Sitting of 2 November 1999

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  In-vehicle Technology
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research and developments have been made on in-vehicle technology to prevent law breaking. [94508]

  Mr. Hill
  There is a considerable quantity of research being undertaken both in Industry and Government to investigate the benefits that can be obtained from developments in in-vehicle technology to prevent law breaking. Advances in electronics and telematics promise to make measures for vehicle control (e.g. separation distance), identification and location both feasible and cost effective. One particular project sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking into a system of Intelligent Speed Adaptation which would be able to control the speed of vehicles automatically to prevent them exceeding speed limits.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will be in a position to decide on the future of the Sellafield MOX plant; [95918]

  (2) if he will publish the outcome of the latest consultation on the Sellafield MOX plant. [95919]

  Mr. Mullin
  The consultation on the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant ended on 23 July 1999. An announcement of the Ministers' decisions will be made following careful consideration of all the responses.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received on signals passed at danger since taking office; when they were received; and what action followed from them. [95935]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Since taking office I have received a great deal of information on signals passed at danger. This information led me to approve the regulations recommended by the Health and Safety Commission to require the fitting of train protection systems.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how the remit of the new railway safety body proposed to replace Railtrack's Safety remit will differ from Railtrack's safety remit; [95936]
  74
  (2) what plans he has to re-employ Railtrack safety regulatory staff at the new railway safety body. [95934]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: We have not proposed a new railway safety body. We are considering all options for how the work of Railtrack's safety and standards directorate might best be carried out.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he first asked for a report on signals passed at danger. [95937]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Immediately after the last election I asked for advice on all aspects of rail safety. This was received in June 1997 and included information on measures to stop signals being passed at danger. After discussions with the Health and Safety Commission I made it clear that they should bring forward any formal proposals on (inter alia) automatic train protection that they considered necessary. I signed the resulting regulations in July. In September the HSE announced the result of their audit of the increase in signals passed at danger and 22 specific actions that they required the industry to progress.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he was first informed that the number of red railway signals passed at danger was increasing. [95938]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: On 9 August the Chief Inspector of Railways informed Ministers of the provisional rail safety statistics for 1998–99, which included the 8 per cent. rise in signals passed at danger. HSE published the statistics on 12 August.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require maximum capacity limits to be set for passenger train coaches on safety grounds. [96104]

  Mr. Hill
  Research after the Cannon Street accident in 1991 and more recent research by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirms that train overcrowding is not primarily a safety issue but one of passenger discomfort. There is no evidence to suggest that train overcrowding is in itself dangerous, or actually causes accidents. HSE is determined to ensure that, safety is not compromised, as part of improving the railways for passengers. HSE gives high priority to minimising safety concerns in the design of trains arising from congestion at stations.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which dates signals passed at danger statistics were received by Ministers since September 1998; and what response was given to each notification. [95985]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: Responsibility for providing railway safety statistics (including SPADs) rests with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  The Chief Inspector of Railways at the HSE informed Ministers of the annual statistics for 1997–98 (which showed a fall in SPADs) on 7 December 1998. A departmental press notice was published on 9 December 1998 which stressed the need for the railway industry to

  75
  improve the safety culture operating in the industry and looked to HSE to use their enforcement powers against companies which skimped on their safety obligations.

  On 9 August 1999 the Chief Inspector of Railways informed Ministers of the provisional rail safety statistics for 1998–99, which included an 8 per cent. rise in SPADs. The HSE statistics were published on 12 August. On 30 July the Deputy Prime Minister had signed regulations requiring the fitting of the train protection and warning system to cut the incidence of SPADs. The regulations were laid in the House on 10 August.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received of safety issues concerning the 20.42 Connex train to Dartford via Greenwich on 21 October; and if he will make a statement. [96852]

  Mr. Hill
  The HSE is aware of the incident on 21 October where the driver of the 20.42 Connex train from Charing Cross to Dartford accepted the route set by the signaller which directed his train onto the line through New Cross instead of going to Greenwich. All the signals were clear and there was therefore no risk to passengers' safety. Implications for the competencies of safety critical staff are being examined.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what reports he has received that the lunar lights on the North Kent line at Charlton are obscured by foliage; and if he will make a statement; [96854]

  (2) what reports he has received regarding recent incidents where Connex trains from Dartford to Cannon Street have taken the wrong route; and if he will make a statement. [96853]

  Mr. Hill
  Although no report has been made to HSE, I understand that on 7 October a Connex train took the wrong route at Charlton because the white route indication lights on the signal were reportedly obscured by foliage. On passing the junction, the driver realised the route had been wrongly set, and under instruction from the signaller, set the train back behind the signal to allow the route to be reset correctly. HSE will now take this matter up with the train operating company.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he proposes to put in place in relation to his proposals for National Air Traffic Services to ensure that staff will be able to speak freely about issues relating to safety. [96187]

  Mr. Mullin
  Staff of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) are already given protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Pursuant to the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order (SI 1999–1549) the CAA is prescribed as a body to which a worker may make a protected disclosure in respect of aviation safety. The CAA has nominated its Secretary and Legal Adviser to be its point of contact. He will protect the complainer's anonymity, while ensuring that the complaint is passed to the relevant regulator. A trade union official who raised safety issues as part of his duties would also enjoy additional protection through the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  76
  Two other avenues will continue to be available to NATS staff post partnership who may wish to make a disclosure in respect to aviation safety. First, the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) scheme, where an individual is required to report any occurrence which has, or if not corrected would have, endangered an aircraft, its occupants or any other person. The scheme includes an option for the reportee to submit an MOR direct to the safety regulatory authority, without involving local line management. Second is the UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP), which is an independent confidential reporting programme for people employed in the aviation industry to report safety-related incidents and events. In this scheme, the reportees' identities are kept confidential, personal details are not retained and are returned to the reportee.

  I have also held a meeting with the NATS unions and the Safety Regulator to discuss safety matters and further meetings are planned with interested parties on this important subject and on other issues related to the PPP.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the number of special areas of conservation designated under the Habitats Directive; and if he will make a statement. [96106]

  Mr. Mullin
  None at this time. The UK is currently participating with eight other countries in Atlantic biogeographic region moderation meetings to consider the lists of sites put forward. Following this moderation process the Commission will indicate to member states where modifications to lists are required.

  National Walking Strategy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement the National Walking Strategy. [96194]

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to implement the National Walking Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [96555]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are keen to make it safer and easier for people who choose to walk. A strategy will be published in due course.

  "Rights of Way"
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the recommendations contained in the Royal National Institute for the Blind's report, "Rights of Way". [96201]

  Mr. Hill
  This Report provides a useful overview of the transport needs of visually impaired people. My Department has been working with blind and partially sighted people over many years to improve their independent mobility. It is clear that we are already tackling many of the issues which the Report highlights.
  77
  For example, the regulations we are introducing under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requiring access for disabled people to buses, trains and taxis, will include features to meet the needs of visually impaired people. The regulations covering access to trains were introduced from the beginning of this year and in the last few days we concluded the consultation on the draft accessibility regulations for buses and coaches.

  We will continue to work with visually impaired people and their organisations to ensure that these improvements, together with greater emphasis on driver training and information, enable blind and partially sighted people to travel with confidence.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the proposed National Minimum Concessionary Fares Scheme for pensioners to blind and partially sighted people. [96199]

  Mr. Hill
  We have no plans at present to extend the scope of the proposed national minimum standard scheme for people of pensionable age. Local authorities already have powers to provide concessionary travel for people who are blind and partially sighted and many do so. The decision on whether to allow concessionary travel for that group of people will remain a matter for individual local authorities.

  Railtrack (Safety)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) evidence he assessed and (b) advice he received which underlay his statement that he was minded to relieve Railtrack of its Safety and Standards Directorate. [95939]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The report from the Health & Safety Commission reviewing SSD, dated 30 September 1999, a copy of which is now in the House Library. Unanimous advice was received from the Transport Select Committee.

  Flight Safety
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what central records are kept by (i) his Department and (ii) the CAA of(a) Air Accident Investigation Bureau recommendations and (b) the resultant actions; and if he will make a statement; [96322]

  (2) who is responsible for ensuring that the follow-up action recommended in the CAA flight safety report CAA Occurrence Number 98/04954, (Operator Brintel, AAIB report Bulletin 5/99, CAA factor number F18/99), is implemented. [96321]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations any undertaking or authority to which a safety recommendation is addressed is required to take the recommendation into consideration without delay and, where appropriate, act upon it. They are also required to provide the Secretary of State with full details of how they intend to implement the recommendation or a full explanation of why they do not intend to implement it. The recommendations referred 78
  to were addressed to the US Federal Aviation Administration as the State of Design for the aircraft type in question and we await their response.

  Both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Air Accident Investigation Branch keep a record of all recommendations. The AAIB also keeps details of all responses to safety recommendations. In addition, the CAA publishes an annual progress report on recommendations addressed to both the CAA and the Department. It has now been agreed that this progress report will be expanded to include action on all AAIB recommendations.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the public-private partnership for London Underground to be signed for each of the separate groupings of underground lines; and if he will make a statement. [96315]

  Mr. Hill
  The PPP contracts for London Underground will be signed when they are ready. We have learned the lessons of rail privatisation and will not impose a politically driven timetable at the expense of ensuring that the resulting deal is right.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what immediate action is planned to combat congestion on London Underground trains and in station corridors. [96686]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, London Underground carefully considers customer safety and discomfort from overcrowding in its assessment of investment priorities. Much investment and management effort is focused on reducing delays and improving reliability of the service, which helps reduce congestion both on trains and through stations and provides a safer, more comfortable environment. Examples of investment projects that will combat congestion are: the Jubilee Line Extension; increasing services on the Central and Northern lines; projects at Knightsbridge, Leicester Square, Brixton and Russell Square. In addition, London Underground is focusing on reducing station congestion through better signing and passenger flow management at the busiest stations.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who is responsible for enforcing London Underground safety rules to combat congestion in trains and corridors. [96688]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Responsibility for managing congestion on London Underground rests with London Underground Ltd. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Railways is informed of any breakdown of congestion management, investigates incidents of serious congestion and monitors general performance in this area.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety rules are in operation to prevent overcrowding of(a) trains on the London Underground and (b) London Underground station corridors. [96687]
  79
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand that as part of London Underground's safety management system, comprehensive crowd control plans and measures to implement them are regularly used by London Underground staff when the level of passengers using the system exceeds the system's capacity to deal with them. These safety risk controls are exercised by line controllers and station supervisors. They work in co-operation with each other to ensure that levels of crowding do not exceed safe levels. Staff involved in the implementation of these controls are fully trained. Safety plans are updated annually and regular emergency exercises are held to test the effectiveness of the arrangements.

  National Forest
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) by how much the area covered by the National Forest has expanded since 1 May 1997; [96559]

  (2) what area was covered by the National Forest on 30 September. [96560]

  Mr. Mullin
  There has been no change to the designated area of the National Forest since it was established in 1995; 777 hectares of trees have been planted since 1 May 1997. As at 30 September total tree cover in the National Forest amounted to some 5,128 hectares.

  Supermarket Developments
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many refusals to grant planning consent for large out of town supermarkets during the past 18 months which were the subject of an appeal have had the refusal upheld. [96314]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. John Greenway, dated 2 November 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeals for out of town supermarkets where the local planning authority's refusal was upheld over the past 18 months.
  In the 18 months to 1 October, one local authority refusal was upheld.

  Bus Services (Millennium)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received about the availability of bus services over the Millennium period; [96539]

  (2) what discussions he has had with transport providers about the availability of bus services over the Millennium period. [96540]

  Mr. Hill
  I have received very few representations about the availability of bus services. My officials are in touch with the Confederation of Passenger Transport about provision of services, and I understand that their members will be announcing their intended levels of 80
  Millennium services outside London in the middle of November. It would be for local authorities to decide whether they wish to supplement commercial provision of services with subsidised services.

  The provision of bus services in London is the responsibility of London Transport Buses (LTB). I understand that LTB have formulated a strategy for the Millennium period, which they are discussing with bus operators. It is proposed that on both New Millennium Eve and New Millennium day bus services will broadly operate to Sunday service pattern across London.

  PPG17
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish a revised PPG17 on Sports and Recreation. [96878]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I hope to publish a consultation draft before the end of the year.

  Greater Manchester Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date each local authority in Greater Manchester completed its unitary development plans; and when he finally confirmed each plan. [96874]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local planning authorities are responsible for the preparation and adoption of unitary development plans. In Greater Manchester the local planning authorities adopted their unitary development plans on the dates listed in the table:

  Local authority

  Date of adoption

  Bolton

  December 1995

  Bury

  August 1997

  Manchester

  July 1995

  Oldham

  April 1996

  Rochdale

  March 1999

  Salford

  November 1995

  Stockport

  June 1997

  Tameside

  September 1996

  Trafford

  May 1996

  Wigan

  January 1996

  Negative Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the annual financial impact on West Oxfordshire District Council of his changes to the negative housing subsidy regime. [96619]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department will be consulting later this Autumn on the detail of the proposals for changes in the Housing Revenue Account subsidy regime. Consideration of the outcome of that exercise will be required before any decisions are taken. It is too early to say what the financial impact of any changes will be. The financial implications for any authority will depend upon both the results of the consultation exercise and conditions pertaining nearer the time that any changes are made.

  Campaign for a Northern Assembly
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public funding the Campaign for a Northern Assembly has received. [96618]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Campaign for a Northern Assembly has received no public funding.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received, broken down by region, supporting the introduction of elected regional Government in England. [96008]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: Ministers receive representations in a wide variety of ways——including questions in Parliament, at conferences and during visits and meetings, as well as in writing——and no comprehensive record is kept of all these.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97047]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department will apply, in the current financial year, the same method of depreciation as that applied in the 1998–99 financial year dry run resource accounts which is the straight line method. The method applied is commonly used in the private sector.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish detailed proposals for early voting at Greater London Authority elections. [96690]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The Government Office for London wrote to the London Boroughs and the Common Council in August seeking initial comments on outline proposals for a system of early voting at the GLA elections. I have placed a copy of the letter in the House Library. We are considering the responses received, and I hope to write with further detailed proposals shortly.

  Thamesmead Town Ltd.
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what requests he has received from Thamesmead Town Ltd. for its rented housing stock to be transferred to a registered social landlord or landlords; and if he will make a statement. [96856]

  Mr. Mullin
  I understand that Thamesmead Town have now applied to the Housing Corporation for registration of the housing association to be established as part of their restructuring proposals as a Registered Social Landlord. The Secretary of State has no plans to make a statement.
  82
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what requests he has received for changes to the structure of Thamesmead Town Ltd.; and if he will make a statement [96855]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State has just received a formal request to consent to changes to the structure of Thamesmead Town Ltd. which he will be considering in the coming weeks. He has no plans to make a statement.

  Whale Products
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take to ensure that the ban on the international trade in whale products is not lifted at the next meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Nairobi in April 2000; and if he will make a statement. [96335]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have been consulted recently on two draft downlisting proposals under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), from Norway and Japan, relating respectively to the Northeast Atlantic and North Atlantic Central Stocks, and to the Southern Hemisphere Stocks of Minke Whale(Balaenoptera acutorostrata). We have replied to both countries making clear our objections and underscoring our opposition to any CITES downlisting proposals which might undermine the moratorium on commercial whaling under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the United Kingdom has gained from the agreement made this summer to allow Fedex fifth freedom rights at Prestwick Airport. [97082]

  Mr. Mullin
  The decision to grant fifth freedom rights at Prestwick to US air cargo carriers will deliver a range of economic benefits to the airport and to the region. In granting these rights at a single UK airport we have made it clear to the US government that the granting of similar rights at other UK airports is contingent upon the adoption by the US of policies which would afford UK air cargo carriers new opportunities in the US.

  Cycles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how he proposes to ensure better provision of general customer information at cycle facilities provided by Railtrack and rail operators; [97075]

  (2) what measures he proposes to ensure that cycles can be carried on trains; [97074]

  (3) what plans he has to ensure that secure and weatherproof cycle lockers are introduced at railway stations. [97073]

  Mr. Hill
  The provision of cycling facilities on trains and at stations is a matter for individual operators. Paragraph 31 of the Instructions and Guidance which we issued to the Franchising Director on 29 September requires him to promote the use of bicycles by seeking
  83
  the provision of reasonable facilities on board new rolling stock and at stations. A copy is available in the House Library.

  Civil Aviation Agreements
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has made to the European Commission on his plans to retain UK responsibility for bilateral negotiations with third countries on civil aviation agreements; and if he will make a statement; [97079]

  (2) what increase in the EU responsibility for bilateral negotiations with third countries on civil aviation agreements the Government have agreed since 1 May 1997; [97081]

  (3) if it is the Government's policy to retain responsibility for bilateral negotiations with third countries on civil aviation agreements indefinitely; [97080]

  (4) what representations he has received from the European Commission concerning his Department's present responsibility for bilateral negotiations with third countries on civil aviation agreements; and if he will make a statement. [97078]

  Mr. Mullin
  The European Commission presented a proposal to open aviation negotiations with the US at Community level in 1997, but to date the Transport Council has not agreed to the proposal. The Commission has brought infraction proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the UK, alleging that the ownership and control clause contained in the UK's bilateral aviation agreement with the US (Bermuda II) breaches the EC Treaty. Similar proceedings have been brought against seven other member states. In common with these other member states, the UK is contesting the case.

  The Government believe that the benefits of a Community-wide approach to negotiating air service agreements with third countries need to be considered on a case by case basis and that any decision to grant the Commission a mandate should be justified by reference to the added value of a collective approach.

  To date, the Commission has obtained mandates from the Council for three sets of aviation negotiations with third countries: with Norway and Sweden (which were subsequently subsumed by the agreement establishing the European Economic Area and, in the case of Sweden, its accession to the Community); with Switzerland; and with ten Central and Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). Each of these mandates was granted before 1 May 1997. The Commission has recently made a proposal for a Council decision authorising it to open negotiations with Cyprus.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has held with its US counterparts concerning the future of US/UK civil aviation agreements; who was present at such meetings; what were the agendas and the conclusions of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [97076]

  Mr. Mullin
  My officials held exploratory talks on 18 and 19 October with a delegation from the US State Department, the Department of Transportation, the US 84
  Embassy and the FAA. The Director of International Aviation Negotiations led the team of DETR and FCO officials. The primary focus of the meeting was the possible liberalisation of air cargo arrangements, although the delegations also renewed their dialogue on the overall liberalisation of the bilateral aviation relationship. In addition, the US delegation raised the subject of direct air links between Pittsburgh and London. The two sides agreed to consider how further progress may be made.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from United Kingdom airlines concerning the future of UK/US civil aviation agreements. [97077]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have received representations from a number of airlines and from other bodies concerning UK/US civil aviation agreements. These representations do not reveal a consensus as to the most appropriate way forward for our bilateral discussions, with the Government being pressed by different parties to adopt mutually inconsistent policies.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the bids made by each local authority in their Provisional Local Transport Plan for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 for projected local transport capital expenditure on(a) maintenance of principal highways, (b) maintenance, assessment and strengthening of bridges, (c) individual schemes costing more than £5 million and (d) individual schemes and groups of related schemes costing less than £5 million. [97087]

  Mr. Hill
  I have placed a copy of the information requested in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the submissions given in their Provisional Local Transport Plans for 2000–01 with regard to the targets required under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [97088]

  Mr. Hill
  We received 85 provisional Local Transport Plans covering 116 English local traffic authorities and 33 interim transport plans from London Boroughs. Authorities were required to include interim non-statutory road traffic reduction reports in their plans. Local authorities have made these plans publicly available.

  The reports took a variety of positions on the question of whether, and at what level, to set targets for reducing the level of traffic, or its rate of growth, on local roads. A review of the content of these reports has been carried out as part of the work currently in progress for the Government's first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 at the end of this year. The results of that review will be made publicly available in due course.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the proposals for bypasses and other major road schemes made in their provisional local transport plan. [97071]
  85
  Mr. Hill
  We have received 85 provisional local transport plans covering 116 local highway authorities in England, excluding London. Specific proposals for major road schemes costing more than £5 million with potential start dates within the five year local transport plan period (2000–1 to 2004–5) are as follows:

  Authority

  Scheme

  Bedfordshire

  A507 Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link

  Bedford Western Bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  A142 Fordham Bypass

  Essex

  A131 Great Leighs Bypass

  Hertfordshire

  Baldock Bypass

  Norfolk

  Broome and Ellingham Bypass

  Great Yarmouth A47/A149 Link Road

  Suffolk

  Stowmarket B 1115 Relief Road

  South Lowestoft Relief Road and Related Measures

  Derby City

  Derby Spur Extension

  Derbyshire

  Markham Employment Growth Zone

  Leicestershire

  Ashby Bypass Stage 2

  Nottinghamshire

  A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route

  A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement

  Rutland

  Oakham Bypass

  Darlington

  Darlington Cross Town Route Eastern Section

  Stockton-on-Tees

  South Stockton Link

  Cheshire

  A34 Alderley Edge Environmental Bypass

  Cumbria

  Carlisle Northern Development Route

  Liverpool

  Hall Lane Area Improvement

  Salford

  Manchester Salford Inner Relief Route

  Wirral

  Birkenhead Town Link Diversion

  Buckinghamshire

  A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linslade Western Bypass

  East Sussex

  Newhaven Port Access Road

  Bexhill and Hastings Link Roads

  Kent

  East Kent Access (Phases 1 and 2)

  Medway

  A228 Chattenden to Ropers Lane

  Surrey

  A244 Cross Thames Transport Corridor

  Bristol

  A4 Bath Road to Callington Road Link

  Cornwall

  Grampound Bypass

  Devon

  Barnstaple Western Bypass

  Dorset

  Weymouth Transportation and Regeneration Project

  Gloucestershire

  A436 Shipton Solers to Air Balloon Improvement

  Somerset

  Brigdewater Northern Distributor

  Wiltshire

  Western Wiltshire Regeneration Corridor

  Birmingham

  Northfield Regeneration Scheme

  Selly Oak Access Road

  Sandwell

  Cradley Heath Town Centre Strategy (A4100) (A)

  Shropshire

  A53 Hodnet Bypass

  Staffordshire

  Burntwood Bypass

  Biddulph Bypass

  Rugeley Eastern Bypass Stage 2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Hanley Bentilee Link

  City Centre Link

  Warwickshire

  Barford Bypass

  Worcestershire

  Wyre Piddle Bypass

  Barnsley

  Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3

  Cudworth By Pass

  Doncaster

  A6023 Denaby Main Diversion

  Leeds

  East Leeds Link Road

  Leeds Inner Ring Road

  N. East Lincolnshire

  South Humber Bank Link Road (Stage 2)

  Rotherham

  West Bawtry Road Improvement

  A57(T) Todwick Crossroads to M1 J31

  Sheffield

  Inner Relief Road—Stages 2 and 3

  North Yorkshire

  Scarborough Integrated Transport Scheme

  Quality Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is Government policy to make quality contracts subject to ministerial consent; and if he will make a statement. [97072]

  Mr. Hill
  Government procurement policy is to award contracts on the basis of best value for money, which is the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality. The vast majority of contracting decisions are taken by DETR officials without reference to Ministers.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is towards disposal of land held by local authorities under the Green Belts (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 and towards the treatment of any proceeds. [97206]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will approve the disposal of land only where it will continue to fulfil the purposes of including land in Green Belts as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2 (PPG2). Any capital receipt arising from a disposal should be treated according to the local government capital finance system.

  Local Authorities (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that have been reorganised on 1 April 1997 and 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [97208]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 16 July I invited authorities that reorganised on 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1999–2000. On the basis of the information provided by authorities, I have decided the revised maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs in 1999–2000.

  The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £000 (rounded)

  Authority

  1999–2000

  1997 Reorganisations

  Luton Borough Council

  200

  Milton Keynes Council

  1 No bid

  Derby City Council

  920

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  1,160

  Poole Borough Council

  1 No bid

  Darlington Borough Council

  1,405

  Brighton & Hove District Council

  1 No bid

  Portsmouth City Council

  1,307

  Southampton City Council

  3,026

  Leicester City Council

  1 No bid

  Rutland Council

  2,100

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  1,007

  Swindon Borough Council

  559

  Total

  11,684

  87

  Maximum amounts: £000 (rounded)

  Authority

  1999–2000

  1998 Reorganisations

  Bracknell Forest Council

  1 No bid

  West Berkshire Council

  1,185

  Reading Borough Council

  4,879

  Slough Borough Council

  4,910

  Windsor & Maidenhead Council

  1 No bid

  Wokingham District Council

  2,258

  County of Hertfordshire District Council

  4,545

  Worcestershire County Council

  1,460

  Malvern Hills Council

  1 No bid

  Plymouth City Council

  5,026

  Torbay Borough Council

  4,268

  Southend on Sea Council

  1 No bid

  Thurrock Borough Council

  2,423

  Nottingham City Council

  2,092

  Halton Borough Council

  1,698

  Warrington Borough Council

  1 No bid

  Telford & Wrekin District Council

  780

  Medway Borough Council

  4,643

  Peterborough City Council

  770

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  1,503

  Blackpool Borough Council

  1,150

  Total

  43,590

  Combined total allocations

  55,274

  1 Milton Keynes, Poole, Brighton & Hove, Leicester City, Bracknell Forest, Windsor & Maidenhead, Malvern Hills, Southend on Sea and Warrington did not submit bids for SCA.

DEFENCE

  Equipment (Detection)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment is currently available that would detect from a low-flying aircraft the likely presence of(a) a shallow grave containing human remains, (b) buried arms or munitions and (c) an underground tunnel of less than 15 foot depth; how many such devices and at what cost have been purchased by HM forces; and how these devices have been deployed in the past 12 months. [94627]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The MOD has a number of surveillance sensors that can be mounted on low-flying aircraft. These are designated to provide intelligence information on surface features and activities. They would, in some circumstances, be capable of detecting recently disturbed earth but they could not directly detect the likely presence of buried remains, arms of munitions. There is, however, ongoing research both in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and in the private sector into the development of ground penetrating radar for airborne applications.

  Type 42s
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected in-service date is for the Type 42 replacement ships; and if he will make a statement. [94781]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 October 1999]: The requirement to replace the Royal Navy's Type 42 Destroyers will now be met by the Type 45 destroyer programme. On current plans, the first of the Type 45 destroyers will enter service in 2007.

  Anti-Air Missile System
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the practicability of the Principal Anti-Air Missile system to surplus Batch 2 Type 22 frigates pending the introduction of the Type 45 destroyer; and if he will make a statement. [96034]

  Mr. Spellar
  No assessment has been conducted into the practicality of integrating the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) into Type 22 Batch 2 frigates. The timescale of the PAAMS procurement programme means that it could not be ready for service on a type 22 (or any other vessel) before the Type 45's entry into service.

  Vertical Launcher
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the practicability of incorporating the US Mk 41 vertical launcher in the Type 45 destroyer; and if he will make a statement. [96033]

  Mr. Spellar
  An assessment was made of both the French SYLVER Vertical Launch System (VLS) and the Lockheed Martin Mk41 (Tactical length) VLS for the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) requirement. The French SYLVER was competitively selected, in preference to the Lockheed Martin Mk41. While the assessment concluded that both options would meet the PAAMS requirement and technically could be incorporated into the Type 45, the PAAMS package which offered the SYLVER launcher was chosen on the grounds of overall affordability and value for money.

  Forces Personnel (Divorce)
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances his Department will pay the legal costs of armed forces personnel in divorce proceedings; and for what ranks. [96431]

  Mr. Spellar
  Divorce is considered to be a personal and private issue between the individuals concerned. It is not considered appropriate, therefore, that such costs should be borne by the public purse. However, Armed Forces personnel serving in Northern Ireland or overseas can obtain free legal advice on procedure from the Army Legal Service. Similarly, their spouses can receive free advice from the RAF Legal Service.

  Missiles (Turkey)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the missiles being loaned to Turkey; and how long the missiles are being loaned for. [96472]

  Mr. Spellar
  The value of the missiles that the MOD plans to loan to Turkey is approximately £1.2 million; the missiles are being loaned for a period of approximately three years.

  Nuclear Weapons (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Governments of countries which possess nuclear weapons about management of weapons systems in relation to millennium compliance. [96549]
  89
  Mr. Hoon
  We have been assured by all the other Nuclear Weapon States (US, Russia, France and China) that their nuclear weapons will be unaffected by the Year 2000 problem, and that robust command and control arrangements are in place. We have provided similar assurances in respect of our own nuclear deterrent.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will institute a full public inquiry into the health and safety, environmental and pollution aspects of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield; [96671]

  (2) what action in the past year he has caused to be taken to reduce the risk of a nuclear accident at Aldermaston. [96670]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the amount of uranium dust in Kosovo from depleted uranium rounds; and what action he proposes to take to manage the risk to public health. [96668]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Depleted uranium based munitions have not been used by British forces in Kosovo and the Government have not commissioned any assessment of the amount of uranium dust in Kosovo. I am, however, very much aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the use of depleted uranium in ammunition and have commissioned advice from officials within the MOD on how we might improve our knowledge of how depleted uranium in ammunition behaves in the natural environment. I have also asked for a review of any health effects of depleted uranium.

  The joint UN Environment Programme/UN Commission on Human Settlements issued its report "The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment" on 5 October 1999. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Homosexuals
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if legislation would be required in order to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. [96891]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

  Serviceability Targets
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage serviceability target in 1999 for equipment being required to be available within 12 hours for(a) RAF aircraft, (b) army tanks and (c) other battle vehicles. [95965]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army do not set serviceability targets for equipment being required to be available within 12 hours. The percentage serviceability target in 1999 for 90
  equipment being required to be available within 24 hours is 90 per cent. for main battle tanks and an average of 80 per cent. across the range of other armoured vehicles.

  The information requested on RAF aircraft is not held centrally but is being collated. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member when it is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Establishment Strength
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the establishment strength of(a) Tornado GR1/4, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Harrier, (d) Jaguar, (e) Nimrod, (f) Sentry, (g) Tristar, (h) Puma, (i) Sea King and (j) Chinook; how many were (i) allocated to front-line units, (ii) fully serviceable, (iii) unserviceable 1 line, (iv) unserviceable 2 line, (v) unserviceable 3 line, (vi) unserviceable 4 line and (vii) held in reserve use on 1 October; and what percentage of the establishment strength this represents for each category. [95967]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the establishment strength of(a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variants, (e) AVF 430 variants, (f) Sabre, (g) Striker, (h) Scimitar, (i) Spartan, (j) Sultan, (k) Samaritan and (l) Samson; how many were (i) allocated to front-line units, (ii) fully operational, (iii) unserviceable-fully operational in 24 hours, (iv) unserviceable-fully operational in seven days and (v) unserviceable-fully operational in more than seven days on 1 October; and what percentage of the establishment strength this represents for each category. [95966]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on the availability state of armoured vehicles in the form requested, specifically the numbers of vehicles held by frontline units together with the numbers that are operational, is classified. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, Security and International Relations). Information on availability of armoured vehicles allocated to frontline Army units by percentage of establishment strength is however, unclassified. The following table shows availability in this form on 30 September 1999, the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Vehicle type

  Percentage of establishment fully operational

  Percentage of establishment fully operational in 24 hours

  Warrior variants

  64

  70

  Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank

  39

  46

  Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank

  65

  70

  Saxon variants

  61

  69

  Fighting Vehicle 430 variants

  62

  73

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Sabre

  80

  83

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Striker

  55

  60

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Scimitar

  69

  74

  91

  Vehicle type

  Percentage of establishment fully operational

  Percentage of establishment fully operational in 24 hours

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Spartan

  76

  88

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Sultan

  74

  88

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Samaritan

  68

  73

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Samson

  65

  67

  Notes:

  1. AVF 430 has been taken to include all 430 variants;

  2. All six Warrior variants have been included under the term "Warrior",

  3. All five Saxon variants have been included under the term "Saxon",

  4. Frontline Army units have been taken to mean those of 1(UK) Armoured Division, 3(UK) Division (under Operational Command), and Regular Units of the Reconnaissance Brigade

  We do not collect availability data on the number of vehicles which are either "unserviceable-fully operational in seven days" or "unserviceable-fully operational in more than seven days" and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  ILO Convention
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of Article 3 (d) of the new ILO convention on child labour on his Department's employment and deployment practices; and if he will make a statement. [96014]

  Mr. Spellar
  The new ILO Convention 182 explicitly mentions the "forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict" at Article 3(a). Article 3(d) therefore has no application to military service in the UK. The recruitment practices referred to in ILO Convention 182 are an unacceptable form of child labour. The recruitment of genuine volunteers, as for example undertaken in the UK, is entirely different from the abusive, exploitative, forced or coercive involvement of children in armed conflict as members of militia or para-military forces around the world.

  Military Personnel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of serving military personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF are (i) single, (ii) married without children, (iii) married with children, (iv) divorced without children and (v) divorced with children. [95959]

  Naval Service1 outflow by type of outflow and marital status—all ranks 1989–90 to 1999–2000

  PVR2

  Redundancy

  Retirement

  Other

  Total

  1989–90

  Total Outflow

  4,578

  3

  1,143

  2,278

  8,002

  Single3

  57.2%

  —

  7.6%

  79.2%

  56.4%

  Married

  39.7%

  66.7%

  85.5%

  18.8%

  40.3%

  Divorced/Separated4

  3.1%

  33.3%

  6.9%

  2.0%

  3.3%

  92
  Mr. Spellar
  Due to differences in the data held by the services, the answer has been split by office and servicemen/women.

  As at 1 October, the latest date for which figures are available, the percentages are:

  Percentage

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  Officers

  Single

  31.8

  35.1

  24.2

  Married without children

  15.4

  163.4

  273.7

  Married with children

  49.8

  Divorced without children

  0.3

  11.4

  1.2

  Divorced with children

  2.5

  0.9

  Servicemen/Women

  Single

  48.6

  50.9

  34.3

  Married without children

  19.0

  14.5

  261.7

  Married with children

  26.7

  31.7

  Divorced without children

  1.1

  1.3

  2.3

  Divorced with children

  3.9

  1.6

  1.6

  1 The Army do not hold data on dependants of officers

  2 The RAF do not hold data on dependants of married personnel

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the number of military personnel stationed at each base, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, of(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF; which of these bases have an officer in charge of families; and what recreational, social, medical and educational facilities are available at each base for forces families; [95960]

  (2) if he will list the organisations dedicated to service family welfare and support for (a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF; which of the organisations received MOD funding in each year between and including 1989 and the current financial year, indicating the amounts received; and what proportion of the organisations' budget this represented. [95962]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of military personnel leaving(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF for reasons of (i) premature voluntary release, (ii) redundancy, (iii) retirement and (iv) other, for each year between and including 1989 and the current financial year indicating what percentage of each category were (1) single, (2) married without children, (3) married with children, (4) divorced without children and (5) divorced with children. [95961]

  Mr. Spellar
  The available information is contained in the tables:
  93

  Naval Service1 outflow by type of outflow and marital status—all ranks 1989–90 to 1999–2000

  PVR2

  Redundancy

  Retirement

  Other

  Total

  1990–91

  Total Outflow

  4,855

  6—

  993

  2,227

  8,075

  Single3

  58.2%

  6—

  7.5%

  80.6%

  58.2%

  Married

  38.6%

  6—

  86.5%

  17.7%

  38.7%

  Divorced/Separated4

  3.3%

  6—

  6.0%

  1.6%

  3.1%

  1991–92

  Total Outflow

  3,649

  6—

  948

  2,129

  6,726

  Single3

  64.7%

  6—

  7.7%

  82.2%

  62.2%

  Married

  32.1%

  6—

  83.8%

  16.2%

  34.3%

  Divorced/Separated4

  3.2%

  6—

  8.5%

  1.7%

  3.5%

  1992–93

  Total Outflow

  1,898

  380

  1,110

  1,730

  5,118

  Single3

  64.2%

  11.3%

  8.7%

  78.4%

  53.0%

  Married

  32.3%

  80.5%

  82.6%

  19.8%

  42.6%

  Divorced/Separated4

  3.4%

  8.2%

  8.6%

  1.8%

  4.4%

  1993–94

  Total Outflow

  1,417

  1,253

  1,119

  1,239

  5,028

  Single3

  71.5%

  18.4%

  9.6%

  73.0%

  44.8%

  Married

  25.6%

  72.9%

  82.1%

  23.9%

  49.5%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.9%

  8.7%

  8.3%

  3.1%

  5.6%

  1994–95

  Total Outflow

  1,192

  2,351

  1,315

  1,202

  6,060

  Single3

  69.5%

  43.3%

  8.5%

  70.0%

  46.2%

  Married

  27.8%

  50.0%

  82.5%

  27.1%

  48.2%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.7%

  6.7%

  9.0%

  2.8%

  5.6%

  1995–96

  Total Outflow

  1,634

  522

  1,443

  1,229

  4,828

  Single3

  70.9%

  34.9%

  9.6%

  68.3%

  48.0%

  Married

  25.6%

  57.1%

  81.2%

  28.2%

  46.3%

  Divorced/Separated4

  3.5%

  8.0%

  9.1%

  3.6%

  5.7%

  1996–97

  Total Outflow

  2,347

  1,836

  1,444

  1,490

  7,117

  Single3

  75.1%

  41.1%

  9.0%

  73.3%

  52.5%

  Married

  22.8%

  52.6%

  81.3%

  23.3%

  42.5%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.1%

  6.3%

  9.7%

  3.4%

  5.0%

  1997–98

  Total Outflow

  2,427

  6—

  1,428

  1,415

  5,270

  Single3

  72.2%

  6—

  9.8%

  71.4%

  55.1%

  Married

  25.1%

  6—

  80.9%

  24.5%

  40.1%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.7%

  6—

  9.3%

  4.0%

  4.8%

  1998–99

  Total Outflow

  2,514

  6—

  1,415

  1,694

  5,623

  Single3

  70.7%

  6—

  9.6%

  73.9%

  56.3%

  Married

  26.5%

  6—

  81.2%

  21.8%

  38.8%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.8%

  6—

  9.2%

  %4.3

  4.9%

  1999–20005

  Total Outflow

  1,279

  6—

  703

  940

  2,922

  Single3

  68.3%

  6—

  8.8%

  76.4%

  56.6%

  Married

  29.0%

  6—

  78.8%

  19.3%

  37.9%

  Divorced/Separated4

  2.7%

  6—

  12.4%

  4.4%

  5.6%

  1 Data comprises Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  2 PVR stands for Premature Voluntary Release.

  3 'Single' comprises single and widowed personnel.

  4 It is not possible to separate divorced from separated Naval personnel using the information available.

  5 1999–2000 data are those currently available for this financial year, i.e. 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999

  6 indicates zero.

  Note:

  Percentages are rounded to one decimal place, so totals may not equal exactly 100 per cent.

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)
  94 95

  Army Outflow by type of outflow and marital status—other ranks 1993–94 to 1999–2000

  PVR1

  Redundancy

  Retirement

  Other

  Total

  1993–94

  Total Outflow

  5,590

  5,131

  3,040

  4,890

  18,651

  Single2

  60.0%

  8.6%

  6.4%

  88.4%

  44.6%

  Married without children

  19.8%

  10.6%

  6.3%

  4.6%

  11.1%

  Married with children

  18.1%

  74.7%

  81.9%

  6.3%

  41.0%

  Divorced without children

  0.8%

  1.9%

  1.0%

  0.3%

  1.0%

  Divorced with children

  1.2%

  4.2%

  4.4%

  0.4%

  2.3%

  1994–95

  Total Outflow

  6,392

  6,171

  2,470

  4,909

  19,942

  Single2

  58.4%

  18.3%

  7.2%

  88.5%

  47.1%

  Married without children

  18.5%

  16.8%

  6.5%

  4.2%

  12.9%

  Married with children

  20.6%

  59.6%

  81.1%

  6.6%

  36.7%

  Divorced without children

  1.2%

  1.8%

  1.0%

  0.4%

  1.1%

  Divorced with children

  1.3%

  3.5%

  4.3%

  0.4%

  2.1%

  1995–96

  Total Outflow

  6,528

  103

  2,229

  5,294

  14,154

  Single2

  57.2%

  34.0%

  13.6%

  86.5%

  61.1%

  Married without children

  19.1%

  14.6%

  8.8%

  5.2%

  12.2%

  Married with children

  21.3%

  48.5%

  71.8%

  7.7%

  24.3%

  Divorced without children

  1.0%

  1.0%

  1.6%

  0.3%

  0.8%

  Divorced with children

  1.4%

  1.9%

  4.2%

  0.4%

  1.5%

  1996–97

  Total Outflow

  5,857

  112

  1,769

  6,521

  14,259

  Single2

  55.1%

  16.1%

  17.1%

  86.7%

  64.5%

  Married without children

  19.7%

  26.8%

  8.5%

  5.0%

  11.6%

  Married with children

  22.2%

  50.9%

  68.6%

  7.4%

  21.4%

  Divorced without children

  1.7%

  5.4%

  2.4%

  0.4%

  1.2%

  Divorced with children

  1.3%

  0.9%

  3.3%

  0.5%

  1.2%

  1997–98

  Total Outflow

  5,767

  4—

  1,571

  6,010

  13,348

  Single2

  51.2%

  4—

  11.0%

  85.7%

  62.0%

  Married without children

  20.0%

  4—

  8.9%

  5.1%

  12.0%

  Married with children

  25.4%

  4—

  74.1%

  8.4%

  23.5%

  Divorced without children

  1.7%

  4—

  2.2%

  0.5%

  1.2%

  Divorced with children

  1.7%

  4—

  3.8%

  0.4%

  1.4%

  1998–99

  Total Outflow

  5,965

  1

  1,720

  7,976

  15,662

  Single2

  50.2%

  4—

  13.6%

  90.0%

  66.5%

  Married without children

  20.1%

  100.0%

  9.9%

  3.4%

  10.5%

  Married with children

  26.4%

  4—

  68.7%

  5.9%

  20.6%

  Divorced without children

  1.4%

  4—

  3.1%

  0.4%

  1.1%

  Divorced with children

  1.8%

  4—

  4.7%

  0.4%

  1.4%

  1999–20003

  Total Outflow

  2,581

  4—

  879

  3,719

  7,179

  Single2

  52.2%

  4—

  8.5%

  90.3%

  66.6%

  Married without children

  19.2%

  4—

  9.4%

  3.6%

  9.9%

  Married with children

  24.8%

  4—

  75.0%

  5.3%

  20.8%

  Divorced without children

  1.8%

  4—

  2.0%

  0.4%

  1.1%

  Divorced with children

  2.1%

  4—

  5.0%

  0.3%

  1.5%

  1 PVR stands for Premature Voluntary Release.

  2 'Single' comprises single and widowed personnel.

