmersdale: Either, my Lords, or both? In that case I am even more worried, not from the point of view of being a member of the Opposition on a government Bill but from the point of view of pure practicality. I shall read carefully in Hansard what has

745
been said, and if I feel it is necessary come back to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Penalties for fraud etc. and failures to comply]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert—
("(9) The Treasury shall provide appeal tribunals within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1998 and general and special commissioners with sufficient funds to enable them to determine expeditiously appeals against determinations made under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27 which stands in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. The noble Baroness will recall—how can anyone forget?—the debates that we had on this subject last year on the Social Security Bill. Clearly this piece of legislation will impose more burdens on the tribunals concerned. It is important that this should remain within the social security system and perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm whether that is so. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I, stressed the difference between the attitude of the Social Security Department and the Inland Revenue. There is certainly a difference in attitude between the appeal tribunals so far as the Revenue departments are concerned. There are rather different arrangements from those with regard to the Social Security Act.
The amendment seeks to ensure that appeals are dealt with expeditiously. My understanding RS that the system is under considerable strain at the moment. Average waiting times, I understand, are currently seven months, with some applicants waiting over a year for a decision in their case. The number of appeals continues to rise. Apparently in 1997–98 the number was 25 per cent up on the previous year and 56 per cent up on the year before that. This is a considerable burden. But when one looks at the figures for the ITS, the figure for 1998–99 was 55,000. That seems to me an extraordinarily low figure. For the year 1999–2000 the figure is only 54,386. Am I wrong in thinking that is a cut in real terms on the budget of the ITS? If so, it seems extraordinary, given that this Bill, among others, will add to the burdens on the appeals procedure. I am not clear why the noble Baroness appears to be puzzled. My understanding is that the budget is a cut in real terms, while at the same time the burden on the appeal service is increasing.
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what increase she expects in the number of appeals as a result of the introduction of the working families' tax credit system? At the moment, the number of appeals relating to family credit is low; it is only 2 per cent of the total number of appeals being heard by the service. Obviously, that figure is likely to increase with the working families' tax credit, if only because more claimants are involved. In addition, the appeals service will hear appeals that are related to whether a person has acted negligently or fraudulently and on the appropriate level of penalty. One would regard that as a considerable extra burden.
The essence of the amendment is to point out that the budget appears to be going down and the workload is going up. Can that be right? I look forward to hearing
746
from the noble Baroness as to whether what I have described is the true situation. Perhaps she can also give some idea of what is happening as far as concerns the training of tribunal members and whether that is included in the budget.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I saw the House emptying rapidly on the other side and I took it that there was no longer any enthusiasm for these proceedings.
This amendment would have the effect that the cost of the tribunals adjudicating appeals against penalties determined under Clause 9 would be separately considered in setting the funding of these tribunals. Perhaps I may quickly recap how and by whom appeals under the tax credits legislation will be heard. Appeals by applicants (employees) relating to their applications and awards will be heard by the new unified appeals tribunal (UAT) which is being set up as a consequence of the Social Security Act 1998, which happily occupied the noble Lord and myself for many hours last year. The UAT replaces a number of specialised tribunals as well as the current Social Security Appeal Tribunal. This change as well as others brought in by the 1998 Act: is designed to improve the efficiency of the handling of appeals from benefit claimants.
The UAT members who will hear tax credit appeals will, we believe, have the best mix of skills and experience to deal with the kinds of issues that involve tax credit applicants. But appeals from employers as a consequence of their role in administering tax credit payments through the wage packet will involve issues that are much more akin to those that arise on the administration of PAYE. Therefore, those employer appeals will go to the Tax Appeal Commissioners, as we believe that they have the appropriate expertise to deal with such issues; in other words, there will be two streams of appeal according to the appropriate expertise.. Those relating to employees will go to the new unified appeals tribunal and those relating to employers will go to the Tax Appeal Commissioners.
This ensures that appellants, whether applicant employees or employers, have their problems put before the most appropriate tribunal from the outset, although my honourable friend the Paymaster General announced in the other place that in due course—it may be a very long way down the path—jurisdiction for applicants' appeals will also pass to the Tax Appeal Commissioners and they will hear all tax credit appeals. But that is for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised concerns about delay in hearing appeals. There is a backlog of work with the current social security appeal tribunals. The approximate delay is seven months at the moment. That was precisely why we passed the Social Security Act last year. During the second half of 1999 the decision-making and appeals programme (DMA) will deliver changes to current arrangements for making decisions and handling appeals in benefits and child support. The changes aim to deliver a modern, clearer, simpler, more streamlined and more accessible welfare system. The emphasis is on making real improvements for claimants.