  3 1999–2000 data are those currently available for this financial year, i.e. 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999.

  4 'Indicates zero.

  Note:

  Percentages are rounded to one decimal place, so totals may not equal exactly 100 per cent.

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Royal Air Force outflow by type of outflow and marital status—other ranks 1993–94 to 1999–2000

  PVR1

  Redundancy

  Retirement2

  Other

  Total

  1993–94

  Total Outflow

  1,285

  908

  2,161

  513

  4,867

  Single3

  33.8%

  5.0%

  21.2%

  59.6%

  25.5%

  Married4

  63.3%

  89.6%

  74.6%

  38.6%

  70.6%

  Divorced5 without children

  2.0%

  2.6%

  2.1%

  1.8%

  2.2%

  Divorced5 with children

  0.9%

  2.8%

  2.1%

  7—

  1.7%

  96 97

  Royal Air Force outflows by type of outflow and marital status—other ranks 1993–94 to 1999–2000

  PVR1

  Redundancy

  Retirement2

  Other

  Total

  1994–95

  Total Outflow

  1,443

  1,416

  1,620

  522

  5,001

  Single3

  35.0%

  7.3%

  22.2%

  56.5%

  25.3%

  Married4

  60.7%

  87.2%

  74.0%

  40.4%

  70.4%

  Divorced5 without children

  3.0%

  2.5%

  2.0%

  1.3%

  2.4%

  Divorced5 with children

  1.2%

  3.0%

  1.9%

  1.7%

  2.0%

  1995–96

  Total Outflow

  1,856

  2,380

  2,352

  694

  7,282

  Single3

  35.9%

  17.9%

  25.0%

  62.4%

  29.0%

  Married4

  61.3%

  75.9%

  70.4%

  34.1%

  66.4%

  Divorced5 without children

  1.9%

  3.4%

  3.2%

  2.0%

  2.9%

  Divorced with children

  0.9%

  2.8%

  1.4%

  1.4%

  1.7%

  1996–97

  Total Outflow

  1,565

  4,625

  2,260

  694

  9,144

  Single3

  35.7%

  14.5%

  26.9%

  63.7%

  24.9%

  Married4

  60.0%

  79.6%

  68.2%

  34.0%

  70.0%

  Divorced5 without children

  2.5%

  3.3%

  2.7%

  1.6%

  2.9%

  Divorced5 with children

  1.9%

  2.6%

  2.1%

  0.7%

  2.2%

  1997–98

  Total Outflow

  1,617

  4

  1,630

  728

  3,979

  Single3

  37.3%

  25.0%

  23.7%

  64.1%

  36.6%

  Married4

  59.0%

  50.0%

  71.0%

  33.5%

  59.3%

  Divorced5 without children

  2.7%

  25.0%

  3.3%

  0.4%

  2.5%

  Divorced5 with children

  1.1%

  7—

  2.0%

  1.9%

  1.6%

  1998–99

  Total Outflow

  1,829

  7—

  1,594

  807

  4,230

  Single3

  34.3%

  7—

  23.0%

  75.6%

  37.9%

  Married4

  61.5%

  7—

  71.4%

  22.6%

  57.8%

  Divorced5 without children

  2.8%

  7—

  3.2%

  0.7%

  2.6%

  Divorced5 with children

  1.4%

  7—

  2.4%

  1.1%

  1.7%

  1999–2000

  Total Outflow

  1,017

  7—

  670

  410

  2,097

  Single3

  32.7%

  7

  19.0%

  75.9%

  36.8%

  Married4

  62.6%

  7—

  75.5%

  23.2%

  59.0%

  Divorced5 without children

  2.6%

  7—

  2.7%

  0.7%

  2.2%

  Divorced5 with children

  2.1%

  7—

  2.8%

  0.2%

  2.0%

  1 PVR stands for Premature Voluntary Release.

  2 Retirement comprises all service personnel reaching the end of their engagement (i.e. Those at age 55 or 47, or those completing 22, 15, 12 and 9 year engagements).

  3 'Single' comprises single and widowed personnel.

  4 'Married' comprises married, legally separated, divorce nisi and estranged/mutually separated.

  5 'Divorced' comprises divorce absolute. 'Divorced with children' only includes those who are supporting children; there may be personnel with children who have either finished full time education or who are over 18 included in 'Divorced without children'.

  6 1999–2000 data are those currently available for this financial year, i.e. 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999.

  7 Indicates zero.

  Note:

  Percentages are rounded to one decimal place, so totals may not equal exactly 100 per cent.

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies or tests are currently being undertaken by or on behalf of the MOD into non-radioactive or contaminating substitutes for depleted uranium weapons and armour; and if he will make a statement. [95964]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD has for many years conducted research into a range of weapon and armour materials and designs. Depleted uranium provides a significant margin of operational effectiveness over other materials when employed in certain weapon systems. Research continues 98
  to include the search for potential alternatives to depleted uranium and to identify and characterise their performance and environmental impact.

  Army
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention in the Army; and if he will make a statement. [97207]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government inherited a shortfall in Army manpower, and recognise that improved retention is key to realising the goal to full manning. In line with
  99
  the targets set in the SDR, they are committed to achieving that improvement and a number of initiatives are underway.

  In recognition of the increasingly expeditionary nature of our tasks the operational welfare package has been improved and the Service Families Task Force is addressing a variety of issues which create domestic difficulties for our personnel. The Army's Human Resources Strategy includes a six-month review of the effectiveness of present Army retention policies. This work, which is being conducted by external consultants will listen to a wide range of opinions and make recommendations for improvements in the Army's personnel management policies.

  We are also keeping operational commitments under close review. Our determination to ease the burden on the Army is demonstrated by the significant reduction in force levels in Bosnia announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 October 1999, Official Report, column 768.

  In addition we have considered whether the minimum commitment for soldiers of only three years provides the best return for the Army and the best opportunities for the individual. We have concluded that it should be raised to four years. This will make a significant contribution to the Army's ability to fulfil its obligations and liabilities as set out in the SDR manning target. It will also allow more time for the individual to benefit from the excellent training and development opportunities in the Army, including the acquisition of new skills and recognised civilian and professional qualifications.

  Iraq (No-fly Zones)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to his Department of maintaining and prosecuting the defence of the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq each year since 1992, including projected figures for 1999; and if he will make a statement. [95970]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our records do not separately identify expenditure incurred in maintaining the no-fly zones. However, the table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by my Department as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.

  £ million

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000 (estimate)

  28

  Coalition patrols of the no-fly zones remain an essential humanitarian task in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688 as they prevent Saddam Hussein from using his airforce against the Iraqi people in the north and south. Since the end of Operation Desert Fox last December, Saddam has waged a systematic campaign against coalition aircraft carrying out these patrols. Some
  100
  215 Iraqi aircraft have violated the No-fly Zones, and there have been over 500 other direct threats against our aircrew, including missile attacks and heavy anti-aircraft fire. Coalition responses are limited strictly to proportionate action in self-defence against Iraqi weapons and facilities, which pose a direct threat to our forces.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) planned order and (b) date of completion for each adaptation of Astute and Trafalgar class submarines to fire Tomahawk missiles; and if he will make a statement. [95968]

  Mr. Hoon
  The adaptation of HMS Triumph to fire Tomahawk missiles was completed earlier this year. Work on HMS Trafalgar is in hand. It is currently planned that the adaptation of the remaining Trafalgar Class submarines will be completed by about 2006.

  HMS Astute and all subsequent submarines in this class are planned to be built Tomahawk-capable. The first three boats of the Astute Class are due to enter service between 2005 and 2008.

  The precise order and date of adaptation of Trafalgar Class submarines would assist in deducing the availability of TLAM-capable boats for operational deployment, given the limited number of submarines involved. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom total requirement for Block III Tomahawk missiles; how many have been(a) delivered and (b) used; and when he expects the Royal Navy to have the full complement of missiles required. [95969]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK originally contracted to buy 65 Tomahawk missiles. Knowledge of the delivery schedule and the number used would assist a potential adversary to assess our stock level and operational capability. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 199-200, when the contract was signed with the United States Department of Defense for the replenishment on RN Tomahawk missiles; what are the delivery terms of the contract; how many replacement missiles will be purchased; at what cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [95974]

  Mr. Hoon
  A contract for 20 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles was signed on 1 August 1999. The cost will be met from the Reserve. Knowledge of the delivery schedule would assist a potential adversary to assess our stock level and operational capability. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

HEALTH

  Thermal Insulation Standards
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the recommended thermal insulation standard for pipework and ducting in his Department's PFI programmes; and in what proportion of contracts this standard is met. [94887]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service Estates "Model Engineering Specification CO2: Thermal Insulation" specifies recommended insulation standards. The guidance is not mandatory and it is for NHS trusts to determine what is required for each scheme.

  The Department does not hold information on what proportion of contracts meet this standard.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will reply to the letters of the hon. Member for Ashford of 22 April, 26 May, 12 July and 2 September concerning the case of Dr. A. Singh. [96107]

  Mr. Denham
  I regret that due to an administrative error, the hon. Member's letter of 22 April was misfiled. I replied today.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the aggregate increase in uniform business rates payable by all NHS trusts and health authorities in England and Wales from 1 April 2000 as a result of the 2000 rating revaluation. [96256]

  Mr. Denham
  The draft rating list will be published in December. The cost of unified business rates for the National Health Service in England will be dependent on the rate poundage and the extent of transitional relief. Decisions on these will be taken in January.

  Disclosure of any provisional assessment of the impact of the rating revaluation is considered to be commercially sensitive and so premature disclosure would be inappropriate.

  Information relating to Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the First Secretary to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which general medical practice has the highest proportion of patients aged 85 years and over. [96325]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  At 1 October 1998, in England as a whole, 7.3 per cent. of patients were aged 75 and over. A total of 34 practices had more than 20 per cent. of patients aged 75 and over. The distribution of these practices by health authority is shown in the table.
  102

  Practices in England with more than 20 per cent. of patients aged 75 and over, by Health authority, 1 October 1998

  Region

  Health authority

  Number of Practices

  Anglian and North Thames

  North West Anglia

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  North Essex

  4

  South Thames

  Bromley

  1

  East Kent

  3

  East Sussex

  7

  Brighton and West Sussex

  4

  South and West

  Dorset

  6

  North and East Devon

  2

  Somerset

  2

  South and West Devon

  1

  North West

  Morecambe Bay

  South Cheshire

  1

  Source:

  Department of Health General Medical Services Statistics

  Elderly (Long-term Care)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision the Government are making for residential and nursing care for the elderly in each of the next three years. [96754]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not set a specific amount aside for residential and nursing care for the elderly. This is for health authorities and local authorities to decide upon, from within their overall budgets. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the total amount available to the National Health Service and to local authorities for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in July 1998 when he published the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Copies are available in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow local authority social services to relocate elderly people in care without consulting next of kin; and if he will make a statement. [96751]

  Mr. Hutton
  None.

  When relocation is being considered, we expect local authorities to consult with and take into account the views of the older people concerned, as well as their relatives or carers.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the possibility of advertising NHS Direct on radio; and if he will make a statement. [96535]

  Ms Stuart
  We have recently received a letter from the Radio Advertising Bureau about NHS Direct advertising on radio.

  It is important that the public has clear information about all NHS services. Radio advertising has been used in the past to widen public access to NHS Direct in particular.

  Officials are talking to the Radio Authority to ensure radio advertising remains an option for providing information about NHS Direct in the future.

  NHS Pay Review Body
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include(a) professional health groups and (b) pharmacists, radiographers and medical laboratory scientists on the NHS Pay Review Body. [96275]

  Mr. Denham
  On 15 February 1999, the Health Departments published proposals for modernising the National Health Service pay system in "Agenda for Change." This included the possibility of moving some highly qualified health professionals into the remit of the Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine Review Body (NPRB).

  Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation were completed successfully on 5 October and resulted in a Joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward which was published on 8 October, copies of which are available in the Library. Paragraph 7.2 of the Joint Framework identifies, as a starting point for more detailed discussions with trade unions, the qualifying criteria for groups of staff to come within the scope of the NPRB.

  The criteria are
  "Professions with a minimum entry requirement of three years' educational study (or equivalent) to diploma level or higher, in a health specific area (other than medicine or dentistry) and which are state registered and have a substantial majority of members employed in healthcare."

  Exceptions might be agreed for staff groups which meet the majority but not all of these conditions.

  Staff groups which support professions added to the NPRB remit, and who have a direct connection with the transferred groups similar to that between nursing auxiliaries and registered nurses would also need to be considered for transfer.

  No change will take place until all aspects of the new pay system are agreed. The joint target for agreement is summer 2000.

  Radiographers are already covered by the NPRB.

  Euthanasia
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the differences between his policies in relation to the removal of assisted nutrition and hydration from(a) patients in persistent vegetative state and (b) other mentally incapacitated patients; what plans he has for changes to the law or practice in relation to such matters; and if he will make a statement. [96518]

  Mr. Hutton
  The removal of artificial nutrition and hydration is in all cases a matter of clinical judgment which is undertaken in accordance with professional advice provided by a responsible and recognised body of medical opinion and the general law. There are no plans to change the law in this respect.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the numbers of mentally incapable adults in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in each of the last three years whose death could have been brought about by the removal of artificial nutrition and hydration if such removal were legally sanctioned (i) without recourse to the courts for such patients not in persistent vegetative state and
  104
  (ii) through recourse to the courts for such patients in persistent vegetative state; and if he will estimate how many and what percentage of those patients in each year would (1) have issued an advance directive requesting such a recourse of action and (2) have such nutrition and hydration removed without their own express request. [96521]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the basis is for the distinction he makes between advance directives and advance refusals in respect of patients in persistent vegetative state or otherwise mentally incapacitated. [96522]

  Mr. Hutton
  Advance Statements are anticipatory decisions made while a person is capable, which are intended to give effect to that person's wishes as to how he or she shall be treated or cared for after the loss of capacity. An advance statement can be concerned with the refusal of medical treatment and are then sometimes known as advance directives.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation defining assisted food and fluid as treatment which may be withdrawn from patients with mental incapacities other than persistent vegetative state; and if he will make a statement. [96519]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have indicated that we intend to introduce a provision on Continuing Powers of Attorney (CPA) when parliamentary time allows such legislative changes.

  It is a general principle of law and medical practice that all adults have the right to consent to or refuse medical treatment. The CPA is a method by which adults can continue to ensure that their views are respected in decisions concerning their welfare when they can no longer take, or communicate, those decisions themselves. A CPA therefore would allow an attorney to make decisions on behalf of the person without capacity about the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration but only if the person has specifically given authority to do this in the CPA. Where decisions need to be taken in such cases, the healthcare team and attorney should do so in the best interests of the individual concerned.

  Mentally Incapacitated Patients
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition he uses of the phrase, a patient's best interests, in relation to patients in persistent vegetative state and other mentally incapacitated patients. [96632]

  Mr. Hutton
  A patient's best interests includes his physical and psychological health, well being, quality of life, relationship with family and other carers, spiritual and religious welfare.

  Mr. Tony Bland
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to enshrine in statute law the judgment in Airdale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] in relation to the definition of assisted food and fluid as treatment and the removal of tubal feeding from Mr. Tony Bland. [96631]
  105
  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to enshrine this judgment in statute law.

  NHS (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of commemorative(a) coins and (b) events to mark the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service. [96571]

  Mr. Denham
  Events to mark the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service were organised in accordance with the principles that activities should promote the core aims of the service and that money should not be diverted from patient care.

  Commemorative coins marking the anniversary were produced by the Royal Mint and involved no cost on the part of the Department.

  Central support for the NHS' special activities during its anniversary year were met within the Department's publicity and communications budget. The total for activity was £1,673,000, spread across the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99. This was offset by sponsorship support to the value of around £1 million.

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trusts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the termination payment awarded to Clive Uren by Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trusts. [96333]

  Ms Stuart
  On 13 October 1999, Mr. Uren resigned as Chief Executive of Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust following the publication of the Review of Nursing at Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust.

  The leaving arrangements for Mr. Uren, including his termination payment, were given independent approval by the District Auditor whose role is to ensure absolute propriety in such matters. The sum negotiated by the trust represented the lowest possible cost to the National Health Service within the terms of Mr. Uren's contract.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Refugees
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to assist those refugees recognised by the United Kingdom as in need of international protection to settle successfully in this country; and if he will make a statement [97214]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government recognise the immense contribution that refugees have made to our culture and society. We believe that once a decision is made to grant permission to stay, either permanently or on a long term basis, refugees need assistance to build their lives in the United Kingdom to develop their own and their families potential to the full and to contribute to their new host society. I have issued today a Consultation Paper which sets out our proposals to help achieve these aims through partnerships between central and local government, the voluntary sector, local communities, including ethnic minority and refugee community organisations and the refugee communities themselves. Views are invited from 106
  interested parties on how best to take forward this important work. The Consultation Paper is available in the Library and will also be sent to the main asylum and refugee interest groups and is available on the Home Office internet site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/assd/assd.htm.

  Responses to the Consultation Paper should be forwarded to the Home Office, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Asylum Support Project Team, Quest House, 11 Cross Road, Croydon CR0 6ER by 6 December 1999.

  Police Force Staff
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff were employed by police forces in England and Wales for each year since 1970. [96180]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Total police officer and civilian strength, England and Wales, 1970 to 1999

  Year

  Police Officers1

  Civilians2

  1970

  92,446

  26,061

  1971

  94,436

  28,060

  1972

  97,943

  29,316

  1973

  100,190

  30,047

  1974

  100,727

  32,971

  1975

  102,738

  34,951

  1976

  107,832

  34,551

  1977

  109,547

  34,119

  1978

  108,170

  35,044

  1979

  111,133

  35,762

  1980

  114,543

  37,695

  1981

  118,102

  37,746

  1982

  119,973

  37,891

  1983

  121,003

  38,270

  1984

  121,053

  38,898

  1985

  120,116

  39,194

  1986

  120,848

  40,268

  1987

  122,236

  41,550

  1988

  124,080

  42,350

  1989

  125,631

  44,009

  1990

  126,777

  44,525

  1991

  127,495

  46,361

  1992

  127,627

  47,336

  1993

  128,290

  49,518

  1994

  127,897

  50,229

  1995

  127,222

  51,096

  1996

  126,901

  52,933

  1997

  127,158

  53,011

  1998

  126,814

  52,975

  1999

  126,096

  53,031

  1 Figures are as at 31 March.

  2 As at 31 December. Figures for 1990 and following years are a at 31 March.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time served in prison by persons who were convicted in each year since 1970 who have completed their sentences for(a) murder, (b) attempted murder, (c) rape and (d) grievous bodily harm. [96179]
  107
  Mr. Boateng
  The available information given in the table relates to those persons discharged from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales since 1978 in respect of those convicted of murder, and since 1992 for other serious offences.

  Average time served1 by year of discharge for selected serious offences, 1978–1988

  Average time served (in years)

  Year of discharge

  Murder

  Attempted Murder

  Grievous bodily harm

  Rape

  1978

  9.1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1979

  9.2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1980

  10.6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1981

  9.8

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1982

  10.6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1983

  10.5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1984

  10.6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1985

  10.3

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1986

  11.1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1987

  11.4

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1988

  10.2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1989

  11.5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1990

  12.2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1991

  11.9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1992

  12.4

  1.2

  0.4

  2.6

  1993

  14.4

  3.3

  0.6

  3.2

  1994

  15.4

  3.4

  0.6

  3.3

  1995

  14.0

  3.5

  0.6

  3.7

  1996

  13.1

  4.6

  0.7

  3.8

  1997

  14.4

  3.7

  0.7

  3.9

  1998

  14.4

  3.0

  0.7

  3.8

  1 Excluding any time spent on remand custody or following any subsequent recall

  2 Not available

  Immigration
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years, how many applications for admission by overseas marriage partners of British men and women have been(a) approved and (b) refused. [96041]

  Mrs. Roche
  Entry clearance data to this degree of detail are collected only for posts in the Indian sub-continent, for applications made by the spouses of persons settled in the United Kingdom. This information is published in Table 2.3 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 1998", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are being used to refuse admissions to overseas brides and grooms of British men and women. [96032]

  Mrs. Roche
  An overseas national who wishes to join their spouse for settlement in the United Kingdom must obtain prior entry clearance from a British Diplomatic Post abroad. The United Kingdom-based sponsor may be either a British citizen or a person who is settled here in his or her own right.

  An entry clearance as a spouse will not be issued unless the entry clearance officer is satisfied that:

  (i) the applicant is married to a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement;

  (ii) the parties to the marriage have met;

  108

  (iii) each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as his or her spouse and the marriage is subsisting;

  (iv) there will be adequate accommodation for the parties and any dependants without recourse to public funds in accommodation which they own or occupy exclusively; and

  (v) the parties will be able to maintain themselves and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds.

  Where an entry clearance officer is not satisfied that each of these requirements is met, the entry clearance application will be refused.

  A spouse may also be refused an entry clearance under the general provisions of the Immigration Rules (for example, on the grounds that he or she does not have a valid travel document, that they are the subject of a deportation order, that they have been convicted of an imprisonable offence, that it is undesirable to admit them for medical reasons, or that their exclusion from the United Kingdom is deemed to be conducive to the public good).

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum applications processed from 30 June until 1 October have met the targets set down in the Asylum and Immigration Bill(a) of being processed with an initial decision within eight weeks and (b) of being completed within six months; and if he will make a statement. [96258]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is that 15 per cent. of the asylum decisions that were recorded in the period 1 July to 30 September 1999 were taken within eight weeks. The information relates to the length of time between the date an asylum application was lodged and the date of the initial decision.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support mechanisms in terms of(a) legal advice, (b) interpretation services and (c) other specialist support will be put in place to assist those asylum seekers held at the new reception facility at Oakington. [96197]

  Mrs. Roche
  Detailed arrangements have not yet been finalised. We will be discussing with all the relevant agencies, including refugee groups, what support mechanisms of this kind will be needed, bearing in mind that applicants will remain at the reception facility for short periods of about seven days.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) single, (b) shared and (c) family rooms will be available at the new asylum seeker reception facility at Oakington. [96196]

  Mrs. Roche
  The detailed design work is still to be finalised. Separate accommodation in physically separated buildings will be provided for males, for females, and for family groups. Some accommodation units for males will be shared accommodation.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the local education authorities in Cambridgeshire to ensure that all children of asylum seekers held at the reception facility at Oakington will be offered full-time education. [96198]
  109
  Mrs. Roche
  Applicants will reside at Oakington for short periods of about seven days. We will be discussing with all the relevant agencies what facilities need to be provided on site in those circumstances, but we do not envisage that full education facilities will be required.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average length of time that(a) single asylum seekers and (b) asylum seekers with child dependants who applied in each quarter of (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 have waited for the Home Office decision on their case; [96092]

  (2) how long on average (a) single asylum seekers and (b) asylum seekers with child dependants whose applications were decided in (i) September, (ii) August, (iii) July, (iv) June, (v) May, (vi) April, (vii) March, (viii) February and (ix) January waited for the decision on their case from his Department. [96091]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information in given in the tables. Separate figures for single persons and for asylum seekers with dependant children are not at present available.

  Average decision times in months1, 3 : January-September 1999

  Month of decision

  All applications

  Applications lodged pre July 1993

  Applications lodged post July 1993–95

  Applications lodged post 1996

  January

  44

  95

  52

  5

  February

  42

  93

  53

  5

  March

  42

  92

  49

  8

  April

  31

  88

  49

  12

  May

  27

  87

  50

  13

  June

  37

  86

  53

  14

  July

  48

  84

  55

  10

  August

  49

  85

  55

  10

  September

  49

  88

  56

  10

  Average decision times in months2, 3, 4 for asylum applications
  lodged on a quarterly basis: 1997–1999

  Quarter of application

  Average decision time

  1997

  January-March

  8

  April-June

  7

  July-September

  7

  October-December

  7

  1998

  January-March

  6

  April-June

  6

  July-September

  5

  October-December

  5

  1999

  January-March

  4

  April-June

  2

  July-September

  1

  1 The average length of time (in months) relates to the month in which the application was made.

  2 The average length of time (in months) relates to the quarter in which the application was made.

  3 Excluding dependants.

  4 Does not include applications awaiting an initial decision.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons whose immigration and asylum appeals are pending and with whom the authorities have lost contact. [95944]
  110
  Mrs. Roche
  We would only know that we had lost contact with an appellant if he or she failed to respond to official communications or failed to attend an appeal hearing. Figures are not collected centrally and it is therefore not possible to give any realistic estimate of the numbers involved.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to meet his target of processing asylum applications within six months. [96937]

  Mrs. Roche
  The White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—a modern approach to immigration and asylum" set out our proposals to deliver a more effective asylum system, including deciding asylum applications within an average of two months and determining asylum appeals within an average of four months. We are committed to meeting the White Paper target of achieving this by April 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his provisional timetable for offering to competitive tender the administration of the asylum voucher scheme and for awarding a contract. [96935]

  Mrs. Roche
  Invitations to negotiate were issued on 22 October. The contract will be awarded via the European Community negotiated procedures route. It is expected that contracts will be awarded at the end of the year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his planned timetable for the establishment of a Next Steps agency for asylum seeker support; and if he will make a statement. [96939]

  Mrs. Roche
  The support arrangements in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill will be administered from within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office. It is not intended that this work will be overseen by a Next Steps agency in the first instance. However, the position will be kept under review.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how he proposes to phase-in the transfer to the planned new arrangements for asylum support of people who will already be asylum seekers on 31 March 2000. [96938]

  Mrs. Roche
  When the new support arrangements take effect in April 2000, the first priority will be to deal with those claiming asylum and support after 1 April 2000. It is likely that those who are in receipt of social security benefits will remain on those benefits until they get a first negative decision. In the event that this is a refusal and the asylum seekers go on to appeal, they would need to transfer to the new support arrangements.

  We are separately holding discussions with local authorities, through the Local Government Association, about appropriate arrangements for the transfer of asylum seekers who are being supported by local authority social services departments.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his provisional timetable for offering to competitive tender the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers and for awarding a contract. [96936]
  111
  Mrs. Roche
  Invitations to tender were issued on 25 October. It is expected that contracts for the supply of accommodation will be awarded at the end of January. It is possible that further competitive tenders will be required. In addition, we are separately negotiating with local authorities about the accommodation that they can make available for supporting asylum seekers.

  CCTV
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is(a) the largest town or city without a publicly funded CCTV system and (b) the smallest town or village with a publicly funded CCTV system; [96306]

  (2) what circumstances agencies under his control match images derived from CCTV camera recordings against digitised (a) passport photographs, (b) driver licence photographs and (c) police photograph databases; and what controls he operates to prevent misuse of CCTV camera recordings; [96310]

  (3) what recent evidence he has to establish the effect of CCTV on displacement of crime from CCTV surveillance areas to areas without CCTV; [96304]

  (4) how much departmental money has been spent on CCTV for each of the last three years; and how much matched funding this has attracted in each of these years; [96308]

  (5) if he will estimate the number of times per day a person in London will on average be caught on publicly funded CCTV; [96303]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of CCTV systems in (a) reducing crime levels and (b) increasing detection rates, with particular reference to the report funded by the Scottish Office into the effectiveness of CCTV in Glasgow; [96307]

  (7) if he will estimate (a) the number of (i) police, (ii) other public sector and (iii) private operators of CCTV systems and (b) the number of active CCTV cameras in England; [96305]

  (8) what powers he has to regulate the visibility of (a) public and (b) private CCTV systems. [96309]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  £34 million of Home Office funding has been invested in Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) in England and Wales over the last three years under the CCTV Challenge competition of the previous Administration. This Government plan to invest a further £153 million over the next three years under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative.

  Almost 750 applications for England and Wales were received under the first round of the Initiative, and crime reduction partnerships have been invited to prepare final proposals on 376 bids for new and extended CCTV schemes, mainly directed at tackling vehicle crime and crime problems in housing areas, at a potential capital cost of £68 million. Partnerships and the private sector are contributing a further £15 million. The earlier CCTV Challenge competition attracted £51 million in funding from other sources.

  Over 580 CCTV systems have been established with assistance from Home Office funds, involving the installation of 5,802 cameras. The shortlisted schemes in the first round of the current initiative provide for a further
  112
  3,879 cameras, including the upgrade and replacement of existing systems. Information on the number of police, public sector and private operators of CCTV systems currently in operation, and the number of cameras in use, is not held centrally.

  We are concerned to ensure that CCTV is used effectively to achieve the maximum impact on crime and the fear of crime. Police operational experience and a number of research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy. As with any crime reduction measure, there is a possibility of some displacement, but this is by no means inevitable. Schemes funded under the current initiative will be evaluated to build up the knowledge base of what works best in what context, as recommended in the Scottish Office report, "The Effect of CCTV on Recorded Crime Rates and Public Concern about Crime in Glasgow".

  To retain public confidence, CCTV must be used fairly and lawfully. All schemes funded by the Home Office are required to comply with codes of practice governing their control and operation. The requirements include the need to ensure that cameras are visible to the public and that attention is drawn to them by appropriate signage; and that the recorded material is properly safeguarded and controlled. CCTV systems are also required to meet the requirements of data protection legislation, and the Data Protection Act 1998 provides for the first time a framework for the statutory regulation of schemes. Controllers will be required to notify details of their processing of personal data to the Data Protection Commissioner and comply with a set of enforceable principles of good data handling practice. Our aim is to bring the Act into force on 1 March 2000.

  Proposals in our recent White Paper on the regulation of the private security industry, currently under consideration, would require operatives and employees involved in installing and monitoring CCTV systems, and managers and directors of companies, to be licensed.

  Images derived from CCTV systems are not routinely matched against digitised images used on passports and driving licences. I understand that in one London Borough CCTV images are scanned against digitised police photographs in order to help trace the movement of known offenders.

  No information is available on the largest town or city not to receive funding for CCTV or the smallest village to have been given an award. Nor is it possible to say how often someone in London would be within the view of publicly funded CCTV cameras, as this will depend entirely on individual circumstances.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions caseworkers at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate dealing with(a) asylum and (b) immigration casework made on average per week in each quarter of 1998 and 1999 to the latest convenient date. [96026]
  113
  Mrs. Roche
  The information is given in the table.

  Average output per week1 based on quarterly data2: 1998–99

  After-entry immigration casework3

  Asylum caseworker4

  1998

  First Quarter

  3,670

  710

  Second Quarter

  3,510

  580

  Third Quarter

  3,930

  620

  Fourth Quarter

  3,720

  530

  1999

  First Quarter

  2,660

  320

  Second Quarter

  3,760

  920

  Third Quarter

  4,404

  670

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  2Assumed to be 13 weeks in each quarter

  3Including some non-decision output (e.g. transfers of conditions, withdrawn applications) and right of abode decisions.

  4 Initial decisions made on applications received

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the gross expenditure, income and net expenditure of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate(a) to date during the current financial year and (b) for the whole financial year 1999–2000. [96940]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information about expenditure in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (excluding payments to asylum seekers) is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure to 29 October 1999

  Estimated expenditure for 1999–2000

  Gross expenditure

  132,964,000

  284,385,000

  Receipts

  9,577,000

  17,928,000

  Net expenditure

  123,387,000

  266,467,000

  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for funding support costs to asylum seekers. From 1 April 1999 to 29 October 1999, £222 million has been paid to the Department of Social Security in respect of social security payments made by the Benefits Agency to asylum seekers. The estimate of expenditure for the whole of 1999–2000, including payments to the Department of Social Security and local authorities, is estimated to be in the range of £450 million—£490 million.

  Tampere Conclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the (i) judicial and (ii) legal harmonisation called for in paragraph 33 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions. [96509]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The European Council at Tampere concluded that the principle of mutual recognition, which the United Kingdom put forward, should become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union. The European Council conclusions in particular highlighted mutual recognition in relation to extradition, pre-trial orders and evidence, and asked the Council and the Commission to adopt, by December 2000, a programme to implement the principle of mutual recognition,114
  including common minimum standards of procedural law which respect the fundamental legal principles of Member States.

  United Kingdom proposals in this area were described in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 13 April 1999, Official Report, columns 12-13, given by the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions, what national programmes he plans to establish to fight against discrimination. [96512]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are still awaiting publication by the European Commission of the package of proposals referred to in paragraph 19 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions. Without sight of the package, it is difficult to say what national programmes we plan to establish pursuant to it.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, however, committed this Government to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity in order to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to all public services, including the police. In addition, the Home Office Race Equality Unit expects to launch a new Race Equality Grant early next year. Both these developments could include any relevant proposals covered in the package.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) teaching matter, of the European Police College as agreed at Tampere. [96575]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 716.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraph 29 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions, if he will make a statement on the planned information campaign, with special reference to the(a) cost, (b) target audience and (c) maintenance of political neutrality. [96508]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.

  The campaign is intended to provide published information about judicial co-operation and legal procedures in the member states for the benefit of those, particular consumers and other small claimants, who may need to litigate from other member states. Making such information available is an important first step in improving access to justice across European borders. The Commission has not yet proposed how they intend to publish such information so it is not possible at this early stage to estimate the cost. Since this is factual information political neutrality should not be an issue.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraphs 38-9 of the Tampere Presidency Conclusions, if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the(a) method, (b) nature and (c) extent of convergence in civil law. [96510]

  Mr. Lock
  I have been asked to reply.
  115
  The Government support, in principle, the elimination of obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings in cross border cases where this is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, including by promoting the compatibility of applicable civil procedure where there is a real and demonstrable need for such measures. However, the Government do not support blanket harmonisation of civil law and procedure, which would be unnecessary and impracticable, nor has any such proposal been made.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Jill Dando murder investigation has cost to date broken down into(a) salary and (b) other costs. [96270]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that, as of 26 October, the salary costs of the Central Crime Operational Unit investigative team were approximately £777,000; their other costs were approximately £477,000.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time police officers, (b) part-time police officers and (c) civilian police staff are currently working on the Jill Dando murder investigation. [96268]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that, as of 26 October, the investigative team comprised 44 full-time police officers and seven full-time civilian staff; no part-time officers are on the team.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will receive a reply to his letter of 27 September concerning the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [96857]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 28 October in response to his letter of 27 September concerning the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I am sorry that I was unable to do so sooner.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 1 June regarding Mr. Abie Greyvenstein's application for British citizenship. [95764]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 1 November 1999.

  Entry Clearance (Spouse)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been refused entry clearance to join spouses in the United Kingdom for settlement purposes on the grounds that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the couple intended to live together permanently and that the marriage was subsisting, for each of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 and for(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh. [95946]
  116
  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to decisions taken at the entry clearance issuing posts in India and Bangladesh in 1998 and the first half of 1999 and is given in the table. There is no comprehensive data for Pakistan.

  Persons refused entry clearance to join spouses on the grounds that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the couple intended to live together permanently.

  India

  Bangladesh

  Refusals1 solely for this reason

  1998

  100

  20

  January-June 1999

  70

  10

  Refusals1 partly for this reason

  1998

  210

  70

  January-June 1999

  110

  30

  1After taking account of successful appeals

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects are covered in Home Office guidance to chief police officers; when the guidance on police complaints and discipline procedures was(a) last placed in the Library and (b) last revised; and if he will make each updated version available on the web. [96466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office guidance to chief officers covers a wide range of subjects. There is no single list of all the guidance which has been given, although the Home Office library does maintain a list of Home Office Circulars to chief officers. The list covers a good deal of the guidance which has been issued since 1969. The Home Office "Guidance to Chief Officers on Police Complaints and Discipline Procedures" was last amended in 1990 and placed in the Library in 1991. This guidance has now been largely replaced by the "Guidance on Police Unsatisfactory Performance, Complaints and Misconduct Procedures", which relates to the new procedures relating to police conduct introduced on 1 April 1999. This new guidance has also been placed in the Library. It is due to be revised shortly by the addition of a section dealing with senior officer conduct. The revised version will be placed in the Library, and published on the internet, along with any subsequent revisions.

  Millennium (Emergency Procedures)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with voluntary organisations delivering emergency services about their ability to provide cover over the millennium period; and what encouragement he has given to such organisations to provide such cover. [96536]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been no direct discussions because the use of voluntary organisations in emergencies is a matter for local agencies. Local authorities are aware of the need to examine their arrangements over the millennium period.

  Parking (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were undertaken in 1998 against able-bodied motorists misusing spaces reserved for disabled people. [96429]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available.

  Prosecutions for disabled parking space infringements cannot be separately identified in the statistics of other waiting and parking offences held centrally, nor is it likely that the police or the courts would be able to identify them separately.

  Trespassers and Campers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which the police make use of their powers under(a) section 61 and (b) section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 in respect of trespassers and unauthorised campers. [96666]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The use of police powers under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is kept under review and meetings have been held between Ministers, officials and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) about this issue. Revised operational guidance on the use of police powers was issued by ACPO in April this year. Powers under section 77 of the 1994 Act are exercised by local authorities.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police authority area in Wales in each of the past three years. [96552]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  31 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  Dyfed Powys

  1,005

  1,002

  1,026

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,233

  1,247

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,396

  1,391

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,986

  2,981

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 173, on the Lancet inquiry, what is the name of the base from which the inquiry is being carried out; what is the breakdown of the costs of using these premises and if these costs were included in the costs given in his answer; and if he will make a statement. [96393]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Lancet inquiry is being run from rented premises acquired for the purpose. The cost of these premises is £2,623 per month. These costs were included in the costs of the inquiry given in a reply to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Member for 118
  Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 173, For operational reasons, it would not be appropriate to state the location of the premises.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1999,Official Report 1999, column 484, on Cleveland Police, what proportion of serving CID officers in Cleveland Police Force are under investigation in the Lancet inquiry in the boroughs of (a) Middlesbrough, (b) Stockton, (c) Langbaurgh and (d) Hartlepool; and if he will make a statement. [96394]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Operation Lancet is currently investigating 30 Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers. Eight of these are suspended from duty. The remaining 22 officers are currently serving as follows:

  (a) 11 at Middlesbrough out of a total strength of 39 CID officers;

  (b) one at Stockton out of a total strength of 29 CID officers;

  (c) seven at Langbaurgh out of a total strength of 17 CID officers;

  (d) zero at Hartlepool; and

  (e) three at Headquarters out of a total strength of 111 CID officers.

  In a reply given to a question by my hon. Friend, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 20 April 1999, Official Report, column 484, he should have referred to six officers subject to investigation out of a total of 24 CID officers at Langbaurgh, rather than out of a total of 32 as stated. I am sorry that this mistake was not noticed earlier.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are working on the(a) Lancet and (b) Redwood inquiries into Cleveland Police; and if he will make a statement. [96272]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are 17 officers from Cleveland and six officers from Northamptonshire currently working on Operation Lancet. For operational reasons, it would be inappropriate to comment on Operation Redwood.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1999,Official Report, column 484, if he will make a statement on the progress of the Redwood inquiry into the Cleveland Police Force. [96395]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Redwood inquiry is an on-going investigation and, for operational reasons, it would be inappropriate at this stage to make any further comment.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in Cleveland have been served with a regulation 7 disciplinary notice in connection with Operation Lancet. [96678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Sixty officers in Cleveland Police have been served with a regulation 7 notice arising from Operation Lancet.

  Police Services
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deal with the impact of population sparsity on the provision of police services. [96593]
  119
  Mr. Straw
  The needs of police forces with sparsely populated areas are already taken into account in the current police funding formula. The findings of a research study on policing areas of rural sparsity were considered by a Home Office chaired working group, which included representatives of police forces and police authorities. There was no single view within the working group on the conclusions of the research report. There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.

  I understand the wishes of rural police forces to see the research findings implemented. Before doing so the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question, which is beyond dispute or challenge.

  For 2000–01, we propose to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). This includes police SSAs, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  Our present intention is that, subject to consultation and to approval by the House, we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution, or revenue support grant distribution, generally for 2000–01. There will, therefore, be no substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year.

  We shall need to make some limited adjustments to accommodate changes arising from the alterations to the boundary of the Metropolitan Police area and the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey Police areas.

  Wheel Clamping
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the operation of wheel clamping companies. [R] [96320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the White Paper "The Government's Proposals for Regulating the Private Security Industry in England and Wales", issued earlier this year, we announced proposals to regulate private wheel clampers as part of a package of statutory measures to regulate the private security industry as a whole. We will introduce legislation to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the US Senate's rejection of the comprehensive test ban treaty. [95048]

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for controls on the testing of nuclear weapons, following the rejection of the treaty by the United States Senate. [95054]
  120
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration on the US Senate's failure to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty. [95060]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made clear our deep disappointment with the US Senate's vote against US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But we will continue to work with the US Administration, and with other key countries, to bring the Treaty into force as soon as possible.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia concerning human rights. [95049]

  Mr. Battle
  I visited Indonesia from 6-9 September and raised human rights issues with the then President and Foreign Minister. We remain concerned about the overall human rights situation in Indonesia. But we are greatly encouraged by the inauguration of Indonesia's first ever democratically elected President on 20 October and the decision to drop Indonesia's claim on East Timor. We stand ready to offer support to President Wahid's new Government during Indonesia's transition to democracy and full respect for human rights.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the present Government of Pakistan. [95050]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson),Official Report, column 81.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of when Pakistan will be readmitted as a full member of the Commonwealth. [R] [95065]

  Mr. Hain
  The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which met in London on 18 October, confirmed Pakistan's suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Mission, led by the Foreign Minister of Canada, Lloyd Axworthy, visited Pakistan from 28-29 October in order to assess the situation there. It will report to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban, South Africa, on 12-15 November.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he is making to ensure that his Department attracts candidates for employment from all sections of British society. [95051]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones),Official Report, column 89.

  Pakistani-Indian Relations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Pakistani-Indian bilateral relations. [95053]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is essential for regional stability that India and Pakistan enjoy good relations. We continue to encourage dialogue between them to resolve their outstanding differences, including Kashmir.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if when he last met his colleagues from other member-states of the European Union they discussed matters relating to the policing of communities in Kosovo. [95056]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the security situation in Kosovo with his EU counterparts at the General Affairs Council meeting on 11 October. Partners welcomed a proposal by my right hon. Friend for an EU initiative to tackle the threat of organised crime in Kosovo, and commissioned further work to take this forward. The council also condemned the continuation of ethically based violence in Kosovo and called on leaders of various ethnic groups to put an end to it.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reconstruction programme required in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [95062]

  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reconstruction programme in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [95035]

  Mr. Vaz
  Assessments on the needs for reconstruction assistance have been carried out by the World Bank and the European Commission who are leading the international effort on the reconstruction of Kosovo. These will be presented to a donors conference on 17 November. We fully support the efforts of the UN, the EU and the Stability Pact for South-East Europe in their reconstruction efforts.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Kosovo towns of(a) Mitrovica and (b) Orahovac. [96945]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are continuing stand-offs between Albanians and Serbs at Mitrovica over freedom of movement and access to homes, Mitrovica University and the local hospital. The Kosovo Force (KFOR) and UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are working with both communities to encourage the process of reconciliation and to allow freedom of movement within the city. In Orahovac, there is a continuing stand-off with the local Albanian inhabitants over the deployment of a Russian KFOR contingent. We support KFOR and UNMIK efforts to resolve the problem.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the borders between(a) Kosovo and Albania and (b) Kosovo and Macedonia are adequately secured; and who controls them. [97063]
  122
  Mr. Vaz
  United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which established the international presences in Kosovo, gives the NATO-led international military presence in Kosovo, KFOR, responsibility for conducting border monitoring duties as required. Assuring the security of Kosovo's border with Albania and Macedonia is also a task for the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), which has general responsibility for maintaining civil law and order.

  Both KFOR and UNMIK recognise the importance of ensuring adequate control of Kosovo's borders. KFOR will continue to give border monitoring a high priority while the UN mission builds up the international police force in Kosovo, part of whose functions include border duties. UNMIK has also set up a customs service operating at border crossings. Negotiations are under way with the Macedonian Government to improve the efficiency of the major crossing point on the Kosovo/ Macedonia border.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the number of Kosovo Albanians killed by the Yugoslav Army, Serbian security forces and paramilitaries in Kosovo during the Operation Allied Force. [96949]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our current estimate remains that at least 10,000 civilians were killed in Kosovo as a result of war crimes by the Serbs between June 1998 and June 1999. We do not have disaggregated figures for those killed during Operation Allied Force.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the planned 3,000 police officers for Kosovo have been deployed since 10 June. [96947]

  Mr. Vaz
  Currently around 1,750 international police officers from 25 countries are deployed to Kosovo. The full contingent of officers originally required should be in place by the end of November. Following his report of 16 September, the United Nations Secretary-General has approved proposals for the deployment of 1,600 extra officers. The United Nations is expected to issue a request to donor nations for further officers soon.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the ethnic composition is of the Kosovo Transitional Council; how many times the Council has met since 10 June; and if it is still operational. [97066]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Kosovo Transitional Council (KTC) was established by the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in Kosovo as an inclusive, consultative body bringing together all major political parties and ethnic groups in Kosovo. Its members include two each from the three major Kosovo Albanian political groupings, two Kosovo Albanian independents, two Kosovo Serbs and two members representing Kosovo's other ethnic minorities.

  The Council has met sporadically since its inaugural meeting on 16 July. We are aware of six further meetings. Attendance has varied, depending on reactions by the various groupings to the situation on the ground or political developments at the time.
  123
  The Transitional Council is still operational, and has an important role to play in allowing representatives of different ethnic groups to have their say in the running of Kosovo and in preparing the transition from UN administration to local self-government.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government have provided to the international effort to identify and investigate mass graves in Kosovo. [97064]

  Mr. Hain
  A UK Scenes of Crime Team consisting of police and forensic personnel carried out investigations in Kosovo on behalf of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia from 18 June to 24 October. The Team was responsible for exhuming bodies, establishing the cause of death and collecting other evidence at the sites of some of the worst atrocities.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the Kosovo Liberation Army's demilitarisation has been conducted in accordance with the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and a consequent Demilitarisation Agreement. [97083]

  Mr. Vaz
  UN Security Council Resolution 1244 gave the NATO-led international military force in Kosovo (KFOR) responsibility for demilitarising the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). On 20 September, KFOR reported that the KLA had complied with the undertaking to demilitarise which it had given to NATO on 21 June.

  The then commander of KFOR, General Sir Mike Jackson, said on 13 October that over 10,000 weapons and 5 million rounds of ammunition had been handed in by the KLA. Any weapons now found on ex-KLA members are unlawfully held and are subject to seizure and destruction.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which international organisation has the mandate to function as the primary investigative and prosecutional agency for criminal acts committed on the territory of Kosovo between March 1998 and 10 June 1999. [96948]

  Mr. Vaz
  UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which established the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the NATO-led Kosovo force (KFOR), gives UNMIK responsibility for maintaining civil law and order in Kosovo. This includes investigations and prosecutions for alleged criminal acts committed on the territory of Kosovo before the deployment of UNMIK and KFOR in June 1999. In the case of possible war crimes, decisions would be made in consultation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the Kosovo Serbs' proposal regarding establishment of(a) Serb enclaves within Kosovo and (b) Serb defence forces. [97065]

  Mr. Vaz
  We support, and are contributing to, the efforts of the international presences in Kosovo, the UN Mission (UNMIK) and the NATO-led international force (KFOR). UNMIK and KFOR are committed to promoting a secure environment in Kosovo for all ethnic groups.124
  They are making special efforts to protect members of minority groups judged to be at risk, including Kosovo Serbs.

  We want Kosovo Serbs to participate in institutions established by the international presences in Kosovo, such as the police, the Kosovo Protection Corps and the civil administration. We would not support proposals for separate enclaves or protection forces.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in Kosovo. [95052]

  Mr. Vaz
  The security situation has stabilised, due to the work of the NATO-led international force in Kosovo—KFOR, and the United Nations international police presence. Ethnic violence is still a problem, but KFOR and the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are putting as many resources as possible into tackling this issue. The number of Serbs and other ethnic minorities leaving the province has fallen. Some are returning.

  Efforts are underway to control the borders more effectively for the purposes of security and revenue collection. A new customs service has been established and police are now posted at border crossings. Life is slowly getting back to normal with rubbish collections; post offices, businesses, factories, schools and universities opening; rail services being restored and a police emergency service line. Water and power supplies are being rehabilitated—two out of the four electricity generating stations are now operational and health care facilities are vastly improved. To prepare for winter over 78,500 house rehabilitation or prefabrication kits are being distributed which will help almost half a million people. Over a million square metres have been cleared of land mines and unexploded ordnance.

  Work is also underway on restoring human rights and self governance to the province. This includes assistance to the media, political parties, judiciary, and prisons. Plans for voter registration and preparations for local elections are also being made. The work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is well underway. We continue to strongly support their work.

  There is still much to be done, but the international community and its agencies are committed to the goal of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Kosovo.

  China
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote democracy and human rights in China. [95058]

  Mr. Battle
  We have regular dialogue with the Chinese authorities on human rights including the situation in Tibet and raise the issue at every appropriate opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed human rights with the Chinese President Jiang Zemin during his recent State Visit. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did the same during his talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 20 October, in which he handed over further names of individuals about whom we are
  125
  concerned. The most recent round of the official-level bilateral human rights dialogue was held in London in September.

  Spain and Gibraltar
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the obstruction of movement between Spain and Gibraltar. [R] [95059]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have raised the continuing problems at the border between Gibraltar and Spain with the European Commission on several occasions in recent months. Following the inauguration of the new Commission this Autumn, both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and my predecessor as Minister for Europe have discussed the issue with EU Commissioner Vitorino. We will continue to press the Commission to take effective action in this matter.

  Commonwealth Membership
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to discuss the criteria for Commonwealth membership. [95061]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no plans to discuss the criteria for Commonwealth membership with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. They were agreed by Heads of Government at the 1997 CHOGM in Edinburgh. Decisions on membership are taken by the whole Commonwealth on the basis of consensus, against the background of these agreed criteria.

  East Timor
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's current assessment of the situation in East Timor. [95063]

  Mr. Battle
  We welcome the adoption of the UN Security Council Resolution 1272 on 25 October. We shall continue to support the UN efforts to create the independent East Timor for which the East Timorese people so overwhelmingly voted on 30 August.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the development of consular relationships with Nigeria since its readmission to the Commonwealth. [95064]

  Mr. Hain
  Since Nigeria's readmission to the Commonwealth we have rebuilt a friendly and constructive relationship with the new government, covering all aspects of mutual interest. Britain fully supports President Obasanjo' s reform programme.

  Tampere Conference
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans 126
  to meet senior members of the judiciary, the legal professions and the police to discuss the consequences of the Tampere conference of 15 and 16 October. [95066]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have no current plans to do so. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor will, however, be taking forward work on justice and home affairs issues raised at Tampere.

  Mission Statement
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ethical dimension to his foreign policy as outlined in his Department's mission statement. [95068]

  Mr. Hain
  We have placed human rights at the heart of Foreign Policy. We believe in the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core United Nations human rights instruments. We are committed to protecting and promoting these rights, working through our bilateral relationships and with our European Union and other International partners. In implementing this policy we take account of the individual characteristics of each situation, and seek to use the combination of approaches—of dialogue and pressure—that is most likely to secure real human rights improvements on the ground.

  European Enlargement
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the German Chancellor to discuss European enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [95069]

  Mr. Vaz
  European Union enlargement is a major priority of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss enlargement with the German Foreign Minister when they meet at the General Affairs council on 15-16 November. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the German Chancellor discussed enlargement at the European council in Tampere on 15 October and will return to the subject at the Helsinki European council on 9 December.

  Economic and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next nominate persons to serve on the EU Economic and Social Affairs Council. [94574]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will nominate 24 permanent and 24 reserve members to serve on the next Economic and Social Committee in 2002, when the current committee's mandate expires.

  EC Handbook
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have compiled for use by Government Departments a handbook on the procedures and functions of(a) the European Communities and (b) European Communities working groups, with particular reference to UK Civil Service input. [95544]
  127
  Mr. Vaz
  We prepared guidance handbooks on the institutions of the European Union and on the procedures in the Council for the use of civil servants and Ministers during the UK's Presidency of the Council in 1998. Guidance on procedures for handling EU business is updated from time to time.

  Western Sahara
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco concerning the conduct and timing of the referendum on the future of Western Sahara. [96838]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: We raise the situation in the Western Sahara regularly in our bilateral dealings with the Moroccan Government. The Secretary of State met his Moroccan counterpart in April and I expect to make contact with them soon.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN Secretary-General concerning the conduct and timing of the referendum on the future of Western Sahara. [96839]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: We are in regular contact with the UN Secretary-General on the Western Sahara through our Mission in New York and through our Ambassador in Rabat. We fully support both the content of the UN referendum process and the Secretary-General's planned timetable.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to the UN's work in Western Sahara. [96840]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: From September 1991 until September 1993, the UK contributed 15 military observers including the Chief of Staff to MINURSO, the United Nations' Mission for the Referendum in the Western Sahara.

  Since the establishment of the mission, the UK has been liable for its share of UN assessed contributions. In the last financial year, the UK paid £2,359,371 in assessed contributions to MINURSO.

  We continue to support UN efforts to bring about a lasting peace to the Western Sahara and believe that a free and fair referendum represents the best way forward unless the parties can agree an alternative political solution.

  Bilateral Treaties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the bilateral treaties between the UK and the US(a) are still in effect and (b) were ratified in the last 30 years. [96301]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 501. That answer refers to the number of US-UK bilateral treaties which, having entered into force, were sent to the Public Record Office for permanent preservation. However, some of these bilateral treaties may no longer be in effect, having been overtaken by new treaties. Officials are now conducting a search to establish
  128
  precisely how many treaties are still in effect, and which of those treaties were ratified in the last 30 years. I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I have the necessary information.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are employed in his Department in examining arms export licence applications. [97061]

  Mr. Hain
  Lead responsibility for formulating the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's advice to the Department of Trade and Industry on individual export licence applications generally rests with the relevant geographical departments, in consultation with the Non-Proliferation Department and other functional departments as appropriate, in particular the Human Rights Policy Department and the United Nations Department. In some cases geographical departments may also consult overseas posts, for example to seek more information on proposed end-uses or end-users.

  Against this background, it is not possible to give a precise figure for the number of officials involved. But a significant proportion of officials in geographical departments and in the relevant sections of the above-named functional departments have some degree of involvement in examining export licence applications. Nearly all such officials have other responsibilities which they fulfil alongside their role in export licence processing.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the report of the Bishop of Coventry and his ecclesiastical colleagues on their recent visit to Baghdad and their assessment of the policy of UN sanctions against Iraq. [95458]

  Mr. Hain
  Officials from the Foreign Office have a regular dialogue about Iraq with the Church of England through the Board for Social Responsibility's International and Development Affairs Committee. This has included discussion of the recent visit to Iraq by the Bishop of Coventry and his colleagues. We are aware of the Bishops' views on the sanctions regime on Iraq and have briefed them on the Government's position. We share the Bishops' concern for the humanitarian situation in Iraq and have undertaken to keep them informed of our continuing efforts to improve it.

  OSCE Progress Report
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the South Eastern Europe Regional Table periodic report to the OSCE has been produced; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [96946]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Stability Pact document tasks the Special Coordinator to provide, on behalf of the Stability Pact Regional Table, periodic progress reports to the OSCE. The OSCE Summit to be held in Istanbul on 18-19 November is the next opportunity for a progress report. When the report becomes available a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what security undertaking has been made by NATO to Montenegro since the end of operation Allied Force. [96944]

  Mr. Vaz
  No security undertakings have been made by NATO to Montenegro.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93982]

  Mr. Ingram
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, Column 429.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Government's policy on pre-school education in Northern Ireland [93492]

  Mr. McFall
  [holding answer 20 October 1999]: This Government are committed to the development of pre-school education in Northern Ireland and are taking forward a four year expansion programme, through partnership between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors, to provide over 9,000 additional pre-school places. By 2001–02, £38 million will have been spent in almost doubling pre-school education provision in Northern Ireland.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94004]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, columns, 739-40.

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what moneys were allocated by his Department to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for each of its first three years; and what requests for greater funding were received by his Department. [95502]
  130
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Commission is defined as a Non Departmental Public Body and is funded by means of a grant in aid. Its grant in aid for each of its first three years will be £750,000. The Government are determined to ensure that the Commission is properly funded to carry out its various duties and functions, and believe that the current level of funding is adequate. The Commission informed the Secretary of State of its intention to seek additional funding in a letter dated 22 October. Any formal request for an increase in funding will be considered alongside the other financial demands that the Northern Ireland Office has to meet in its annual budget.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what basis post-graduate interns have been selected to work for the Human Rights Commission; and how many of them are of(a) British, (b) Irish and (c) other nationality. [95504]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Two post-graduate interns have worked at the Commission for a three month period this year. The basis of their selection and questions relating to their nationality are the responsibility of the Commission, and I have asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decision of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to intervene in the matter of UK-wide legislation which is without a specific Northern Ireland aspect. [95508]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am not certain to which specific intervention the right hon. Gentleman refers; however, section 69(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that:"The Commission shall keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights".

  This duty is not confined to instances where there is a specific Northern Ireland aspect to UK-wide legislation.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political parties were invited to consult over the proposals that appear in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's draft strategic plan; which were consulted; and which declined or failed to respond. [95496]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Commission is an independent body and as such its proposals and activities are a matter for the Commission itself. I have therefore asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the right hon. Gentleman to inform him of the consultation process on the Commission's draft strategic plan.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what interests have been registered by the members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [95506]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Commission maintains a Register of Interests for both Commissioners and staff. It can be seen by any member of the public at the Commission's office in Belfast.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his Department made a formal request to the Northern Ireland Human Rights
  131
  Commission asking it to consult and advise on the possibility of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights; and in what terms was this request. [95505]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), the then Secretary of State, wrote to the Chief Commissioner on 24 March 1999, as she was required to do under Section 69(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. She invited the Commission to provide advice of the kind referred to in paragraph 4 of the relevant section of the Belfast Agreement, namely:"to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and—taken together with the ECHR—to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland."

  The Act does not set a time limit for receipt of these proposals and the Secretary of State did not ask for the Commission's proposals within a set time.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Committee on the Administration of Justice made application to the Council of Europe for funding for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before the Commission's members were appointed; and if he will make a statement. [95497]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Commission, although funded by Government, is free to seek additional funding from outside sources. Other bodies are also free to seek funding on its behalf. This is not a matter for the Government.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff work for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and on what grades and salaries. [95503]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to approve the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's employment of staff as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment.

  The Commission has to date appointed eight members of staff. The staff are not civil servants and the Commission has not adopted formal grades, however they have used the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NIC) Pay Scales as a guide to salaries.

  There are three Administrative Officers employed on the equivalent of the Clerical and Secretarial Pay Scale. There are four staff appointed on the equivalent of Scale 119; these are a Research Worker; Case Worker; Education Worker and Development Worker. The Commission's Chief Executive is appointed on the equivalent of the Principal Officer Scale of the NICS.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which occasions meetings of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have been held outside its own headquarters; if any such meetings have been in the private offices of Commissioners; and if he will make a statement about this practice. [95579]
  132
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 leaves the Commission free to determine its own procedures. I have asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the point that he raises.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the report drawn up by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on whether paramilitary violations of human rights are appropriate for campaigning action by the Commission; and if he will make a statement. [95507]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide to publish any material that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission produces. Section 69(9) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that:"The Commission may decide to publish its advice and the outcome of its research and investigations"

  I have asked the Chief Commissioner, Professor Brice Dickson, to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue that he raises.

  Portadown Attack
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance was provided by(a) the Specialist Fingerprint Unit and (b) the Biology Section of the Northern Ireland Forensic Service to the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the murder of Robert Hamill. [95363]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The RUC have advised that no items seized by the police were suitable for examination by the Specialist Fingerprint Unit. Items of hair, blood and fibres were sent to the Biology Section for examination.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) deaths, (b) shootings and (c) bombings have been attributed to (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican paramilitary groups (A) since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and (B) during 1999. [95715]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The table shows the deaths, shootings and bombings attributed to Loyalist and Republican groups:

  10 April 1998–21 October 1999

  1 January 1999–21 October 1999

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Deaths

  11

  36

  3

  4

  Shooting incidents

  127

  76

  53

  42

  Bombing incidents

  136

  22

  65

  Nil

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those organisations and institutions identified as public bodies under the Human Rights Act 1998; if he will describe departmental preparations for implementation of the Act and if the Department has(a) created a timetable and action plan,

  133
  (b) set up structural arrangements and performance management to oversee the preparation process, (c) undertaken a study of compatibility in primary legislation, (d) drawn up a risk management strategy, (e) developed a communication strategy to prepare subsidiary public authorities for changed responsibilities and (f) established steering groups on training that will identify and meet needs of particular sectors. [95369]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: There can be no definitive list of organisations and institutions which are public authorities under the Human Rights Act. It will be for the courts to decide in individual cases whether an organisation is a public authority for the purposes of the Act.

  The Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments are taking forward work in preparation for the implementation of the Act in October 2000. Public authorities for which the Northern Ireland Office is responsible have been alerted to the requirements of the Act. An inter-departmental working group (comprising the Northern Ireland Office, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Director for Public Prosecutions Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Army) has been meeting regularly to monitor progress being made by individual bodies in preparing for the Act and to identify any issues on which a joint approach would be most effective.

  In June a major human rights seminar was held by the Northern Ireland Office. It involved the main criminal justice organisations and players in Northern Ireland, including non-statutory bodies. Its aim was to generate a heightened awareness of issues surrounding the Human Rights Act, contribute to a common understanding of the issues and provide an opportunity to discuss new concerns and to discern where a common approach is required.

  The training of staff on the requirements of the Act has begun, and managers are continuing to assess their staff training requirements to determine what further training will be required.

  Guidance on the Human Rights Act has been issued to all Northern Ireland Departments. Northern Ireland Departments are continuing to refine their Action Plans which outline the work which will be carried out in preparation for the implementation of the Act. Scrutiny exercises are under way in each Department to examine legislation and procedures to ensure that they are compatible with the Act. Northern Ireland Departments are also in close contact with their counterparts in Great Britain to ascertain what their scrutiny of similar legislation has revealed.

  Departments have been in contact with the public bodies which they sponsor and are taking steps to ensure that these public bodies are aware of their duties under the Act.

  Training for the staff of Northern Ireland Departments has been undertaken and is continuing. Training needs are being kept under review.
  134
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those non-governmental organisations that have been consulted on preparations for implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and outline his plans to involve NGOs in the future. [95370]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: The Northern Ireland Office receives advice on preparation for implementation of the Human Rights Act from the Human Rights Task Force.

  The Human Rights Task Force was created by the Home Secretary and exists to bring together Government and human rights organisations in order to help public authorities prepare for the Human Rights Act. The Task Force maintains a dialogue between the Government and non-governmental organisations on the readiness of public authorities and the legal profession for implementation.

  Professor Brice Dickson, Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, attends Task Force meetings. We are discussing with the Commission the provision of training on the implementation of the Human Rights Act.

  The Northern Ireland Office has engaged the services of Queens University Belfast (QUB) to deliver half-day awareness sessions to members of the Senior Civil Service. The Northern Ireland Civil Service Departmental Solicitors' Group are also working with QUB to provide more in-depth seminars to legal staff across the Northern Ireland Court Service. This includes legal staff in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Crown Solicitor's Office.

  There are no plans to involve other non-governmental organisations directly in the preparations for implementation in Northern Ireland of the Human Rights Act, but the Government will continue to follow the advice provided by the Human Rights Task Force.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners released under the accelerated prisoner release scheme in Northern Ireland have re-offended; what was the nature of those offences; if any have broken the terms of their licences; and if he will make a statement. [96607]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Of the 299 prisoners who have been released to date under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, six have been prosecuted for offences committed since the date of their release. The nature of the charges against three are of Assault on police officers and breach of the peace; Theft; Grievous bodily harm with intent; Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily harm; and Affray. A fourth was charged with handling stolen goods, the fifth with armed robbery and the sixth with possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. None of the six were charged with terrorist related offences and were not deemed to have broken their licence conditions.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners released under the accelerated prisoner release scheme are awaiting trials for offences committed since the date of their release. [96606]
  135
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Of the 299 prisoners who have been released to date under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 five are currently awaiting trials for offences committed since the date of their release. None of the five have been charged with terrorist related offences.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the terms of the licence conditions of prisoners released under the accelerated release scheme in Northern Ireland who have subsequently re-offended. [96612]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Of the six persons prosecuted for offences committed since the date of their release, five were determinate sentence prisoners and as such the terms of their release on licence under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 were conditional upon the following:
  that they do not support a specified organisation (within the meaning of section 3 of the Act);
  that they do not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  The remaining one was previously a life sentence prisoner and as such their release on licence under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 was conditional upon the following:
  that they do not support a specified organisation (within the meaning of section 3 of the Act);
  that they do not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; and
  that they do not become a danger to the public.

  None of the six were prosecuted for offences which were terrorist related and were not deemed to have broken their licence conditions.

  RUC Training
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training Royal Ulster Constabulary uniformed personnel receive in administering first aid to injured persons. [94429]

  Mr. Ingram
  New recruits attend a three day First Aid course equivalent to those run by the St. John's Ambulance and Red Cross. Officers are expected to maintain a tri-annual revalidation by attending a one day Emergency Aid course. Specialist units e.g. Traffic Branch and Community Affairs attend two day scenario-based courses specific to their needs. In addition, police and civilian support staff may volunteer for a four day 'First Aid at Work' course made available under Health and Safety legislation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Emotional Development (Children)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from(a) the National Association for Therapeutic Education and (b) others about the needs of emotionally undeveloped children. [95219]
  136
  Jacqui Smith
  Ministers and officials in my Department have in recent years considered a range of representations from the National Association for Therapeutic Education (NATE). NATE were invited by the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs to contribute evidence during the consultation which informed our Green Paper "Excellence For All Children: Meeting Educational Needs".

  My officials have an extensive network of contacts and keep in close touch with a range of bodies concerned with addressing children's emotional under-development.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many requests he has received from local education authorities to(a) dispose of and (b) change the use of, school playing fields since 1 May 1997; and if he will list those playing field sites for which approval has been granted for (i) disposal and (ii) change of use. [95743]

  Jacqui Smith
  Until the implementation on 1 October 1998 of Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, local authorities in England did not need the consent of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields.

  Since 1 October 1998 there have been 147 applications from local authorities to dispose of part or, at some closed schools, the whole of a school's playing field. There have been no applications by local education authorities to change the use of playing fields that have not involved a disposal. All applications are assessed against criteria which have been published by the Department in its circular: "The Protection of School Playing Fields".

  Approval has been granted in 86 cases. Of those, 33 were at closed or closing schools and a further 23 led to improved sports facilities. The remainder were for improvements to educational facilities and were approved only when it was clear that they did not affect the access of pupils to suitable playing fields.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to transfer from next year the(a) responsibility and (b) budget for European Social Fund activities in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales. [95750]

  Ms Jowell
  Discussions are currently taking place between my officials and those of the National Assembly for Wales about the future arrangements for ESF activities in Wales.

  New Deal
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the publications issued since 1 May 1997 relating to the New Deal, the total cost per publication and the numbers of each publication which have been produced. [96302]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities on 3 March 1999,Official

  137
  Report, column 814. The following table of New Deal publications shows the total cost and number of publications produced since then. The amounts shown

  Title

  Copies

  Cost (£)

  Publications for employers including:

  New Deal for Employers

  105,000

  15,189

  Taking Care of the Future (produced in partnership with Daycare Trust)

  21,500

  7,922

  Making the Most of New Deal (produced in partnership with Daycare Trust)

  7,500

  5,408

  Publications for young unemployed aged 18-24

  New Deal for Young People aged 18-24

  119,500

  8,728

  New Deal for Musicians

  43,000

  13,482

  Publications for unemployed people aged 25plus

  A New Start (New Deal for 25plus)

  110,000

  9,201

  Extra Help (New Deal 25plus pilot folder with insert sheet)

  100,000

  651

  Publications that are for other, or multiple, target audiences

  What is New Deal?

  75,000

  8,361

  Factsheets

  6,000

  1,086

  New Deal Award Entry Forms

  33,000

  5,123

  New Deal Conference Report

  10,000

  11,566

  Note:

  The quantities and costs shown are totals including all versions of the publication.

SCOTLAND

  Government Expenditure and Revenue
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which section of Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 1996–97 provision is made for receipts from the Crown Estate Commissioners. [95272]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Crown Estate Commissioners pay a dividend to the Consolidated Fund, which is included in UK general government interest and dividends in the public finances. The Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1996–97 report allocated a share of UK general government interest and dividends to Scottish receipts on the basis of Scotland's share of Gross Domestic Product (excluding the Continental Shelf).

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the categories contained in the paper, Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 1996–97, which include appropriations in aid for the Scottish Office and other departments. [95269]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: All the categories contained in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1996–97 include appropriations in aid. Details of the appropriations in aid which were applied by the Scottish Office for 1996–97 were published in the Appropriation Accounts for that year by The Stationery Office on 13 February 1998 (HC251-XIII).

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state his Department's role in the preparation and publication of the next paper on Government Revenue and Expenditure Scotland; and when the next such paper will be published. [95273]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The next report on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, in common with previous reports, is being
  138
  include the cost for any updating and reprinting as necessary, and the production of ethnic minority language and Welsh bilingual versions.

  prepared by members of the Government Economic Service and Government Statistical Service. No firm date has been set for publication but it is expected to be before the end of this year. My Department will assess the report's contents and implications.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list and state the amounts for each of the miscellaneous receipts referred to in the Other Receipts section of Appendix B of Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 1996–97. [95270]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The research underlying the report on Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1996–97 apportioned aggregate UK other receipts on the basis of Scotland's share of UK gross domestic products (excluding Continental Shelf). The analysis does not identify all the individual components of the other receipts category and allocate a share of them to Scotland on an individual and separate basis.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list the assets sold by the Attorney-General's Department and its agencies and their value in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if he will estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96405]

  The Solicitor-General
  Details for the Law Officers' Departments are as follows. The Serious Fraud Office disposed of no assets of material value in the years from 1991–92 to 1998–99 and currently do not estimate any material sales for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers' disposed of no assets of material value in the years from 1991–92 to 1998–99 and
  139
  currently do not estimate any material sales for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The Crown Prosecution Service has sold three assets during the period 1991–92 to 1998–99, and has no plans to sell any assets in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The asset sales, together with their value, are listed in the following table:

  Year

  Asset

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  None

  0

  1997–98

  3 buildings

  415,070

  1996–97

  None

  0

  1995–96

  None

  0

  1994–95

  None

  0

  1993–94

  None

  0

  1992–93

  None

  0

  1991–92

  None

  0

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, including the Government Property Lawyers' Agency, has made the following asset sales:

  Year

  Asset

  Value (£)

  1998–99

  Surplus IT equipment

  2,505

  Furniture/Office equipment

  549

  Performance

  Target

  Annual efficiency savings in real terms

  3%

  To recover the full operating cost for chargeable services of the Agency

  100%

  To achieve an improvement of 20% on 1998–99 level of income recovery from clients within 30 days of their receipt of a validated invoice from 75% to:

  90%

  To increase the proportion of undisputed supplier invoices paid in accordance with terms or 30 days from 95% to:

  100%

  To maintain a level of client satisfaction of—(Advisory)

  95%-100%

  Reduction in average unit cost per chargeable hour in real terms—(Litigation)

  2.5%

  Minimum average number of chargeable hours per caseholder per year—(Litigation)

  1,150

  Reduction in average unit cost per case in real terms—(Bona Vacantia)

  2.5%

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94859]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are committed to ensuring that their policies are fair and inclusive, and focus on public service users, not providers. This aim is contained in guidance (published in 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies by gender, ethnicity and disability. In addition to considering impact, the guidance encourages consultation with women's groups and others where appropriate and action to deal with any differential impact if this appears appropriate. My Department applies the principles set out in the guidance in developing its policies. For example, a gender impact assessment was included in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill. We are also making increasing use of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the likely impact of policy.
  140

  Year

  Asset

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  Surplus IT equipment

  4,100

  Surplus library books

  750

  Disposals of the same type, but probably of a lower magnitude, are expected to continue in 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  In 1999–2000, sales of office furniture and office equipment to the value of £20,000 have taken place following the closure of the Government Property Lawyers' Agency. No further sales resulting from this closure are planned. No major sales of assets took place prior to 1997–98. Details of minor and routine sales over the period 1991–92 to 1997–97 are not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

  Performance Targets
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what key performance targets he has set for the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 1999–2000. [97205]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 1999–2000 the performance of the Treasury Solicitor's Department will be measured against the following targets:

  Human Tissue Banks
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to fund human tissue banks in respect of humane research; and if he will make a statement. [95662]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: In the Comprehensive Spending Review the Medical Research Council was allocated £12 million to develop collections of donated human tissue and biological samples for use in research. The approach is designed to take account of anticipated rapid developments in genetic technologies and the benefits that might ensue from the completion of the human genome project in 2003. The MRC is currently working with the Wellcome Trust, other charities, and industry to consider all the implications of these developments.

  Indebted Countries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the(a) total debt owed, (b) debt written off, (c) balance outstanding, (d) interest accrued and (e) additional advances made, standing to the ECGD by each of the highly indebted poor countries for each of the financial years 1989–90 to 1998–99. [96059]
  141
  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The table shows the latest available position in 1999 for debt owed, principal forgiven, interest accrued and overdue and the residual balance of amounts guaranteed for the current agreed list of highly indebted poor countries.

  To answer the question for each of the years requested would incur disproportionate cost. However, the vast majority of the debt owing has been in existence prior to 1989, with movements occurring on amounts forgiven and interest.

  Highly indebted poor countries

  All figures £ million

  Market

  Debt owing

  Principal forgiven

  Interest occrued and overdue

  Amounts guaranteed

  Angola

  60.89

  —

  51.84

  —

  Benin

  2.69

  5.22

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  11.55

  38.39

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  0.97

  1.94

  —

  —

  Burundi

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  0.33

  0.24

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  72.07

  9.46

  —

  —

  Chad

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  140.48

  —

  1.60

  —

  Congo (Dr)

  88.23

  —

  76.60

  —

  Cote D'Ivoire

  31.61

  6.57

  —

  12.38

  Ethiopia

  13.47

  3.54

  —

  1.41

  Equatorial Guinea

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  1.92

  —

  —

  215.26

  Guinea

  5.09

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  43.94

  78.97

  —

  —

  Honduras

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Kenya

  36.39

  —

  —

  20.14

  Laos

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Liberia

  8.92

  —

  1.18

  —

  Madagascar

  27.22

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  3.42

  —

  —

  —

  Mali

  4.07

  7.47

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  6.68

  0.56

  0.15

  —

  Mozambique

  89.52

  17.6

  —

  —

  Myanmar

  23.07

  —

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  1.04

  0.96

  —

  —

  Niger

  10.8

  1.73

  —

  —

  Principe and Sao Tome

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  1.49

  1.94

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  3.46

  0.13

  0.10

  —

  Somali Republic

  15.66

  —

  12.27

  —

  Sudan

  127.12

  —

  207.50

  —

  Tanzania

  117.05

  90.4

  —

  —

  Togo

  13.53

  3.37

  0.52

  —

  Uganda

  5.69

  18.01

  —

  —

  Vietnam

  10.38

  10.39

  —

  43.96

  Yemen

  3.25

  6.25

  —

  —

  Zambia

  195.31

  68.8

  —

  —

  Total

  1,177.41

  371.94

  351.76

  293.15

  Government Office for the North East
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are currently employed at the Government Office for the North East; and what are its current annual administration costs. [96870]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government Office for the North East (GO-NE) has a complement of 257 staff in the current year. As at 4 October 1999 there are 248.6 staff in post employed by GO-NE.

  The Running Cost Budget for 1999–2000 is £8.2 million.
  142
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total number of jobs(a) created and (b) safeguarded by inward investment projects into (a) the UK and (b) the area covered by the Government Office for the North East in each year since 1995. [96734]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures issued are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Year/Region

  Number of projects

  Total number of new jobs

  Total number of safeguarded jobs

  Total number of associated jobs

  1995–96

  UK

  498

  47,497

  52,267

  99,764

  NE

  62

  6,075

  7,433

  13,508

  1996–97

  UK

  497

  46,400

  51,939

  98,339

  NE

  46

  3,089

  4,529

  7,618

  1997–98

  UK

  631

  46,562

  82,771

  129,333

  NE

  47

  2,649

  9,890

  12,539

  1998–99

  UK

  658

  44,858

  74,777

  119,635

  NE

  35

  2,304

  6,953

  9,257

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on enforcement of the national minimum wage. [96916]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The national minimum wage is in force and it must be paid by all employers. There is no hiding place for employers who act unlawfully and fail to pay it. I particularly welcome the recent employment tribunal decision, where a worker in a Bognor Regis sports shop became the first person to benefit from the enforcement officers' powers; that is, to take an employer to an employment tribunal and force them to pay the underpaid worker all the money that is owed them.

  This power is over and above the powers of officers to issue enforcement and penalty notices against employers. Ten enforcement notices were issued in September, and £67,000 of back pay obtained for workers.

  Horizon Project
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many sub-post offices he expects to close(a) in Eastbourne and (b) nationally as a result of the cancellation of the Horizon Project; [96964]

  (2) what analysis he has made of the likely effect on the Post Office of the cancellation of the Horizon Project. [96966]
  143
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Horizon Project has not been cancelled, but has been put back on track by the Government to ensure that every Post Office throughout the network will be equipped with this modern, on-line computer platform by the spring of 2001.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost to industry of the climate change levy. [96696]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Any estimate of the impact of the levy will depend on the final rates of tax which will be set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  However, the Government have promised that there will be significantly lower rates of the levy for those energy intensive sectors, covered by the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, which are prepared to enter negotiated agreements with the Government to deliver energy efficiency improvement and/or emissions reductions targets. To this end, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is leading discussions with a number of energy intensive sectors.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with industrialists about the likely costs of the climate change levy to their businesses. [96602]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have been holding discussions with a wide range of business on the implementation of the climate change levy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of business on 20 October to hear at first hand their views on the levy.

  Any estimate of the impact of the levy will depend on the final rates of tax which will be set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) EU Objective 1 and (b) EU Objective 2 programmes on UK economic development; and if he will make a statement. [95057]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of EU Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes on UK economic development. [95037]

  1999

  Country/Regional Strategy Papers

  Indicative Timing

  Africa

  Egypt

  December 1999

  Swaziland

  Submission to the Secretary of State for discussion in November 1999

  Botswana

  Namibia

  Lesotho

  In abeyance pending political developments

  Asia

  Combodia

  November 1999

  Pakistan

  On hold

  Jordan

  December 1999

  West Bank—Gaza

  December 1999

  144
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) EU Objective 1 and (b) EU Objective 2 programmes on UK economic development; and if he will make a statement. [95067]

  Mr. Caborn
  In accordance with the requirements of the regulations governing the Structural Funds, all UK Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes have been independently evaluated both at mid-term and at the end of the programmes to assess their impact on economic development. These evaluations are available from the programme secretariats.

  Overall the Structural Funds make a valuable contribution to economic development in the United Kingdom.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to improve consumer protection legislation. [96312]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" published in July set out in detail the various proposals to improve consumer protection legislation on which the Department is currently working.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Ministers in her Department visited Belize in each year from 1990 to 1997. [96174]

  Clare Short
  No Ministers from my Department or from the Overseas Development Administration visited Belize between 1990 and 1997.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the titles of official departmental reports being prepared with a view to publication in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, stating in each case the planned date for publication. [95511]

  Clare Short
  The titles of official departmental reports being prepared with a view to publication in (a) 1999 and (b) 2000, with planned dates (where applicable), are shown in the tables.
  145

  1999

  Country/Regional Strategy Papers

  Indicative Timing

  Eastern Europe/FSU

  Bosnia

  December 1999

  Central Asia/South Caucasus

  November 1999

  Moldova

  November 1999

  Institutional Strategy Papers

  Working with the OCHA—the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs

  November 1999

  Working with UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East

  November 1999

  Target Strategy Papers

  International Development Strategy: Better Health for Poor People (consultation document)

  November 1999

  Final version of the above

  To be confirmed

  Others

  Statistics on International Development 1994–95 to 1998–99

  16 December 1999

  2000

  Country/Regional Strategy Papers

  Indicative Timing

  Africa

  Gambia

  Mid 2000

  Nigeria

  March 2000

  Sierra Leone

  Mid 2000 (depending on current military situation)

  Asia

  Indonesia

  June 2000

  Latin America/Caribbean

  Mexico

  Undecided

  Belize

  January 2000

  Windward Islands

  January 2000

  Jamaica

  April 2000

  Eastern Europe/FSU

  Macedonia

  June 2000

  Albania

  March 2000

  Croatia

  June 2000

  Kosovo

  January 2000

  Institutional Strategy Papers

  To be confirmed

  Target Strategy Papers (consultation document plus final version)

  Targets statement

  To be confirmed

  Increased Economic Well-being

  To be confirmed

  Better Education

  To be confirmed

  Gender Equality

  To be confirmed

  Better Management of the Environment

  To be confirmed

  Water and Environmental Sanitation

  To be confirmed

  Good Governance

  To be confirmed

  Human Rights

  To be confirmed

  Others

  DFID Departmental Report 1999

  March 2000

  Statistics on International Development 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  December 2000

  Departmental Accounting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the methods of depreciation her Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96926]
  146
  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) will be applying the straight line method of depreciation to fixed assets in preparing the balance sheet for the current financial year.

  San Bushmen
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's funding to the Sasi it has spent on(a) health projects and (b) education for the San Bushmen of South Africa. [96400]

  Clare Short
  The South African San Institute (SASI) programme supported by DFID will help build the capacity of San communities to secure access to public health and education services. Funds have not been earmarked for health and education projects, but there will be health and education components to SASI supported activities in livelihood and cultural development, and to tackle substance abuse and violence against women and children.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department has undertaken in South Africa in tackling alcohol abuse among the San Bushmen. [96401]

  Clare Short
  My Department is supporting the South African San Institute (SASI), which plans to develop rehabilitation and counselling services to deal with substance abuse.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to support the San Bushmen of South Africa. [96399]

  Clare Short
  My Department has assisted San communities in South Africa through the South African Government's Land Reform programme, which included advice on formulation of the successful land claim by the Southern Kalahari San, an indigenous San group located throughout the Mier area of South Africa near the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park.

  Building on this support, my Department has made available £0.5 million to the South African San Institute (SASI) to help San communities create sustainable livelihoods and secure their constitutional rights to development and use of traditional language.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people are employed in her Department in examining arms exports licence applications. [97060]

  Clare Short
  There is one person employed in my Department on a full-time basis and three people who spend part of their time examining arms export licence applications. They draw on advice from DFID's regional, economic, and conflict and humanitarian affairs departments where necessary.

  South Africa
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on South Africa of the drop in the value of gold; and if she will make a statement. [96544]

  Clare Short
  Gold remains important for employment and export earnings but its relative contribution to the South African economy has been in decline for decades. Our development co-operation supports South Africa's efforts at economic diversification.

  Serbia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to assist in the restoration of Serbia's(a) water, (b) electricity and (c) gas utilities. [95971]

  Clare Short
  We do not support the rehabilitation of utilities until there is a democratic government in place in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) who pursue internationally acceptable standards of conduct and meets their international obligations.

  We are prepared to provide humanitarian assistance to help meet the basic needs of the most vulnerable on the basis of verified assessments and full accountability.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93685]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The spending on official publications since May 1997; which includes the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use was £841,812.12. This excludes the cost of publications produced for internal use. Where the department makes use of a private sector publisher the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  Spend £

  May 1997–March 1998

  338,760.90

  April 1998–March 1999

  288,099.82

  April 1999–8 October 1999

  214,951.40

  The equivalent figure for April 1996–March 1997 was £501,366.85.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of proposals to increase the capacity of the new Wembley stadium to meet the criteria of the International Olympic Committee. [95433]

  Kate Hoey
  The current International Olympic Committee requirements for staging an Olympic Games are for 75,000 seats for the opening and closing ceremonies. The British Olympic Association (BOA) has indicated that a capacity of 80,000 should be provided for an Olympic bid to be credible. The design of the national stadium chosen by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) envisages special conversion of the stadium for staging athletics events and can provide 80,000 seats in athletics mode. WNSL have recently refined their detailed proposals for the stadium in athletics mode and I have asked Sport England and UK Sport to commission further detailed technical assessments of these latest proposals.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has held with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on policy relating to the display of works of art during visits by foreign heads of state. [96342]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has held no such discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  British Museum
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he held with the British Museum authorities on arrangements for the visit to the Museum by President Jiang Zemin. [96341]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor any DCMS Minister or official had any such discussions with the British Museum.

  BBC Licence Fee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the proposal for a £24 licence supplement for BBC digital television. [96311]

  Janet Anderson
  In its report published on 5 August, the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC has recommended that the Government should introduce, from next April, a digital licence supplement at the level of £1.99 a month (falling to 99p a month in 2006). A period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations has just concluded. The Government will consider all those recommendations in the light of the responses received and hopes to reach final decisions around the end of this year.