747
The current system has several problems. For example, decisions on claims are fragmented and notifications are confusing. Getting mistakes put right is complicated and claimants often have to appeal. Then appeals take far too long to decide—seven months on average with some appellants waiting over a year for a decision. The appeals system is complicated. There are five different sorts of tribunal, each with different rules. A three-member tribunal hears all cases, however complicated or straightforward; and appeals which have no prospect of success (because they are counter to the law) still have to be handled in the usual way, without explanation, so appellants wait months only to find that their appeal could not have succeeded by definition. For example, they may claim DLA for a child under five and the law makes it clear that no child under five can be paid DLA.
Under DMA, some essentials will not change. As now, claimants and clients will get decisions based on the facts and law with the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. But under the new system, the focus will be on getting the decision right first time. Claimants unhappy with a decision will be invited to contact the decision-maker within one month of the date of notification decision. This will give them the opportunity to examine with the decision-maker the reasons behind the decision and to correct any errors. If the decision is found to be wrong, it can be put right without the need for the individual to go to appeal. Appeal tribunals will be able to focus on the issues raised in the appeal. As we discussed at great length in Committee, and on the previous Bill, the tribunals will comprise one, two or three members with the appropriate expertise for the issues raised. Appeals which have no prospect of success will be handled more quickly. Demanding targets for the administration of appeals will be published and the results reported on.
The settlement of disputes by agreement, without the need for a formal appeal hearing, has been the cornerstone of tax appeals since the very beginning. Only those cases where the Revenue cannot come to an agreement with the appellant go before the tax appeal commissioners.
Putting all that together, we believe that we shall be streamlining the appeals system, with a unified appeal tribunal system for employees. The appeal will go before a one, two or three member tribunal as need be. That will allow for greater and more adequate deployment of skilled staff and will lead to more expeditious hearings. It will break into the backlog and lead to a more efficient procedure.
That may meet the point raised by the noble Lord about the workload increasing and the budget reducing. The workload will be handled in such a different way that it will be on a new basis of costing. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with a further explanation of the costs of the new system.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the figures that I quoted? Was there a cut in real terms
748
as regards the budget of the ITS between 1998–99 and 1999–2000? I may have missed her reply as regards the number of appeals expected under the new system compared with the old.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we cannot be sure. Given the new methods and procedures, we hope to obviate the need for a number of the appeals held. I refer to what we call the meritless appeals in the sense that they cannot succeed, as well as those appeals based on the resolution of difference which can be achieved by negotiation. We hope that as the number of appeals will be reduced, those appeals heard will be handled more expeditiously because we shall have a better deployment of staff. Some appeals on matters of fact can go to a one-member tribunal. Others which require perhaps complicated medical evidence can go to a two or three-member tribunal. If one puts those two factors together, one sees that they should speed up the hearings, reduce the costs of the system and allow for far more disputes to be resolved without going through the appeals procedure. That was the purpose of last year's DMA Bill.
I shall write to the noble Lord on the costs of the service. We expect the workload to fall in consequence over time.
I have gone into those factors at some length because I thought that the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment was to make sure that the appeals system is expeditiously handled, as we all want. But the noble Lord's amendment would not achieve what he intends. The amendment is about funding. The DSS will be responsible for funding the appeals service. Similarly, the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for funding the tax appeal commissioners. In both cases, the adjudication of appeals against penalties under Clause 9 will be one of the tribunal's duties taken into account in ensuring that this work can be carried out efficiently. The financing of that work is one aspect of that planning process. That will be so, regardless of the amendment.
If the amendment were accepted, the cost of appeals against penalties under the clause would have to be separately identified funding agreed with the Treasury. That work would carry its own costs. So it feeds on itself, if I may put it that way. Given that the work would be taken into account in planning the work of the two tribunals, there would be no advantage for appellants if the amendment were accepted.
I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's substantive point that we expect the new DMA to kick in during the second part of 1999, which will reduce the pressure on the appeal system. The amendment does not achieve that. It requires a separate costing to be identified by the Treasury and separate analysis to be undertaken for that purpose. It will not help the length of time taken to hear appeals.
For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment. It is an unnecessary complication. I suggest that the noble Lord does not pursue it further.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are grateful for the Minister replying to the amendment which I did not

749
move. It was probably the amendment I intended to move in the first place! Be that as it may, I am still not clear whether the budget will be cut. The noble Baroness may wish to intervene in my remarks, but in just one second.
Secondly, in the light of our discussions on the Social Security Bill last year, one remains concerned about some aspects, in particular single member tribunals. I drew to her attention safety risks, where particular social security claimants may be rather less stable than others who appear in front on them. But that is a broad issue I do not want to go into again. Perhaps we could know whether the budget is cut or not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, forgive me, but I believe that I said three times that we are reviewing the total budget in the light of the expected work patterns. If I have further information on that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. We have the estimated budget as it stands. Presumably, as is normal in the Treasury, that is set in concrete. But if it is to be reviewed we should welcome that and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY OFFICERS
(" The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall each year lay before each House of Parliament a report relating to the discharge by officers of the Board of their functions under section 9 and Schedule 4.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment in relation to the Bill and the discharge of the department's responsibilities with regard to fraud and so forth. The proposal is that each year the Chancellor shall lay before both Houses a report relating to the discharge by officers of the board in relation to their functions under Clause 9 and Schedule 4. Obviously, it is important that there should be accountability as regards these officers and it seemed appropriate to suggest that such a review would cover the point.
As I said in regard to the earlier amendment, there is concern about work that is being done in relation to fraud and the appropriate ways in which that could be considered. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will there be an annual report of the amount paid out under working families' tax credit and disabled persons' tax credit so that those of us who wish can add it to the amount paid out under social security benefit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in case I forget to answer the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I shall do so at the outset. Yes, of course there will be a report on the amount paid out, but it would be illegitimate of the noble Lord to—no, he can do what he likes with the figures! Of course he can.
750
Amendment No. 28 relates to Clause 9 and Schedule 4 to the Bill. Clause 9 sets out the penalties to be imposed on individuals who receive excessive payments because they have not told the Inland Revenue the truth about their circumstances and on employers who refuse or persistently fail to make payments, or who fraudulently or negligently pay or receive the wrong amounts. For the vast majority of honest individuals and employers, these provisions are totally irrelevant.
However, it will be an important part of the Inland Revenue's duties to identify and take action against the minority who abuse the system. Schedule 4 relates to the penalties concerned. Of course we agree with the movers of the amendment that it is important for Parliament to be informed each year of the way in which the Inland Revenue is performing its new responsibilities for administering the tax credits.
Before I leave the point about the way in which the revenue is performing its new responsibilities, perhaps I may return to the response I gave on Amendment No. 16. I gave the House assurances about other targets; for example, aiming to process fast-track claims in the same way as the Family Credit Unit does currently—within five days with rapid payment thereafter. I may have given the impression, wrongly, that that could apply across the board, which is not what happens at the moment and could not happen in the future. However, I hope that your Lordships were pleased to hear that we shall aim to maintain the fast-track process for new claims from employees.
I return to the reporting procedures. The Board of the Inland Revenue lays before Parliament each year a report on its aims, targets and performance against those targets for all of its work. The board's report to Parliament already includes details of compliance activity and the board would expect to include details in respect of the new tax credits in a similar way. The Government are considering which targets will provide the best measure of the performance of the department in all aspects of the administration of the new tax credit.. I assure the House that the concerns raised in the debate on this amendment and on earlier amendments will be taken into account in that process. The targets and measures will be included in the board's annual reports from next year. Therefore, there is no need to make an additional report to Parliament.
On earlier amendments, I heard complaints about the number of reports which are produced. It is the Government's responsibility to produce reports, particularly when encouraged to do so by the Opposition. But we cannot ensure that noble Lords and anybody else read the reports which are produced. With the assurance that the existing reporting arrangements are sufficient, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for that response. It is not just a question of individual Members reading the reports. It is a question also of Select Committees and so on scrutinising them. As I said earlier, that degree of