  Tourism (Cornwall)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to make official visits to tourist resorts in Cornwall in the next 12 months. [95898]
  149
  Janet Anderson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I have already made a number of official visits to Cornwall this year. These have included official visits to Falmouth, Newquay, Penzance, Newlyn and St. Ives. Ministers' diaries for the next 12 months have yet to be finalised. Invitations to make further visits to Cornwall will, of course, be given proper consideration. We are ever mindful of the importance of the tourist industry to the county of Cornwall, and will make supportive visits whenever we are able to do so.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the state of the tourist industry in Cornwall in the current year, with particular reference to the effects of the eclipse. [95902]

  Janet Anderson
  I understand from the West Country Tourist Board, which has contributed to a report, produced for the West Cornwall Leader Project, into the economic impact of the eclipse on Cornwall, that an additional 400,000 visitors were in Cornwall for the eclipse on 11 August. In addition, the event generated an extra £51 million of visitor expenditure within the county.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the funding and marketing of the Cornish tourism industry. [95903]

  Janet Anderson
  The West Country Tourist Board, which covers Cornwall, is receiving £497,000 from the English Tourism Council this year for projects which contribute to the national tourism strategy. Cornwall, in common with parts of England, also benefits from the work of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which promotes Britain as a visitor destination in overseas markets. The BTA is receiving £36 million from my Department this year.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that local authority expenditure on tourism promotion in Cornwall in 1997–98 was £1.954 million. In addition, the European Regional Development Fund and local partners have funded the West Cornwall Leader Project, which aims to assist sectors of the West Cornwall economy, including tourism and Prosper, the Training and Enterprise Council for Devon and Cornwall which provides information, advice and training services to small businesses in the region.

  In addition, tourism in Cornwall has also benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the National Lottery (projects in the county have received awards totalling £84.1 million according to DCMS's National Lottery Awards Database) and from other funding from the European Regional Development Fund. Tourism in Cornwall will benefit further from January next year, having been granted European Union Objective 1 status.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the development of tourism in rural areas. [95901]

  Janet Anderson
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) was one of several other Government departments we consulted when drawing up 150
  the tourism strategy document, "Tomorrow's Tourism", in view of that Department's strong interest in the economic vitality, conservation and public enjoyment of the countryside. We have maintained dialogue with MAFF regarding the future development of rural tourism policy, particularly with regard to farm diversification and the implementation of the European Commission's proposed Rural Development Regulation. We are also liaising with MAFF and others regarding the preparations for the Tourism Summit in March 2000, and the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the relationship of the value of tourism to the holding of major sporting events. [96013]

  Janet Anderson
  A 1997 study by the UK, English and Scottish Sports Councils examined the economic impact of six major sporting events throughout the UK. It concluded that much of the additional expenditure earned by these events was contributed by tourists, in addition to the expenditure by competitors and officials themselves.

  The Government's tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", pointed to the boost given by Euro '96 to UK tourism and underlined our commitment to bringing major international sporting events to this country. That is why I have agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport that the British Tourist Authority will produce a sports tourism strategy by the end of this year to complement the Government's forthcoming sports strategy and to help to maximise the tourism benefits accruing from major sporting events in the UK.

  Accommodation Rating System
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage the extension of the new accommodation rating system to the whole of the UK. [95905]

  Janet Anderson
  My immediate priority is to ensure that the new system in England is successful in raising quality standards and meeting consumer expectations. However, we are approaching the Scottish and Welsh Administrations following the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee to look again together at our respective schemes, the differences between them and the scope for arriving at common standards.

  Drugs and Sport
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions has he had with the National Drugs Co-ordinator about drugs and sport. [95906]

  Kate Hoey
  I have had useful discussion on the issue of drugs in sport with the National Drugs Co-ordinator and will continue to work closely with him and others on this important matter.

  The Permanent Secretary of the DCMS met recently with Keith Hellawell and General Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the White House National Drug Control Policy, and had fruitful discussions on the issue of doping in sport. Officials from this Department will be meeting

  151
  with officials from the Anti Drug Co-ordination Unit and Sport England in the near future to discuss further how we can promote the role of sport in this area.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to make an announcement about what will stand on the vacant plinth in Trafalgar square. [95907]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  An advisory group has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir John Mortimer to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the future of the vacant plinth in Trafalgar square. The group is expected to make its recommendations during the spring of next year.

  Internet
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evaluation the Creative Task Force has made of the impact of the internet; and if he will make a statement. [95908]

  Janet Anderson
  The Creative Industries Task Force has set up an inquiry to examine the impact of the internet on the following creative industry sectors: radio, design, advertising, newspaper and magazine publishing, and the cultural industries (literature, performing arts, fine art). This work is in addition to initiatives taken by other Government Departments with other parts of the creative industries.

  The aims of the inquiry are:
  to identify the opportunities, threats and barriers to growth which the Internet brings for creative SMEs in these sectors;
  to consider the future environment and developments in technology and infrastructure to gauge how SMEs in these sectors can move to anticipate and exploit the opportunities that arise; and
  to ensure that use of the internet in these sectors (by consumers, businesses and organisations) can be measured and tracked effectively.

  The inquiry is chaired by Robert Devereux, a Creative Industries Task Force member.

  It will, subject to Creative Industries Task Force approval, be published by Spring 2000 and will include recommendations to Government and others on actions to be pursued.

  Hotel Charges Group
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the Hotel Charges Group to present its findings; and if its report will be made public. [95899]

  Janet Anderson
  The Tourism Consumer Group has been asked to concentrate initially on five issues: the clarity of information on hotel charges and prices in general; the clarity of charges for telephones in hotel bedrooms; the imposition of single person supplements, and the quality of accommodation for single occupants; how the industry handles customer complaints; and whether the Tourism (Sleeping Accommodation Price Display) Order 1977 now requires updating.
  152
  I expect the Group to make recommendations on these subjects in good time for the inaugural Tourism Summit next year. Its recommendations will be made public.

  UK European Capital of Culture
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who will determine the criteria for choosing the UK's European Capital of Culture; and by whom the decision will be made. [95904]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The selection criteria for the UK's European Capital of Culture will be determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in consultation with ministerial colleagues. An announcement will be made in due course. The UK's nomination for the European Capital of Culture will be formally approved by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in the West Midlands area are currently on the waiting list for the processing of their disability living allowance claims; [96040]

  (2) what is the current length of time taken to process disability living allowance claims; and if he will make a statement. [96039]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 November 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions. You asked how many people in the West Midlands area are currently on the waiting list for the processing of their Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims and what is the current length of time taken to process DLA claims.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) do not keep data in the requested format. However, we do have data relating to the Disability Benefits Centre (DBC) which includes the West Midlands.
  At 22 October 1999, the number of new DLA claims awaiting processing by Midlands DBC is 9,433.
  At 30 September 1999, the current national average time taken to process DLA claims is 38.72 days for new claims against the BA target for clearing new claims of 85% in 53 days. For claims made under the special rules, that is, for those people who have a life expectancy of six months or less, the average clearance time is 7.43 days against BA target of 80% in 10 days.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on Equal Treatment. [94860]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to ensuring that its policies are fair and inclusive, and focus on public service users, not providers. This aim is contained in guidance (published in 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on gender, ethnicity and disability. In addition to considering impact, the guidance
  153
  encourages consultation with women's groups and others where appropriate and action to deal with any differential impact if this appears necessary.

  In July 1998 this Department published our policy appraisal "Women and Social Security" which analysed how women's roles have changed since the inception of the Social Security system and what we have done and need to do to meet those changed needs. We also apply the principles described in the Equal Treatment guidance in developing our policies.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received(a) on the 48 hour rule for claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance and (b) on the treatment of expenses payments to claimants who are doing voluntary work; and if he will make a statement. [96095]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received a number of representations, generally, and in connection with the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help, on both the 48 hour rule and the treatment of volunteers' expenses in Jobseeker's Allowance.

  We recognise that voluntary work can play a significant role in preparing individuals to enter work, particularly those who have been out of the labour market for some time. Officials from this Department meet regularly with officials from the Department for Education and Employment and the voluntary sector to see what practical steps can be taken to encourage volunteering. Examples of changes that have been made as a result of these discussions are revised guidance to operational staff and an information poster promoting volunteering for public display in all jobcentres.

  Any changes to the benefits system must be in line with our wider welfare to work initiative which has work at its centre and envisages full participation in the labour market for those who are able to do so.

  Child Support Agency
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with care will receive less money than their present maintenance assessment under the Government's new formula for the CSA. [96564]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 28 October 1999,Official Report, columns 957-58.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the treatment of redundancy payments which have been promised but not yet been received when assessing entitlement for means-tested benefits. [96591]
  154
  Angela Eagle
  I announced in the House on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 698, that we intend to bring forward regulations at the earliest opportunity to ensure that, in future, Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support will not be refused because of earnings owed to people when their job ends. This will apply whether or not the employer is insolvent.

  Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit are not affected by unpaid redundancy payments.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the assets sold by his Department and their value, item by item, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if he will estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96276]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer the then Minister of State gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 16 February 1999, Official Report, column 672. During the period 1 April 1991 and 30 November 1997 there were no major asset sales. Details of minor asset sales during this period have not been collected on the grounds of disproportionate cost. There have been no major asset sales since January 1999 and none are planned for the remainder of 1999–2000 or during 2000–01.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provision his Department has made for the payment of social security benefits to asylum seekers during the financial year 2000–01; [96943]

  (2) how much was paid in social security benefits to asylum seekers in each financial year since 31 March 1992; [96941]

  (3) what is his estimate of the amount paid in social security benefits to asylum seekers so far during 1999–2000 and his estimate of the likely total of such expenditure for the entire financial year 1999–2000. [96942]

  Mr. Bayley
  The full details of the transitional arrangements for those asylum seekers who are receiving Social Security benefits when the new support arrangements are introduced in April 2000 have yet to be finalised. However, an asylum seeker receiving benefit will continue to receive benefit until a relevant change of circumstances, such as a negative decision on their asylum application. If an asylum seeker is refused either asylum or exceptional leave prior to April 2000 he will be able to apply to a Local Authority for support under the interim arrangements provided for in the Bill. An asylum seeker refused asylum or exceptional leave after 1 April 2000 will be able to apply for support to the Home Office's Asylum Support Directorate.

  We will bring forward our detailed proposals for the transitional arrangements shortly.
  155
  Estimates for 1992–93 expenditure are not available. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Asylum seekers—estimated annual expenditure, Great Britain

  £ million

  Year

  Total estimated annual expenditure

  Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (IB)

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  1993–94

  340

  160

  175

  5

  1994–95

  360

  180

  175

  5

  1995–96

  420

  205

  205

  10

  1996–97

  400

  195

  195

  10

  1997–98

  305

  150

  145

  10

  1998–99

  285

  150

  125

  10

  Notes:

  1. Estimated annual expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest five million pounds. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Estimates for Income Support February 1997 onwards will include a number of non-asylum seekers which receive Urgent Case Payments for other reasons.

  3. Annual expenditure figures for Income Support have been based on an average of four quarters for the relevant financial year, using number of cases and average weekly amounts.

  4. Expenditure figures for Housing Benefit are estimates and have been calculated using the Housing Benefit Management Information System 1 per cent. sample and Departmental Reports. Estimates are based only on cases recorded on the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry as being asylum seekers. They therefore exclude other claimants in receipt of Urgent Case Payments who may in fact be asylum seekers, but are not identified as such and they exclude any asylum seekers in receipt of Housing Benefit who are not in receipt of Income Support, although the number of these cases is thought to be very small.

  5. Figures for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit 1993–94 to 1997–98 are actual out-turns and 1998–99 figures are estimated out-turns.

  Source:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1993 to February 1999.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1997 to February 1999.

  3. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample of claimants in receipt of Income Support, at the end of May in each year given.

  4. Departmental Report.

  The amount paid in Social Security benefits to asylum seekers is dependent on various factors including asylum applications intake, asylum decisions, and the size of the asylum backlog of outstanding cases. It is estimated that the cost of benefits for asylum seekers between April 1999 and September 1999 inclusive is in the range of £120 million to £150 million.

  We estimate that the total cost of benefits for asylum seekers in 1999–2000 will be in the range of £215-£295 million.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96910]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department depreciates fixed assets in accordance with Statement of Standard Accounting Practise (SSAP) 12 and HM Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual. Depreciation is provided on all tangible fixed assets, using the straight line method, at 156
  rates calculated to write off, in equal instalments, the current replacement cost (less any estimated residual value) of each asset over the expected useful life. Fixed assets are depreciated from the month following acquisition. No depreciation is charged in the month of disposal.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 693, if he will give the sources underlying his statement regarding the proportion of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions who are in the top income brackets; and if he is referring to individual or household income. [96841]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The information referred to was based on equivalised household income data from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, the source for which was the Family Resources Survey 1996–97.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding his proposals to abolish carry-forward and carry-back in respect of the stakeholder pension. [96895]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposal to remove the carry-forward and carry-back facility forms part of the current public consultations on stakeholder pensions. We will announce our intentions when we have considered the responses to the consultation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the assets sold by the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies, and their value, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if he will estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [96406]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the proceeds from major asset sales (which are all property) during the periods 1991–92 to 1998–99 in respect of the Department and its agencies are listed in the table together with forecast sales for 1999–2001. The table does not include the sale of magistrates court buildings as these are the responsibility of the local authority as owners, nor does it include the Department's Executive Non Departmental Public Body. Minor and routine other sales are also excluded because they are relatively insignificant.

  Lord Chancellor's Department: value of asset sales

  Description

  Value (£)

  1991–94

  1—

  —

  1994–95

  4 properties

  882,422

  1995–96

  8 properties

  26,169,957

  1996–97

  4 properties

  2,019,000

  157

  Lord Chancellor's Department: value of asset sales

  Description

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  6 properties

  460,101

  1998–99

  4 properties

  1,723,000

  1999–2000

  22 properties

  261,018

  1999–2001

  8 property sales are planned

  36,785,000

  1Information held centrally indicates that no significant disposals took place

  2To date

  3Estimate

  County Courts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning the proposed closure of Chepstow and Monmouth county courts. [96534]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date, 31 representations have been received on the proposal to close Monmouth county court, of which 29 objected to the proposal. There have been 22 representations received on the proposal to close Chepstow county court, of which 20 objected to the proposal.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what statutory duties the Keeper of Public Records has in respect of facilities for inspecting and obtaining copies of records in the Public Record Office; how many applications the Keeper has received since May 1997 from members of the public to inspect and copy the decennial census returns for England and Wales for(a) 1901 and (b) 1911; and how she responded to those applications. [96457]

  Mr. Lock
  The statutory duties of the Keeper of Public Records in respect of facilities for inspecting and obtaining copies of records in the Public Record Office are laid down in section 5 of the Public Records Act, 1958, as amended. Subsection 3 of that section provides that, subject to certain exceptions,"it shall be the duty of the Keeper of Public Records to arrange that reasonable facilities are available to the public for inspecting and obtaining copies of public records in the Public Record Office."

  The Public Record Office does not keep a record of applications from members of the public to inspect and copy the decennial census returns for England and Wales for 1901 and 1911. Such applications are referred to the Office for National Statistics, which has custody of the 1901 and 1911 census returns.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the planned time-scale for implementation of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive on uncultivated land and semi-natural areas in England; [93735]
  158
  (2) what measures he plans to prevent pre-emptive ploughing of uncultivated and semi-natural land prior to the implementation of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; and if he will make a statement. [93734]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are fully aware of the need to meet EU obligations arising from the EIA Directive. However, important questions which seek to clarify the exact nature of those obligations are currently being addressed by the European Court of Justice. These may well affect the preparatory work already carried out in close consultation with the statutory environmental agencies and other Agriculture Departments.

  I share concern about the risk that some pre-emptive action might be taken during the necessary public consultation period. However, there can be no question of introducing an implementation regime without consulting representatives of those who will be directly affected by it, as well as conservation and other important public interests.

  Beef (School Menus)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to encourage local education authorities to provide British beef on school menus; and if he will make a statement. [93716]

  Ms Quin
  Ultimately it is for Local Authorities themselves to decide whether or not to have beef, or indeed any other food products, on school menus. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Minister has recently written to all Local Education Authorities setting out the case for British beef. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93977]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429.

  On 20 September I announced a support package for farmers. The full text of my announcement was made available by MAFF news release.

  Glyphosate
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what data he has collated on the effects of glyphosate used as a herbicide; what assessment he has made of recent research studies carried out by EU advisors; and if he will make a statement. [94830]

  Ms Quin
  All pesticides, including those herbicides with glyphosate as their active substance, used here must be approved for the purpose by Ministers in the
  159
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We only approve a pesticide after rigorous evaluation of scientific data to show that it is both efficacious and can be used safely with regard to human health and the environment.

  Glyphosate is currently being reviewed by the EU Commission as part of a programme to ensure that all agricultural pesticides currently on the market in the EU meet current standards. An initial assessment of the human and environmental safety of glyphosate undertaken by the German authorities on behalf of the Commission is currently being peer-reviewed by experts from a number of other Member States.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to report progress on regulations dealing with the treatment of live animals on the Continent after export from the United Kingdom. [93257]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 October 1999]: The rules governing conditions for animals in transit within the EU are set out in Directive 91/628, as amended in 1995.

  We have carried out a public consultation on our proposals to review the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which implements the Directive on our territory. The deadline for comment was 8 October, and we are carefully considering the responses made before deciding how to proceed.

  Any amendment to the fundamental requirements about the conditions to be provided for animals in transit within the EU will require an amendment to the Directive itself. The Directive contains a requirement for the European Commission to initiate a review during 1999 and, if necessary, to bring forward proposals to revise the Directive. We attach importance to this review, and look to the Commission to bring it forward.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to revise the regulations for animal exports relating to conditions in transit during overland transport in Europe. [96527]

  Mr. Morley
  The rules governing conditions for animals in transit within the EU are set out in Directive 91/628, as amended in 1995.

  We have carried out a public consultation on our proposals to review the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which implements the Directive on our territory. The deadline for comment was 8 October, and we are carefully considering the responses made before deciding how to proceed.

  Any amendment of the fundamental requirements about the conditions to be provided for animals in transit within the EU will require an amendment to the Directive itself. The Directive contains a requirement for the European Commission to initiate a review during 1999 and, if necessary, to bring forward proposals to revise the Directive. We attach importance to this review, and look to the Commission to bring it forward.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit Milk Marque to continue to sell surplus produce to(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Netherlands. [95788]

  Ms Quin
  Following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk, this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the competition authorities. I have no locus in this matter. Trade within the EU is allowed subject to compliance with competition and other rules.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact of his proposals regarding Milk Marque on the price paid to farmers for the milk they produce; and if he will make a statement. [96603]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister has made no proposals regarding Milk Marque. There should not be an adverse effect on prices of Milk Marque's own action taken in response to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's response to it.

  Sheep
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the size of the sheep flock in Cumbria(a) at present and (b) in each of the last five years. [95749]

  Ms Quin
  The figures for the sheep breeding flock and all sheep and lambs in Cumbria are given for the period from June 1993 to June 1998.

  Sheep breeding flock

  Total sheep and lambs

  June 1993

  1,271,741

  2,695,724

  June 1994

  1,267,248

  2,677,013

  June 1995

  1,253,766

  2,663,066

  June 1996

  1,237,833

  2,621,297

  June 1997

  1,262,823

  2,692,223

  June 1998

  1,301,724

  2,807,546

  Notes:

  The figures are taken from the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census. The data relate to main holdings only.

  County level figures for June 1999 are not yet available. They will be published on the MAFF website and can be found by selecting 'Statistics'. 'Publications', 'June 1999 Census analyses' and then 'Regions and Counties—Livestock: Sheep'.

  BSE Inquiry
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost to date of the BSE inquiry. [95529]

  Ms Quin
  The total cost to date of the BSE Inquiry, including the costs of liaison units and legal support for witnesses from the main departments involved, is approaching £20 million.

  British Beef
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government plan to take to improve the export market for British beef. [95757]

  Ms Quin
  We have set up a Beef Export Liaison Group with those involved in beef exports in order to monitor the progress of the Date Based Export Scheme and identify and exploit key export markets. We are also in contact with a number of third countries to obtain export clearance.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the monthly figures for the export of British beef, by country of destination, since the formal lifting of the ban on exports. [96294]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on 21 October 1999, Official Report, columns 570-71.

  Dairy Farmers
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government help available for dairy farmers. [95761]

  Ms Quin
  Dairy farmers receive help from the CAP dairy regime. They will also benefit from the Government's package of support measures, which includes the suspension of the £7 charge for cattle passports which will be met by Government until 2002–03 at the earliest.

  Meat Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the meat produced in the UK has been exported during each of the last five years. [96252]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Home production of meat1 (th. tonnes)

  Carcase meat exports2 (th. tonnes)

  Live exports3 (th. tonnes)

  Total exports as a % of production

  1994

  3,756.2

  613.2

  112.3

  19.3

  1995

  3,840.9

  778.5

  104.8

  23.0

  1996

  3,596.0

  534.5

  80.3

  17.1

  1997

  3,682.2

  564.7

  56.1

  16.9

  19984

  3,784.6

  585.3

  53.6

  16.9

  1Carcase meat, bacon, ham and poultry meat. Includes the meat equivalent of live exports. Excludes offal.

  2Expressed in carcase weight equivalent. Excludes exports of preserved or manufactured meat products. May include some re-exports of meat previously imported into the UK.

  3Meat equivalent of live exports other than pure-bred. Adjusted as necessary for unrecorded trade.

  4Provisional.

  Meat Imports
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the 162
  Government are taking to ensure that imports of meat are produced under the same food safety and animal welfare standards as British produced meat. [95760]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 558.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those United Kingdom organisations that will be consulted in consequence of Com (99) 382, on closer co-operation with the fishing industry; what Her Majesty's Government's policy was on such closer co-operation; and if he will make a statement. [96501]

  Mr. Morley
  The proposal in Corn (99) 382 on closer dialogue with the fishing industry concerns financial matters arising from the European Commission's reorganisation of its Advisory Committee on Fisheries (ACF) so as to focus on communication and consultation with EC-level rather than national organisations. It will be for the European organisations represented on the ACF to consult as they consider necessary with national organisations in individual member states. Representations on the ACF cover fishermen, fish farmers, processors and wholesalers, trade unions, and consumer, environment and development non-governmental organisations. Representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have been included as Europeche nominees in the plenary committee and working groups of the ACF.

  The Government welcome ways of strengthening the dialogue with the industry and broadening the range of activity. Thus I have made clear that consultation at the regional level must be strengthened in parallel with consultation through the ACF.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which are held by the European Commission not to have upheld MAGP IV limits; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy thereon. [96585]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest available information published by the Commission was in its Annual Report to the Council and to the European Parliament on the results of the multi annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleet at the end of 1997. A copy is in the Library (ref. COM 175/1999). This showed that two countries (France and Netherlands) had failed to meet the objectives of the MAGP III by the end of 1997 and were not on target to meet their objectives for MAGP IV. The report also noted that the status for Italy could not be determined because of a major revision of their fleet register.

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many annual payments to individual farms for set-aside land exceeded(a) £25,000, (b) £100,000, (c) £250,000 and (d) £1,000,000 per annum in each of the past four years. [95817]
  163
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Set-aside payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme are made in respect of claims which may include one or more individual farms. Records therefore relate to claims paid rather than numbers of farms. The following is the information requested in respect of the set-aside element of each claim paid by MAFF in 1995–98 (with figures given on a cumulative basis—ie lines (b) to (d) are included in (a) etc.):

  Number of payments exceeding

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  (a) £25,000

  673

  401

  139

  111

  (b) £100,000

  11

  12

  3

  2

  (c) £250,000

  2

  0

  0

  0

  (d) £1,000,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animal Feed
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce legislation to require animal feed containing GM ingredients or derivatives to be labelled. [96209]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Legislation on animal feed is harmonised in the EU and the Government cannot therefore take unilateral action on compulsory labelling. This is expected to be covered in a forthcoming Novel Feeds Regulation, which the Minister has been pressing the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Government are exploring the possibility of voluntary national labelling arrangements with the feed trade, farmers and retailers.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will examine whether future farm support can be tied to a policy of not allowing hunting on recipients' land. [96293]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The Government's position on hunting was set out in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, column 715. For so long as hunting remains legal, there would be no grounds for withholding agricultural support payments from those who allow hunting on their land.

  Forest Land
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 714, on forest land, what assessment he has made of the consultation process relating to the sale of Chepstow Park Wood; and if the sale constituted an open sale. [96516]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The subject of this question relates to a matter for the National Assembly of Wales.

  Coastal Whaling (Ireland)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the Government oppose 164
  proposals put forward by the Government of Ireland that would permit coastal whaling; and if he will make a statement; [96336]

  (2) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to oppose the Irish Government's compromise proposals to allow the resumption of coastal whaling, put to this year's International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement. [96334]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 June 1999,Official Report, columns 348-50.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) with which EU member states he has discussed the prospect of zonal/regional fisheries management; and what interpretation of this management he has used in these discussions; [96879]

  (2) when he last met his opposite numbers in other EU member states to discuss the prospect of zonal or regional management of fisheries waters. [96880]

  Mr. Morley
  I regularly discuss regional aspects of Common Fisheries Policy management with my opposite numbers in other EU member states. In all those contacts I have made clear the need to enhance the regional dimension of the CFP through increased involvement of the stake holders in the management process; greater focus on management problems on a regional specific fishery basis; closer links between fishermen and scientists; and the ability to act rapidly when confronted with conservation emergencies affecting a particular fishery.

  BSE
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the latest scientific evidence on the presence of the BSE prion within(a) the dorsal root ganglia and (b) marrow of cattle. [96297]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The results of the BSE pathogenesis study which described the detection of infectivity in dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow of orally infected cattle were reported in the following two articles:

  "Preliminary observations on the pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)": by G.A.H. Wells and others. (The Veterinary Record, 1998/Vol. 142/31/1/1998, pp. 103-106).

  "Limited detection of sternal bone marrow infectivity in the clinical phase of experimental bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)": by G.A.H. Wells and others. (The Veterinary Record, 1999/Vol. 144/13/3/1999, pp. 292-294).

  There are no new results to report.

  Agricultural Competitiveness
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is providing to boost the competitiveness of the UK's agriculture industry in Europe. [96259]
  165
  Ms Quin
  The Government are seeking to assist UK agriculture to be more competitive in Europe on several fronts.

  The foundation of a competitive industry must be the macro-economic stability which the Government have achieved and which brings low levels of inflation and interest rates. We have built on this foundation by investing in research and development, pursuing the Government's policy of training, education and lifelong learning, establishing the Food Chain Group earlier this year whose aim is to bring the food chain close together, launching a joint campaign (with the National Farmers' Union (NFU)) to encourage more collaborative marketing, and launching a further joint initiative with the NFU to review regulatory burdens on the industry.

  Furthermore, my right hon. Friend announced a substantial package of aid on 20 September which included £150 million of new money for the industry. This included the waiving of specified risk material charges and cattle passport charges until at least 2001/02, and £1 million aimed directly at support for marketing. Most recently, my right hon. Friend announced on 28 October 1999, Official Report, column 1128, that we have secured a further £5 million in marketing aid.

  Complementary Veterinary Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in order to allow non-vets to carry out acupuncture and homeopathy on animals. [91992]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 July 1999]: The authorisation of practitioners of alternative medicine under the Act is limited to the provision of physiotherapy to animals which are under the care of a veterinary surgeon. Such treatment can be authorised only if it is prescribed by that veterinary surgeon. At present, there are no plans to implement further regulatory arrangements recognising or authorising practitioners of alternative medicine to carry out acts of veterinary surgery.

  Fishing Safety Grants
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral answer of 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 564, when he plans to reinstate the fishing safety grants; and if he will make a statement. [95768]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Government are currently considering the issue of reinstating a scheme of grants for safety equipment for vessels, in particular in the context of any funding available for the programme of structural measures currently under negotiation in the Fisheries Council. As this would be a new scheme, all options are under consideration.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of the warning by 166
  the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation relating to Year 2000 compliance of local authorities' housing benefit systems. [95216]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am replying as the responsible Minister. The compliance of local authority systems has been independently assessed by the Audit Commission, with Government Offices in the Regions acting as responsible bodies. This took place as part of Action 2000's National Infrastructure Forum programme of independent assessment, reported on 21 October, when all but a very few UK infrastructure organisations were rated "blue", which means there is no identified risk of material disruption. All sectors are expected to be "blue" by mid November.

  I have placed a copy of the report of the Forum, which contains a full account of the assessment process for all these sectors, in the Libraries of the House. Local authorities in England were rated "blue" in this report, which means that as well as having completed their compliance programme, they also have business continuity plans to deal with any unexpected events. Under this assessment, payment of housing benefit should not be at risk.

  Government Consultation Document
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to improve the despatch of Government consultation documents to organisations and individuals requesting them. [96533]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Last year we published a guide on the conduct of written consultation exercises setting out best practice for departments and agencies, and we are now evaluating it. In carrying out the evaluation, we will ensure that improving the despatch of consultation documents receives attention. The results of the evaluation will be made public in due course.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total number of employees who will be eligible for a working families tax credit in 2000–01. [95812]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Excluding families just with self employed workers, about 1.2 million families will be in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in 2000–01, the first full year of the credit.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the European Investment Bank is subject to the scrutiny of the European Union's Court of Auditors; and if he will make a statement. [96036]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As an autonomous institution, the EIB is not accountable to the Court of Auditors in respect of its own resources. Under its Statute the Bank is accountable to its own governing bodies, including an independent Audit Committee which reports directly to
  167
  the Board of Governors (comprised of Finance Ministers of the member states). The Bank's accounts are submitted to internal and external auditors.

  In respect of activities which the EIB carries out using Community Budgetary resources, the Bank is subject to the Court of Auditors in accordance with Article 248 of the EC Treaty.

  EU Finance Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the withholding tax was discussed at the meeting of EU Finance Ministers on 13 and 14 October; what views Her Majesty's Government expressed thereon; when the withholding tax will next be discussed by EU Finance Ministers; and what support there has been for his proposal to exempt the eurobond market from the tax; [96503]

  (2) what matters were discussed at the meeting of EU Finance Ministers on 13 and 14 October; if he will make a statement thereon; when tax matters will next be discussed by EU Finance Ministers; and if he will list the tax matters concerned. [96477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There was no meeting of EU Finance Ministers on 13 and 14 October.

  Demography
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of people of working age as a percentage of those over the state retirement age for each of the last 20 years. [96764]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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. Frank Field, dated 2 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the numbers and percentage of workers in firms employed in different size bands.
  The information requested is available from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) at September 1997 (latest available date) for the size bands shown.

  Employee Jobs1 at September 1997, Great Britain

  Thousand

  Percentage

  Size band 1-10

  4,528

  20

  Size band 11-49

  5,787

  26

  Size band 50-99

  2,695

  12

  Size band 100 and over

  9,523

  42

  1Figures exclude Agriculture as the way that information is supplied would distort the size band analysis

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the work of the EU Working Group on the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation since July; and if he will list the measures currently under consideration to tackle harmful tax competition. [96506]
  168
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 182.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the five-yearly review of the Valuation Office Agency will commence. [97132]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The review of the Agency status of the Valuation Office will commence on 2 November 1999. The performance of the Valuation Office will be evaluated and its activities will be subjected to the normal prior option tests set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review" (Cm 2430). The review will also take account of the recommendations made by the Treasury Sub-Committee in their report published on 28 October 1999.

  The review team would welcome comments and contributions from those with an interest in the Valuation Office and its work. People should send their review by 31 January 2000 to:

  Suzanne Hardy

  Valuation Office Review

  Inland Revenue

  Room 108 New Wing

  Somerset House

  Strand

  London WC2R 1LB

  Fax: 0207 438 7134

  E-Mail voareview@ir.gsi.gov.uk

  VAT (Italy)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that Italy meets its obligations under the VAT Directive requiring each EU member state to refund VAT to businesses in other EU countries; and if he will make a statement. [96702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: It is for the European Commission to ensure that member states meet their obligations under EU Directives. However, the UK Permanent Representation to the EU has made representations to the Commission on behalf of five UK businesses about delays in obtaining refunds from Italy. The Embassy in Rome has also made inquiries of the Italian authorities on behalf of UK businesses.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for each member state of the EU(a) net and gross contributions to the EU Budget for the last year for which figures are available, including net receipts and (b) the break down of net and gross contributions by household and population. [97091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  1997 is the latest year for which information about member states' contributions and receipts is available. The information requested, in respect of that year, is set out in the table. The amounts shown are in European Currency Units, the unit of account for the EC Budget.
  169

  Contributions to and receipts from the EC budget in 1997

  Gross contribution (mecu)

  Receipts (mecu)

  Net contribution/ receipt1 (mecu)

  Population (millions)

  Number of households (millions)

  Gross contribution per head (ecu)

  Gross contribution per household (ecu)

  Receipts per head (ecu)

  Receipts per household (ecu)

  Net contribution per head (ecu)

  Net contribution per household (ecu)

  Belgium

  2,971.4

  1,981.7

  989.7

  10.2

  4.0

  291.5

  751.7

  194.4

  501.3

  97.1

  250.4

  Denmark

  1,505.8

  1,529.8

  124.0

  5.2

  2.3

  287.0

  662.2

  291.6

  672.7

  14.6

  110.6

  Germany

  21,217.3

  9,989.2

  11,228.1

  82.1

  35.2

  258.4

  602.0

  121.7

  283.4

  136.8

  318.6

  Greece

  1,178.4

  5,372.4

  14,194.0

  10.5

  3.2

  111.9

  367.8

  510.2

  1,676.8

  1398.3

  11,309.0

  Spain

  5,367.6

  11,218.1

  15,850.5

  39.3

  11.8

  136.5

  453.5

  285.4

  947.8

  1148.8

  1494.3

  France

  13,185.9

  12,200.9

  985.0

  58.6

  21.5

  225.0

  612.1

  208.2

  566.4

  16.8

  45.7

  Ireland

  687.0

  3,310.6

  12,623.6

  3.6

  1.0

  191.7

  667.6

  923.7

  3,217.3

  1732.0

  12,549.7

  Italy

  8,667.1

  8,344.0

  323.1

  57.4

  19.9

  151.1

  435.3

  145.4

  419.1

  5.6

  16.2

  Luxembourg

  170.7

  106.1

  64.6

  0.4

  0.1

  415.3

  1,177.2

  258.2

  731.7

  157.2

  445.5

  Netherlands

  4,837.6

  2,488.9

  2,348.7

  15.5

  6.2

  311.4

  785.1

  160.2

  403.9

  151.2

  381.2

  Austria

  2,110.4

  1,317.6

  792.8

  8.1

  3.0

  260.5

  700.4

  162.7

  437.3

  97.9

  263.1

  Portugal

  1,077.8

  3,690.1

  12,612.3

  9.9

  3.1

  109.4

  342.6

  374.4

  1,172.9

  1265.0

  1830.4

  Finland

  1,064.1

  1,068.8

  14.7

  5.1

  2.0

  207.6

  522.4

  208.5

  524.7

  10.9

  12.3

  Sweden

  2,326.0

  1,099.2

  1,226.8

  8.9

  3.8

  260.8

  607.3

  123.2

  287.0

  137.5

  320.3

  UK

  8,925.9

  7,092.2

  1,833.7

  59.0

  22.4

  151.3

  398.1

  120.2

  316.3

  31.1

  81.8

  1Denotes net recipient

  Notes:

  1. The Court of Auditors uses ecu figures, the unit of account for the EC Budget.

  2. Gross contribution figures are after account has been taken of the UK's abatement (including corrections in respect of earlier years) and for adjustments to VAT and GNP-based contributions in respect of earlier years.

  3. Receipts figures include European Commission payments made direct to the member state's private sector.

  4. The Court of Auditors Report does not allocate all Community spending to the member states so that the receipts figures in the table may not represent the full amount of expenditure by the Commission in each member state. Consequently the figures for net contributions/net benefits in the table are likely only to be indicative of the amount of member states' net positions. For example, if all administrative expenditure were allocated to the country in which it is paid, the net position of Belgium and Luxembourg would be substantially improved.

  Source:

  Contributions and receipts data taken from Court of Auditors Report on 1997 Community Budget. Population data, relating to 1997, taken from the European Commission's document "European Economy". Information on number of households relates to 1991, the latest available, and is taken from the Eurostat yearbook 1997.

  Street Children
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the Millennium Gift Aid scheme to all donations towards street children projects in whatever country those children live. [96842]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The Millennium Gift Aid scheme was introduced in 1998 specifically to provide tax relief for donations to UK charities for educational and anti-poverty projects in the world's poorest countries. In April 1999, the scheme was extended to help refugees from Kosovo, but the Government has no plans to extend the scheme further. Some of the street children will be in countries eligible for MGA relief. UK charities working in other countries can benefit from other tax reliefs available for charitable giving, such as the Gift Aid scheme.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will add an additional entry to Table 5.5 of the Government Actuary's report National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates (Cm 4446) giving the surplus to the National Insurance Fund for each of the years there listed if Class 1 and all other contribution rates are held constant. [96243]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Russia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money(a) the UK and (b) the international
  170
  community have provided overall to Russia for economic assistance over the past five years; what assessment he has made of the proportion misappropriated or not used for the purpose for which it was intended; and if he will make a statement. [94806]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the beginning of 1995, the international community has provided the following loan finance (net of repayments over the period) through the International Financial Institutions (IFIs): £8.8 billion through the IMF, £4.0 billion through the World Bank, and £728 million through the EBRD; the IFIs have also provided technical assistance. In August, the Paris Club rescheduled $8.1 billion of Russia's Soviet-era debts. The EU has also provided technical assistance to Russia through its TACIS programme, and food aid.

  The UK has made no direct loans to Russia. Since the beginning of 1995, the UK has made £592 million of export credit guarantees available to British firms doing business with Russia, on which Russia is current with repayments. The UK has made technical assistance and humanitarian aid available to Russia. Other countries have also provided bilateral assistance.

  There is no evidence that any IMF or World Bank funds have been misappropriated. An investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers discovered that an overseas subsidiary of the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) had used some of its foreign reserves to guarantee loans to commercial banks and buy Russian Government debt in breach of IMF rules and without the IMF's knowledge. Given this misuse of IMF resources, and the seriousness

  171
  of the allegations of misappropriation of IMF and World Bank funds, G7 Finance Ministers' Statement of 25 September said:
  "…we emphasised the critical need for intensified efforts to combat corruption in Russia and money laundering and the importance of adequate safeguards to ensure that funds provided by the international financial institutions are used for their intended purpose…IMF financing will be disbursed into an SDR account for the purpose of repaying Russia's obligations to the Fund. Furthermore, we agreed that the CBR, prior to disbursement of the next tranche of the SBA, should take steps identified by the IMF to improve internal controls and to initiate quarterly audits of CBR reserve management…In the case of the World Bank, we welcomed the new safeguards, involving greater control and auditing of World Bank funds, introduced in June, and called on the World Bank to work with Russia on additional safeguards…"

  There is no evidence the EBRD funds were used for a purpose other than that intended at the time of disbursement. A portfolio review conducted by the EBRD, and further investigations carried out by its External Auditor, have satisfied the Bank that disbursements were applied as intended. One case of contract failure involving UK export credit guarantees is being investigated, on which I cannot comment at this stage.

  As regards EU assistance, on 16 September, Neil Kinnock made a Commission statement on Russia:
  "…Community assistance is, as this House will know, primarily delivered through the TACIS programme which is centrally managed from Brussels. The funds concerned are predominantly used to pay EU firms to provide technical expertise and advice for Russia. Only a very small proportion of the funds therefore goes to Russia…the Community food supply programme for Russia, that was launched earlier this year, is subject to very close monitoring which involves, amongst other things, checks on the use of the funds generated from the sale of relevant food products on local markets. Moreover, Russia does not currently receive Community loans, and the lending mandate of the European Investment Bank for countries outside the EU does not extend to Russia…"

  IR35
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the implementation of IR35; and what recent meetings he has had with business on the issue. [94883]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As the Minister in the lead on this measure, I have spoken with a number of people during the course of the consultation period and have received many written representations. Most representative bodies agreed that the Government was right to tackle the problem of avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by using personal service companies.
  172
  In the light of feedback received, we have modified some of the details of the mechanism set out in the Inland Revenue's original information pack. Revised proposals were published on 23 September in the Inland Revenue Press Release, "Personal Services Provided through Intermediaries—Preventing Avoidance, Preserving Flexibility".

  Tax
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of sending every income tax-payer a statement of what the Government takes in tax and what it spends with their annual notice of coding. [96181]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost would depend on the nature of the statement and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will require the Financial Services Authority as the new competent authority for listing to ensure that questions of environmental risk are in future contained in all listing particulars as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. [96896]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The London Stock Exchange, as Competent Authority, has in the last two years reviewed the statutory requirements to report provisions and disclose contingent liabilities and the accounting rules for disclosure of environmental risks. These do require companies to address, among other things, their environmental liabilities. But, in the absence of clear, recognised disclosure standards, it has not been considered appropriate to introduce a listing rule specifically covering environmental risks. The Financial Services Authority may wish to consider the position afresh when it becomes the Competent Authority, but this will be for the Financial Services Authority to decide.

  Construction Workers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the tax changes which relate to the status of self-employed workers in the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [96316]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax changes brought in by the new Construction Industry Scheme do not affect whether a person is employed or self-employed within the industry. Both the old and the new scheme work in a broadly similar way. Where a contractor makes payments relating to construction operations to a self-employed worker, they must operate the scheme. This means that they must make deductions on account of tax and NICs when making payments to subcontractors who do not qualify under the rules to be paid gross. The changes to the scheme are to control tax evasion.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Baroness Blood
Miss May Blood, MBE, having been created Baroness Blood, of Blackwatertown in the County of Armagh, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Bareness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the Lord Dubs.
Lord Kirkham
Sir Graham Kirkham, Knight, having been created Baron Kirkham, of Old Cantley in the County of South Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blatch and the Lord Harris of Peckham.

Cold Weather Payments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Palmerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to increase the £100 cold weather payment to pensioners living in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of, Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, there are two fuel-related payments for pensioners to provide help with fuel costs during winter. The first is the winter fuel payment, which provides a contribution of £100 to eligible pensioner households each winter regardless of the weather conditions.
The second is the cold weather payment, which provides an £8.50 payment to pensioners and others receiving income support when the average temperature is recorded as, or is forecast to be, 0 degrees centigrade or below over seven consecutive days in the local area. That payment, unlike the first, reflects regional weather conditions.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her full and comprehensive reply. I believe that what the Government are doing is wonderful. However, should not the principle of the winter fuel payment be means tested?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the winter fuel payment goes to all pensioners: £50 for pensioner couples and those on income-related benefit and £100 for pensioner households. This is a recognition that, compared with others, pensioners spend a large part of their time at home and will have higher fuel costs. The
714
cold weather payment does what the noble Lord suggests. The payment is targeted on those in receipt of income support, JSA, state pensions and related income benefits and, therefore, ameliorates the problems of the poor. Therefore, there are two payments: one to all pensioners and the other to the vulnerable and poor.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I declare an interest as an old age pensioner living in Scotland— although appearances are misleading. Is my noble friend aware that my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who—before the polls open tomorrow—is one of the best attendees, is an expert on the cost of heating houses in Scotland? Is my noble friend also aware that, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has 109 rooms in his wee cottage in the Borders of Scotland? The bottom line is that pensioners in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom will be very grateful for this help in meeting their winter fuel bills. Does my noble friend agree that it is the biggest contribution by a million miles by any government in the history of Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend draws attention to the fact that this year the Government are spending £800 million extra to help pensioners meet their fuel bills. Like my noble friend, I very much value the contributions to this House of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. However, whether the noble Lord would qualify for winter fuel payments on grounds of either poverty or age is not entirely clear to me.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the problems of trying to determine temperatures within a local area. Can the Minister describe what is a local area? Will she also bear in mind that the local geography in Scotland militates towards temperature variations within a very small area? What account is taken of that?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the word that I used was "regional". I can provide the noble Lord with charts if he wishes to have them. The figures are based on information from the Meteorological Office. For example, Kinloss, Loch Glascarnoch and so on will produce a 24-hour forecast, on the basis of which there will be an automatic delivery of cold weather payments through the Social Fund to those affected.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Government have no such plans as are asked for in the Question, have they any alternative plans to lower the level of deaths from hypothermia in Scotland to that which is prevalent in Scandinavia?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, to some extent we meet the additional costs of heating in Scotland through the Social Fund payment. I believe that in 1997–98 the Social Fund cold weather payment was triggered eight times in Scotland, once in Wales

715
and not at all in England. Last year the payment was triggered 11 times in Scotland, not at all in Wales and twice in England. I believe that that illustrates the different temperatures in Scotland. The noble Earl is right that hypothermia is a problem for all pensioners. It is estimated that throughout the winter months perhaps another 30,000 people die over and above the number that might otherwise have been predicted. We believe that a large number of those deaths are attributable to weather conditions that affect pensioners. That is exactly why the Government are spending £800 million to try to help pensioners protect themselves against hypothermia and related illnesses.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in the light of this generosity in Scotland, does my noble friend accept that there is a case for changing the Barnett formula?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the formula for cold weather payments, as with winter fuel payments, applies to the whole country evenhandedly. However, as for cold weather Social Fund payments to those who are poor, that is triggered by weather conditions. Unless my noble friend argues that temperatures in Scotland are no different from those in England, I do not believe that he would have any desire to change the formula.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in view of the situation last year when taxpayers' money was wasted on the television advertising of winter fuel payments which gave the impression that people would receive them in the post, whereas many had to collect them, cheques were out of date by the time they were collected, some people received double the amount that the Government intended, and others did not receive any payment until the weather became warmer, can the Minister give an assurance that this year the payments will be made on time?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question about hypothermia posed by my noble friend Lord Russell, does the Minister agree that, however desirable may be these winter fuel payments, the longterm solution to the problem, particularly for the elderly on low incomes, is to make sure that their homes are efficiently insulated and that they have effective heating arrangements?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is entirely right. These winter fuel payments will be paid by Christmas time to all pensioners. But it is correct that we need to invest particularly in older houses where insulation is poor and there are problems of dampness. That is why the Government's energy insulation scheme is to be extended. I believe that the Scottish Executive is making its scheme even more extensive that the English and Wales schemes precisely to meet the point raised by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Office for National Statistics tells us that the average Scottish
716
household pays £14 per week for heating as opposed to the UK average of £13. On that basis, in order to be effective, does the Minister agree that the winter payment to Scottish pensioners should be £152 as opposed to £100?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to see the basis of the noble Earl's statistics. I am not sure whether they relate to all households or just pensioner households. My statistics are related to pensioner households and are rather different from the ones that he quoted. None the less, if people spend on average £500 to £550 a year on heating and lighting costs, which is the UK average, the £100 payment across the board to all pensioners will be a welcome addition, as my noble friend Lord Ewing said, and something that has not been addressed by previous administrations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is not the winter fuel payment for Scottish pensioners peculiarly a matter for Scotland? Is it not part of the functions of the devolved Scottish Parliament; and if not, why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, confuses what I sought to separate in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. There are two basic cash payments. One is the winter fuel payment to all pensioners which for the most part is £100 per household but in some cases is just £50. The other is the cold weather payment that is triggered by cold weather conditions. Over the past two years that has disproportionately benefited Scotland, as one would expect. In addition, there are proposals by both the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Scottish Executive for home insulation grants, which in Scotland would be up to £500 per household. That, too, is a matter for Scotland. However, basically social security is a UK matter and is not delegated. Therefore, winter fuel and cold weather payments are properly a matter for the UK Government.

Banana Imports
2.58 p.m.
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United States' legal challenge to the European Union's preferential tariff regime for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana producers (Lomé Convention) is compatible with United States subsidies to their agricultural exporters.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the United States' claim that the European Union banana import regime is incompatible with world trade rules has been upheld by the World Trade Organisation. We closely follow

717
US protection and support to its agricultural industry. If we consider any of this to be incompatible with WTO rules we press for action to be taken accordingly.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I am assured in greater part. Will not the effects of these self-serving policies be continuing aid as a result of stifling trade so that farmers who rely on exports will turn to drug distribution, not least in the United States and United Kingdom markets?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as to the conflict between aid and trade it should be remembered that the US is not the only complainant. Ecuador also challenged the EU regime and won. Other Latin American countries which are involved are also developing countries. The WTO rules are designed to promote international trade and encourage efficient production, which is to everyone's long-term benefit. However, we need to find ways to allow vulnerable countries to adjust and develop their economies. This is recognised by WTO members who have agreed a waiver to allow a preference for ACP countries.
On diversification and the risk of drugs, it is worth pointing out that the main source of the present EU funding is called Stabex. From 2000 onwards the main source of funding of the islands and the remainder of the Caribbean will be the recently agreed special framework of assistance (SFA). It is expected that under the SFA each of the main banana growing Windward Islands will receive between £4 million to £6 million a year; and Jamaica will receive nearly £3 million a year.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking on this serious and important subject. Will the Minister indicate the Government's policy towards these Caribbean islands which are completely dependent upon exports of bananas? As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, if they lose those exports, they will be likely to turn to drugs, to everyone's disadvantage. What positive plans have the Government to help those countries out of their dilemma, assuming that the agreements reached in the WTO hold?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the European Commission is producing proposals this month—we understand within the next few days. Those proposals will have to take account of the WTO rules and the vulnerability of the Caribbean producers.
The UK Government wish to see a solution which does not risk further challenges to the WTO and which addresses the needs of the most vulnerable banana producers. Such a solution would need the agreement of all parties. We support the Commission in searching for a quota-based solution and a speedy end to the dispute. But even if the Commission produces proposals, it is then a matter for the interested parties in the European Union and other interested parties around the world to agree. The issue is extremely complex.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in examining the proposals which will come forward from the European Union,
718
does the Minister accept that two clear principles should be followed by Her Majesty's Government? The first is that the European Union is still committed to the principles of its Lomé commitment to those countries. The second is that the only long-term solution for those countries would be for the European Union to adopt a reference price deficiency payment system comparable with that currently obtained by European Union growers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have already said that it is for the Commission to produce proposals. We have made our position clear. It is clear that if there were a tariff system the tariff would have to be set at a level to support the Caribbean producers which would be too high to be accepted by other parties. The only other hope is a quota-based solution, which will have to be negotiated with the other European Union countries and America and the Latin American countries.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, while there will be broad agreement that banana growing in the Caribbean countries should not be allowed to be massively reduced, is the Minister aware that in the past the quality of bananas grown in the Caribbean has been poor (to put it politely); and that everything must be done to encourage and coerce the banana growers in the Caribbean for their own good to improve dramatically the quality of their product?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The UK Government are fully committed to the restructuring of the Caribbean banana industry so that it is more competitive and to reducing dependence on banana production. As I pointed out, under the new scheme the total that the main banana growing Windward Islands and Jamaica will receive in 2000 will be in the order of £9 million a year.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever compromise may come out of the European Union's discussions with the WTO, it is vital that the traditional access for Commonwealth ACP producers is maintained? Does the noble Lord accept that that will not be possible by a system of auctioning licences? Does he also accept that transitional arrangements have to cover a sufficient period to enable the countries concerned, in particular in the Commonwealth Caribbean, to adapt their economies and their industry? Otherwise they will face a social collapse of the kind to which noble Lords have referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the problem to which the noble Lord refers is recognised. Other members of the WTO have already agreed a waiver allowing a preference for ACP countries. I repeat: it is extremely complex to balance the arguments between the interests of the banana producers and the WTO rules which are designed for international trade.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I wish to disagree in the nicest possible way

719
with my noble friend Lord Jopling? The quality of produce from the ACP countries is as good as any bananas produced in the world.
Furthermore, in the Minister's original Answer he cited countries which are far bigger than the Caribbean islands and therefore have the chance to produce alternative crops. Countries such as Dominica simply cannot grow anything else except drugs.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have already said. We recognise the problem. There will have to be some attempt to help these countries to diversify. The aid for the main banana-growing Windward Islands and Jamaica for the year 2000 is £9 million a year.

Cancer Research
3.5 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote research into the environmental causes of cancer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Medical Research Council recently launched a joint initiative with the Natural Environment Research Council on environment and health which clearly includes cancer research. The MRC also supports research through its "Health of the public" initiative. The Department of Health also funds research which includes investigating the association between cancer and exposure to radiation and chemicals in the environment. The department's expert committees advise on the carcinogenic risks associated with environmental factors and encourage further research in areas of concern.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his quite encouraging reply. I am not sure whether it represents an actual improvement on what I gleaned from a Written Answer to a Question of mine last May showing that government sponsored research into carcinogenic chemicals in the environment accounted for barely 2 per cent of the cancer research budget. Does the noble Lord agree that at a time of quite legitimate concern about, for example, pesticides such as lindane, toxic landfills, dietary fats and various types of hair dyes, not to mention the electronic smog in which we all live nowadays, an even greater emphasis on cancer prevention is overdue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that our present estimates of the proportion of cancer research related to the environment are rather higher than the figures given to the noble Earl in May this year. I suspect that that is because we are better at attributing and ascribing research rather than that there is a secular increase, so to speak, in the amount
720
of this kind of research being undertaken. The noble Earl is right. The wide variety of environmental risks justifies very great emphasis on research into the environmental causes of cancer, but in order to do that we have to have put forward scientifically justified proposals.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his versatility in adding health questions to his portfolio. In welcoming the appointment of Professor Mike Richards as national cancer care director, would the Minister care to give his reaction to the recent rather chilling comments of Professor Gordon McVie, director-general of the Cancer Research Campaign? He said that,
"the NHS cannot keep up with progress in cancer research".
Should not Professor Richards also have the resources for, and the responsibility of, a co-ordinating role for cancer research to ensure that the NHS can cope?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am answering this Question because the research councils, including the Medical Research Council, are responsible to the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Department of Health. It is true that Professor Richards will be concerned with cancer research although his immediate problems, as he described them on his appointment, are more to do with staffing. But improved cancer research, in particular relating to the environment, will not necessarily cause increased liabilities on the National Health Service. A good deal of effective research will cause savings to the National Health Service.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some rural areas there are pockets of leukaemia? And how much research is being undertaken on farm fertilisers and pesticides?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a great deal of research is being carried out on farm fertilisers and pesticides. However, most of that is concerned with the more immediate effects of peripheral nerve function rather than with cancer. I note what the noble Baroness says about leukaemia. I have no doubt that the authorities will pay attention to her remarks.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that the Medical Research Council is responsible to the Department of Trade and Industry and not to the Department of Health? If so, are the criteria for the funding of the council different from those controlling the funding of other more commercial organisations by the department?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all the research councils, including the Medical Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, to which I referred, report to the Department of Trade and Industry and they all have comparable funding arrangements.
Lord McNair: My Lords, although there are regular announcements of hope and optimism from the

721
charities which research drugs for the treatment of cancer, is the Minister aware that the many proven holistic methods of treating cancer would, if adopted, save the NE-IS a fortune?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that the Medical Research Council has set its face against the investigation of complementary medicine, I have to say to him that that is not the case. Perhaps I may give a recent example. Clinical trials on lower back pain have been set up to compare the effectiveness of traditional medicine, chiropractic and acupuncture. There is no presumption against complementary medicine in the research decisions of the Medical Research Council.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the priorities might change if there were more patients on research committees? Does he agree with the leading US breast cancer researcher who said, "If the world were run by women, we would work on prevention"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, the more people, the more users, involved in decisions, the more likelihood of better priorities. That is one reason why the 10 Downing Street seminar of January this year made the Medical Research Council responsible for setting up a cancer research funders' group which will provide the co-ordination sought by the noble Earl.

The Millennium Dome
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with regard to the completion of the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, progress on the Millennium Dome remains on time and on budget. The construction and development phases for the dome are nearing completion and the transition to exhibit fit-out is in full flow. There are now 59 days until opening and the entire team at the New Millennium Experience Company, from the many young acrobats and aerialists training hard for the central show to the people engaged in the fit-out, are working hard to deliver. They are on target for a successful opening on 31st December 1999.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that excellent Answer. Is he aware that, as a result of the high profile that the dome has enjoyed since it was conceived some years ago. expectations of the many people who will want to go to the experience
722
will be high? Are the Government confident that they will be fulfilled?
Furthermore, does the Minister agree that continued doubts about the completion date of a fully functioning Jubilee Line extension, from Green Park to North Greenwich, must inevitably soon affect ticket sales?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards what is inside the dome, I agree that people's expectations are high. From my involvement in what will be inside and around the dome, I believe that those expectations will satisfactorily be met.
Secondly, the Jubilee Line extension already runs from central London—namely, from Waterloo—to North Greenwich. I am confident that it will he open, connecting Green Park to Waterloo, thereby connecting Stanmore in the west to Stratford in the east, well before 31st December 1999.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the estimated overspend on the Jubilee Line extension will be?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the precise figure. I agree that for years there has been a significant overspend; for years before this Government came into power.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as the Minister said that the dome was running to budget, will he remind the House what the total budget was? In doing so, will he tell us what proportion of the budget will be met by taxpayers' funds and whether that proportion is higher than originally predicted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the total figure spent on the dome, from building it to running it to the end of 2000, is £758 million. Not one penny of that comes from taxpayers' money. The Millennium Commission has made a £399 million grant from lottery funds and there has not been one penny of overspend in relation to that.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, when I and other noble Lords recently visited the dome, the ceiling was extremely dirty. Has that problem been solved?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the ceiling is being cleaned even as we speak.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when people visit the dome they will be surprised to discover that the "Our Town Zone", which reflects local communities, is sponsored by that great homogenising giant. McDonalds?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the "Our Town Zone" is an opportunity for people from every town in this country to come to the dome for a day and tell the story of their town. With two exceptions, every local education authority or library board has

723
subscribed to the idea. They have done so knowing full well that McDonalds has made a contribution to that. I believe that they focused more on people's opportunity to tell the story of where they live rather than on the fact that a commercial concern has been sufficiently enthusiastic about the dome to make a significant contribution to it.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, while it is difficult to judge a design that is not complete, will the Minister take note of the criticism of members of the architectural profession who visited the dome only two weeks ago that the co-ordination of the interior design and the thematic pleasure to be achieved from the great variety of internal buildings puts at risk the total pleasure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I regularly visit the dome, inside and out, and during the past nine months I have seen the inside coming together. I am not sure what is meant by the "thematic whatsit", but visiting now one has the sense of a complete whole coming together and it is both pleasing to look at and incredibly entertaining.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I was a little slow in picking up what the Minister said about the Jubilee Line. Did he say that it would be open to Greenwich or not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I said that it is already open to Greenwich from Stratford in the east and from Waterloo in the centre of London. I also confirmed that it would be open from Stanmore in the west.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in case the Minister regards that with too much confidence, would he be interested to know that when my noble friend Lord Luke and I went, at his kind invitation, for which I thank him, to visit the exhibition last week, we thought that we should save time by coming back to the House by Underground, starting on the Jubilee Line, and had to wait 20 minutes because of a signal failure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when one opens a new Underground line, as we have done, it is inevitable that there will be teething troubles. I am sure that they will be over before 31st December 1999.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their
724
intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9th November;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. There is a good deal of further work to be done and I think I serve the House best by being fairly economic in what I say at this stage.
There have been considerable consultations and I am pleased that many of the letters from your Lordships to my noble friend Lord Bassam and myself have acknowledged the fact that we have listened with great care and introduced some helpful amendments to the Bill.
We have a long tradition of giving shelter to those fleeing persecution. We are determined to uphold that tradition. We need to bear in mind, however, that the immigration controls which we inherited are under growing pressure. The number of asylum applications has increased 10-fold over the past 10 years to over 46,000 applications in 1998. Seventy-one per cent of asylum decisions in 1998 were refusals. This year has seen even greater pressures. Over 51,000 applications were made between January and September—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would care to pause for a moment. We have to discuss the amendments before there are speeches on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I wonder whether the House agrees that it would be a good idea to go through the amendments after which we may hear the noble and learned Lord unless the noble and learned Lord feels that it is necessary to speak at this stage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to do that. I believe that the custom has been to have a short opening speech, to hear the amendments,

725
and thereafter to have the closing speech. I am perfectly happy, indeed, rapturously pleased, to sit down at this stage, my theme, plainly, having already been accepted.
Lord Henley: M y Lords, I have been a Member of the House for a number of years—slightly longer than the noble and learned Lord—and my understanding was that it is usual to take the amendments first. Certainly, my noble friends are looking forward to discussing their amendments and then hearing what the noble and learned Lord will put forward.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is quite true. The noble Lord has been in this House, to date, a good deal longer than I have.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Williams of, Mostyn)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 39, after ("the") insert ("voluntary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to a number of other amendments as set out on the Marshalled List. We are considering Clause 4 and Schedule 13. [must begin by saying that we do not like Clause 4. That is why we have tabled an amendment which seeks to delete it. But we have tabled also a number of further amendments which deal with the detail. and the devil in the detail, to be found in Clause 13.
Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for persons granted temporary admission, released from detention or released on bail from detention. The new amendment to Schedule 13 tabled by the Government gives the Secretary of State power to impose arty restrictions as to residence that he chooses to prescribe in regulations. There is absolutely no limit on what the Secretary of State can do. There is not even a requirement that the restrictions must be reasonable.
One such restriction specifically foreseen in the government amendment to Schedule 13 is that the person concerned should be required to reside in accommodation provided under Clause 4, and the regulations may prohibit him
"from being absent from that accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him".
What that means has been the subject of a number of conflicting reports. When my noble friend Lady Williams and I first raised the matter on Report, as recently as 18th October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had not the faintest idea as to how Ministers were going to use the dispersal powers in conjunction with temporary admission. He said off the cuff:
"People will be free to come and go, subject to any other conditions that are imposed".
A moment or two later he received a note from the box, and modified his initial reply by saying,
"The note that I have says the idea is that those concerned will be required to reside overnight but will be free to come and go during the day".—[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 753.]
I must ask the Minister who is to reply how it is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was left in the position of having to answer this question when certainly the guts of the press release must have been already available within the department at the time. It is unfair to have put the noble and learned Lord in that position. The press release about Oakington. issued three days later on 21st October, put the matter the other way round:
"The applicant will be required to reside at Oakington";
and,
"in certain circumstances applicants would be able, with prior approval, to leave without escort for specific purposes and periods".
The norm, then, is that an applicant must reside constantly in Oakington. He may go out to Tesco's, to the doctor's, or whatever, without an escort only with special permission from Mr Jack Straw. He then has to return within an hour or whatever the time specified in the restrictions. If he misses the curfew, he risks being transferred to prison or to a detention centre. I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, inadvertently misled the House when replying to questions on Report. I do not blame him. The habit of the department has been to produce a blizzard of amendments at the last minute before every stage of this Bill and it is impossible for Ministers, let alone Back Benchers, to know everything that is going on within the department.
According to the Guardian of 22nd October, every asylum applicant arriving at Dover without papers, or at Stansted, regardless of whether he has papers or not, is to be bundled off immediately to Oakington. I ask the Minister to confirm that, and to explain why those arrival points are being singled out for special treatment.
The purpose of the new facility at Oakington, and presumably others which may be constructed in the future, is to facilitate prompt consideration of an asylum claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on 29th October. The imposition of other restrictions is now applied only by the government amendment to the schedule to persons sent to institutions such as Oakington. If that was the real intention, the location of the new centres should be convenient for access by the agencies advising asylum seekers, unless, of course, the intention is to reach a first decision without affording the applicant access to legal advice.
I do not believe that that is the case. I spoke to representatives at the Refugee Legal Centre just before entering the Chamber. I was told that the Home Office had asked its representatives to examine ways in which they could provide support facilities for people at Oakington. Their first reaction was that considerable resources would be required, that these were difficult

727
to estimate and that the number of firms capable of dealing with asylum cases in the Cambridge region was very small.
The Refugee Legal Centre faxed me a map showing the location of firms which, I understand, have applied for franchises. There are only two in the immediate neighbourhood of Cambridge. I should like the Minister to explain whether it is the intention that franchised firms, or the Refugee Legal Centre, will send representatives to Oakington, or whether, as another alternative which has been considered by the RLS—although it has not put forward any firm proposals—there will be a permanent RLS office located on the site of Oakington. That seems to me to be the better alternative, because the throughput will be extremely large. There will be a maximum of 400 residents in Oakington at any one time. The Minister has said that, on average, they will be there no longer than seven days. Therefore the rate of processing applications will be extremely intensive and will require a scale of resources which will certainly not be available to the franchised firms in the neighbourhood, even if it were possible for their few representatives to spend all their time on the site.
The press release says that applicants will remain at Oakington for,
"short periods of about seven days while their claims are being considered".
We all know that the Home Office's perception of time is highly elastic. The second amendment to the schedule gives the Secretary of State power to make an applicant stay in Oakington for up to 10 days, giving a leeway of three days. That is meant to be for discussion purposes only. If the Minister says that under extreme circumstances it might be necessary for a person to be kept there for a couple of weeks then, of course, we could consider the argument. However, I suggest that it is quite unacceptable for there to be a totally open-ended power requiring an applicant to stay in one of those places indefinitely, particularly when one considers how the Home Office uses its existing powers of detention to keep people in prisons and detention centres for months, and in some cases for over a year.
Finally—and I believe that my noble friend will amplify what I have to say on this point—Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are intended to give effect to the very strong recommendations in the 27th Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The recommendations include that conditions such as are mentioned in Schedule 13 should be imposed only for prescribed purposes and only where they are reasonably necessary and for the single purpose which has been stated so far in order to avoid public order disturbances. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also ask a number of questions of the Government. It would be helpful if they could give us a full account of the reasons for deciding to establish a centre at Oakington. Perhaps they can tell us something about the arrangements which they hope to make there for various forms of surveillance and monitoring.
728
I do not quarrel with the procedures of the House, but I rather regret that the noble and learned Lord was not able to set out in slightly more detail what he wanted to say at the beginning. As he will know, that is highly relevant to this particular new clause. New Clause 4 is a relatively late addition to the Bill. We know that, in the last month for which details were given, there has been a substantial increase in the number of people seeking asylum. We do not know whether Clause 4 is essentially a reaction to that and we are anxious to probe a little further the Government's intentions in that respect.
The central question which concerns us is that we are not sure whether the proposal for the camp at Oakington, which I believe is based at the old RAF base there, is intended to be part of a procedure concerning initial stages of holding people while their first hearing is conducted and is, therefore, a form of limited detention for a short period until the first hearing has been held. That is the purpose of our suggestion that 10 days would be a proper limit. Or is it to be part of the dispersal system? If it is to be part of that system, we are considerably concerned because the Home Office itself has said that dispersal should not take place except to areas which are ethnically mixed and where there is reasonable access to medical and legal services.
The adviser on immigration to the diocese of Ely, in whose area Oakington falls, wrote to the Chief Planning Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council on 23rd October and made the point directly that there is no significantly ethnically-mixed community at Oakington. Indeed, there is virtually no ethnic mix for miles of fields around. She also mentioned that she knows of only one person who knows anything at all about immigration law in the whole surrounding area, and that that person is an immigration adviser at the citizens advice bureau.
Therefore, some of the pledges on dispersal that were given at an earlier stage to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, among others, have not been able to be met in the case of Oakington. If it is a system of detention, albeit a limited one, then we are concerned on constitutional grounds. As far as we can see from Clause 4, the normal protections that occur in the case of detention—in other words, that there is a relatively close system of monitoring; that there is some structure of accountability, and so forth—are certainly not contained in Clause 4. I shall leave the issue of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to my noble friend Lord Goodhart. But our legal advice is that this provision is almost certainly incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
We are concerned about Oakington if the detention is to be very short term. I ask the Government to go back to the pledges made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. On 18th October I asked him the direct question as to whether the accommodation would be secure. He replied at col. 753 of Hansard that it would not. When asked whether people would be able to move in and out without permission, he replied that they would be free to come and go. It was on the

729
strength of that reply that we did not then raise issues with the Home Office on 21st October when the announcement was made by the Minister of State, Barbara Roche, about the setting up of Oakington. However, we are now profoundly concerned because that does not fit into the answers that were given in the House.
Like my noble friend Lord Avebury, I understand, to some extent at least, the pressures which the Home Office is under. I am not trying to make difficulties for it. However, like my noble friends on these Benches and, I believe, the House generally, I am concerned that in a situation where one detains or, to use the words of the Select Committee, a form of house arrest is introduced, there must be proper safeguards; there must be proper structures of complaint; and there must be proper inspection. At the moment, Clause 4 does not make such provision. I should be most grateful if the nol3le and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, were to tell us a good deal more about this. I repeat that we are not trying to be obstructive, but we are deeply concerned about the precedent that it establishes.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak with particular reference to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. That is in reference to the new powers described by the Select Committee as house arrest powers, contained in government Amedment No. 79.
Clause 168(1) states:
"Schedule 13 makes minor and consequential amendments".
The amendments which are to be inserted into Schedule 13 plainly are neither minor nor consequential. As has been pointed out, under these amendments regulations could be made which authorise defacto detention. As I said, I am particularly concerned that the house arrest provisions tell immigrants living in what I might call Clause 4 accommodation where and when they can come and go. If they are residing in Clause 4 accommodation, why is it necessary to impose a curfew or to tell immigrants that they must stay indoors at certain times of day? If they are not in detention then, prima facie, surely the immigrants should be free to come and go as they please, unless they are absent to such an extent that it gives cause to believe that they are not living in the accommodation. Anything else would be extremely unjustified under the European Convention on Human Rights., and I believe that it would be an arbitrary restriction on liberty.
That provision caused great concern to the Delegated Powers Committee. The Home Office submitted a memorandum to the committee dealing with the Report stage amendments. When we were dealing with what was in fact the original version of this amendment, rather than the slightly revised version which we now have, the only reason suggested in the memorandum for giving a power to tell people to stay indoors at certain times of the day was to avoid public order disturbances. Should anyone wish to see the memorandum, it is printed as an appendix to the Select Committee report.
730
Disorder is more likely to be directed against the immigrants than instigated by them. They may of course be given warnings and advice as to where they should go and when they should stay in. But surely it is wrong to say that they must stay indoors because it is possible that, if they go out, illegal acts of violence may be committed against them. I appreciate that difficult situations have arisen, particularly in Dover and other Kent ports. However, restrictions of this kind are, frankly, giving way to mob rule.
The Delegated Powers Committee made a number of suggestions, one of which, I am glad to say, has been accepted by the Government. That states that these regulations should be made by the affirmative procedure. Of course, I welcome that. However, the Select Committee also suggested that further restrictions may be inserted into the Bill. One such restriction was that powers under the regulations should be exercisable only so far as reasonably necessary. That is echoed by Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 in the name of my noble friend Lord Avebury. Another suggestion is that house arrest powers should be restricted to cases where they are needed for prevention of public disorder.
It is true, of course, that the regulations can be challenged under the Human Rights Act, but. as the Select Committee said, it is unsatisfactory for asylum seekers to have to rely on a challenge under the Human Rights Act to contest a decision taken by immigration officers under the regulations. It would be much better if the power to make the regulations were restricted so that no regulations could be made that may infringe the Human Rights Act.
Speaking for myself, I believe that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation did not go far enough. I believe that the house arrest powers should be removed from the Bill, as proposed by Amendment No. 80.
I should be extremely interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, why the absolute minimum was done, as suggested by the Select Committee, and why further restrictions, not merely the requirement of affirmative resolutions, were not included in the amendments that are to be put into Schedule 13.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in a previous discussion on this matter I pointed out that powers were being taken to enable these institutions to he little different from prisons. Although your Lordships were reassured at the time—as shown from quotations given—that that was not the idea at all, the press release, to which reference has been made, made it clear that that was extremely near to the idea.
It is interesting that the Bill never uses any particular word to describe such institutions. All sorts of words have been used: house arrest, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said just now; open prison; detention centre; holding centre; and internment centre. In Northern Ireland internment was described as "administrative detention", and that is not far away from what is happening in this clause.

731
As a result, it is clear that these institutions, like the one near Cambridge that we have heard about—no doubt there will be others in due course—will be little different from detention centres, except that the safeguards which appear later in the Bill, applying to detention centres, broadly speaking do not apply to these kinds of centres, whatever they are called. That must be a worry to us all. The different stories that have been put out by the Home Office at different stages do not add to confidence in this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord in his reply will be able to tell us more about them.
I shall not add to what has been said in that respect, except to draw attention to the fact that the Home Office memorandum to the Select Committee said, among other things, that such accommodation would incorporate interviewing facilities as well as facilities for legal advice. That could simply mean a room or set of rooms in which lawyers could talk to their clients. That would constitute facilities for legal advice. Legal advice is not freely available in the area of Cambridgeshire that we are talking about. Such legal advice would have to come from London, which would be expensive as well as extremely time-consuming and difficult.
Matters will be made even more complicated if the amount of time that people spend in the institutions is short, as we hope it is. If they spend seven days in the institutions, the lawyer to whom they spoke on arrival in the south-east of England—in Dover or London or elsewhere—may not realise that they have gone to Cambridgeshire. The lawyer would have to go to Cambridgeshire to see them a second time, but after seven days they could be somewhere else altogether. The same lawyer may be able to attend to their case, but they could then be in some other part of the country. It does not seem to me that legal advice will be facilitated in the true sense of the word.
Lastly, much of this is left to regulations. We are used to that idea, but one cannot avoid the thought that this is a late addition to the Bill. I believe that institutions of this type are a late thought by the Home Office. The real reason why it is done by regulation is because the Home Office has not thought through the matter. Some points that have come out in this short debate and earlier in discussions on this subject indicate that the Home Office has not thought carefully about what the centres are supposed to be and where they will be. The fact that it has not yet hit on a name for them reinforces that thought in my mind. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us all about them.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, on the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, could the noble and learned Lord say which of the refugee organisations have been consulted about Oakington, particularly in relation to its location? I do not believe that noble Lords who have spoken are critical of the location. They have simply tabled a probing amendment to find out more.
732
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about a particular agency, which is one of the most active in helping asylum seekers. If that agency has not been consulted, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clarify which have been consulted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to express my disquiet about the situation revealed by the Liberal Democrat Benches and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time on this issue because I associate myself closely with the arguments that have been raised.
It is incumbent on my noble and learned friend, if he is to reply to the debate, or on my noble friend Lord Bassam, to take these arguments seriously. There is a real risk of a serious breach of human rights arising on this issue. I am concerned about the opportunities for judicial involvement or oversight in this area. Concerns have been expressed about the availability of legal support, whether through legal aid or privately—most likely it is to be legal aid. If that support is to be seriously jeopardised simply because there will not be the opportunity to provide it on a coherent basis, the situation becomes extremely serious.
Perhaps my noble and learned friend will say where the independent judicial oversight of detention is to be provided. Further, how does what is proposed accord with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Those are serious matters. I declare an interest because for several years I was chairman of the Refugee Council. In those days I was involved, with my noble friend Lord Dubs who was executive director, in dealing with those issues on a day-to-day basis. I am deeply concerned. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to allay my concerns.
Earl Russell: My Lords, these issues have been before Parliament previously. In the winter of 1627 to 1628 the King released a number of former MPs from detention, subject to restrictions which probed the distinction between dispersal and detention. I believe the object was to prevent their re-election to the other place. Of course, the effect was exactly the opposite. In both Houses the distinctions marking the line between dispersal and detention were very much those spoken of by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The legality of the view taken by the Houses was never tested in court because on that occasion the Government backed off. That is a precedent that I would be happy to see followed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, quite a number of serious questions have been raised. Perhaps the House will allow me to answer at greater length than normal at this stage because they are questions which have not been fully dealt with on earlier occasions.
I entirely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has explained—that is to say, the object behind the proposal to amend or leave out Clause 4. In this group of amendments we need to bear in mind the proposals in Government Amendment No. 79. The

733
purpose of that amendment is simply to enable the extension of the power to impose residence conditions on those granted temporary admission.
Perhaps I may look at the wider context. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, indicated, it is notoriously well known that there has been a substantial increase in the number of asylum applications. The average number of applications each month from July to September was nearly 7,000. That is about 60 per cent higher than in 1998. It is not appropriate to have a wide-ranging discussion on the reasons for that. But, plainly, no responsible government can simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing.
The secondary proposition I put forward is simply one of fact. There is no doubt at all that the majority of applicants—about two-thirds—will not qualify either for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. A number of them will have made claims which are manifestly unfounded. It is not fair to those who have genuine claims, the, taxpayer or the rest of the citizens of this country, that unfounded claims are able to clog up the system and exploit delays. I agree that, as noble Lords on the Benches opposite often say, the system is extremely time-consuming and does not actually deliver just outcomes, if that means an efficient and prompt decision.
I stress that the facility at Oakington is based on existing detention powers. I am responding particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I confirm her impression that it is designed to deal with claims where it appears that a rapid decision can be made. The applicants will be required to stay at the centre for a short period of about seven days while their claim is decided. If their case cannot be decided that quickly, or if at the end of the period there has been a refusal and a decision not to return home immediately, then applicants will be granted temporary admission or, if necessary, moved to the conditions under which ordinary detention occurs.
However, I repeat—I hope I am not being tedious—that applicants will be required to stay at Oakington under existing immigration powers to detain. I believe there has been some misunderstanding here. The Oakington arrangements do not depend on the additional powers of temporary admission proposed in government Amendment No. 79. The wider powers contained in that amendment allow us to impose residence conditions on temporary admission. They will allow us to develop quite different reception arrangements, whether at Oakington or elsewhere.
I turn to Clause 4. It does not contain any power to impose residence conditions on persons granted temporary admission. It is simply to provide a clear power for the Secretary of State to provide accommodation to persons granted temporary admission. Whether or not those who are granted that permission may be required to reside at such accommodation—and if so, subject to what conditions— is the point and purpose of government Amendment No. 79. If I have it right in my own mind,
734
the aim of Amendment No. 1 is to limit the Secretary of State's power to provide accommodation at which persons are prepared to reside voluntarily.
In a sense, of course, all temporary admission is voluntary. It is an alternative to being detained and it will remain so. If someone seeking admission is not prepared to abide by the proposed conditions of temporary admission, the alternatives are either to return to the country of origin or remain here in detention. But if one accepts conditions of temporary admission, it is not unreasonable to he required to abide by them. Breach of the conditions of temporary admission is now an offence under immigration law and it will continue to be so. That is why we believe the word "voluntary" is not appropriate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. As regards the specific point of the length of time people may stay at Oakington before being granted leave to enter or moved into detention, and the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, before the Bill goes to another place will the Government consider putting a time limit in the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may come to that in due time. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment. I believe I paraphrase fairly by saying that he said that if seven days is too short a period, do the Government want to bring forward a period of about two weeks? Perhaps it is more convenient if I deal with that matter a little later. I am conscious of the fact that the House wants a full explanation of all the amendments in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was really suggesting that Clause 4 should be dropped from the Bill altogether. I repeat that that clause makes it plain that the Home Secretary may provide accommodation to persons given temporary admission. That is necessary because of Government Amendment No. 79. If we want that amendment, Clause 4 has to remain.
We discussed Amendment No. 79 briefly at Report stage. The amendment was withdrawn pending consideration by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. As noble Lords have indicated, there was substantial comment from the committee, and for that I am grateful. We have thought about that in framing the revised amendment. Its purpose is to extend the purposes for which residence conditions may be imposed when those seeking leave to enter or remain are given temporary admission or released from detention on temporary admission while the application is being considered.
There is already power in the Immigration Act 1971 to impose residence restrictions on those given temporary admission. Our advice is that, as currently framed, the restrictions should be those necessary to maintain contact and prevent absconding. We believe that those objectives are important, but they are too narrow. The large influx of asylum seekers to which I

735
referred a moment ago suggests that we may need wider powers not only to maintain contact but also possibly to prevent potential public order problems.
It is a reasonably founded point that it is possibly harsh at first blush to think that one needs these powers to prevent public order problems. The sad truth is that there have been such problems in the past. We wish to be able to protect people by having these powers available. I do not believe that that is unreasonable. In particular we want to avoid pressure on local services. We want to be able to ensure full and rapid consideration of claims.
As I said earlier, it has to be borne in mind that two-thirds of the applications are likely to fail. I put this neutrally: there is every inducement to abscond by those who believe that their applications are likely to fail. I do not believe that any government discharges their duty if they do not contemplate that and take proportionate powers to deal with it.
There are now two particular provisions—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he explain how "effective powers to prevent absconding" can be anything that falls short of actual detention?
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is probably more helpful to the House for me to develop the themes as I have them in my mind. Of course, one does not have to have full detention in the sense of imprisonment to prevent people absconding. For instance—in giving this example I am going completely outside the scope of this Bill—home detention curfew is a device which stops people absconding. I am sure that most people would not call that detention in the sense that imprisonment is detention. One can be proportionate as long as one has flexible powers and as long as—I shall develop this in deference to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—one considers the overarch. Let us not forget that we imposed that upon ourselves as a government in bringing into effect the Human Rights Act as early as 2nd October next year. I shall say a few words about the ECHR in a moment.
The provisions we introduced after reflecting on the views of the Select Committee aim to prohibit residence in one or more specific areas. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of people seeking asylum in this country. There has been a growth in tension between the local population and the newcomers in certain areas. In a sense, that is hardly a cause for surprise. We must bear in mind that people like to live in settled communities. It is easy, if one does not live in a disrupted community, to urge fortitude and a philosophic approach on people less fortunate. We must strike a humane, civilised balance between the legitimate needs of those who come to our shores, whether or not they are likely to be found to be genuine applicants, and the legitimate requirements of people who live in various communities.
736
As we all know in London and the south-east, some people in some parts of the United Kingdom have had to bear a disproportionate burden—I use that phrase deliberately. That helps no one. Indeed, it disturbs and disadvantages a large number of people. There is no one in this House who would do other than condemn racist, xenophobic propaganda. One way of dealing with that is to set our face firmly against it. Another important way of dealing with it is to establish considered dispersal to parts of the country better able to cope.
I hope that does not sound harsh. I believe it to be a civilised approach to a problem which is intractable. We sometimes get sudden influxes or over-concentrations of asylum seekers. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have frequently pointed out the causes for that. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has indicated quite rightly that if there is a disturbance, let us say, in middle or eastern Europe, one is likely to see a sudden influx of people fleeing those parts of the world; the same can be said of parts of Africa.
We are therefore planning dispersal arrangements under Part VI, with which we have already dealt. In the short term, some asylum seekers who may congregate in specific areas may still be on social security benefit. We want to have this power available. We do not envisage using the power on a routine basis, but only to relieve extreme pressures on specific areas in extreme circumstances.
I turn now to the second element of the amendment; it is not about the use of detention or the regime proposed at Oakington. The point of the amendment is to give greater flexibility in the use of temporary admission. We would then be able to develop reception facilities at which those given temporary admission were required to reside, but were free to come and go during the day if they wished. I return to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. That is an important sanction against absconding. It is not 24-hour detention; it is an intermediate stage which your Lordships—I say this respectfully—ought to welcome and not criticise.
We want to be able to ensure that applicants remain at the accommodation overnight—again, I say this without any doubt that it is a proper thing to say—and to be able to say to them, "We require you to be present at this designated accommodation at certain times because that is when your interviews will occur". There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a sensible way to behave. One must apply proportionality in more than one way.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the condition of temporary admission is that a person will attend an interview when required by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and he is in breach of that condition, sanctions can be brought to bear against him. He could be detained. A person therefore has every incentive to comply with the request to attend an immigration interview without the power in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I disagree. Of course, he has an incentive to attend; but he also has