751
scrutiny has improved considerably over the years. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 29:
Leave out Clause 12
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates also to Schedule 5 with regard to the disclosure of information. I wish to make one broad point. Over the years, much concern has been expressed about disclosure of information between government departments. Some years ago now, we tightened the rules considerably. In any event, exchange of information between the Revenue departments and elsewhere in government were subject to fairly tight controls on the basis of disclosure being permitted only at a reasonable level within the Civil Service. That was an important form of Chinese Wall, I suppose one might call it, to ensure that people had confidence that the information provided to the Revenue would remain confidential and not be used in a context different from that within which it had been provided.
The problem is that, in effect, the Revenue is taking over another government department. To that extent, one presumes that everything which was previously restricted from disclosure between the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security will no longer be so because it will all come within the Inland Revenue.
Can the Minister say whether that Chinese Wall is effectively being demolished by the takeover of the Revenue of this aspect, and indeed a number of others, of the Department of Social Security, or whether there will be some restraint on transfer of information between what used to be two separate departments?
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we were slightly baffled as to what the noble Lord was proposing with the extraction of Clause 12. We could hardly think that he was in favour of confidentiality that allowed for people committing fraud to get away with it, and so on. However, we presumed it was a probing amendment, as indeed is the case, in order to find out the guidance or self-regulation under which the Inland Revenue will work. I am happy to attempt to give the noble Lord the explanations or descriptions he seeks.
The clause is entitled, "Disclosure of Information" and needs to be considered against the backdrop of the Inland Revenue's rules on confidentiality. The Revenue has a strict legal duty of confidentiality to ensure that information about a person's tax affairs is not disclosed to any third party except for the purpose of its duties or as otherwise required by law.
The Revenue places a high priority on the preservation of confidentiality regarding people's tax affairs. It wants to ensure that the same strict legal rules on confidentiality are also applied to tax credits. That is what Clause 12 provides. It brings the tax credit functions within the Revenue's strict legal rules about
752
disclosure of information. It will ensure that information about tax credits is kept as securely as any other tax information.
The disclosure of any information received or held by the Revenue and its officers, or any person providing services to the Revenue, is subject to the sanctions set out in Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989. That may be what the noble Lord was referring to. That section makes any unauthorised disclosure of information a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or fine.
This clause amends Section 182 so that it also applies to information relating to tax credits. Therefore the Revenue's confidentiality rules will apply to this. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is essential to keep that information confidential and that they will support the provision. This is, indeed, what the Act does. I do not believe there is any difference between us on this.
The other part of the clause contains provisions on exchange of information. As I have explained, the Revenue operates under strict rules of confidentiality. Information is only provided outside the department through statutory gateways.
Therefore, if there are to be exchanges of information between the Revenue and another department, that needs to be provided for in legislation. After October 1999 and the introduction of WFTC and DPTC, the units dealing with tax credits will need to exchange certain information with the DSS in order to carry out their respective functions. They will also need to exchange information with local authorities, which administer housing benefit and council tax benefit, to enable those authorities to calculate correctly the level of benefits, avoid duplicate claims and continue their compliance activities, as established under legislation relating to fraud introduced by the previous administration, with a fair degree of support from our side.
We have therefore provided, in Schedule 5, for exchange of information between the Revenue, DSS and local authorities in relation to social security benefits, child support, war pensions and tax credits. The provisions are on similar lines to those already enacted in the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc) Act 1999 for the merger of the Contributions Agency with the Revenue.
It is important to emphasise that the changes in this clause and schedule with regard to exchange of information do no more than allow the Revenue, DSS and local authorities continued access to information that is essential for carrying out their respective functions. This reflects the fact that because WFTC replaces family credit, the functions relating to FC are being transferred to the Revenue, but the connection with the DSS will need to be maintained.
It is important also to note that the schedule clearly provides that information exchange between the Revenue and the DSS can only be used for the purposes of their respective specified duties.
The effect of the amendment would be that such essential exchanges would not be possible. That would affect not only the effective administration of WFTC and DPTC but would also make it extraordinarily difficult to administer child support, war pensions,