737
an incentive to abscond. We are simply introducing perfectly measured provisions to deal with those circumstances.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not that have to be matched by the availability of access to those who would advise such persons if advice were sought? If the availability of access is extremely limited, that is a serious matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time I entirely agree with what my noble friend says. We are intending to make suitable provision for legal advice to be available. I am dealing particularly with Oakington. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was good enough to acknowledge that we are already discussing with the Refugee Council and others the nature of the provision to be made. But I must stress that we are talking about relatively short periods of time and we want to do our best to achieve this proportionate balance.
So, I repeat, residence is for a short time. We are trying to develop—I have no difficulty in putting this proposal forward—a wider menu of options which rely less on detention and which permit, in appropriate cases, the grant of temporary admission, albeit sometimes with restrictions. In that way we have more flexible powers to impose residence conditions on temporary admission which ought to be of practical help in terms of fairer, faster and firmer control. That is the point and purpose of the amendment and I do not apologise for taking a few moments to develop that theme.
We need to go forward by way of a power to make regulations. One of the aspects of our common failure—this is not a party political point; no government have been able to deal with this aspect satisfactorily—is that legislation has been too inflexible and has not been able to deal with changing events and changing pressures; we cannot respond quickly enough. We want to have a flexible system and these amendments contribute to that objective. However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, any regulations will have to comply with convention rights. They would authorise the imposition of additional descriptions of conditions only so far as that could be justified.
I want to spend a few moments on the Select Committee. The committee was quite rightly concerned that there should be some limitations on the scope of the power. We have tried to take that on board by the redrafting. The key point was to adopt the recommendation that the regulation should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. Parliament will have to be satisfied that, whenever the powers are to be used, they are proportionate and necessary to achieve the stated objective.
I promised to deal with ECHR compatibility. We have given further consideration to the earlier recommendation of the Select Committee in relation to the use of ECHR compatibility statements for secondary legislation. We thought about it quite carefully, not least because we had the benefit either of
738
contributions from your Lordships in the Chamber or informed discussions in correspondence and in meetings. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I give the undertaking that, when moving regulations which are subject to the affirmative procedure, Ministers will always inform the House whether they are satisfied that the instrument is compatible with convention rights.
I can say from my own personal experience that that is not something which is done lightly. Indeed, when one signs the certificate, one bears in mind the fact that there is quite a body of informed expertise in this House which is likely to challenge any such certificate if it is wrongly given. That is an extremely important discipline for all departments and all Ministers to be aware of—and I have given this undertaking in unambiguous terms. I do not think that even a lawyer could wriggle out of such an undertaking. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that, even if we do not deliver perfect satisfaction on every occasion, we have listened to the points raised and considered the recommendations of the Select Committee with very great care. Again, I have to say that I believe it was of benefit to all of us that we withdrew from the detailed investigation of some of these points on the proposal that was clearly agreed to by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. It was the better way to proceed and has given us all the opportunity for reflection.
I want to go further and adopt the same approach for secondary legislation, subject to the negative resolution procedure, if it amends primary legislation. That will apply to regulations made under all legislation, not just those made under this Bill. I think your Lordships will stand amazed at my moderation. This is a very important step forward. Perhaps I may spend a few moments on the Human Rights Act. When it was introduced, I believe we all thought that it was a landmark piece of legislation intended to be a curb on executive power, especially when it has a tendency to be arbitrary. This is an ample first, or early, demonstration of the continuing power of that great statute.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 80 to 83, which are amendments to government Amendment No. 79. I have already tried to explain the drafting of the provision of our amendment and I believe I touched on the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 80 to 83. Amendment No. 80 seeks to take out the provision for regulations to prohibit a person being absent from accommodation, except in accordance with restrictions imposed on him. We must have the ability to impose restrictions, such as being present every night. I dealt with this matter in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and do not believe that requirement to be onerous. The person has to be present each night, or on particular days, for the purpose of interview. There would not be a significant purpose in requiring residence without that condition.
I promised to return to Amendment No. 81 and do so now because this is the context in which the question was raised by a number of noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The amendment states that a requirement to reside can be imposed only once

739
and for a maximum of 10 days. However, we know perfectly well that some people fail in the first application and then return to try again. In those circumstances, we ought to be able to require further residence at accommodation provided by the Secretary of State if that seems appropriate. It may well be reasonable to require residence for periods longer than 10 days, bearing in mind always the fact that we are talking about temporary admission.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord can extend the 10-day limit on any one occasion. If he has in mind the situation where a person has made an application which fails, has then gone back abroad and ultimately returned to put in a second application, surely the Secretary of State would want the power to put that person back into Oakington for a second time. Let us suppose, then, that we said that the detention should be for a maximum of 10 days on any one occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that could be done if the amendment were differently drafted. However, that is not the case and I am dealing with the amendment as presently drafted.
As I said, we paid careful attention to the recommendations of the Select Committee. We wondered whether we could go further by including a reference to "reasonably necessary", along the lines set out in Amendment No. 82. However, we thought that that would not, in practice, limit the power any further; indeed, that is already achieved by the limitations on secondary legislation. I repeat: these regulations would have to be convention compliant.
I shall conclude by dealing with a number of particular questions which were raised. Most of the pressure recently—certainly in the past months of this year—has been in the South East. Oakington is reasonably convenient in South East terms. If there had been other suitable premises available, we should of course have considered them.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords, asked about safeguards. I believe that part of the safeguards lie in the affirmative resolution procedure and the certifying procedure, which I hope I did not refer to at too great a length.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I need to reaffirm the difference conceptually, as I see it, between imprisonment detention and the much lighter regime that we are now discussing. As I said earlier, breach of conditions will be an offence; indeed, that was a proposition put forward by one of your Lordships. There will be no security in Section 4 accommodation: there will be no guards or any power to use force to keep people there. I say again—I think, reasonably—that that is not detention in the sense that many of your Lordships have criticised in the past. I have in mind, for example, the conditions at Campsfield House.
740
As regards location, I can simply say that Oakington is the best option that has been identified. We have not consulted outside organisations about the choice of location. We have had general discussions about the setting up of such a facility. The RLC and the Refugee Council were involved in those discussions. So, in response to the particular question from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I can tell him that that is the nature of the consultation which took place. The answer is yes about the idea, but, as I understand it, not specifically about Oakington.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships. I recognise that I have take a little time to do so, but this is too important a topic and group of thoughts and amendments to skate over. I trust that I have been able to satisfy my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in particular as regards his concerns about convention compliance.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has given a most coherent explanation of the purposes of, and the need for, these powers? I hope that the Home Office will be able to stick to the procedures that he has outlined in the use of those powers. Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that I am grateful to him for accepting the affirmative powers, as suggested earlier, and for outlining the human rights points? I am not quite sure that the name he gave to this facility of "Section 4 accommodation" has a very happy ring about, but no doubt it will do to be going on with.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extremely generous approach. I can only repeat that I think we were wise to take note of the feeling of the House that some aspects might not have been sufficiently thought through and to decide that it was better to reserve our thoughts and considerations for Third Reading.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister kindly deal with Amendment No. 83, which proposes to substitute the word "must" for "may"? I believe I am right in saying that that was the one amendment which the noble and learned Lord did not address directly in his response.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one is back to the usual answer that I know the noble Lord has found unsatisfactory on previous occasions. We believe that this formulation is a better one, rather than using the softer phraseology suggested by the word "may". We have had this debate on a number of previous occasions. I cannot give an answer that will be more satisfactory to the noble Lord than those I have given in the past.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may just put a question to the Minister. I am sorry that it comes towards the end of the debate. I believe that the noble and learned Lord accepts that there has been a considerable amount of confusion as regards the word "detention". However, now that he has explained

741
precisely what it means, perhaps he can answer this question. The noble and learned Lord placed considerable emphasis on people absconding, yet he explained a very liberal regime—
Lord Carter: M y Lords, we are at the Third Reading stage of the Bill. The only noble Lord who should speak after the Minister is the mover of the amendment, unless short and factual questions arise. I would ask noble Lords not to make speeches.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I put a factual question to the Minister. What rights exist within the provisions of the Bill to challenge what we call the "detention" of people at the Oakington centre?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the same rights as presently exist in the 1971 Immigration Act. But I stress that we are talking about two different situations. One of them concerns short-term accommodation for seven days or so. I do not think that it is illiberal to say that we want to provide a regime which is speedy, efficient and fair. To deliver our promise—which is a moral obligation to quite a large number of people: to those who are not genuine asylum seekers as well as to those who are and to people who live in this country and fund all of these systems—I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that it is not unreasonable to say that for a short period of time there will be some limitation on people's freedom of movement while we assess their claims. He and I may disagree fundamentally on that, but I doubt it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that there would be no force exercisable to prevent someone leaving one of the intermediate institutions, is that because if such an attempt were made by someone, the powers of detention could then be invoked to keep them there?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I said earlier—I am sorry to displease the noble Lord, Lord Cope, by using this awful shorthand again—Clause 4 accommodation does not comprise detention. It is a requirement to reside, subject to restrictions of the kind that I mentioned. However, if there is a breach of conditions, an offence is committed. I think that is a better way of dealing with the situation than having security or guards or making use of force to keep people there.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am afraid that I can give only qualified thanks to the noble and learned Lord for what he said in reply to this group of amendments. First, I thank him for the assurances that he has given on the incorporation of a compatibility statement in secondary legislation, which I think is an important statement of government policy not just for this Bill but for all future legislation. However, it does not help us with these amendments. With respect, I believe that first the noble and learned Lord tried to pull the wool
742
over our eyes by pretending that what we are discussing today are the dispersal provisions rather than the semi-detention provisions which we have in relation to Oakington.
Everyone recognises that there is a problem in certain places in the south-east. We all know that the London boroughs have suffered a tremendous burden on their resources in trying to cope with large numbers of asylum applicants. However, I was under the impression—there have been several newspaper reports on this recently—that as regards the voluntary arrangements which have been made by the London boroughs and those which have been principally concerned with dealing with large numbers of asylum applicants, there has already been a dispersal to other areas of the country which is working successfully. However, nothing has been said about that. The Minister did not volunteer any information about the extent to which the London boroughs, for instance, have been able, through voluntary arrangements made through the LGA, to persuade other local authorities to take on a fair share of the burden. I believe that that is already well under way and that perhaps the powers in Clause 4 would not have been needed if we had gone down that voluntary route.

However, that is an entirely separate issue from the question of whether or not you force people to reside in a place such as Oakington, and whether in doing so you label them—as I believe we are—as people whose claims are manifestly ill founded. The Minister did not quite go so far as to say that anyone who is put in Oakington is a bogus asylum seeker, but that is how they will be seen. If they are directed to that centre and their claims are disposed of within a week, obviously the implication is that they had to go there because there was no particular merit in their claim which could have justified their being allowed access to proper legal advice in a centre such as London.
With respect, I did not think that the Minister gave a satisfactory answer to my questions about how such people were to be able to access legal advice. If I am correct—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—the arrangements at Oakington will come into effect on 1st January 2000. The consultations with the RLC and, for all I know, other organisations, are still only at the first stages. As I said, the RLC has told me that the task of providing the resources for legal advice in Oakington will be formidable. I mentioned that it has sent me a map which shows that there are only two qualified centres of legal excellence within the Cambridgeshire area which could give the residents of Oakington proper advice. I do not believe that that system can come into operation by 1st January 2000 and that the people who will be sent to Oakington will therefore have proper access to legal advice in the first phase of the scheme.
Whatever the Minister may say, the European human rights convention states that people who are detained—I know that he said that what we are discussing is not detention—must have both scrutiny and review of their cases. I am not sure whether the European Court would take the view that the Minister has expounded; namely, that this is not detention. At

743
one point he said that Oakington used existing detention powers. How can it use existing detention powers if putting someone in Oakington is not detention? It sounds very like detention to me.
In spite of the Minister's assurances that people will be free to come and go during the day—which is a repetition of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on a previous occasion—the fact is that the powers that we are granting to the Secretary of State go way beyond that. They would allow the Secretary of State to provide that no one can stir hand or foot outside Oakington except if they have a special grant of permission from the Secretary of State to visit the doctor or to seek legal advice in Cambridge. We are giving a blank cheque to require that someone stay in this place which is miles from anywhere. I do not even know what the public transport provision is like and I am sure that the Minister could not tell us that. I have not the faintest idea how anyone gets from Oakington into Cambridge if it is necessary to do so for any purpose, whether legal, medical or so on.
As my noble friend Lady Williams said, this is not compatible with what has been said about dispersal on previous occasions; namely, that asylum seekers who are sent away from London will be put in places where they can access services and where proper support facilities exist for people in their ethnic or linguistic groups. I know that we shall not win this argument at this stage. Between now and when Amendments Nos. 80 and 83 are put to your Lordships I shall consider whether to press them to a Division. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Charges]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 16, leave out from ("which") to ("has") in line 17
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 was intended to clarify a point that was conceded earlier; namely, that no fee will be payable if asylum is refused. However, I realised a few minutes ago that the amendment as printed does not achieve that objective.
I shall therefore not move it.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM UNDER INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
(" . In the 1971 Act, after section 8A, insert—
"Persons excluded from the United Kingdom under international obligations.
8B.—(1) An excluded person must be refused—

(a) leave to enter the United Kingdom;

(b) leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

(2) A person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is cancelled on his becoming an excluded person.
(3) A person's exemption from the provisions of this Act as a result of section 8(1), (2) or (3) ceases on his becoming an excluded person.
(4) "Excluded person" means a person—

(a) named by or under, or

(b) of a description specified in,
a designated instrument.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order designate an instrument if it is a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations or an instrument made by the Council of the European Union and it—

(a) requires that a person is not to be admitted to the United Kingdom (however that requirement is expressed); or

(b) recommends that a person should not be admitted to the United Kingdom (however that recommendation is expressed).

(6) Subsections (1) to (3) are subject to such exceptions (if any) as may be specified in the order designating the instrument in question.
(7) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(8) Such a statutory instrument shall be laid before Parliament without delay."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak again to this amendment which was originally tabled on Report and which concerns persons to be excluded from the United Kingdom under our international obligations. During the previous discussion of this amendment, the question was raised of whether the United Kingdom had ever been censured for admitting someone subject to a travel ban that was binding on the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm to the House that there is no record of any such occurrence.
During the previous discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked whether the application of the new clause should be extended to cover travel bans imposed by the Commonwealth. I have given this matter careful consideration. However, the Commonwealth does not take decisions which give rise to binding legal commitments. The Government do not believe, therefore, that it is necessary to include in the new clause a reference to the Commonwealth.
Having looked again at the amendment, we realise that it also requires a minor amendment to ensure that internationally-binding travel restrictions are framed in terms of defined categories of person rather than named individuals, which are also covered by the provisions of the new clause. For example, UN Security Council Resolution 1054, adopted in 1996, requires states to take measures to restrict the entry into their territory of members and officials of the Sudanese Government and members of the Sudanese armed forces. The amendment now takes account of this requirement.
As I explained on Report, the effect of Amendment No. 4 is to insert a new Section 8B into the 1971 Immigration Act. This will provide that certain people who are subject to an EU or UN travel ban have to be refused leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. In addition, where a person has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, this leave will be cancelled upon his or her becoming an excluded

745
person. Subsection (4) of the new clause defines an "excluded person" as a person named by or under a designated instrument, or of a category described in a designated instrument.
For the purposes of the clause, the Secretary of State may by order designate an instrument if it is a resolution of the UN Security Council or an instrument made by the Council of the European Union which requires or recommends that the United Kingdom does not or should not admit a person or category of person, however that requirement or recommendation is expressed.
At Report stage, great concern was also expressed about the implementation of travel bans and the great effort that needs to be made to ensure that only individuals who are the intended target of such bans are inconvenienced. I fully understand the concerns and take this opportunity to reassure the House that, in implementing travel bans, officials take great care to ensure that this result is achieved. With far from adequate information being available in respect of some persons, this is often difficult. However, we are determined to ensure that everything possible is done to minimise the possibility of errors. Equally, where there is a possibility that someone wanted in connection with, for example, war crimes might be apprehended, we believe that we should make every effort to ensure the full and proper implementation of our international commitments. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me after the previous debate. However, I still have some anxieties.
The provision regarding categories does not wholly alleviate the anxieties I expressed in relation to what happened over UN Security Council Resolution 1132. That plainly applied to travel restrictions on members of the Sierra Leone junta.
The power to impose the restrictions was delegated to a sanctions committee. The committee promulgated a list, which was an exact replica of suggestions made to it by the president of Sierra Leone, President Kabbah, and contained the names of many of his political opponents. When that list was enforced without the knowledge of those named on it—the list was never published—they were subject to travel restrictions in the United Kingdom. It could then have been said that they were part of the category of "named persons" because everybody thought that the persons on the list were members of the Sierra Leone junta despite the fact that many of them were not and the government subsequently agreed that they had been wrongly included in the list.
If we automatically impose travel bans, provided for in the UN resolution, the details of which may be delegated to a subsidiary body which may act at the behest of a government who are ill disposed towards some of its citizens, we are in danger of committing some injustices.
Even in the Sudanese example that the Minister gave in respect of UN Security Council Resolution 1054, is there not a list of members of the Sudanese
746
Government to whom such restrictions apply? How do we know who the members of the Sudanese Government are? How do we know that, in a similar fashion, a list containing the names of individuals who have nothing to do with the NIF regime will not be supplied to immigration officers? I therefore believe that we need certain further safeguards before we allow this provision to take its place on the statute book.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says. I thought that I had made clear in my response that we felt that we had taken significant cognisance of the points he made at an earlier stage. We believe that we have to approach this matter from the perspective of giving effect to our international obligations. If we are in that position, I believe that we must go along with other UN member states and that we are obliged to exclude. However, we shall take great care in negotiations to ensure that our obligations are appropriate. It is the question of appropriateness on which we must focus our attention.
With the caveats that we have put into place, with the assurance that we shall treat these matters with great care and with the assurance that we shall clearly monitor the situation and continue to keep it under very careful review in ensuring that the legislation is put in place, I invite your Lordships to support this amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he reassure me about the point I raised at the last stage of this Bill; namely, that when lists are drawn up, they will be published in this country so that everybody may know what the position is?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord again raises a very important and valuable point. I can give an assurance that, whenever possible, we will do that. I am quite happy to give that undertaking to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Treatment of certain overstayers]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert ("not less than three years after the coming into force of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. We on these Benches persevere with this set of amendments because many lawyers and voluntary organisations in the area are pressing us so to do. I believe there is an important point of principle to he considered here. The principle is that Parliament should remove or diminish an existing right of appeal only in exceptional circumstances. We do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the provisions in this case.
When we debated comparable amendments on 18th October, I endeavoured to explain, at col. 763 of Hansard, the history of the right of overstayers to appeal. I do not propose to repeat that. We believe that the structure of the Bill is broadly sound, subject to the

747
points we are discussing tonight. These ensure that, from the coming into force of the Bill, the new time-limited, one-stop appeal system will prevail and will achieve the Government's purposes.
However, the amendment refers to a group of finite individuals who are already here. There is no need for the reduction in their right to appeal under the existing law. That is why we suggest two particular amendments: one amendment to extend the appeal period to three years; and the other to give a right of appeal outside the three-year period where there is "reasonable excuse". That is the language that the Government utilise in Clause 73(3)(b) of the Bill.
When this matter was last debated, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, responded to these concerns by saying that the Government and the officials concerned are getting to grips with the problems. We do not disagree that there are major problems; equally, we are quite sure that the Government and the officials are getting to grips with them. We support those efforts. But that does not address the fact that many individuals will be unjustly dealt with if this clause goes through.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that there will not really be a problem because there will be considerable advertising of the new arrangements and the new regularisation period. He said that,
"we intend to use extensively the ethnic minority press. Given the level of interest in the Bill and these particular clauses, I have little doubt that much attention will be drawn to the matter in the press generally".—[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 765.]
That may be right; it may be wrong. But justice must be done in small as well as in large particulars. There is no doubt that many of those who will be unfairly dealt with by these provisions will not see the ethnic minority press. Many have been here for years and will no longer be taking ethnic minority papers, having moved to parts of the United Kingdom where such papers are not available. Advertising in the ethnic minority press is not an answer. That is why we ask the Government to extend the period for appeal and include a reasonable excuse provision.
Perhaps I may read a letter I received this morning from the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service on this very point. He said:
"Only recently, a Turkish family came to see me who had applied for an extension of their leave, had placed their affairs in the hands of someone claiming to be a solicitor, had paid £3,000 on the assurance that their status would be regularised and had discovered that they were overstayers only when the pretended solicitor died—they have still not been able to reclaim their passports and other documents. They are typical"—
that is the word he uses—and this is the Government's own service—
"of many persons who come to us who have remained in this country leading economically and socially active lives in the belief that their affairs are in order or are being rendered so but for whom, under the Bill as drafted by the Government, will lose any right of appeal against removal—however long they have been in the UK. Redressing this wrong is not favouring queue-jumpers or illegal entrants but maintaining a route for justice for those who have entered legally but then overstayed, as has been preserved by both previous Governments".
That puts the matter rather well.
There is an important principle here. The issue should not be dealt with by publicity because the information will not reach all the people concerned. The amendments would not give rise to additional cases because they deal with a finite group. They would not give rise to extra administration because the same number of appeals are in prospect either way—indeed, they might actually improve the situation and help officials by spreading appeals. They would involve no extra public expense; they would lead to a just, fair and proportionate response to the difficulty faced; and they would be a great improvement to the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in particular, Amendment No. 7.
My main concern relates to a particular group of people for whom provision should be made with regard to appeals, particularly in cases where those concerned were not aware of their status in this country. For example, youngsters who came here with their parents and whose parents left the country would not know their legal status in this country. They would assume that they were here legally. They would only find out at a later date that they had been overstayers for many years. They would not have had any reason to believe that the publicity about a regularisation period applied to them.
I have been in correspondence with the Home Office about the case of Ben James. He came to this country at a very early age. Now, after about 17 or 18 years—during which time he has been contributing as a businessman in this country—he is subject to deportation because he overstayed here, not realising his status. The amendments suggested by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury would enable him to have a reasonable excuse. That fact should then be taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering the right of appeal.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation of the amendments given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Perhaps it will assist if I indicate what we have in mind for Clauses 8 and 9. The regularisation period in Clause 8 will end on a prescribed day or the day before Clause 62 comes into force, whichever is the later. Clause 9 comes into force the day after the regularisation period ends; that is to say, either the day after the prescribed day or when Clause 62 comes into force. We are aiming to bring Clause 62 into force when the Human Rights Act comes into force, so the earliest that Clause 9 can come into force is on the same day as the Human Rights Act. We have arrived at the conclusion the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, seeks, but by a different route. I hope that that is sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord on that aspect.

749
I cannot accept Amendment No. 5. The period would end.
"not less than three years after the coming into force of this Act".
But the various provisions of the Bill come into force in instalments. Some—for instance, those listed in Clause 169—come into force on Royal Assent; others,
"on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint",
and,
"different days may be appointed for different purposes".
The amendment would not produce any clarity. It simply is not workable.
The greatest difficulty is that Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together would allow the regularisation period to continue beyond the point at which the new administrative removal powers in Clause 9 come into force. So if someone was identified as an overstayer and removal directions were given, the person concerned would be able, quite legally, to make an application for leave to remain under Clause 8, and the whole process would grind to a halt. There would be no requirement to apply before a particular date. Indeed, it can be seen that there would be every incentive not to do so.
Amendment No. 7 would extend the protection from removal under Clause 9 powers enjoyed by those who have applied under Clause 8, to include not only those who have applied but those who might have applied but had a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Even if the Secretary of State concluded that the person concerned did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to apply, the person will still not be able to be removed under Clause 9 because the amendment gives a further right of appeal to an adjudicator against the decision that he did not have a reasonable excuse.
I hope my explanation that commencement is to be coincident with the Human Rights Act will satisfy the noble Lord. We are back to our old friend, "endless unjustified delays." I understand the point behind his amendments but I am not able to accept them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in the circumstances, I propose to withdraw the amendment. Obviously we on these Benches are not content about the issue of reasonable excuse. I can understand the technical points raised by the noble arid learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am obliged to him for his explanation about the timing and the Human Rights Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Removal of certain persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply when the Member State limits in any way the definition of a refugee in Article 1(A) of the Refugee Convention.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report we on these Benches moved an amendment to leave out what is now Clause 10. We withdrew the amendment because we agreed to wait and see whether anything would emerge from the special council at Tampere to render the amendment obsolete. It soon became apparent that nothing relevant had materialised at Tampere. However, although we have returned to the battle, we are now moving a more limited amendment.
On Report I explained at length the background to our concerns. I shall not do so again, but merely deal with our position in summary fashion. Article 1 of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, to which the United Kingdom and all other European Union states are parties, defines a refugee as,
"any person who é owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".
There is unfortunately a difference of interpretation of this definition among the member states of the European Union. France and Germany say that the convention applies only if persecution is by the state itself or with the complicity of the state. United Kingdom law, as laid down in a landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in July, has said that it is sufficient if the persecution is by a non-state group and the state is unable to prevent it, although I recognise that that appeal decision is itself subject to appeal to the House of Lords. Thus, under the decision of the Court of Appeal, people can be refugees if, for example, they fear persecution by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or by Islamic militants in Algeria, and the governments of Sri Lanka or Algeria are unable to protect them from that persecution.
The difference of interpretation becomes important because, under the Dublin convention, if an asylum seeker enters the European Union through one country and claims asylum in another, the latter is entitled to return the claimant to the country of first entry to have his or her claim determined by that country under its own laws. In a claim based on non-state persecution, if claimants have entered through France or Germany and we return them to that country after they have applied for asylum here in the United Kingdom, they will be refused asylum, even though the United Kingdom would have allowed that claim. That seems to me to be plainly wrong.
Under Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, the Home Secretary could remove a claimant to another country only if he could, among other things, certify that the government of that country would not send the claimant to another country otherwise than in accordance with the refugee convention. On judicial review the Court of Appeal said that the Home Secretary could not give such a certificate where he was proposing to send the claimant to France or Germany, and that claimant's claim was based on non-state persecution. That was because the restrictions on the interpretation of the refugee convention in France and Germany meant that those countries might return a refugee to his country of origin.
Clause 10 would overcome this conclusion, which seemed so awkward for the Government. It does so by saying that a European member state,
"is to be regarded as—
(b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention".
So there is no discretion on the Home Secretary, no certificate for him to sign, and nothing upon which judicial review could bite. The courts are simply required to accept as true something which the Court of Appeal has already decided is not true. That seems to us to be a wholly improper form of legislation.
If the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the refugee convention is right, this clause will involve potential future breaches of United Kingdom obligations under the refugee convention. It is true that the claimant will be able to apply to a court for a declaration under Clause 62 of the Bill, that his or her deportation would be in breach of his or her rights under the Human Rights Act. However, those rights are not as extensive as those outlined in the refugee convention. The Human Rights Act might well regard the threat of a return to the country of origin as a breach of a right to life under Article 3, if that return would create a serious risk to the claimant's life. It is much less likely to be a breach of the Human Rights Act if there is persecution short of the serious threat of death. The right of asylum itself is not a convention right under the Human Rights Act.
For that reason, if one looks back to the situation in the 1930s, one might say that the refugee convention, had it then been in force, would have given Jews the right of asylum in this country if they came from Germany. However, the Human Rights Act would not have done so until they reached a stage considerably later, when it became apparent that it was not only their careers and their property that were under threat, but their very lives.
In the debate on Report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that France and Germany were highly advanced democracies with independent courts and distinguished advocates. So they are. He then went on to say that it was natural that different courts would reach different interpretations of the convention. That is also true. He therefore implied—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not feel that I am being unfair to him—that differences of interpretation are not of crucial importance; that one interpretation is as valid as another; and that there is therefore no reason why we should not return claimants to France or Germany. He said that France and Germany, even when they refuse asylum in a non-state persecution case, can offer alternative forms of protection. That may well be true. However, if that is the case, the Home Secretary could, under the existing law, properly give a certificate in most, if not all, non-state persecution cases.
However, we cannot support this legislation because it removes any need at all for a certificate from the Home Secretary. The legislation will enable the Home
752
Secretary to act, as we see it, in breach of the refugee convention, as interpreted by our courts, without any form of redress.
This amendment is limited in its effect. It simply excludes Clause 10 from operating where a member state interprets the refugee convention in a more limited way than we do. In that case, the Home Secretary would simply have to fall back on Clause 11, which is basically the old law restated. We believe that the amendment deserves support. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I cannot argue the legal case as has my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and I shall not attempt to do so. However, I should like to bring to the attention of the noble and learned Lord developments that may very much affect the way in which Clause 10 operates. I fully appreciate the point made frequently by the Government Front Bench that other EU fellow states are indeed advanced democracies, as my noble friend has said.
I shall not advance the legal arguments because my noble friend Lord Goodhart has done that most effectively. However, I have one concern in that we are well aware that at Tampere the first steps were taken towards what is likely to be a common asylum and immigration policy. We recognise that the Home Secretary has already indicated that he is prepared to move in that direction, in line with other EU member states. One of the characteristics of such a common policy, as set out in the Tampere summit statement, is that there would be common standards of treatment of refugees and asylum seekers under the refugee convention. That is the point at which my noble friend's distinction between the interpretation of the refugee convention by our own courts and those of other EU courts becomes of significant importance.
I should like to adduce two examples which come very much to mind. First, we have seen a considerable extension of the use of paramilitaries, although responsibility for them is denied by the state under which they appear to operate. A recent example is the denial by the Indonesian Government of any responsibility whatever for what were known as the militias in East Timor. The noble and learned Lord will remember that on many occasions from the Front Bench opposite it was indicated by the Government before there was an intervention in East Timor that they had the difficulty of getting the Indonesian Government to accept any responsibility for the behaviour of the militia and for the fact that they appeared to have access to extremely modern arms.
Paramilitaries have also been used in other states. They have been used in E1 Salvador, Guatemala and several others. In almost every case the government concerned have denied any responsibility for them. One has here a grey area which would certainly put anyone "refouled", for example, to East Timor a couple of months ago in very considerable danger. It is not plain that under Clause 10 that could not happen if they were returned to a country that does not recognise non-state persecution.

753
The final issue I want to raise concerns the combination of the move towards a common asylum and immigration policy with the enlargement of the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union has among the first group of countries intending to join in the near future the Czech Re public and, in the second group, Romania. In both cases reports are coming out of the treatment of Roma which amounts to extreme persecution. In some cases it is recognised by the state and in other cases it is denied by the state but is conducted by local authorities.
Indeed, I understand from a discussion I had only two days ago that the position of Roma in certain east European and central European states is becoming completely intolerable. They are being persecuted, driven out of the towns in which they live, told that they cannot have any work, told that they cannot send their children to school, and so on. Therefore, in considering a common asylum policy, it is important that the United Kingdom upholds the general principle that refugees should not be "refouled" to a country in which their lives and the lives of their families might be in danger or in which there would be very serious persecution.
It may be that the noble and learned Lord or his colleague will be able to say a little more about that. It is one of the reasons why we have been quite tedious about this clause. We recognise that it could be a building block for a future European common asylum and immigration policy.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to help to clarify the situation by giving an example of the concept of non-state persecution. It comes from our own territory. I say this without wishing to make the least criticism of the actions of Her Majesty's Government in this context. It concerns those two teenagers who were expelled from the town of Dungannon on the instructions of the IRA. Two masked men visited their parish priest and told him that for the teenagers' own safety they should leave Northern Ireland immediately. One might perhaps think that those words gave them a well founded fear of persecution. They were, by reason of such fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of the British Government, which I am sure would have been extended to them to the limits of the British Government's power in the town of Dungannon—that limit being a real one. Under the circumstances, they chose to leave. In most countries that should have given them a claim to refugee status under the UN convention. But had they made that claim in France or Germany, because France and Germany do not recognise the concept of non-state persecution, they would have been severely at risk of finding themselves shipped back, if not directly to Dungannon then a t least to Belfast. In circumstances such as those, lives may very well be at risk.
The point at issue has applied in the past, particularly clearly to Somalia. For a while Somalia has been an area where in effect there is no state. Departments of strategic studies, including the one in which my son was recently a student, used Somalia as a classic illustration
754
of the state of war in which there was no state. Therefore, if one applies the French and German interpretation of the UN convention, no one from Somalia, however great the danger to his life, can possibly be a refugee. The effects of such a doctrine are clearly unfortunate. So there are practical matters at stake in whether we return refugees to France or Germany under the safe third-country rule.
It is not the only point, either, where differences in the interpretation of the UN convention may create very serious risks to people returned to a safe third-country. The point about a safe third country is not whether it is a country with liberty, rule of law and democracy. We on these Benches would not for one moment wish to dispute what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said about France and Germany in this context. The point about a safe third country is whether it is safe for that person.
During the proceedings on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 we heard of a case of someone who was to be returned to Belgium under the safe third-country rule but had been illegally present in Belgium because, as is common with refugees, he had achieved an illegal entry. Under Belgian practice he would therefore, for reasons directly contrary to the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the Adimi case, have been returned to Zaire, clearly at some risk to his life. In that case the Court of Appeal overrode the return to the safe third country with no criticism intended of the general safety of the third country.
There is one further question on which I should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's opinion. I refer to the interpretation by the judges of international treaties to which this country is party. Those treaties clearly have a meaning. The judges clearly have to interpret it. The question I want to ask is whether, how far, or in what circumstances Parliament can direct the judges to interpret international agreements to mean things other than they appear to the judges to mean. This is a quite delicate area of relations between Parliament and the judiciary. I am delighted that we have the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the Front Bench to consider it because it is a question which is very proper to his post. I await his answer to this question with considerable curiosity.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may give example with regard to which I have been in correspondence with the Home Office. It concerns an Algerian who was resident in France but was convicted there of an offence of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism—in a special court which the French have for dealing with that category of offences, criticism of which has been made by many distinguished British lawyers. This Algerian was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, at the end of which he was served with a notice of exclusion from France stating that he would commit a criminal offence if he set foot on French soil within the next 10 years. The Algerian got on a Eurostar train and arrived in Waterloo. We immediately put him in Belmarsh. He was there until I interceded on his behalf, pleading that he did not constitute a threat to the security of Great Britain and

755
that he was not likely to commit any offence if he was released. In due course he was granted temporary admission while the authorities decided what to do with him. Under the Dublin convention, ostensibly they could have sent him back to France, but if they had done that he would have been subject to severe penalties for infringing the exclusion order which had been served on him.
The situation is not quite as clear cut as we find in the Bill. It is not always the correct thing to do to send people back to European countries simply because on the whole they have a similar attitude to ours on the process of asylum. There are particular circumstances—the question of Algerians in France is one of them—where such a very different view is taken of those people and of their right to asylum that it would not be correct or consonant with our view of human rights to send people back to those countries.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is Third Reading, and we have been over this ground. I am intrigued that on this occasion noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches are emphasising the differences between the United Kingdom and other EU states and are arguing in their amendment for a type of opt-out. It indicates the importance of our remaining in control of our own immigration policy. It also indicates the desirability of achieving agreement, as far as possible, between ourselves and other countries on the interpretation of treaties and immigration control generally. The debate has also shown that there will be plenty of opportunities for lawyers arising out of this legislation, although one of the Bill's purposes was supposed to be to speed up procedures and provide fewer opportunities for what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred to earlier as "lawyers wriggling". On this occasion it provides opportunity for exactly that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment achieves the effect that the noble Lord desires. The amendment seeks to exclude from the provisions of Clause 10 any member state which "limits in any way" the definition of a refugee in Article 1A. Therefore, although some of the questions and examples are of deep interest, they do not go to the point of the amendment.
As I read the amendment, it would bite only where the member state deliberately acts in breach of the convention by not accepting any aspect of the definition in Article 1A. Would a member state with a "limited" view of Article 1A be excluded from Clause 10 even in those cases to which that "limited" view was not relevant? Therefore, simply on those drafting points, I am not able to accept the amendment.
However, we have a more fundamental disagreement. A number of references have been made to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal. I shall be sparing in my observations and simply respond to the points made. As we understand the judgment, it is clear that the Court of Appeal did not necessarily find that individual applicants would fail to receive in France
756
and Germany protection as required by the refugee convention. The court did not consider whether particular applicants might have had access to necessary protection. It was not a live issue, as my right honourable friend had agreed to consider the cases substantively. However, the court did accept that other forms of protection could satisfy the requirement in Article 33 of the convention.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made comments regarding France and Germany, and I shall not repeat them. I merely point out that France, besides the 1951 convention, has territorial asylum, constitutional asylum and a specific prohibition on removal where that would be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Germany has protective powers under both Section 53 and Section 54 of its Aliens Law. It seems to us that the amendment would allow any claimant to say that in his or her individual circumstances there was an argument on Article 1A. That takes matters back to the possibility of continuing and considerable delay and we believe that the provision would simply not be workable.
Three particular questions were raised. First, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the interrelationship between international treaty obligations, the courts and Parliament. The noble Earl will find a useful review and exposition of that in the case of Factortame, which was decided judicially by this House last week. It was held that claims might be sustainable against the United Kingdom Government, as a result of the introduction—I have to say, by the previous government—of various statutory regimes relating to what has been referred to in the popular prints as quota-hopping by Spanish fishermen. So there is an interesting exposition there. It is far more learned and lengthy than your Lordships are entitled to receive from me this evening.
The noble Earl also raised the question of Somalia. My understanding is that no European Union state returns anyone routinely to Somalia. It is my understanding that France and Germany do not do so at all.
The noble Baroness asked about the Czech Republic. She knows better than I that the conditions for joining the European Union are extremely stringent. They require various, quite heavy obligations on candidate members to demonstrate that the candidate state is equipped to apply the various relevant instruments appropriately.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we discussed this matter at some length earlier. I shall therefore turn to the government amendments. On Report, I indicated during our discussion on Clause 13 that there would be some relatively minor consequential amendments. These are those amendments.
Clauses 10 and 11 refer to Section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. By the time the clauses are brought into force, Section 6 will have been replaced by Clause 13 of this Bill. Clause 13 will come into force on Royal Assent. Clauses 10 and 11 will be brought into force later. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11

757
will therefore replace the references to Section 6 with appropriate references. Clause 13 applies with retrospective effect. It will be as if Clause 13 had always applied and Section 6 had never existed. The final amendment in the group is designed to tidy up those drafting amendments. When in due course we come to the amendments, I shall seek to move them.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's reply. However, to reply in one sentence, I do not believe that it is proper to require, by statute, a court to assume as a fact something that may or may not be true. That is a wholly improper form of legislation. It appears to have been done, so far as we can see, merely as a device in order to obviate the possibility of a certificate from the Home Secretary being the subject of judicial review. That said, we do not believe it appropriate to press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 32, leave out from ("section") to ("prevents") in line 33 and insert (" 13").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("section") to ("prevents") in line 13 and insert (" 13").
Page 7, line 28, leave out from ("section") to ("prevents") in line 29 and insert (" 13").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
ESCORTS FOR PERSONS REMOVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM UNDER DIRECTIONS
(" .—(1) Directions for, or requiring arrangements to be made for, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom may include, or be amended to include, provision for the person who is to be removed to be accompanied by an escort consisting of one or more persons specified in the directions.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3) The regulations may, in particular, include provision—

(a) requiring the person to whom the directions are given to provide for the return of the escort to the United Kingdom;

(b) requiring him to bear such costs in connection with the escort (including, in particular, remuneration) as may be prescribed;

(c) as to the cases in which the Secretary of State is to bear those costs;

(d) prescribing the, kinds of expenditure which are to count in calculating the costs incurred in connection with escorts.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who were present during the discussion at Report stage will be aware that when someone is removed from the United Kingdom the costs of removal are borne either by the carrying company or by the Secretary of State depending on the particular circumstances.
Although it does not happen all that frequently, occasionally the necessity arises for removals to be escorted. That may be on medical grounds, where the person being removed has a medical condition which does not in itself prevent that person from travelling but which may require treatment during travel. More often, it will be because the person being removed has behaved in a disruptive manner, or has attempted or threatened violence either to himself or others.
Most carrying companies accept that escorts are part and parcel of the removal of particular individuals. Indeed, they have duties as to the safety of their other passengers and the crew. However, some argue that the power to give directions for someone's removal is limited to the individual concerned and either refuse point blank to provide for, and pay for, escorts or try to avoid having to pay after the event.
I believe that most people would accept that, where an escort is required, it is a necessary part of the cost of removing the person concerned. As I said, many carriers already accept that that is the case. The law is clear that in certain circumstances the removal costs are to be borne by the carrier who brought the person concerned to this country. Amendment No. 12 makes clear that, where an escort is needed in order to remove someone, the removal directions extend to cover that. The amendment puts the matter beyond doubt and will ensure a consistency of approach between carriers.
The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the provision of escorts. The regulations will cover such matters as arranging for the return of the escorts to the United Kingdom and the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, the costs of the escort are payable by the carrier. They will be subject to the negative resolution procedure which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has concluded is appropriate in these circumstances.
In view of some of the concerns expressed when we debated this matter on Report, I should make it clear that the need for escorts is the exception rather than the rule. If a carrier believes that an escort is not necessary in a particular case, we shall be happy to discuss it and to explain our reasons. If the carrier continues to be aggrieved, he can, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said, challenge the decision by way of judicial review. But there are important considerations of safety here: the safety of the person being removed, of other passengers, and possibly even of the aircraft itself. If our honest assessment was that a particular person required an escort, it would be worse than irresponsible, if not foolish, to fail to make provision for it.
This amendment does not alter the present balance between those cases where the cost of removal falls on the carrier and those where the removal is at public

759
expense. We propose that a carrier should pay for an escort only where he is required to pay for the removal itself. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, where someone is to be removed, there are only two possible ways in which this can be paid for: either the carrier meets the removal costs or the taxpayer must foot the bill. We provide training to carriers about the documentary requirements, but ultimately there is a risk that a particular individual will be refused entry and the carrier will be required to remove him. That is a commercial risk and I do not accept that the taxpayer should be expected to underwrite it.
Finally, in the debate on Report the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked what would be the legal position of an escort if the person removed were to be summarily executed on his arrival at the airport. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the passenger manifest would allow someone who was being deported to be identified. Again at the risk of stating the obvious, if someone is to be hauled off and shot the moment he arrives in a particular country, we should not remove the individual to that country in the first place, with or without an escort. However, were it to happen, I do not see how the escort, or escorts, could be held in any way responsible.
The marking of passenger manifests is a matter for the carrying companies. I understand that in practice most companies denote enforced removals in some way, but not necessarily the reason for the removal. The carrier will not necessarily be aware of the reason. Although I acknowledge the risk which prompted the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to raise this matter, the real point is that if someone would be in danger, we should not remove him or her in the first place.
The designation "enforced removal" (or whatever term the company chooses to use) on the passenger manifest may result from a range of reasons and cover all the circumstances in which someone may be removed from this country. It will cover much more than political dissidents and opponents of the regime. If they would be genuinely at risk, such people should not be on the manifest in the first place because they should not be removed. I hope that this clarification is helpful to noble Lords who asked questions earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, Amendment No. 13:
Line 6, at end insert—
("( ) If the person to whom directions are given objects to the directions, the Secretary of State may, with the agreement of that person, appoint an arbitrator who shall review the directions and make recommendations and the directions shall be amended to give effect to these recommendations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to remind noble Lords that on the previous occasion when we debated this matter the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said that all of the points that we then raised were reasonable. However, he did not deal with them in any detail because at that stage the clause was being withdrawn as one of those matters to be referred to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and
760
Deregulation. We have since heard from British Airways in particular that it knows nothing about these provisions. One takes a dim view of that, given that the Government have introduced new rules relating to charges to be imposed on carriers. Presumably, if they did not tell British Airways none of the other airlines knew either. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree when he replies that it is a little off the mark to impose important new financial burdens on airlines without taking the trouble to inform them and give them the opportunity to raise any points that they see fit.
The noble Lord is probably aware that British Airways already pays for escorts on a per diem basis although, as he implied in moving his amendment, some other airlines have challenged those arrangements. That is probably why we need this fresh legislation. British Airways says, I believe reasonably, that it should not have to bear such costs where the passenger's documentation is in order but he is refused admission for some other reason which cannot have been within its knowledge. What is the response of the Government?
The noble Lord said that only two parties could pay these costs: the airline or the Government. It is a matter of natural justice that the airline should not have to pay the costs when it has been through all the procedures suggested to it by the Government. The Minister said that the Government provided training on the requirements. One assumes, as inevitably must happen, that in particular cases the airline has followed all the recommendations of the Government but an individual with good documentation is nevertheless stopped at Heathrow and sent back. Why should the airline have to foot the bill?
British Airways is anxious about the wording of the provisions for several reasons, some of which we debated on a previous occasion. If the reason for the clause is to plug loopholes which allow some carriers to evade the obligations which BA voluntarily assumes the airlines should be told, what are those loopholes? As we noted on the previous occasion, the phrase "one or more" in relation to the escorts means that in theory a direction can specify an unnecessarily large number of escorts, and no mechanism is provided to challenge that decision. We also need to know what is meant by,
"such costs … as may be prescribed",
given that the remuneration of escorts is already mentioned on the face of the Bill.
We need to be assured that these powers are to be used sparingly and modestly. Yet I suggest to the Minister that it would be unnecessarily cumbersome if every time an airline objected, it had to seek judicial review. The Minister referred to listening to protests from airlines in particular cases, but I want to formalise that process. For that reason, my amendment provides for an arbitration procedure which is a simple mechanism to allow a carrier to appeal against a direction. If the arbitrator upholds the

761
objection, that direction can be amended. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that this is a reasonable and modest amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, on a number of occasions the Minister referred, obviously, to airports and airlines, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when moving his amendment. Would Clause 12 and the amendments moved by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if accepted, cover the Channel tunnel and Euros tar?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury. There is a need occasionally to be a little fairer in proposing legislation. In this particular case, the noble Lord spoke about the extent to which the Home Office was involved in the training of carriers with regard to the documentation of passengers brought to this country. I am well aware of this. As one who holds a British passport, at various posts abroad I must still undergo rigorous checks about the validity of my passport.
However, putting that aside, if the airlines follow precisely the instructions and training given by the Home Office and the passenger destroys the documentation after landing in this country, we cannot hold the airlines responsible for such action. It is right and proper that in such cases the Home Office should look at other means of recovering the costs rather than asking the airlines to pay.
What consultation on the clause has taken place with airlines and other forms of transport which bring people to this country?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have no personal criticism of the Ministers on the Front Bench. However, little or no notice has been given of this new clause of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, correctly cited, this amendment—my noble and learned friend withdrew it after discussion on Report—was tabled only on the Thursday before the Report stage of the Bill on the Monday.
I have consulted two important members of the industry: first, the Board of Airline Representatives (UK)—BAR(UK)—represents a large number of the overseas carriers who bring millions of passengers to this country; and, secondly, British Airways. Both have told me that not only were there no consultations, they did not even k now the clause had been tabled until they read Hansard the next day. It is, therefore, not surprising that the air carriers have some concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, identified their concern on whether they are expected to pick up the costs of taking passengers back under escort to the country of origin when, for example, the airlines have not been at fault. Noble Lords will remember that under Clause 37 (as it now is) there is release from the provisions in this clause when passengers arrive without proper documents. Specifically, Clause 37(4) states that no charge is payable when the airline operator can show that the passenger in question
762
produced the proper documentation at the place of embarkation. The question raised by the airline industry is that if that concession is given—I suggest, correctly given—under the provisions of Clause 37, can they also be given it under the provisions of the new Clause 12?
The airline industry is also anxious to know 'what tests are to be applied as regards the number of escorts. One would think that two escorts would be sufficient with the passenger being handcuffed on both sides. After all, unless he is a very peculiar passenger, he will have only two arms. But there has been a suggestion that there may be need of medical escorts—a doctor, nurse and so forth—and the airline industry, which is having to pay for the escorting of that passenger to the country of origin, and then for the escorts to return here, wish to know what criteria are to be applied on the number of escorts.
There is also the issue of costs. Subsection (3)(b) of the new clause states that the Secretary of State may introduce regulations requiring the airline to bear such costs in connection with the escort, in particular the remuneration of those who are carrying out the escort duties. Again, that is an area over which the airline industry is reasonably concerned.
Finally, on the adjudication of any dispute between an airline and the Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, introduced a sensible amendment. In the timetable to which we are working, it may not be possible for my noble friends on the Front Bench to accept that amendment as drafted. For example, it leaves open whether or not the arbitration is to be binding. If it were to be binding it may give some concern to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I ask, therefore, whether my noble friends can accept the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and agree that there should be some form of dispute resolution process.
On Report my noble and learned friend Lord Williams referred to judicial review as a means of dispute resolution. But as my noble and learned friend and I know—from his days at the Bar, and from my days at the Bar and as a solicitor—the system of judicial review is hardly geared to deciding such issues as costs, the number of escorts and so on. Under our process of judicial review, the courts rightly will not intervene unless a manifestly wrong decision has been made. It takes a great deal of time to prepare the papers for judicial review. A single judge has to give leave. If the single judge does not give leave, one goes to open court. Even if one could get the case into the courts, having gained the requisite leave for it, the matter could take up to 12 months. That is ridiculous when dealing with an issue which could fall under the new Clause 12. Clearly, there should be a dispute resolution process which can work under a tight timetable. I suggest that it should be non-binding. An arbitrator could give a recommendation to the Secretary of State and he could then make a decision.

763
For all those reasons, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will be able to help.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it has become clear again, as it became clear in our earlier debates, that the way the Bill has been thrown together has made it difficult for British Airways and others to keep up with what is happening and to make valid points to your Lordships. It is not a satisfactory way to put together legislation with, in this case, considerable effects on airlines and other people. I almost said "cobbled" together but I thought that that might be unfair to shoemakers, whose art is important to me at the moment.
On a similar point, when we dealt with the facilities to be provided free to the immigration authorities at airports by airport authorities, the Government were urged to provide for arbitration. Instead, they decided to build in a system of independent advice to be given to the Secretary of State in case of dispute. I should have thought that that was quite a good way to deal with this question rather than the more formal arbitration suggested in the amendment.
I suspect that the answer to my noble friend Lord Bathurst is yes. I believe that these provisions apply to Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel and to all other carriers, not just the airlines although we have concentrated on them in this debate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have asked questions and opened up the debate. It has been helpful and constructive.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did not think that BA was consulted. I can confirm that, in absolute terms, that is the case although we announced at, I think, Second Reading that we would be introducing these provisions. BA is somewhat on the side of the angels in this issue. It meets the costs reasonably charged and asked for in these cases. Having heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Hacking about consultation, it is clear that we ought to talk more with the aviation companies. I can undertake to do so in order that they are fully aware of the effect of the provisions we intend to introduce.
I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, that the measures may well apply to Eurostar and the Channel tunnel. That enables us to extend the provisions to Eurostar and we may well wish to look at them in the future.
It is important to keep a sense of proportion about what we are trying to achieve. I assure the House that we shall be proportionate and reasonable in the way in which we seek to introduce these measures.
I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in moving his amendment. He seeks to address in a slightly different way the issue of possible disputes about the need for an escort. At first, I thought that his amendment was being extremely generous to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. First, the terms of the amendment are
764
discretionary, not mandatory. He may appoint an arbitrator, but he does not have to do so. Secondly, according to the noble Lord's amendment, the Secretary of State is a party to the disagreement, but can appoint the arbitrator. That is another generous move.
However, the terms of the amendment do not make it clear whether the carrier has to agree to a case being referred to an arbitrator in the first place or whether the carrier has a right of veto over the choice of arbitrator as well.
On closer inspection, perhaps the proposals are not so generous. First, the arbitrator's recommendations are binding only on the Secretary of State. He has to amend the recommendations if the arbitrator says so, but there is nothing that compels the carrier to accept them. It is even possible, although unlikely, that the initial directions would stipulate an escort of two people and the arbitrator could increase that to three or four. Presumably, the carrier would object even more strongly to that number of escorts, but the Secretary of State would be obliged to insist on that number even though he considered it excessive.
Secondly, and more importantly, the amendment would apply to an objection to any part of the directions and could apply to the fact that the person was being required to remove someone rather than the fact that the person would be escorted. There are no arbitration arrangements for the majority of removals and I see no reason to introduce such arrangements piecemeal, as would the noble Lord's amendment.
Thirdly, the arbitration system could presumably be invoked to cover cases where the cost of the removal and escort were being met by the Secretary of State. Presumably, the Secretary of State would be required to meet the costs of arbitration and in some circumstances might find it cheaper to arrange for removal at public expense, even though in all fairness it would be reasonable to expect the carrier to meet the costs in that case. I assure your Lordships that it is not our intention to be unreasonable in the application of costs for escorts.
Finally, the carrier would still be able to apply for judicial review of the arbitrator's conclusions. I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, but I have to say that in my view it is a detour, a diversion, rather than a solution to the problem. I hope that in the light of that explanation he will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he mentioned that there had not been adequate consultation with the airlines and the carriers. Will the consultation take place before the matter is considered by the Commons when the Bill returns to them and, if an amendment is necessary, will the Government consider it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I could not possibly give an absolute confirmation that that would be the case. However, I am prepared to say that we shall discuss these matters as appropriate with British

765
Airways and other airlines and shall seek to take their views on board as far as we can. We are content with what we are proposing. We believe that it is reasonable in the circumstances. After all, airlines operate for commercial gain and carry passengers for that very purpose. They accept in general terms and in most cases that this is not an unreasonable charge on their commercial activities. I trust that your Lordships will accept that argument.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the Minister say that there are arbitration arrangements for the majority of removals. That was not the impression I gained from British Airways. The company expressed anxiety about parts of the new clause which appear to be open-ended. The number of escorts was an important point, but anxiety was expressed about the subsection referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, which states:
"requiring him to bear such costs in connection with the escort … as may be prescribed".
That is totally open-ended.
We do not have the faintest idea what the Government have in mind and what kind of costs are involved. Will they include the escort's drink on board the aircraft? Will he stay in a five-star hotel in Tangier? What kind of costs might the Secretary of State prescribe in connection with subsection (3)(b)? What kinds of expenditure will count in calculating costs incurred in connection with escorts?
The open-ended nature of the provisions in the new clause worries the airlines and I seriously believe that there is a necessity for urgent consultation with British Airways and all the other carriers. I wish that the Minister had been able to give the House an assurance that if the consultations disclosed a serious gap, and the arbitration arrangements which he says already exist do not cover any of the provision of the subsection, the matter will be dealt with when the Bill returns to another place.

That is one of the disadvantages of such an issue being raised at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. There is no time for consultations to take place, for your Lordships to consider them, or even for Members of another place to take them into account. We must accept the Minister's assurances that in applying these powers, it is not the intention to be unreasonable.
I hate to rely on such an assurance given across the Floor of the House because, as has been said on many previous occasions, although one may be certain that assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be honoured, we are legislating for other circumstances and future governments who may not be quite so scrupulous. Therefore, it is with the greatest reluctance that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment N o. 13, as an amendment to Amendment No. 12, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Protection of claimants from removal or deportation]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("during that period") and insert ("at the same time as, or after, notice of the decision on the claim is given to him").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment refers to Clause 13, which is surprisingly entitled "Protection of claimants from removal or deportation", but which actually relates to the arrangements for the removal or deportation of people whose claim for asylum has failed.
The point addressed by the amendment is small., but when we discussed it earlier there seemed to be some sympathy for it. A notice of removal or a deportation order should be able to be served at the same time as, but not before, the notice of the decision to refuse asylum.
I acknowledge that often it will be desirable that the notice of the decision to refuse should be accompanied by the arrangements for the removal and the notice of removal or the deportation order. It is not right that those documents should be served on someone before he has been told that his asylum claim has been refused. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to make two points. I noticed that in a previous debate on this issue, the noble and learned Lord said:
"The directions will not be served until there is a decision on the claim".—[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 785.]
In the wording of Clause 13, on whom are the directions for his removal to be served? What concerns me is that, whether or not a decision on a claim has been made, if it were to be served on the individual before he had been notified of that decision, it would be emotionally a tough moment for him. I suggest that that would be wrong. Surely it must be right for the notice to be served on him at the same time as the directions? That would seem to me absolutely logical.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must reply to that last observation because I believe that we are in general agreement. We discussed this matter on Report. The present Section 6 of the 1993 Act prevents what the noble Viscount believed was sensible—the simultaneous service by post of the asylum decision and removal directions. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount said. That is a sensible and humane way of dealing with the notification, but at present under Section 6 the removal directions cannot be given until the applicant has been notified. He is notified only when he receives the letter. We want to be able to provide the removal directions at the same time as the letter. Most people would believe it sensible for both to arrive in one envelope, and that is what we want.
I understand that there was trouble in people's minds about whether or not something improper might happen in the sequence of decision and notification, or rather, notification and decision. I

767
make it clear—as I believe that this is the purpose of the amendments tabled and of the noble Viscount's observations—that where someone has applied for asylum, a deportation order will not be signed, let alone served, unless and until we have concluded that the person concerned is not a refugee.
Similarly, where an illegal entrant has claimed asylum, removal directions will not be set until the application has been considered and we have decided that he should be removed. We will not set removal directions first and ask questions afterwards. It would be irrational, and I do not believe that such a system would survive the scrutiny of the courts. Therefore, what we want—and I believe that this is common to all three of us—is the sensible opportunity to provide both documents in one envelope, so that there is a degree of security from the public point of view and an absence of a feeling of unfairness from the point of view of the individual concerned. I hope that that assurance, which I have given in as clear terms as I possibly can, will satisfy both the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Supply of information to Secretary of State]:
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 13, after ("means") insert ("for the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the provision of support for asylum-seekers and their dependants under Part VI and for the purposes of subsections (1)(a) to (d) and (f)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment should refer to new subsection (1)(e) and not (d) as printed on the Marshalled List, which relates to support providers under Section 93. I apologise to the House for the error in drafting, which I noticed only at the last minute.
The amendment concerns information given to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes by those providing support. The amendment would limit the effect of the new government amendment to this clause which could otherwise override or conflict with their contractual obligations.
Your Lordships will remember that I moved an amendment on Report warning of the possible consequences of the Bill for non-governmental organisations working with asylum seekers, who might be assumed, especially if they were Home Office funded or contracted, to be subject to the same legislation as the Home Office and government institutions. I still believe that there is a grave risk of compromising the work of those organisations.
The new amendment seeks to address the remaining concern of many voluntary agencies about the possible conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality which might arise for support providers under Sections 93 or 97. They argue that the new amendment is necessary following the new government amendment which
768
inserts subsection (1)(e) into Clause 18. It is designed to avoid any clash between their charitable duties and their obligations, which are fully understood, under the rest of the clause. If that is not done, what guarantee of confidentiality could they give to their clients, and what relationship of trust would remain if they knew that they might, at any time, be required to disclose information on matters unrelated to their professional work? I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as a person connected with a good many voluntary organisations, I can well understand the point that my noble friend has just made about a potential conflict of duties. It is one which I hope that the Government will take most seriously.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment relates to the new subsection which we introduced into Clause 18 on Report. The intention of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of the clause is to ensure that a contractor with whom we have made arrangements to provide support is able to pass on information which he might gain to the Secretary of State. That might be information about the circumstances of the asylum seeker and his need for support. It might cover such matters as whether the composition of the asylum seeker's household, and therefore his need for accommodation of a particular character, had changed. It might highlight other additional needs the asylum seeker had. It might also reveal that the asylum seeker was in fact engaged in employment when he was debarred from doing so. I believe that it is legitimate that the Secretary of State should have access to such information from a contractor.
We should see information passed under the provisions of this subsection as being primarily concerned with the support of asylum seekers, but we would not want to limit it entirely to that context. There will be circumstances, which we hope will be few and far between, where an asylum seeker engages in some sort of unlawful activity. I have already mentioned illegal working, but another example would be facilitating the entry of other persons who were here unlawfully.
It is legitimate that a contractor should be able to pass on such information to the Secretary of State. Contractors are not generally in the business of monitoring an asylum seeker's behaviour; for example, his continued involvement in political activities. There is no power under Clause 18 for contractors to pass such information to the Home Secretary or to any other agency. But we do need to ensure that immigration law is properly observed, and we consider it essential that contractors should assist us in that task.
We do not see this issue as primarily concerning the voluntary sector. It concerns private sector contractors and local authorities with which the Secretary of State contracts. As far as we can see, there would be no requirement for voluntary organisations to, as it were, "spy" on asylum seekers. What

769
information they provide to the Secretary of State will be a matter of contract concerning the management of accommodation and such matters. I therefore ask the noble Earl not to press this amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I fully understand the intentions of the clause and the obligations which voluntary organisations have. Nevertheless, there is a risk of a conflict of interest and it remains a grey area. I wanted only to draw attention to it today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
SUPPLY OF INFORMATION BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO ASYLUM-SEEKERS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that information is provided to asylum-seekers detained under the Immigration Acts and whose cases have yet to be determined on the probable length of their detention.
(2) The information in subsection (1) above may be given orally or otherwise, but shall not form the basis for any subsequent legal or other proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandwich. I begin by reminding your Lordships that at 30th September this year, more than half of the 985 people detained under the Immigration Act were held in prisons and not in detention centres. I have that information from a government Written Answer in another place.
At earlier stages of the Bill, much concern was expressed about the arbitrary nature of detention in cases which have yet to be decided and its uncertain length. The visitors to detention centres are unhappy about this and point out the damaging effect of the uncertainty on the mental health of detainees. I quoted from the only medical study on this subject which confirmed the ill effects.
The UNHCR's London office is also concerned. It points out that under the Bill,
"no routine bail hearings are foreseen after the 36th day of detention, ignoring the fact that the longer detention lasts, the more pressing is the need for judicial scrutiny".
It states also that bail hearings held in prisons or detention centres will not be open to the public or in generally accessible public places, and therefore will not be perceived as impartial or independent. In my view, Her Majesty's Government would not be right to rely too heavily on bail hearings as an all-purpose remedy in cases of detention.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for undertaking, at col. 1259 of the Official Report of 20th October, to consider the giving to detainees of indications of the likely length of their detention. However, it was disappointing when, in a letter dated 27th October which has been circulated to a number of noble Lords, the noble Lord wrote that such indications would be likely to arouse false expectations. However, he went on to state that detainees are informed monthly of the progress of their
770
cases. When the Minister replies, will he please say how this system works; who does the informing; and whether it is always done in a language understood by the detainee? Is the connection between progress of the case and continued detention properly explained?
If there is a system and if it is working well, that seems to make it fairly easy for the Government to accept my first amendment. It merely puts on the face of the Bill the substance, as I understand it, of the present system. I observe that it is also narrowly drawn because it refers only to asylum seekers whose cases have yet to be determined. Subsection (2) provides that information may be given either orally or in writing and shall not become the basis for subsequent proceedings.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 59, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandwich, is slightly wider in that it could cover all Immigration Act detainees. However, it is less demanding in that it requires the Secretary of State only to publish guidance about the maximum length of detention in individual cases.
Therefore, the Government have a choice set out before them as between the two amendments. This evening I should most like to hear an explanation of the present or proposed arrangements for informing detainees not only why they are being held, but also how long it is expected to continue. Detention may be a necessary evil, but its bad effects should be mitigated as much as possible. Uncertainty is certainly one of those bad effects. I beg to move.
6 P.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I understand the motivation behind this amendment. However, with respect, I believe that in certain respects it is impractical. If the amendment had been to the effect that if, after a period of time—say, three months—the asylum seeker remained in custody, certain information should be given to him then, and perhaps periodically after that, I should have had much more sympathy with it. However, that may be difficult to do in the initial period, as seems borne out by experience. Perhaps I should have attempted to amend the amendment and I was derelict in my duty in that regard. I wish to make that point to the noble Lord.
Perhaps in any event it is a matter which can be dealt with informally. It is a matter of practice and procedure which does not have to be embodied in the Bill. When my noble friend replies to this debate, perhaps he will give some indication of the practice which I believe, as a matter of natural justice, should be followed in dealing with such a situation.
Such people are not detained as a result of having committed criminal offences. It is quite a different situation for them. However, when it comes to someone who is still waiting—and there are many instances of people waiting a long period of time for information about when their case will finally be dealt with—I believe that some provision ought to be made.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has done the House a service by raising this issue at this stage of the Bill. Perhaps it is a pity that when these matters

771
were last discussed I was delayed at the Council of Europe. However, I believe it is important that my noble friend the Minister should take this extremely seriously.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, feels, for reasons he has eloquently given, that Amendment No. 17 would not meet the problems to which he has adverted, perhaps I may recommend that he looks at Amendment No. 59, also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as that amendment refers specifically to guidance on the length of detention.
I believe that all your Lordships are concerned about what may give the impression of an unlimited power to detain. Certainly, those of us who have met the remarkable members of the voluntary groups who try to visit detention centres are very much aware of the concern expressed by them about the mental effects on people of not knowing—or, indeed, of not having any idea—of the length of time for which they might be detained. At the heart of this group of amendments lies concern about detainees not being given regular information on how long their detention will continue despite the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said, they have committed no crime, have been charged with no offence and have been found guilty of no offence of any kind. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. One appealing facet of Amendment No. 17 is subsection (2). As far as I can see, there is no provision on whether the guidance becomes justiciable in Amendment No. 59. I believe that that would be unfortunate because such cases sometimes become protracted and difficult. I should not wish to see the guidance become justiciable.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will address that issue. My impression was that it would not become a justiciable matter, but the noble Earl will no doubt say whether or not that is correct. I believe that the word "guidance" would not normally carry the implication of being justiciable, but I may be wrong.
In this group of amendments, I should like to refer also to Amendment No. 60 which stands in my name. That amendment limits to 72 hours the period that a detainee can spend in prison. Again, in that regard, I advert to the fact that those who deal with detainees are particularly concerned about their being sent to prison. Obviously, many of our prisons have no adequate resources for dealing with detainees, especially those who may be going through a period of extreme nervous strain; who may in fact be the victims of torture; and so on. As many of our prisons are, in any case, over-crowded, they are the last places to which detainees should be sent.
Rather than suggest that there should be no admission to prison at all, we included a limit of 72 hours because we recognise that there may be
772
immediate situations that cannot be dealt with by a detention centre. Certainly, it would be extremely encouraging if the Government could give us some indication that, wherever possible, they will avoid sending to prison an asylum seeker or refugee and that, where that is absolutely unavoidable, it will be made clear that it must be for the minimum possible time.
To save time perhaps I may also refer to Amendment No. 28, which is an amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to which he will no doubt speak. In the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill I was particularly concerned about the history of torture. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will remember that I tabled an amendment on this issue at an earlier stage.
The Government have been responsive on issues of torture. Indeed, I received a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on the subject. He said that the Government recognised that wherever possible those who had been victims of torture should not be detained. That is on the face of the letter.
However, when one looks at the material that has just been supplied to us, and at the section entitled,
"Reasons for Detention and Bail Rights",
which was not available for the Committee stage, it is plain from the list of reasons given for detention and the list of factors on which the decision has been made that there is absolutely no reference whatsoever in the entire document to situations where as far as possible detention should be avoided.
Some noble Lords may have seen this document which indicates the reasons why people should remain in detention. There are examples such as likely to abscond; insufficient reliable information; release is not considered conducive to the public good, and so on. They are all reasons why someone should be detained. Then there is a list of the facts that have to be taken into account in deciding on detention, such as having previously absconded, or attempted to use deception, or failed to give satisfactory answers to an immigration officer's questions. They are all reasons why someone should be detained.
We believe that that should be balanced by reasons why, in certain cases, as far as possible detention should be avoided. That is why, throughout these proceedings, we have argued that a history of torture should be seen as a ground why someone should not be detained unless there are exceptional circumstances. We may add to those reasons one or two other reasons such as the existence of a serious medical condition or the existence of dependants outside the detention centre. We believe that the Home Office immigration officers should reach balanced decisions on whether or not to detain someone.
Perhaps I may put in brackets that I believe that this country has the highest proportion, by a substantial margin, of asylum seekers in detention of any country in the European Union. We want to avoid detention because it is expensive as well as extremely hard in

773
terms of its psychological impact. Perhaps I may suggest to the Home Office that they add another section to,
"Reasons for Detention and Bail Rights".
I applaud them on the section on bail rights, which is excellent, but perhaps there could be a section that deals with reasons why, in certain instances, there should be only very exceptional reasons why such a person should be detained. Again I underline the incidence of a history of torture, as the noble Earl does in his amendment. I believe that is a humane argument and one that has the support of people on all sides of the House. I beg the Government to consider this matter, given that they have already given assurances to see whether that may be done.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although one sympathises with the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in moving the amendment, it seems to me that the Government cannot possibly answer the questions that he asked. Net long ago it was announced in the press that there were 100,000 cases of asylum seekers whose cases had not been dealt with. The facilities available until now for dealing with such cases have been so limited that the number has grown steadily over the past two years. As a result, the Government will not be able to tell for a while how those facilities can be improved and increased. Until there is an improvement in the system and the facilities have increased, it will be impossible for the Government to answer the question.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that while the backlog is still growing, the numbers detained on any particular day is under 1,000?
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes, but we have to bear in mind also that there will be further applications from time to time. The Government cannot possibly anticipate how many applications there will be.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that one reason for the huge backlog is the failure of the Government's computer system, which the other day was mentioned, yet again, in the press. I telephoned Siemens to ask how they were getting on with the trials and I was told that it was none of my business. I explained to them that I was a Member of this Parliament and that I was to take part in the debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill and they told me to "get lost" in an extremely contemptuous manner.
When a company that is employed by the public sector to implement a system that is supposed to improve the casework performance of the Home Office replies in that way one should have great anxiety about its performance. We know that the system was handed over for trials in June but we do not have the faintest idea how those trials are progressing or whether the roll-out will take place next spring as promised. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply
774
could say something about the state of play on that computer system, which may help to alleviate the anxieties expressed also by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—justifiably so.
I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. In this group we have a rather heterogeneous collection of amendments. These two amendments ensure that the Secretary of State cannot deny an applicant a routine bail hearing by regulation. The amendments preserve the power to adjourn hearings, but remove the power to take away rights to a second hearing. They amend provisions added to the Bill by government amendments tabled on Report.
The subsections in question provide for the Secretary of State to make provision modifying the application of Clause 41 in cases where a routine bail hearing is adjourned to enable medical reports to be obtained or "for any other reason". It states that the regulations may in particular provide for there not to be a second routine bail hearing in such circumstances.
I take issue with the Government on that because we believe that there always should be a second bail hearing within 30 days. The reasons for that were demonstrated by the discussion we had on Report. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that an adjournment would last for only a minimum of 21 days. However, he also indicated that it would be possible to continue an adjournment from time to time to await medical reports. As the Bill stands, there is a real prospect of such detainees not having two hearings within 21 days and possibly having to wait for several months for a second consideration of their detention by a magistrate or an adjudicator. The prospect of cases in such circumstances having to be adjourned continually appears to disadvantage those identified by the Government in the White Paper as those whom they were especially reluctant to detain. such as those with evidence of torture or physical or mental illness.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has written to the Medical Foundation for the care of Victims of Torture. In that he said,
"we cannot give an undertaking that nobody who claims to have been the victim of torture will be detained. In all cases we must be satisfied that the person will comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release or bail. Where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would not comply we must reserve the right to detain".
He continues:
"However, inevitably there will be circumstances, for example where the resumed first routine bail hearing is heard at the same time as the second hearing would be due to be heard. It is obvious that in these limited circumstances a second reference would be a waste of time and resources. It seems sensible for the regulations to make provision for this".
That is precisely the point at issue. We say that there should always be the right to a second bail hearing and that if a medical report cannot be obtained within 21 days, that is an additional ground why a person should be released on temporary admission. We object fundamentally to the idea that a person claiming to be a victim of torture and who is nevertheless detained on

775
arrival has to experience several adjourned hearings because medical reports are not available expeditiously.
We urge the Government that they retain the second bail hearing or provide that in circumstances of this kind the applicant is invariably released. I hope that with these arguments the noble Lord will reconsider what he said to the medical foundation and make provision for an invariable second bail hearing.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness has already given me a cue as regards my Amendment No. 28 which is concerned with written reasons. I hope not to repeat the arguments which she has already made or provoke the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has great wisdom in these matters.
The issue of written reasons has caused great concern since it is so central to this Government's human rights policy. However, I believe that they have taken seriously what was said on Report and at previous stages of the Bill as regards the rights of detainees. They have tried to improve the Bill, notably with the presumption of liberty through the general right to be released.
This amendment was tabled at Report stage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, while sympathising with it, said that it was unnecessary. However, at that time we did not have the benefit of the new forms and procedures published by the Immigration Service and referred to by the Minister on the last occasion. That is why we have to look at the matter again. My amendment refers to,
"making specific reference to the person who is the subject of the hearing".
The explanation on page one of the new instructions reads,
"It makes our decisions on detention more open and should help us to identify when detention is appropriate and when it is not".
The instructions would appear to be exhaustive. In Annexe 6 there are lengthy guidance notes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said. The actual form, IS 91R, is very simple. It is little more than a checklist or a list of tick boxes described earlier in the Bill. In other words, there is nowhere which allows for a specific reference to the individual, which is what this amendment is about.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Report stage said,
"that detailed check-list will be tailored to individual circumstances and to relevant exceptions".;—[Official Report, 20/10/99; col. 897.]
He said that he could see the argument about torture and would look at it again but without assurances.
It is worth revisiting the White Paper at paragraph 12.4 on page 53. It states:
"The Government also recognises the need to exercise particular care in the consideration of physical and mental health when deciding to detain. Evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release whilst an individual's asylum claim is being considered".
776
I have also seen the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, of 26th October. Paragraph 36 gives further reassurance although I believe that in that case the written reasons at the outset of the hearing are not giving the detainee any opportunity in advance.
I have looked carefully at the form again and the medical and special needs section of the instructions. They appear to be more about risks to the public than defining the needs of individuals. Will the Minister accept that we have always argued consistently for full written reasons, particular to the individual, which seemed to be accepted on Report? Does he agree even at this stage that providing some space on the form for individual circumstances would not be asking a great deal? It will not require a great deal of intelligence to adapt the present form and include a new section for this important change. In speaking to my Amendment No. 28, I support my noble friend in Amendment No. 59 about guidance and guide times.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I believe that it is good for voices from these Benches to support what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said about the form. I hope that the Minister may be able to give some assurance about the form being redesigned. It appears very bureaucratic with the inhuman ticking of little boxes. It concerns the removal of a person's freedom. The form does not indicate that any of the person's very significant circumstances have been heard. I hope that there may be a re-design of the form.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for very long. I speak in support of my noble friends Lord Hylton and Lord Sandwich. In particular I would like to make some reference to Amendment No. 28 and the provision on the form for the details of a person's age, the background and whether there is some history of torture. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, said about the reasonableness of my noble friend's amendment. The concluding lines of the amendment state that the information should be provided,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable after detention".
It is a moderate amendment, which is not making unfair demands on bureaucracy, administration or local government. It is something we should readily accept.
It is worth recalling the kind of people we are dealing with. It is easy to become bogged down in discussions about bureaucracy or long waiting lists. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has alerted many Members of your Lordships' House to some of the individual problems that detainees are already experiencing. Perhaps I may mention one or two of them. An Algerian is awaiting an initial decision. He has been waiting for over a year. He was detained for two years prior to that in Algeria in a desert camp where he was tortured. An Afghan has been awaiting a final decision for five months. No decision has been made in his case. He was used as a slave by the Taliban. He was tortured and his fingers were broken. Another Afghan has been awaiting a decision for over a year. He was detained and made to

777
do forced labour. He was tortured. He was aged 16 and imprisoned with 40 others in a container, which was then set alight. His sister and brother were burnt to death in front of him. He was badly burned and continues to suffer.
Surely we can do better for people who have come from such horrendous situations in prisons or comparable circumstances. It is the mark of a civilised society how we treat such people. My noble friend's amendment provides for a much more civilised formula than has been offered in the Bill so far.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree that it is the mark of a civilised society that we treat properly and well people with the ghastly histories which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined. At the same time I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to say that anyone who claims to have been tortured should be immune from detention. That would be going too far. It would inevitably mean that anyone who wished to avoid detention would produce a story of torture which might not be true. In the meantime they might avoid detention and abscond.
I appreciate the reasons for Amendment No. 17. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I believe that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to even anticipate with any accuracy the length of detention at the beginning of that period or to place limits on it.
It was said that these individuals have committed no crime. Of course it is true that they have not been convicted; but some of them may have committed a crime. They are in a similar position to those who are remanded in custody. They are not proved to have committed a crime, but a court decides that, for various reasons, they should be detained until it is decided whether or not they have committed a crime.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Surely, there is a marked difference between the immigration detainee and the prisoner on remand who has been charged with a specific offence in this country.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, of course there is a difference. I do not say that they are in exactly the same position but they are in an analogous position; that is, it has to be decided what should happen to them. Part of what has to be decided is whether or not their claim is fraudulent. That is part of the decision that has to be made in some cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, rightly drew attention to the fact that proportionately very few in that situation are detained. I am not sure how the proportions compare and it will not be particularly helpful to draw a comparison between those on remand and detention of this kind. However, it is a small proportion. Sometimes, we must remember, the detainees themselves wish to spin out the discussions
778
and the legal complications of their cases. That would make it even more difficult for the authorities to anticipate the length of detention that might result.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment merely asks that the "probable" length shall be vouchsafed. If the detainee chooses to spin it out, then it is his business but it has nothing to do with the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, it has a little to do with the amendment. At the same time, it is one indication of why it is extremely difficult for the authorities to anticipate the length of detention at the start. Therefore I am not sympathetic to Amendment No. 17.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I put forward a different proposition. My proposition was that perhaps after the first three months in detention some information should be provided. I do not suggest that it should be justiciable. But surely somebody facing the purgatory of detention should be given some information as to how long it is going to last.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sympathetic to that proposal. The way the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, puts it is more acceptable than the way it is expressed in the amendment, and more feasible. All these things are acceptable, but his proposal is more feasible than the way expressed in the amendment.
However, I am sympathetic with Amendment No. 28 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in relation to written reasons. I shall not go into details because several other noble Lords have already done so. For what it is worth, I also agree with the Government in their Amendment No. 29.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that this was a disparate group of amendments. But they have a common underpinning. When we discussed this matter on Report the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the question in relation to likely length of detention. We said that we would look on that as favourably as we could and reflect on it. One of the problems was that identified by the noble Lord, Lord Renton; that is, that it is not a question capable of being answered. In any event, legitimate expectations would be raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, recognised that and sought to address it in the second part of Amendment No. 17. He said also that his amendment provided alternatives for the Government to consider.
Perhaps I can deal with one or two specific questions first. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, dealt with the implementation programme. The testing of the system by IND staff began in October. It is being carried out on dummy cases for the time being. It will continue at least until the end of the year when there will he piloting on real cases and a progressive roll-out during

779
the year 2000. If there was any discourtesy to the noble Lord, I regret it. I do not believe he can accuse either my noble friend Lord Bassam or I of discourtesy. If he requires further information, he might receive a more informative response—he would certainly receive a more courteous response—if he were to write to us. I never trust the telephone and prefer always to conduct my business in correspondence where the opportunity for rudeness and ducking the issue does not offer itself as readily.
I can go on to the question of giving information. A number of noble Lords raised this point and I recognise the anxieties. The current system is that we inform detainees monthly of the progress of their case. That is a proper first strand of the approach because, by means of the Bill—this should not be overlooked—the second strand is the supplementation by a statutory presumption in favour of bail and the system of routine bail hearings. I do not overlook the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Sheppard, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was pressing on the sort of information to be given. Would it be oral or in writing? Would it be informative? I have taken on board his points. The best thing I can do is to obtain a sample of actual notifications, where necessary blanking out private material such as names or particulars, and send some of them to noble Lords and provide the same sample to the Library. If there are then further troublesome questions, at least we shall know what sort of information is given out. It may be that it will be satisfactory to the House; it may be that we could do better. The best course is to be as open and candid as possible.
Amendment No. 26 would not work. Other parts of Clause 41 would require modification; in particular the duty in subsection (5) to make a second reference on a specified timetable. The second reference point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, developed. One could have examples; for instance, first routine bail hearing held, say, on 13th day following detention; proper adjournment for 21 days for medical reports in the interests of those who have proper complaints that they have been tortured, either mentally or physically; the hearing would then resume on the 35th day. That is still one day within the limit. In those circumstances there seems little purpose in having a second reference and we simply want the flexibility not to have a second reference where it does not serve any useful purpose.
I want to spend a little time on Amendment No. 28. This was dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer saying that when a person's age was in dispute there would be close contact between the immigration officer and the detainee as to the evidence available to substantiate the correct age. Information about physical or mental health or torture would be provided by the detainee or the representative of the detainee. Where concerns in relation to a person's
780
physical or mental health form part of the decision to detain, that information will be included on the written reasons for detention form.
Many of the points raised by the noble Lords I identified by name are properly raised. It is a great pity that the need to give this information was not included in the instructions to immigration officers requiring that written reasons for detention be given in each case. In response in particular to my noble friend Lord Sheppard, officials are due to review both the instructions and the written reasons for detention form early in the new year, and I hope that if possible the form will be amended to include any information known which supports a history of torture. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam and myself, the thrust of what was said found immediate favour with us. We cannot bind ourselves to the content of the form, but the points seemed to both of us to be well made and we have the opportunity of reviewing the instructions and written reasons. I have to say that the immediate feeling of both of us is that the more information that can sensibly and helpfully be given, the better. I do not think that I can make our position plainer than that and I trust that it accords with your Lordships' views.
I turn now to the question about Scotland, with which I shall deal quickly. This will be the first time in your Lordships' House that a question relating to Scotland has ever been dealt with quickly. Therefore, I hope that there are no Scottish Peers present in the Chamber. Amendment No. 29 requires the Lord Chancellor to obtain the consent of Scottish Ministers before he gives his approval to any regulations which would extend to the Sheriff Court or the Court of Session jurisdiction to hear applications for bail under Clause 50. That is a necessary consequence of the devolution machinery.
Amendment No. 59 sets out the alternative which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others have put forward. I believe that we all share the same aim in this respect. We certainly want to have minimal use of detention. In some circumstances, there will be requirements for detention for a longer period than we would wish. I do not think that we can issue guidance on the maximum period for detention. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said; namely, that it is the maximum that is set down, not the probable. I do not believe that this provision would be workable. We would still be back to legitimate expectation and people would try and make this justiciable. I am not sure that one can come to a sensible conclusion in every case.
Amendment No. 60 would put a maximum of 72 hours on the time that a person could be detained before being moved into a detention centre. This simply is not practicable. On occasions, we have to use prisons and other short-term holding facilities. We do not want to use prison, but sometimes we shall simply have to do so. That could be for reasons of geography. There are some cases—quite few in number, but we must take them into account—where, for reasons of security or control, we must detain persons in prison. If those persons are violent, the public are entitled to look for protection. Similarly, if there have been

781
abscondings in the past or attempted abscondings, such persons may need to be housed more securely than would be the case in a detention centre.
Amendment No. 61 is consequential on Amendment No., 60. Detention in the circumstances anticipated in the amendment is normally for a few days, although it may have to be slightly longer. I do not believe that we ought to accept these amendments. I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that we have not been unsympathetic as regards the deeper thrust of the amendments and that we have not been unresponsive.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say something about the position of persons who may be liable to be sectioned under the mental health Acts? If someone who is in detention exhibits violent tendencies and is found to be mentally ill, which turns out to be the reason for his behaviour, would he not in any case be transferred to a psychiatric hospital? Therefore, in such a case, the person would not need to be detained in the manner that the Bill describes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not always the case. There are, rightly, quite strict civil liberty circumscriptions around sectioning. Not everyone who has to be detained needs to be detained in the circumstances of incarceration in a psychiatric institution. Indeed. doctors do not care for it without plain evidence, and I think that they are right. What the noble Lord has said is a part, but not the whole, answer to the problem that I have identified.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to my amendment and to the others in this group. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for what he said about information being given after three months' detention. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General further details about the kind of information that will, I hope, be supplied monthly to detainees regarding the progress of their cases and any likely length of continuing detention. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 22 [Duty to report suspicious marriages]:
Lord Bassam Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 40, leave out from ("the") to end of line 42 and insert ("Secretary of State after consulting the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Scotland;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hesitate to say this about any amendment for which I have responsibility, but this amendment and Amendment No. 19 are minor technical amendments. They will allow the regulations provided for in Clause 22 of the Bill, as they relate to the reporting of suspicious marriages in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to be made by the
782
Secretary of State only after consultation with the Registrars General for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.
The amendments reflect the fact that, although immigration policy is reserved to the UK Parliament, it is appropriate for regulations that will affect registrars in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be consulted on with the Registrars General of those countries. Consequently, I am happy to commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 15, line 43, at end insert ("after consulting the Registrar General in Northern Ireland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provision of facilities for immigration control at ports]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("there").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this will not win the prize for the shortest amendment in parliamentary history; indeed, I believe that prize probably went to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for drawing my attention to this matter.
I am putting forward this amendment in response to their valued comments on Report. I trust that I made it sufficiently clear at that stage that there was no question, in relation to Clause 23, that we were seeking to transfer headquarter operations to ports as a means of reallocating costs.
Similarly, it was never our intention— that a port operator should be required to provide facilities without charge for the operation of immigration control, other than those which relate to the port in question. That being the case, I am content to put forward this small amendment to Clause 23 in the interests of clarity and I invite noble Lords to give it their full support. I beg to move.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my appreciation to the Government for this simple amendment which will, I agree, localise the requirements of the Secretary of State in the provision of facilities at ports and airports. This should go a long way to relieve the concerns of the operators of these facilities, as negotiations regarding the provision of immigration facilities can be kept much more site specific and there will be much less generalisation. Thus any disputes should be more easily overcome and the offer of some independent scrutiny, as mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill, will be made much more achievable. It is to be hoped that there will also be improvements in cost and practicality.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is an excellent amendment, both in its content—which, as the

783
Minister said, takes up a point that I and my noble friend raised on Report—and in its form. Indeed, as one of those who has occasionally criticised the parliamentary draftsmen, I should also like to take this opportunity to say that this amendment is a model of their art.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
DEFENCES BASED ON ARTICLE 31(1) OF THE REFUGEE CONVENTION:NO. 2
(" . —(1) It is a defence for a refugee charged with an offence to which this section applies to show that, having come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where his life or freedom was threatened (within the meaning of the Refugee Convention) he—

(a) presented himself to the authorities in the United Kingdom without delay;

(b) showed good cause for his illegal entry or presence; and

(c) made a claim for asylum as soon as was reasonably practicable after his arrival in the United Kingdom.