753
housing benefit and council tax benefits if the existing exchange of information was not carried through to the Inland Revenue.
I hope that has given the noble Lord a description of what Clause 12 does and how necessary it is. The Inland Revenue needs to continue the existing arrangements that the DSS has, both with other sections of the DSS and with local authorities if what were benefits and are now to become tax credits are to be effectively administered.
I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied on those two points: first, the strict duty of confidentiality which has been tightened up, and the Chinese Wall principle that has been maintained; and, secondly, that the exchange of information that will continue is no more or very little more than that which currently operates under family credit. However, because the Inland Revenue is taking over, it needs to keep these gateways. I hope on both those counts the noble Lord will be satisfied and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may try to focus my point. Will any information be transferred from the Inland Revenue to other government departments which at the moment is subject to the control that it should be transferred to another government department only above a certain level of seniority in the Civil Service?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, without writing to the noble Lord I cannot tell him about the level of seniority. My understanding is that there will be no additional flow of information from the Inland Revenue to other government departments, other than that necessary for the purpose of this Bill; that is, the same flow of information that the DSS would have used with local authorities. That was set up by the previous administration, of whom the noble Lord was a supporter.
The one exception to that of which I am aware, which again will be covered by primary legislation through the welfare reform Bill, is the right of the Child Support Agency, as a last resort, to have access to Inland Revenue records of the self-employed where they are apparently deliberately failing to comply with their duties of child support. That is the only instance that I can bring to mind.
Apart from that, the noble Lord's fears are groundless. He is right to raise these questions, but all proper protections are in place and the Inland Revenue will have only such powers as are necessary for it to carry out its appropriate duties. They are built on the powers that currently exist for the DSS.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I still have a feeling that there is a point here that we ought to pursue. However, I look forward to seeing what the noble Baroness has to say in writing and we can take it from there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Persons qualifying for disabled person's tax credit]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new clause—
PERSONS QUALIFYING FOR DISABLED PERSON'S TAX CREDIT
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (6) below, section 129 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (disabled person's tax credit) and section 128 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (equivalent provision for Northern Ireland) shall he amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below.
(2) In subsection (1), for "or (2A)" there shall he substituted ", (2A) or (2C)".
(3) In subsection (2)(a), for "56 days" there shall be substituted "182 days".
(4) After subsection (2B) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(2C) A person qualifies under this subsection if—

(a) the condition mentioned in subsection (2D) below is satisfied;

(b) a medical practitioner (within the meaning of the Administration Act) certifies, not more than 14 days before the date when the claim for disabled person's tax credit is made—

(i) that in his opinion the person will continue to have the disability in question for a period of at least six months; or

(ii) that in his opinion the person will continue to have that disability for the remainder of his life; and

(c) the level of the person's expected earnings is lower, by at least the required amount, than it would have been if he had not had the disability.

(2D) The condition is that there are 140 qualifying days. the last falling within the period of 56 days immediately preceding the date when the claim for disabled person's tax credit is made, which are days in respect of which—

(a) statutory sick pay has been payable to the person;

(b) the lower rate of short-term incapacity benefit has been payable to him;

(c) income support has been payable to him on grounds of incapacity; or

(d) earnings have been credited to him under regulations made under section 22(5) above.

(2E) For the purposes of subsections (2C) and (2D) above—'

(a) the required amount, in relation to a person's expected earnings, is—

(i) 20 per cent of what those earnings would have been if he had not had the disability; or

(ii) if the amount given by sub-paragraph (i) above is less than the prescribed mount. the prescribed amount;

(b) qualifying days are days forming part of a single period of incapacity for work within the meaning of Part XI of this Act; and

755

(c) income support is payable to a person on grounds of incapacity if and only if he satisfies the condition in section 124(1)(e) above by virtue of being a person who—

(i) is, or is treated as, incapable of work for any purposes of this Act; or

(ii) is treated as capable of work by virtue of regulations under section 171E below.

(2F) Sections 3 and 112 above shall apply as if this section were included in Parts I to V of this Act."
(5) In subsection (8), after "allowance" there shall be substituted ", or the level of a person's expected earnings,".
(6) In section 128(2E)(c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, as inserted by subsection (4) above, for "124(1)(e)" there shall be substituted "123(1)(e)" and for "171E" there shall be substituted "167E".
(7) In section 11(3)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (repeat claims), for the words from "he" to "that paragraph" there shall be substituted—

"(i) he qualified under subsection (2) of section 129 of the Contributions and Benefits Act by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or of there being payable to him a benefit under an enactment having effect in Northern Ireland and corresponding to a benefit mentioned in that paragraph; or

(ii) he qualified under subsection (2C) of that section or of section 128 of the Northern Ireland Contributions and Benefits Act,".

(8) In section 9(3)(b) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), for the words from "he" to "that paragraph" there shall be substituted—

"(i) he qualified under subsection (2) of section 128 of the Contributions and Benefits Act by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or of there being payable to him a benefit under an enactment having effect in Great Britain and corresponding to a benefit mentioned in that paragraph; or

(ii) he qualified under subsection (2C) of that section or of section 129 of the Great Britain Contributions and Benefits Act,".

(9) This section, except subsection (3) above (and subsection (1) above so far as relating to that subsection), applies to claims made, or treated as made, on or after 1st October 2000.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to move this amendment and hope that noble Lords share my pleasure. I would find it graceless if they did not.
This new clause will enable more disabled people who want to work to do so. It provides the legislative underpinning to deliver the policy announced by the Chancellor in his Budget. Like the original Clause 14, this new clause builds on the existing DWA rules by giving people moving off various out-of-work incapacity benefits 182 days—six months—instead of 56 days in which to find a job and apply for DPTC. The clause also introduces a new fast-track gateway to DPTC to help people who become ill or disabled while working.
One of the valid criticisms regularly made to us by disability organisations is that disabled people actually had to drop out of work in order to acquire the qualifying benefit to obtain DWA if they should
756
subsequently find work. The process of dropping out of work meant that they lost the employer who alone was likely to keep them in work while they were disabled. It is that specific problem, which we all recognise, which the new clause is designed to address.
The fast-track gateway will be an additional route to DPTC. The present qualifying conditions will remain in place for people who, for example, are in receipt of DLA or who want to move into work after being in receipt of out-of-work incapacity or disability benefits.
I remind your Lordships that to receive DWA at the moment, a person must either be in receipt of one of a range of incapacity or disability benefits, such as DLA, at the time of the claim, and must have been receiving certain benefits within a specified period prior to the claim—for example, a higher rate of short-term incapacity benefit.
Those qualifying benefit rules, as I am sure your Lordships will know—certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will know—do not do enough to help people who become disabled while they are in work. As those people have never been disabled before, they have never been in receipt of any of the out-of-work disability or incapacity benefits. Their disability may not be severe enough for them to qualify for DLA, so the only option is for them to drop out of work in order to requalify in order to get access to DPTC. As a result they lose their jobs and employers lose the experience and expertise of a valued employee. The evidence shows that people who become disabled while working are most likely to find work with their existing employer, and if he does not employ them no one else is likely to. The longer someone is out of the labour market, the less likely they are to return to it.
It is to pick up a problem with DWA that we are introducing this clause in order to produce a fast-track gateway to DPTC—to make it financially possible for newly disabled people to stay in work even if, because of their disability, they either have to move to a less demanding (and therefore less well paid) job or need to reduce their working hours in their existing job.
Let me now explain how the fast-track gateway will work, as set out in the new clause. From October 2000 a person will be able to apply for DPTC if he/she meets the following conditions. The first is that he or she has received, for 140 days, statutory sick pay, short-term incapacity benefit paid at the lower rate, income support paid on grounds of incapacity, national insurance credits only or occupational sick pay. Linked periods of incapacity will count as long as together they add up to 140 days. The second is that he or she has a condition which puts him/her at a disadvantage in getting a job. The third is that a medical practitioner certifies that the illness or disability will last for at least six months, or for the rest of the applicant's life if that is likely to be shorter than six months. The final condition is that on returning to work the applicant will receive earnings at least 20 per cent less than would have been the case if there had been no disability.
Once a person has made a successful initial application for DPTC, he or she will of course be able to make a repeat application if the illness or disability

757
continues at the end of the 26-week award period. Subsection (7) of the new clause amends Section 11(3)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act to ensure that the conditions which a fast-track gateway person has to meet on making a repeat application will be exactly the same as those affecting other repeat applications. In other words, the requirement for a 20 per cent drop in earnings will apply only at the time of the initial fast-track gateway application. After that, successful fast-track applicants for the DPTC will be on all fours with those who started on DPTC via the qualifying benefit route.
The idea of the fast-track gateway emerged from informal discussions between the Government and the disability lobby on the problems faced by people who become disabled while in work. The Chancellor announced the fast track in outline in his pre-Budget report in November 1998. A formal consultation followed, and the proposals were warmly welcomed by the disability lobby, whose suggestions for improvements have been reflected in the final design. The policy was finally announced in the Chancellor's Budget in March this year.
Since then the Government have gone further in addressing the needs of disabled people. As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Paymaster General announced on 17th May that from October 2000 the WFTC will include an additional premium worth £21.90 a week for each disabled child in a family receiving WFTC. This additional premium is already payable under DWA and wall continue under DPTC.
At the same time the Paymaster General also announced that the Government are now considering widening the range of eligible childcare for the childcare tax credit to cover certain types of paid care provided for disabled children in their own home. The Paymaster General said that the Government would be consulting interested organisations over the next few months to enable detailed proposals to be developed.
These were all measures that were raised in your Lordships' House at Second Reading. They were all raised in discussions with the Disability Benefits Forum and other disability organisations before the Bill came to this House.
I am absolutely delighted about these three important measures to help disabled people: the changes to the fast-track gateway; the additional disability premium worth £21.90 for every disabled child of a WFTC family; and being able to care for a disabled child in their own home.
This clause will provide much-needed support for people who have the misfortune to become long-term sick or disabled while they are working. Rather than giving up work altogether and claiming out-of-work benefits, such people will be able to stay in work, even though it may be work of a lesser amount in nature or shorter hours on reduced earnings, and have their income topped up by DPTC. In other words, DPTC for the first time will be doing what we have longed for DWA to do but which it has failed to do, which is to be a partial capacity benefit—the old alchemist's stone that we are all searching for.
In view of the warm welcome given to this and other measures by groups representing disabled people, I hope that noble Lords will enthusiastically support the new clause. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this amendment and shall not go into great detail about it at this time of night. However, I have one query. What will be new subsection (4)(2C)(c) says that a person qualities if,
"the level of the person's expected earnings is lower, by at least the required amount, than it would have been if he had not had the disability'",
I have made a note beside that wording, which reads, "Who says?" If the person who has the disability has been working on piece-rate, the answer is quite obvious because you can see the amount by which his work has slowed down and that he is not able to produce as much. However, that is not the case in many jobs. I just wonder how you judge whether a person's ability to earn has decreased as a result of the disability, because that will vary. I have in mind the difference between a 19 per cent loss of earnings and a 21 per cent loss of earnings. It is easy to work out the figures, but it is the actual earning power that concerns me. How is that to be judged?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip suggests that this is clearly a birthday present for the noble Baroness. Indeed, I believe that that is probably the case. Of course, we understand her feelings on this particular subject. However, this is yet another example of recycling the same piece of news over and over again. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, this was originally foreshadowed some considerable time ago. None the less, it is helpful.
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me and my colleagues about the new clause and has now put it on the record. As I indicated earlier, there is not perhaps a case for having a correspondence course, but for having a debating Chamber. To the extent that the noble Baroness has spelt it out very clearly this evening, I do not want to delay the House any longer. However, the noble Baroness will no doubt want to reply to the point just made by my noble friend.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, greatly welcome this new clause. It seems to me to be an admirable idea. However, I have one very small quibble to make which I hope will not be seen as looking a gift-horse in the mouth; namely, why is it necessary to leave it until October 2000? I realise that it would not be possible to introduce it in October of this year, but I wonder why it could not perhaps be introduced in April 2000 rather than waiting until October. Having said that, I reiterate that I think this is an admirable amendment and one which we certainly are very happy to see included in the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted at the overwhelming enthusiasm which has come from the Benches opposite. It is very welcome at

759
this time of night. However, I must say that it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is being a little churlish. Indeed, if we fail to trail something and give notice that we shall be introducing something later in a Bill, we are told that we are springing it on noble Lords and that they have not had adequate or ample time to discuss it, prepare for it, take advice on it, reflect upon it and move amendments to it. But when we do give adequate notice so that noble Lords will know what we are doing and can take advice, consult and, if they want, bring forward possible amendments at a later stage, we are told that we are "recycling".
The noble Lord's version seems to suggest that we only recycle good news and that we fail to consult when the news is bad. As I said, that is rather churlish at this time of night, given the care that we have taken to ensure that the Opposition Benches know of the Government's intentions, precisely because this is a major and difficult change to introduce technically. Therefore, we wanted noble Lords to have ample time to reflect upon it and to make such consultations as they deemed necessary and appropriate.
In fact, it is for reasons of practicality as regards the technicalities that this will take until October 2000 to introduce. The changes between DWA and this new fast-track provision are quite detailed to finesse. We shall have to work closely with the organisations involved to ensure that we get the small print correct right through the regulations and the like. We need to take care in that respect.
A query was raised about the 20 per cent. Of course, there always is a cliff edge, but that figure was chosen because it represents the case of someone in work who has suffered a disability, which will seriously affect his earning power if, as a result, he loses the equivalent of one day's worth of earnings a week. That was how we arrived at the figure of 20 per cent. But of course, the amount paid will be certified by the employer and if, as a result, the person qualifies by virtue of his or her disability and reduced earnings, he or she will be eligible for DPTC. However, they will be eligible for that while remaining in the job they currently hold.
It would not be appropriate for someone to receive a benefit when, although disabled, his earnings were not affected by his disability. Such a person may be a high earner irrespective of his disability. He may, for example, be confined to a wheelchair, which will not impede his ability to be a skilled computer or IT processer earning a substantial salary. Such a person may receive DLA by virtue of his disability, but it would be unreasonable for him to receive DPTC. The point about DPTC is to ensure that someone whose earnings drop by virtue of a disability but who has negotiated with his or her employer either to do a job with reduced responsibilities or to do a different job within the same organisation—so he or she does not fall out of the labour market—will be compensated for that through the tax credit. I believe that is a decent, proper and splendid thing to do.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If someone has a disability and he stays
760
with the same employer, that is quite an easy matter to judge. However, if someone has an accident which results in a disability which means that he is away from work for some months—he may be in hospital and then have to recover from the accident—and then obtains another job with a different employer, it is much more difficult to ascertain whether that person's earning ability has dropped by 20 per cent. It is not the earnings that are so important but the ability to earn. Earnings are not static. Piece-work is easy to judge, but creative work is much harder to assess.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I spoke too fast, given the lateness of the hour. This is a procedure additional to the existing route. The case described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would come under the existing routes of DPTC and DWA—in other words, it would be a case of DWA turned into DPTC. The noble Lord mentioned the case of someone who has fallen out of work because of an accident, has been in hospital, has come on to a qualifying benefit, has changed employer and as a result will be eligible for the existing structure and pattern of DWA, which will have become DPTC.
What we are introducing in addition to that—not to replace it—is what we call the fast track procedure for people for whom we can intervene while they are still on statutory sick pay with their existing employer, so that they can have the confidence that they can go back to work—possibly with reduced hours or doing a different job within that organisation—with that employer. However, to enable them to do that, we need to know about their disability and their earnings level. As I say, the case that the noble Lord mentioned is not likely to fall within the fast track procedure but rather within the alternative, basic mainline procedure which is the existing DWA procedure turned into DPTC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [New category of child care providers for tax credit purposes]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert
("( ) provide that where child care is provided by an adult member of the family to which the working families' tax credit or the disabled person's tax credit is payable, the Secretary of State shall take into account, for the purposes of subsection (1), an amount equivalent to the average charges made by persons in the new category;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as regards my response to the previous amendment it certainly was not my intention to be churlish. I was only glad to see how delighted the noble Baroness was with it. I think it is an improvement which should be welcomed. I certainly would not wish it to be thought otherwise.
The proposals in this Bill with regard to childcare were much advertised in advance but failed to appear for a long time; in fact the House of Commons had an opportunity to debate them only on the final day in that House before they came to this House. A number of

761
aspects of the matter have not yet been fully discussed and perhaps we may return to them at Third Reading. When the provisions eventually appeared in the other place, they were largely related to the question of what organisations might be approved of rather than any thing else.
The purpose of this and the following amendment is to seek the Government's view in respect of individuals who provide childcare. Such individuals may enable others to return to work when they might not otherwise have been able to do so. The Government seem to be restricting assistance entirely to organisations such as playschools, which provide formal care, rather than including relatively informal care.
If people who would otherwise be at home looking after children are to return to the workplace, one would have thought that some informal arrangements were also important, but possibly not practical without a degree of financial support. It is curious that the Government will provide financial support to a formal organisation but not an individual childcarer. I thought that it would be helpful to move this amendment to see whether the Minister can clarify the situation. In light of her response, we might return to the issue at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as this amendment is potentially of considerable importance, I ought to make our position clear, even at this time of night. I had some difficulty working out what the amendment is intended to mean. As I read it, it intends to provide childcare credit where an adult member of the family is concerned, meaning necessarily the caring parent, because the "family" for these purposes comprises the parents and the children. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I think that he means members of the family in a broader sense than is used in the legislation. I refer, for example, to a grandmother looking after her grandchildren.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not myself interpret the word "family" as meaning only the parents and children. Clearly, a great many other relatives can be involved and it is my intention to include them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when DSS regulations talk about a "family" in relation to an assessment of an income-related benefit, they do not take into account the money of the grandma, aunt, uncle or stepbrother. They refer to the relationship of the two adult parents and possibly, in terms of housing benefit, to any contribution made by an adult child as an offset to the benefit that the parents would get otherwise. We have to assume the meaning of "family" within the understanding of DSS law.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps the amendment is rather loosely worded.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the Inland Revenue's view of the "family" different from that of the Department of Social Security? If so, that may make a difference to the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the problem with Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 is the cost involved. The
762
Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that if childcare were taken up by everybody, the cost would he of the order of £4 billion per year. This provision would not affect the whole of the £4 billion because not everybody would claim for childcare provided by a grandmother or family member. It would not, as I understand it, cover a mother looking after her own children. Even so, it will obviously be very expensive. Although we warmly welcome the generous level of benefits provided under the new arrangement, we have to look at the realities. Much as we would like to see something along the lines of the amendment, reality would not allow that at this stage. Therefore, I am unable to support the noble Lord's amendment.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am slightly baffled as to the intent of the amendments. I had assumed that they were about a subject that we had previously discussed. That involved a situation where, if the mother was at home and not working, she would nevertheless still be entitled to, effectively, a wage as a mother by receiving the childcare tax credit—which is what is said in the amendment. The second issue, which it is perfectly proper to raise, is whether we are willing to finance informal as opposed to formal care. That is a totally different issue. Informal care could include care by a neighbour, a sister, a nanny, an au pair or whatever. If the noble Lord is concerned about that situation, I am very happy to explain why we are not doing that. I will scrap all my notes, which were addressed to what is said in the amendment.
If someone wishes to claim childcare tax credit for a child up to the age of eight, it may only be claimed where the person involved is a registered child minder; that is, a person who has been registered by the local authority as a fit and proper person and whose home is a fit and proper place by reasons of hygiene, safety, electrical appliances and all the other kinds of things that one would expect. The child minder is therefore registered as self-employed in a small business and handling accounts. That is the protection: the childcarer is of adequate quality, having been registered, and there can be no abuse in the sense of back-handed payments of money with no accounts kept. It is a proper business, run with proper accounts. If someone is to claim against it, the Inland Revenue will have access to that information should it need it.
Protection for the taxpayer and the child alike requires the Government to use registered child minders. We are considering whether we can provide greater help for disabled children in their own homes. We are not seeking to provide a general subsidy for au pairs, nannies or the next door neighbour. It is public money; we are accountable for the proper spending of public money; therefore it must pass through registered childminders. That is why we are funding formal care rather than informal care.
It may be helpful if I explain what we are doing in regard to children over the age of eight. I think that Amendment No. 33 attempts to state that an amount

763
equivalent to the average charges made by persons in this category shall be taken into account where the childcare is provided by a member of the family. The persons in the new category will in the main work in out-of-school clubs, providing care for children aged eight and over. Clearly, it is inappropriate to read that back into what a partner might do. The rates the clubs charge will depend upon the service they provide. A breakfast club taking children before school will charge differently to an after-school club, which will charge differently to a holiday play scheme. The charge will depend on the length of care provided. A breakfast club may provide care for one hour each day; an after-school club for a few hours; holiday play schemes for a whole day. The charges will have a considerable range. It is not sensible to confine the help the amendment seeks to provide to an average charge when there is palpably no such thing in this sector.
I do not want to begin to contemplate the administrative burdens such a system would impose on childcare providers to collect information about the charges made, in order that the average can be worked out and then paid to somebody else. It would be an administrative nightmare.
In contrast to Amendment No. 33, Amendment No. 34 links the amount to be taken into account,
"to half the maximum amount available towards charges made by persons in the new category".
Help for charges made by persons in the new category would be no different to the help given for other eligible childcare charges; that is, 70 per cent of those charges up to a maximum help of £70 per week for one child, £105 when two or more children are being looked after. Presumably the amendment is trying to state that the stay-at-home carer should receive £35 per week for one child or £52.50—that is, half of £105—for two or more children. I think that is what the amendment states, even if it is not what the noble Lord intended.
That brings me back to the argument about whether it is right to pay the childcare costs to a mother or a partner who stays at home. I do not believe that it is right to do that through the childcare tax credit. Of course, as part of the national childcare strategy, we will widen the opportunities of childcare for all children, whether or not one of their parents is at home looking after them.
I am happy to go on at length about the difference in cost between a couple where one partner stays at home and another family where both are at work. However, if that is not the purport of the noble Lord's amendment and his concern was about the difference between formal and informal, I shall not occupy the time of the House at this hour.
I am in the hands of the noble Lord as to whether I should close my remarks at this stage, having made clear why we are seeking to protect the position of formal as opposed to informal and the difference in treatment between the under-eights and the
764
over-eights—as envisaged, the under eights through registered childcare certified by local authorities; and for the over-eights, the DfEE will certify accredited organisations which, in turn, will be able to register other groups as qualifying and providing care of a suitable kind. If the noble Lord is satisfied with that response, I shall close my remarks. I could go on for very much longer, but I do not want to trespass on the patience of the House this late at night.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I must apologise for the ambiguity and the incorrectness of the form in which the amendment appeared. It was certainly my intention to raise the question of—I will not use the term "extended family" which has other implications—grannies, aunts and so on. I can understand how the noble Baroness and her officials took the amendment to mean individuals whom we had debated on different amendments at an earlier stage. It was not my intention to raise that again. The Minister's remarks have been helpful. I shall give thought to them between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 42, after ("State") insert ("because the organisation provides child care for disabled children or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 36 which is consequential on it. The amendment seeks merely to establish, in the framework which the Minister outlined a moment ago, precisely the scope of the various organisations which might provide care and, in particular, to clarify whether it includes the organisations which provide childcare for disabled children. At this stage I am merely seeking clarification of that scope in the light of the amendments previously moved in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the short answer to that is yes. The same arrangements will apply for disabled children as apply for non-disabled children. There is provision for the under-eights and there is provision for the over-eights. What is new here is the provision for over-eights. The framework will operate by setting up two tiers of voluntary regulation. In the top tier, organisations in the childcare field—for example, daycare trusts, kids' networks or whatever—which operate a quality assurance scheme would apply to the Secretary of State for accreditation which would then allow them to approve childcare providers as part of their quality assurance. In other words, the DfEE would license two, three, five or whatever major organisations of a national character to, in turn, license individual bodies which would meet the standards they had set down. We will be acting through voluntary organisations with the appropriate skills to establish the

765
local voluntary network. The Secretary of State, when considering an application for accreditation, will look at the way the organisation would use its quality assurance scheme to approve individual providers which had achieved an appropriate quality standard agreed with the Secretary of State.
It is a novel scheme because it seeks to use the expertise that is currently developing among childcare organisations and to harness their work so as to encourage and ensure the provision of good quality out-of-school childcare. But it is important to emphasise that the scheme is not restrictive. Both the providers and the organisation which run the quality assurance schemes opt into the scheme. It is not like the regulatory framework set down by the Children Act where everyone caring for the under-eights must comply unless they are specifically exempted. That is why the legislation is enabling and not regulatory in the sense that is commonly used. It enables parents to afford good quality out-of-school care and it enables providers to offer their services to a wider range of parents than would otherwise be the case. Not only is it a novel measure but it enables issues such as the provision of care for disabled children to be readily accommodated within the process. Many groups to which we have spoken tell us that disabled children and their parents prefer disabled children to mix with and be cared for alongside other able-bodied children. This is what the framework seeks to achieve.
Among the criteria which the individual providers will need to fulfil is the need for a robust, equal opportunities policy for the children in their care. It is this aspect which seeks to ensure that the approved childcare in this sector is open to children with disabilities in the same way as for able-bodied children. Furthermore, specialist childcare for disabled children in the age range eight to 16 is not debarred from joining in the accredited organisations quality assurance scheme and becoming approved for the purposes of the childcare tax credit.
In conclusion, the current framework for the under-eights and a new framework aimed at eights and over, which is what Clause 15 is delivering, will accommodate those who provide childcare for disabled children and, most importantly, they would apply the same quality standards. There is no question of disabled children accepting or receiving a lower quality of care than would be expected for any other child.
The Government have gone further than this. As I say, as part of the package of measures to help those disabilities which my honourable friend the Paymaster General announced last Monday, there was a commitment to begin consultations with appropriate bodies about how to improve the necessary provision of care in a disabled child's home as eligible childcare for the childcare tax credit, which is not the case for the ordinary registered childminder. This is all good news. I would hope that in the light of this the noble Lord will see that his amendments are actually inappropriate, and
766
indeed the insertion of the condition that the organisation provides childcare for disabled children is unhelpful and could actually be counter-productive. I hope that in the light of my efforts at explaining what we are doing and the good news I have been able to relay, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who has set the matters out very clearly so that it has helped to clarify the position. We will need to consider what she has said between now and Third Reading, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 7, after ("which") insert (", subject to subsection (5) below,")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is something else that I am confident your Lordships will welcome tonight because the amendments of which Amendment No. 37 is the first implement one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. In response to an amendment moved in Committee, I said that I would reflect further on the issue and would return to this matter at Report stage.
As your Lordships can see, the Government have reflected on the issue. We recognise that an extension of childcare through this two-tier system of accredited organisations and local providers in Clause 15 is a major new development of government policy and one which has been widely welcomed. Given what I said in Committee, that I would reflect on whether as a result the Government should come forward with an amendment to the effect that the first set of regulations should be affirmatives, we have an opportunity, as a House, fully to discuss what I think is extremely good news in terms of extending the range of childcare for able-bodied and disabled children alike.
Consequently we have tabled this amendment to do what noble Lords asked me to do but set out in a form which we think would best fit the structure of the Bill and which would satisfy the necessary drafting conventions for such things. It would do no more and no less than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in Amendment No. 38, but it is framed in what we hope and believe is a more appropriate and certainly a more technically valid form. In the light of that, I have pleasure in moving Amendment No. 37.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my Amendment No. 38 is grouped with this amendment and of course it is now

767
rendered unnecessary by Amendments Nos. 37 and 39. I would say just two things, as this is the last group of amendments at Report stage. I am very glad that we will be able to finish tonight while it is still the noble Baroness's birthday—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Indeed, my Lords, I bring "presence" to the House rather than receiving them.
Lord Goodhart: Always, my Lords, always. Secondly, I would like to say that of course I am very pleased to see that in this case the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has been accepted. I am very glad that the Department for Education and Employment has taken what I would regard as a more reasonable and helpful view than that of the Inland Revenue. Therefore, I warmly welcome these particular government amendments.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the intervention of the noble Baroness has taken my punch line. I believe that at the beginning of the Committee stage reference was made to Alice in Wonderland and the way in which words meant what somebody said they meant. We began by debating whether benefits should be known as tax credits. We end up with an equally good quotation from Alice in Wonderland, the exact words of which I am unable, unfortunately, to bring
768
to mind. However, I recall that at some stage in the proceedings someone announces that everyone will have presents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has in mind the caucus race in which everyone shall win and have prizes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness got the previous amendment and we have this one, so we are all very happy. Once again, I wish the noble Baroness a happy birthday.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) A draft of the first regulations to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and those regulations shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("and section 19(1)") and insert (", subsections (2) and (4) to (9) of section (Persons qualifying for disabled person's tax credit) (and subsection (1) of that section, except so far as relating to subsection (3)) and subsection (1) of section 19")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Prospective State Visits
  Prospective State Visits
  Community Legal Service: Consultation
  Community Legal Service: Consultation
  Queen's Proctor
  Queen's Proctor
  Breast Cancer: Actions for Damages
  Breast Cancer: Actions for Damages
  Parliamentary Commissioner Appointment Procedures
  Parliamentary Commissioner Appointment Procedures
  Aircraft Carriers Replacements: Shipyard Capacity
  Aircraft Carriers Replacements: Shipyard Capacity
  Optical Products: Pricing
  Optical Products: Pricing
  Intolerance and the Left Wing
  Intolerance and the Left Wing
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Minicab Law: Enforcement
  Minicab Law: Enforcement
  General Pinocheit
  General Pinocheit
  Mitochondrial Disease: Human Embryo Research
  Mitochondrial Disease: Human Embryo Research