(2) If, in coming from the country where his life or freedom was threatened, the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, subsection (1) applies only if he shows that he could not reasonably have expected to be given protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country.
(3) In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the offences to which this section applies are any offence, and any attempt to commit an offence, under—

(a) Part I of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (forgery and connected offences);

(b) section 24A of the 1971 Act (deception); or

(c) section 26(1)(d) of the 1971 Act (falsification of documents).

(4) In Scotland, the offences to which this section applies are those—

(a) of fraud,

(b) of uttering a forged document,

(c) under section 24A of the 1971 Act (deception), or

(d) under section 26(1)(d) of the 1971 Act (falsification of documents),

and any attempt to commit any of those offences.
(5) A refugee who has made a claim for asylum is not entitled to the defence provided by subsection (1) in relation to any offence committed by him after making that claim.
(6) "Refugee" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the Refugee Convention.
(7) If the Secretary of State has refused to grant a claim for asylum made by a person who claims that he has a defence under subsection (1), that person is to be taken not to be a refugee unless he shows that he is.
(8) A person who—

(a) was convicted in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of an offence to which this section applies before the commencement of this section, but

(b) at no time during the proceedings for that offence argued that he had a defence based on Article 31(1),

may apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission with a view to his case being referred to the Court of Appeal by the Commission on the ground that he would have had a defence under this section had it been in force at the material time.
(9) A person who—

(a) was convicted in Scotland of an offence to which this section applies before the commencement of this section, but

(b) at no time during the proceedings for that offence argued that he had a defence based on Article 31(1),

may apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission with a view to his case being referred to the High Court of Justiciary by the Commission on the ground that he would have had a defence under this section had it been in force at the material time.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order amend—

(a) subsection (3), or

(b) subsection (4),

by adding offences to, or removing offences from, those for the time being listed there.
(11) Before making an order under subsection (10)(b), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish ministers.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this group we also find Amendments Nos. 22, 62, 63, 66 and 67. Perhaps I may try to deal with them compendiously. Amendment No. 21 was tabled in response to the judgment in the case of Adimi and others which was handed down the day after the Committee stage of the Bill had been completed in this House. It was tabled for discussion but not moved on Report. We have taken the opportunity to consider the comments of the Select Committee and have made some drafting changes.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that someone who comes within Article 31(1) of the United Nations convention of 1951 is properly protected and does not have a penalty imposed on him on account of his illegal entry or presence. As I told your Lordships on an earlier occasion, we have already put in place administrative procedures to identify at an early stage Article 31(1) issues. Ideally, therefore, in relevant cases the matter would never come to court. Sometimes these arrangements will fail. They will fail to identify someone who comes within Article 31(1) and this amendment is therefore a further safeguard. I told your Lordships on Report that subsection (1) draws on the terms of the article itself. There is one addition, which is the requirement for anyone claiming the protection provided by this subsection to have applied for asylum as soon as is reasonably practicable. I think that that is a fair addition.
Subsection (2) limits the application of the defence created by subsection (1) where the refugee stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom. In such cases the defence applies only if the refugee shows that he could not reasonably have been expected to be given protection under the convention in that other country. This is—I recognise the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—a narrower definition than that which was adopted by the Divisional Court. I think that we are entitled to take our view, having considered the views of the court, and we have taken a different view.
The purpose of the convention is to enable people to escape from persecution. There is no obligation to facilitate the passage of a refugee to a country of his or

785
her choosing. This does not mean that every refugee who passes through a third country be prosecuted; that does not happen at the moment and it will not happen in the future. I think that we are entitled to place a limit on what is called "forum shopping", deciding that one will accept an offer of safety in country B or C, but not in country A. As I said earlier on Report, the definition of "coming directly" was a generous one. There must come a time when an individual has stopped running away—that is the Article 31 situation—and has started travelling towards a preferred destination. We have tried to define this in subsection (2).
The offences for which the new defence will be available are listed in subsections (3) and (4). I believe that we have it right. There is quite a degree of conformity between this list and the offences listed in the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark at Report. If the list needs to be added to, this can be done by order, subject to affirmative resolution, by virtue of government Amendment No. 62, if that commends itself to your Lordships. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation suggested that removing offences from the list, and therefore removing the defence, was a more serious matter and should be a matter for primary legislation. We are happy to accept that suggestion and, in consequence, opposition Amendment No. 22 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
I wish to deal briefly with those convicted of these offences in the past. I mentioned at Report that there is no central database which would enable us to identify those who have been convicted of one of the relevant offences who would not have been found guilty—and indeed probably would not even have been prosecuted— had a defence of the sort that we propose been available at the time. Subsections (8) and (9) permit anyone who has been convicted of a relevant offence in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to apply to the relevant criminal cases review commission on the grounds that he would have had a defence had it been in force at the time. Cases where Article 31 has already been raised are excluded because the matter has already been addressed. It is plainly desirable—I think that your Lordships are all of this view—for the process, in other words, the protection provided by the clause, to start as soon as possible. If accepted, this amendment would come into force on Royal Assent by means of Amendment No. 66. Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 simply replace consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 22:
Line 60, leave out (", Dr removing offences from,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no need to describe what this amendment does because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has already explained its origins. I have no need to commend it to your Lordships because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has already done so and
786
mentioned his acceptance of it. I beg to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 22.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley has said and I add briefly to that. We find in subsection (10) of the proposed new clause that,
"The Secretary of State may by order"
do various things. In our legislation we occasionally allow that to happen, but mostly to deal with administrative matters. However, here it is suggested that criminal offences can be removed merely by order. That, I think, is unusual and unacceptable. Therefore I think that the amendment which my noble friend has moved, and which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is an important one.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that concession. I am sure that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will be as well.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think that this is a welcome amendment. But when the noble and learned Lord speaks further on it, will he say whether he expects that even a few prisoners now serving sentences will be released as a consequence?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I reply to that point immediately because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised this question on a previous occasion. My answer remains the same; namely, that given the time sequence and the likely sentences to have been imposed—the noble Lord discussed this and explained it—it is unlikely that anyone is still serving a sentence of imprisonment. However, I mentioned—I repeat this—that if any particulars were brought either to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, or to myself, we would look into them immediately. As far as I am aware, no such particulars have been brought to our attention.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I revert for a moment to Amendment No. 21 and to what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said about stopping in a country. For the moment I do not want to pursue the matter of people stopping somewhere on their way to this country. Rather, I ask the following question. Do the administrative instructions, which I understand are given to the Crown Prosecution Service—we are grateful for the information that was provided by the Home Office on this matter—extend to people who are travelling through Heathrow with the purpose, for example, of going to a destination in Canada? There have been. a number of cases of people who have been on their way to Canada to join other members of their family who have been prosecuted under the earlier procedures, the counterfeit Act and so on. Can the Minister tell us whether as a result of Clause 28 it is now unlikely that

787
such people will be prosecuted but rather permitted to continue on their journey and be dealt with by the Canadian authorities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that the best course is for me to procure the guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service, provide a copy to the noble Baroness, and, as always, lodge a copy in the Library.
On Question, Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Code of practice]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 20, line 1, after ("must") insert (";—

(a) consult such persons as he considers appropriate; and

(b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under Clause 30 the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice to be followed by any person operating a system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants. The effect of Amendment No. 23 would be to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers appropriate before laying the code of practice before Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised this issue at Report stage and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, undertook at that time to table a government amendment covering this point.
The Government are fully committed to consultation and dialogue with industry representatives in the development of the code of practice and Amendment No. 23 seeks to reflect this commitment. Amendment No. 24 makes it clear that any consultation that the Government have undertaken prior to the coming into force of the Act will count towards the Secretary of State's obligations to consult before issuing a code of practice.
The Government have been in consultation for some time with the road haulage industry about the contents of the code of practice for road freight and we think it only right that the amendment to the Bill should provide for this consultation to be taken into account in respect of the Secretary of State's obligations. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister wishes at this stage to deal with Amendment No. 25 standing in my name, which is
788
grouped with this amendment, or whether it is intended that it should be degrouped and dealt with at another stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am quite happy for the noble Earl to speak to his amendment now, following which I will respond.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 25 at an earlier stage. It puts in a defence for a carrier if that carrier can show that the entrant was subsequently admitted to this country and granted protection under the refugee convention or the Human Rights Act. This amendment not only gives some protection to carriers but also eradicates an anomaly that we feel is apparent in the Bill.
Perhaps I could at this stage ask the Minister about the code of practice. I understand that since Report stage not much progress has been made in regard to the consultations. I note that the Minister will be seeking expert advice. Can he confirm that there are two different codes for road and rail and that the advice will include those two different codes? It would be helpful if the Minister could at this stage say what progress has been made on the code of practice.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I briefly address Amendment No. 25. As the Ministers will know, we have on a number of occasions reverted to the issue of what would happen if a clandestine entrant made himself known immediately as an asylum seeker or was proved later to be one. It has always seemed to us profoundly unfair that those who carry, without any intention of doing so, people who later turn out to be genuine asylum seekers should be treated on all-fours with those who deliberately bring in people intending to be in breach of our immigration laws and indeed intending to be illegal entrants. At present the Bill makes no such distinction between the two categories.
Amendment No. 25 is very cautiously worded. It makes plain that the carrier would not receive any form of protection from penalties if he, either knowingly or unknowingly, brought in somebody who intended to come to this country without declaring himself to be an asylum seeker, or if that person was not subsequently granted asylum. It is, therefore, a very narrowly and cautiously drawn amendment. It makes clear that what is proposed will only hold in the case of somebody who is subsequently admitted to the United Kingdom, and that in that event, and only in that event, the fine which would otherwise be payable would retrospectively be returned.
The amendment is designed very carefully within the context of the refugee convention or the Human Rights Act 1998. Very strict penalties would fall upon harbingers who brought in a clandestine entrant other than on the strongest possible grounds under the provisions. They would be penalised very heavily; they might even put their lorries or other forms of transport at risk.

789
In the circumstances, we believe that this is a modest request for a reasonable level of refund to those who would otherwise he penalised for bringing in somebody who turned out to be a genuine asylum seeker, genuinely accepted in this country. The amendment should commend itself to Ministers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have for some time considered Amendment No. 25. It seeks to introduce an additional defence against the civil penalty where the carrier can show that the clandestine entrant has been granted refugee status or protection under the European Convention on Human Rights.
As we have said on a number of occasions during our discussions on the civil penalty, the Government understand the genuine and sincere concerns which underlie such amendments as this. However, I believe that the amendment would damage the effectiveness of the civil penalty in combating the problem of clandestine illegal entry and would not benefit genuine asylum seekers.
This Government have a strong and honourable human rights record and remain fully committed to honouring their obligations under the 1951 convention as and when refugees reach the UK. However, there is no obligation on the United Kingdom, or on any other government, to facilitate the travel here of persons who propose to claim asylum under the 1951 convention or ECHR protection under Article 3.
The civil penalty is intended to address the large and increasing problem of clandestine illegal entrants. Many of these clandestine entrants subsequently claim asylum and indeed travel here with that intention. However, only a very small proportion have their claims accepted. Other provisions in the Bill are intended to deter the increasing number of persons who are travelling to the United Kingdom with the intention of using a claim for asylum as a means of establishing themselves for economic betterment rather than genuinely fleeing persecution. At the moment, such persons increasingly use clandestine illegal entry.
The Government do not believe that the deterrent effect of the civil penalty can be diluted in this way. Nor can we dilute the message to drivers, owners and operators of vehicles about the security measures they must take which the civil penalty is intended clearly and in a very straightforward way to encourage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. He has spoken of deterring those who may abuse the system who are not genuine asylum seekers. However, it also deters genuine asylum seekers. We are absolutely at one in relation to deterring those who would abuse the system. This amendment does nothing to weaken the deterrent in that sense. It only weakens the deterrent on genuine asylum seekers where they are carried. However, it is also extremely unfair on the lorry driver or the carrier concerned if he actually turns out to have carried a genuine asylum seeker.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has said.
790
However, I return to the point that we believe that this amendment would significantly weaken our defences. We cannot do anything that would give encouragement to clandestine entrants and to drivers or owners or operators of vehicles to lower the level of security measures which they must take and which the civil penalty is intended to encourage.
In the context of the need to take those security measures and to make appropriate checks, the question of whether any concealed individual might or could make a successful asylum claim or a claim for protection under the ECHR is simply irrelevant. The checks are designed to ensure that no one is concealed; no one should be there. If the checks locate any concealed person, given that the person concealed will already be in a country of safety, they will have no need to travel to the UK to make a claim. We do not accept that there is an obligation to facilitate the travel here of persons who propose to claim asylum under the 1951 convention or protection under Article 3 of the ECHR.
In relation to clandestine entrants, we do not accept that the ECHR would require us to refund penalties even if the clandestine entrant eventually obtains Article 3 protection. The fact that a person, once here, has a right not to be removed is irrelevant to the question of whether the person responsible took proper precautions to prevent their carrying clandestine entrants generally. If they are faced with a person who wishes the driver to take them concealed into the United Kingdom, they should refuse. There is no reason for anyone to come to the United Kingdom concealed, as opposed to coming openly. Moreover, in most cases, the clandestine entrant will attempt to enter the United Kingdom from other member states of the EU who have a strong commitment to considering claims for protection. Such states are likely to be responsible under the terms of the Dublin Convention.
It is true that there is provision for carriers' liability charges to he refunded where an asylum application is successful. However, the circumstances are very different. There is a great degree of control over fare-paying passengers entering aircraft and ferries, so the scope for illicit travel is low.
The purpose of the penalty is to ensure security and to ensure that clandestine entrants are properly regulated and checked before they have an opportunity to enter the United Kingdom. We believe that the amendment would encourage drivers to take risks by not bothering to make proper checks.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Viscount Astor, as to the level of consultation. We have consulted very carefully over the codes or practice. Indeed, we have had a good deal of discussion and consultation with the industries that are affected—the FTA, RHA, Eurolines, International Transport Union and the EWS for rail. I am happy to give a commitment that this is a continuing process. We wish to continue the helpful discussions and negotiations about the content of the draft code of practice.

791
I return to my earlier point. The civil penalty is aimed at a much less secure situation. It is designed to encourage checks by drivers to prevent generally the carriage of clandestine entrants. This is of paramount importance. The motives of individuals who may be concealed are irrelevant to our consideration of this part of the legislation.
I urge your Lordships to assist us in strengthening our position in terms of protecting against clandestines, and to reject the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he mentioned that there had been a number of consultations with the firms involved. Can he give some indication of their reaction and the outcome of the consultation with the Home Office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is always difficult to summarise and I should hate to get it wrong. There is an appreciation and an understanding of the scope of the problem. I accept fully that our proposals will not satisfy and meet the concerns of all of those with whom we have consulted. But in terms of drawing up a code of practice and making that code of practice effective—and making the legislation effective—there is an understanding. As I said, we are more than happy to continue those consultations so that we can better perfect the code of practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The requirement of subsection (2)(a) may be satisfied by consultation before the passing of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Defences to claim that penalty is due under section 29]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 13, at end insert—
("() It is also a defence for the carrier to show that the clandestine entrant was subsequently admitted to the United Kingdom and granted protection under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, everything that the Minister said improved our argument, not his. The amendment is carefully drafted; it does not encourage bogus asylum seekers; it removes an anomaly from the Bill that the Minister admitted exists at the moment; it protects genuine asylum seekers; and it protects drivers and carriers. I should like to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Limerick, E.

Aldington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Avebury, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barker, B.

McNair, L.

Belstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brentford, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Byford, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clancarty, E.

Moynihan, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Newby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Norton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cross, V.

Onslow, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Razzall, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Rowallan, L.

Gisborough, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Goodhart, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Greenway, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Sharples, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Taverne, L.

HolmPatrick, L,

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Teynham, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton,L.

Thurso, V.

Jacobs, L.

Tope, L.

Kimball, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kingsland, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wilcox, B.

Laird, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lawrence, L.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blease, L.

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Alli, L.

Bragg, L.

Amos, B.

Brett, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brookman, L.

Bach, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Barnett, L.

Burlison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L,

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Blackstone, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

793

Chandos, V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crawley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

[Teller]

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Paul, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B

Gainsborough, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L

Goldsmith, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grantchester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hacking, L.

Serota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Harrison, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Uddin, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Varley, L.

Chancellor)

Warner, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Whitty, L.

Privy Seal)

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Kennet, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
Clause 41 [Bail hearings for detained persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Procedure]:
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, call Amendment No. 28.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandwich, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his helpful comments on the amendment, and in particular his remarks reflecting the Government's overall acceptance of the thrust of the amendment. With that, I shall not move Amendment No. 28,
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Applications for bail in immigration cases]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 37, line 43, at end insert;—
("( ) In so far as regulations under this section relate to the sheriff or the Court of Session, the Lord Chancellor must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before giving his approval.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Deportation orders]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 41, line 39, after ("3(5)") insert ("or (6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the last occasion that we considered this matter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said:
"the court which made the deportation order will have taken into consideration the convicted person's circumstances before making the recommendation". —[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 920.]
That was the first of four reasons that he gave for rejecting the amendment, which I am moving again today. It provides for a right of appeal to an adjudicator in cases where a decision is made by the Home Secretary to make a deportation order following a recommendation of a criminal court.
With respect, a criminal court is not the forum in which to deal with immigration matters. Factors that need to be considered when arriving at a decision to deport may only be put before the court to the extent that they are covered by evidence given in connection with the offence on which the person is being tried. Those working in the criminal justice system are not familiar with immigration law. Most do not have any expertise in the field. Indeed, Part V of the Bill before us is predicated on the assumption that we need to identify solicitors who have the capacity to engage in immigration casework.
Unfortunately, not only criminal practitioners have little experience of immigration cases. That observation applies also to judges when passing sentences in the criminal courts. I refer noble Lords to Regina v. Rodney [1998] INLR 118 in the Court of Appeal when the court considered an appeal against the making of a recommendation. In that case, counsel for the Crown stated as follows:
"Mr. Van De Bijl, who has helped the court, from the Crown's point of view, says that in his experience judges frequently tack on a recommendation for deportation to a sentence of imprisonment without giving some reasons because it is a subsidiary matter".
It is a not a matter that receives proper consideration by the criminal court. It is often thought that, on completion of the sentence, the matter will fall to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when stating his reasons for rejecting the amendment on Report, elided these matters. He said:
"To have a Court of Appeal recommendation reviewed and possibly overturned by an adjudicator or even a tribunal would seem inappropriate". —[Official Report, 18/10/99; col. 920.]
However, that is not the recommendation which would be overturned by the adjudicator. If Amendment No. 30 is accepted, the court will pass

795
sentence and if that sentence includes a recommendation for deportation, the person serves the sentence of imprisonment and then, at the end of the sentence, the Secretary of State shall consider whether to accept the recommendation for deportation. The reason why he does that only at the end of the sentence is of course because the circumstances may have changed. The person may have been in prison for two years. His family circumstances and the conditions in his country of origin may have changed, and therefore a decision on whether to deport is not the same as a decision on whether to recommend deportation. I believe that that point was overlooked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, when replying on the last occasion.
If we accept that it is right that there should always be an appeal against a recommendation to deport, then the amendment should be inserted into the Bill. It provides that when a person reaches the end of a prison sentence, the Secretary of State shall consider the new circumstances that then obtain. If he makes a decision to deport a person, that person has the same right to appeal against it as anyone else. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, when we started this process following the White Paper—it seems like a very long time ago—there was a proposal for a one-stop appeal. I thought that that was a good proposal. It seemed to be a good idea that all the matters in dispute should be taken into account in a single appeal, both to ensure that everything was considered in the round as opposed to individual pieces being taken in different tribunals at different times and because that would speed up the process. An important aim of the White Paper was to speed up the process. However, as we have gone through all the various details of the Bill, it seems to me that the one-stop appeal has frayed at the edges. I shall not say that it has disappeared altogether, but it is fraying. These amendments would help to boost the idea of a one-stop appeal with everything being considered at the same appeal. For that reason, I have some sympathy with the spirit that lies behind the amendments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for those words. I should like to revert to the amendments and ask the Government to explain to the House why they believe that their amendments assist us in achieving a one-stop appeal. We have always understood the Government's purpose in seeking a one-stop appeal to be the avoidance of the need for a series of separate appeals of the kind that has plagued them for several years and indeed plagued their predecessors. If there is to be a one-stop appeal—we have always supported that idea—that appeal, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, has to be able to consider all the circumstances. To limit it simply to looking at the technical correctness of a decision made by the
796
Secretary of State will not adequately address the question of the removal of the asylum seeker or his ability to stay in this country.
In the period between the first hearing and the process of appeal some circumstances may have changed. Perhaps I may give two obvious examples. In the case of two Commonwealth countries, Pakistan and Nigeria, over a short period one of those countries has moved from being a democracy to being a dictatorship and the other has moved from being a dictatorship to being a democracy. Therefore, the relevant considerations as to whether someone seeking asylum should be deported have changed totally in a short period. Those are the kinds of issues, as well as personal issues—someone getting married or having a child—that should be considered at the final process of appeal so that there cannot be further reversions to judicial review or other appeals, with the process thereby being extended as it has been so often in the past.
We should strongly support that, but only if the adjudicator is able to look at all the considerations that arise; for example, compassionate circumstances, the situation in the country to which the person concerned would otherwise be returned, and so on. We think that only if all the matters relevant to the question of whether the person should remain in the UK can be considered by that appeal can it be genuinely described as meeting the promise of the White Paper.
The White Paper referred to the new appeal as "comprehensive". It said that there would be a single comprehensive right of appeal and that that should lead to finality. We find all of that very attractive. What we are troubled by is what the Government themselves seem to be doing in somewhat weakening the process of the one-stop appeal—trying to limit it, trying to constrain it and trying to limit what the adjudicator can actually consider. Therefore, we should like to know why the Government do not seem willing to support the point of view that we are expressing in these amendments—the three amendments in my name and the other amendments—which is that the one-stop appeal should have complete scope to deal with all considerations: both the past technical correctness of the Secretary of State's decision and the circumstances that affect the asylum seeker at the moment the appeal is being considered. If that happened, we believe that the ideal of a one-stop appeal could be met and the Government would avoid a great many of the problems which they have had to encounter in the past. We should like to inquire why the Government have not been able to embrace these amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, whatever result this clutch of amendments, if passed, might bring about, a one-stop appeal is certainly not one of them.
I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 30, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The government amendments are Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of

797
Crosby, spoke to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 71. I am speaking on the basis that no other noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Far from providing a one-stop appeal, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would do completely the opposite. The noble Lord's amendment would confer a further avenue of appeal on convicted persons who have been given notice of a decision to deport following the recommendation of a court. There is no such right in the 1971 legislation and I cannot find any good reason for introducing one. In the situation of which the noble Lord spoke, the sentencing court—this is not someone who has come here applying for asylum but someone with a criminal conviction—considers the circumstances and makes a recommendation for deportation. The Secretary of State then reconsiders the circumstances in full, providing his review. If his review is not fair, it can be overturned at judicial review. The convicted person—someone convicted of a crime—has a right of appeal against the sentence itself through the criminal justice system; that is, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Furthermore, no person who has a ground for making a human rights or asylum claim is disadvantaged because such a claim will, if refused, attract a separate right of appeal under the appropriate clause of the Bill. Whatever else the amendment does, I say again—I hope courteously—it does not produce a one-stop appeal.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would enable immigration appellants to bypass the one-stop system by making fresh applications direct to an adjudicator. The purpose of Clauses 74(3) and 74(4) is to set out the distinction which exists in case law, but is not apparent from the 1971 legislation, between immigration appeals and asylum appeals. The point of an immigration appeal is to review the decision which has been taken. The evidence to be considered must relate to that specific decision. The adjudicator has no part in considering what amounts to a fresh application which has not been considered by the Secretary of State. In any event, the appellant will have had the opportunity to raise further matters for the Secretary of State's consideration when invited to do so.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that asylum cases are different. For the purposes of this clause, we have included claims under Article 3 of the convention on human rights. The basis of an asylum appeal is that removal pursuant to the decision on the claim would be contrary to the 1951 convention, not that the Secretary of State's decision was wrong. In these cases, which look forward to an event in the future, it has been held that the adjudicator must consider all the evidence available to him. In asylum cases, the situation in the country of origin is generally the main element of the evidence. That situation may change between decision and appeal. The Home Office constantly monitors general situations in countries of origin and is therefore able to submit the latest information without delay.
798
We have looked before at a variant of Amendment No. 71. Sub-paragraph (4A), taken with subparagraph (4B), would require an adjudicator to allow an appeal in the case of a published concession as if that concession was in the Immigration Rules. We have been considering the question of concessions for some time, as was explained earlier, and we have stated that we shall give adjudicators the power that the amendment proposes. But we plan to do that by reviewing, updating and rationalising the concessions and then incorporating them in the Immigration Rules. That has the benefit of empowering adjudicators to consider the matters now covered by concessions, and of empowering Parliament with some control over those concessions. After all, the point of the Immigration Rules is to set out,
"the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Acts regulating entry into and stay of persons in the United Kingdom".
Sub-paragraph (4C) would in effect make the adjudicator a first-instance decision-maker. We do not think that that can be right.
I now turn to government Amendments Nos. 31 to 34. Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 are drafting improvements to Clause 70 and have no effect on the meaning. They transfer the phrase, "could reasonably", from the first line of Clause 70(2)(a) to the beginning of each of the two options that follow. Amendment No. 34 is a correction consequential upon a government amendment agreed by this House on Report: we combined two clauses into what is now Clause 74.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that he could see no good reason for including this amendment in the Bill. Why then did the Government see fit to include the provision in the first instance? I often think that governments include provisions in Bills for which there is no good reason, but this is the first time I have heard a plain admission from a Minister on the Floor of the House that they have actually done so. The Minister has argued that the provision was not in the 1971 Act. I seem to remember, when I first came to this House, speaking and voting against a great many of the provisions in the 1971 Act. That does not seem a very good argument either.
On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, did not explain, when I asked him to do so, why the Government, who in their wisdom included this provision in the Bill in the first instance and kept it there throughout the discussions they had with the agencies, subsequently withdrew it. The reasons given by the noble and learned Lord were wholly spurious. He did not attempt to address my argument that the criminal system had no competence to deal with immigration matters, and that criminal lawyers and judges were wholly ignorant of the immigration system—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may respond. It is not right to suggest that sentencing judges are wholly ignorant of their powers. What they are doing is, I repeat, sentencing someone following a

799
criminal conviction. That is a different kind of exercise to the one we have been considering throughout most of the passage of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble and learned Lord to the remarks of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the Adimi case. The noble Lord has heard these quotations many times and is probably familiar with the judgment. Lord Justice Simon Brown said that it was a "striking fact", acknowledged by the respondents, that,
"until the challenges were brought, no arm of the State, neither the Secretary of State, the DPP, nor anyone else, had apparently given the least thought to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 31"—
something he described as,
"plainly a most unsatisfactory state of affairs".
If refugees can be so let down by the criminal justice system, what chance has anyone else who is liable to immigration control?
There is good reason for including the amendment in the Bill. Sentencing courts may well be able to consider the circumstances of the defendant at the time. But, as I explained in moving the amendment, we are talking about two different events. We are talking about what happens in the criminal court when a person is sentenced, and the position, possibly several years afterwards, when the Secretary of State comes to consider that recommendation.
Many criminal practitioners are totally unaware of the fact that there is no appeal against the decision and that the Secretary of State almost automatically upholds the recommendations made by the criminal court. The last chance that a person has is to appeal against the sentence, which is by no means the same as appealing against a decision to deport when the circumstances may be wholly different. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby pointed to the situation in two countries where conditions changed overnight. That might well make a great deal of difference to a person from one of those countries who has been sentenced by a court of law. By the time the Secretary of State comes to examine the recommendation to deport, the government in a country of origin may have wholly changed. In one case cited it was for the better; and in the other it was for the worse.
I can see that it is impossible for me to make any impression on the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, again with the greatest reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Limitation on further appeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 33:
Page 46. line 43, leave out ("could reasonably").
Page 46. line 44, at beginning insert ("could reasonably").
Page 47. line 1. at beginning insert ("could reasonably").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Duty to disclose grounds for entering etc the United Kingdom]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 49, line 12, leave out (", 74 or ("one-stop" appeals: other cases)") and insert ("or 74").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 ["One-stop" appeals]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must advise the House that, should Amendment No. 35 be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 36 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 50, leave out lines 17 to 20.
The noble Baroness said: My lords, I wish to press further the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I remain puzzled. He said that the Home Office kept abreast of changes in countries to which an asylum seeker or immigrant might be returned. I do not doubt that. The noble and learned Lord also recognised that circumstances could change. However, it remains unclear to me how, without amendments along the lines of mine, it would be possible for an adjudicator to consider issues that had arisen after the Secretary of State's first decision and before the decision to deport or return the immigrant to the country from which he came. I do not refer to ECHR cases or cases under the refugee convention.
It may be that the Home Office has the information that is needed. However, I am still not clear what happens if the compassionate factors that exist in cases where the White Paper promised that they would be taken into account can be taken into account unless, at the appeal, such matters can be part of the general consideration given to the case that has been made. Given the basis of the legislation, including the Minister's amendment, I do not understand how it would be possible to do that. That seems to me to force people into claiming asylum or claiming ECHR status when they have no entitlement to it because there seems to be no other way in which compassionate factors or changes in the country or origin can be fully taken into account. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can reassure me. So far, he has not done so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that proceedings be resumed not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Fathers in the Family
7.48 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider to be the role of fathers in the family and in the rearing of children, whether they believe that role to be important, and what they are doing to support men in their role as fathers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the enormous response to this debate has caused a ridiculous situation in regard to the time available to speakers, for which I apologise, although I am not responsible. I hope that the Government will note the response and perhaps give time For a proper debate on this subject in the next Session, whether or not I am here to speak in it.
It is a particular pleasure and delight to me that my noble kinsman, Lord Hood, is to make his maiden speech in the debate.
I rise to ask the Government a deceptively simple question: what is the role of fathers in our society today? Fifty years ago, that question would not have been worth asking. The role of a father was to protect and provide for his family, to love and cherish them, and to set a good example to his children. Some failed; some cheated; some died young—but for tens of thousands of years the responsibilities of fatherhood were clearly understood. Men developed strength and skill to fulfil them.
The same is not true today. Advances in technology have created a situation in which fewer jobs rely on physical strength, endurance or courage. After 50 years of relative peace, the demand for protection has fallen away. There is less demand for "brawn" and more demand for "brain". That is good news for many of your Lordships, but bad news for young men who have no education or training.
Social attitudes have also changed. Today most women want a career or job and also to bring up a family. These changes, good in themselves, bring with them two problems: young men with no role in their families and families without fathers. Today we are creating an underclass of young men who are detached from the socialising obligations of the family, who believe that they are unfairly excluded from the opportunities of the consumer society and who see no role for themselves in the legitimate economy or family.
A recent report entitled Leading Lads by Adrienne Katz at Oxford highlights the problem. That is a study of the attitudes of 1,500 young men across the country. She divided these young men into the "can do" boys—approximately the top 25 per cent—a fairly large middle group and, at the bottom of the pile, a group of about 12 per cent whom she categorised as "no-can-do" boys. She reports that among the "no-can-do" boys are many who are,
"uncertain about their responsibilities and depressed about their future".
802
Most of these "no-can-do" boys have grown up rejecting education and now have little or no training and no prospect of a decent job. They will father children and then will either be rejected by the mother as a useless or violent partner or drift off because they feel that they have no fulfilling role in their own families.
The seriousness of this situation should not be under-estimated. Here are some of the boys speaking. Jake aged 14 says:
"Once upon a time there were men's jobs and women's jobs. Now women are doing men's jobs and men are not doing women's jobs".
Another aged 17 says:
"I think what's contributing to 'Lad Culture' is a kind of identity crisis—no position in society for us to grow into".
And another:
"It's the hardest thing in the world to be a Nineties New Man. There are no rules, no precedents. We just make it up as we go along—it's a scary place to be".
Many young men today do not behave responsibly because they do not see anything for which they need to be responsible.
The first problem is young men. The second problem is young families without fathers. We have created a society in which far more children than ever before are brought up in families without fathers. The percentage of children who grow up in lone parent households has trebled since 1968 from 6 per cent to 22 per cent.
Without in any way being judgmental or critical of lone mothers, who often do a tremendous job, let us look at some of the disadvantages from which they and their children suffer. Single parent families are poorer. Children who grow up in poverty in turn suffer multiple disadvantage. Sixty-five per cent of children in single parent families grow up in poverty compared with only 24 per cent of children in two-parent families. Children who live in lone parent families have a 79 per cent chance of being in the bottom 30 per cent of income distribution. Single parents have no one to share the work, responsibility and fun of bringing up a child; often they are lonely and stressed.
Children in single parent families enjoy less good health. Many studies show that for children of young lone mothers there is significantly greater likelihood of infant mortality, child ill health and risk of accidents.
The Newcastle 1000 Family Study report said:
"Parenting is probably the most important public health issue facing our society today".
It is the single largest variable implicated in childhood.
Many single parents do a heroic job. Some of their children achieve their full potential, but the odds are stacked against them. The Government are addressing the issue by encouraging lone mothers to get into work. I do not believe that that addresses the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a generation of young men, some of whom are uneducated, untrained, unemployable, unsocialised and unwanted. It is on that group that I want to focus in the few moments that remain to me.
I believe that there are steps that the Government can take. I believe that in this country there is a need for us to change our image of masculinity. Small boys need to learn in primary school that it is not "uncool" to learn and that school work is not only for girls. This means male role models in boys' lives: fathers, grandfathers, football heroes, teachers—men who show that they value school learning for men. It means more learning in the family and the engagement of fathers in schools; and it also means more suitably trained male teachers in primary schools.
In secondary schools and beyond we need to recognise that many young men need to build their self-confidence through pride in their physical strength, endurance, courage and loyalty. Those are characteristics that have evolved over countless generations by natural selection for a role that no longer exists. Sport, adventure training, sailing, mountaineering and other challenges should be made available to all young men who want them.
One mother to whom I spoke recently about the role of young men said:
"The job for boys is to change the world".
We need opportunities for active citizenship. We also need millennium volunteers. Perhaps for those who cannot afford to volunteer we need a one-year residential training and service option with a basic wage—a programme centred on personal development and community service, not war. In return young men must learn the need for and the advantages and rewards of gentleness and kindness in the family, how to share responsibility for bringing a child into the world and its upbringing and how to help build a home for it.
I argue that a young mother with a child is better off with a father helping her. Fathers are happy and more stable if they have a role to play. The Government should give just as much help to fathers, including prospective fathers, to get into work as they currently give to lone mothers. To do so will be a very good investment. Social security benefits to fatherless families today cost the taxpayer;£4 billion a year.
As we move into the 21st century has not the time come for us as a society to try to work out some shared values about our civic rights and responsibilities, in particular the rights and responsibilities of being a father? There are some things about which we cannot make laws but which are none the less critical to the welfare of children and to the common good. For example, what values about fatherhood will be taught in the new PSHE syllabus in schools? Will boys and girls receive clear messages about the needs of children, that fathers have a role in families, that children are likely to have a better chance if mothers and fathers bring them up together in a loving family, and that in an age of effective contraception there is no excuse for a man to bring a child into the world unless he has made the commitment to love and care for it for 18 years or more? A child is not a toy.
The Children Act 1989 starts with the words,
"When a court determines any question with respect to … the upbringing of a child … the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration".
Should not as much be expected of the child's father?
7.57 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I thank all those in the House, Members and staff, who have been so helpful and welcoming since I took my seat two weeks ago. I also thank my noble kinsman Lord Northbourne for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech on such an important issue.
Good parenting is so fundamental to the progress of society throughout the generations that it is taken for granted. It is only when it is absent that one realises the time, effort and resources required to instil what good parenting should have provided. The role of the father is half the picture but one that may not acquire full focus until rather later than that of the mother when what might be described as the maternity phase is over. For a father, even in a stable family unit, the first phase may not be hugely rewarding, but he can justify his role by being able to provide. It is much more difficult for a young man who cannot play this role and whose family is likely to be as well off whether or not he is there.
If the family splits, or was never a proper family at all, the odds against the father playing any part in the child's upbringing mount considerably. As a lawyer specialising in divorce, I have seen how, even in middle-class or educated families, to be an assiduous but absent father requires huge stamina. There may be friction with the mother for any number of reasons. Periods of contact are often contrived and artificial. Sadly, a father who remains in contact is likely to pay more in child maintenance than the one who does not. And if the parents were never married in the first place, an application to the court for the grant of parental responsibility will often be required. For a father unaware of the importance of his role, the decision to walk away for good is an easy one. And so the cycle can be repeated.
I have for many years been a volunteer lawyer at the legal advice centre at Toynbee Hall. I have seen many young men with many different legal difficulties to whom the fact that they have fathered children appears entirely incidental to their existence. I believe it is significant that in all the time since the passing of the Children Act I have never once been asked to advise on how parental responsibility can be obtained if the mother is not consenting to it.
I am the father of four young children. My eldest son is going through the phase of realising that his father does not know and cannot do everything. I am finding this process rather more difficult than he is, but I consider it essential, if society is to progress, that our children are able to learn from us what we do know so that they may acquire for themselves what we do not.
8.1 p.m.
The Earl of Mat and Kellie: My Lords, it falls on me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, on his excellent maiden speech. He hails from a family with a significant naval history, and, as he mentioned, has a continuing career as a divorce lawyer. It is ironic that I probably cannot say that we look forward to hearing from him often—but I cannot foretell the results on Friday. Nevertheless, the House has benefited today from his experience and the noble Viscount can take heart from the fact that he took the opportunity that he was briefly allowed.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to be congratulated on bringing the vulnerable position of fathers to our attention. Young men are facing dilemmas as to their very purpose in being. Women are finding their place in the world and not before time. Unfortunately, this advance seems to be at the expense of young men. This is not a call for women to rein back, but rather a call for men to find a way forward into a more, I suspect, androgynous future.
The expectation of the supposedly macho job in the steel works, ship yard and coal mine is over. Families must redirect their aspirations for their sons from broadly engineering work into the available work, which in Scotland is likely to be in electronics or a service industry. Since 1994, women have dominated the Scottish labour market. Men certainly make up the majority of full-time workers, but some women are doing work for which, it seems, men will not get out of bed.
Clearly, government cannot be held solely responsible for that. The family, both nuclear and extended, has a major role to play. Families need to sharpen up on how they encourage—or, often, discourage— their children about education and training. The take-up of higher education in Scotland is good, exceeding the UK average. Government need to strengthen "low level" training courses and schooling.
The boys of today must be encouraged to see learning and training as being manly, and not just for girls. Men must establish a new equilibrium with women. Until the parents are sorted, the children will not receive the lead they need.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, first, I should like to pay tribute to my own father without whom I should neither be in this world nor in your Lordships' House. One of my happiest memories is of the many people who knew my father when he was here, and the lovely things they have said about him. He was a man with a great sense of humour and a lively wit who saw further into the future than most people.
Secondly, I pay tribute to my husband who has always been such a special father to our children. He shares many of my father's attributes combined with an enormous amount of patience. Nothing is ever too much trouble for him.
806
Thirdly, I wish to speak, not surprisingly, about war widows. Their children have been suddenly deprived of the blessing of a father. Some of these ladies would like to remarry but are nervous of doing so because it would deprive them of the pension to which their husbands contributed during their lives. They would like to give their children a chance of a second father. My noble friend Lord Northbourne made this very point in our debate last week. Noble Lords felt so strongly on the issue that they sent the amendment back to the other place.
I shall not easily forget those 47 children last Monday, stroking the noses of the horses on guard in Whitehall, meeting the Prime Minister at No. 10, picnicking in Westminster Hall and viewing the splendour of the red and gold in your Lordships' House, and having no father to go home to, to tell the story of their happy day.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, albeit briefly, today. I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount on his maiden speech.
I must declare an interest as I was involved in the preparation of the Government's consultative document, Supporting Families. That document recognised that family structures are today more complicated than a few decades ago. Any development of public policy on the role of fathers has to take account of those new realities, and this, I believe, the Government are doing.
The critical issues for many fathers—and indeed mothers—are better financial support for families through measures like the working families' tax credit, better services and support for parents, programmes like New Deal, which tackle unemployment, family-friendly employment practices that help parents achieve a better balance between home and work, parental leave in early years, and measures which strengthen adult relationships. Those larger measures help fathers fulfil their roles in modern society.
We know that the single most effective way of helping boys and young men is encouraging the involvement of their fathers. Boys who have no contact with their fathers are statistically more likely to be violent, get hurt, get into trouble and do less well at school. The research evidence on that is overwhelming. It means that we have to look critically at father-child contacts when adult relationships break down. We know that large numbers of non-resident fathers lose contact with their children within five years. That is why it has been so important for the Government to tackle the disaster of the Child Support Agency. Not only will this reduce parental conflict and bring more money into families through a simplified formula; it will also give incentives for nonresident fathers to stay in regular contact with their children. I believe that we need to go further by expanding contact centres where non-resident fathers may see their children.

807
I mention two issues. First, there is the area of trying to reduce conflict in divorce and separation so that father-child involvement is more easily maintained. Secondly, there is the issue of fathering in stepfamilies. I hope that the Government will tackle those issues as they take forward family policy.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hood on his maiden speech; and thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing this short debate today. He is, if I may say so, a good example of a hereditary Peer who has great knowledge of education and social work. He is an expert in this field, and it is right that he should draw attention to one of the most important and serious issues in social policy today: the role of fathers. He is right in what he said and I agree with everything he said today.
In the short time available, I should like to make two points. First, we live in a world in which men, curiously enough, are now downgraded. I have spent much of my life trying to help and support women into top jobs and other jobs. Now I feel that I should do the reverse and support men. Statistics show that boys do less well than girls in tests at age 11. They fall behind girls in the GCSE examinations. They barely hold their own at A-level. They are more likely to leave school without any qualifications and to be unemployed. Finally, they are far more likely to turn to crime and find themselves in court.
The issue should worry us all and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is a real one. One of the prime causes is that there are families without fathers. The importance of the role of the father cannot be overestimated.
The second issue to which the Government should address themselves is what exactly they will include in the new curriculum changes on citizenship and personal, social and health education. Unless they address the importance of the role of the father; the required responsibility; the need for boys to have a role model; the importance of boys receiving a good education; and of boys accepting their responsibilities, we shall see nothing more than a continuation of the catalogue of disasters which is affecting boys.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is not much time for compliments, but I must say what a privilege it is always to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, one of the strongest Christian influences in this House.
All fathers want to be good fathers, but what is meant by the phrase "a good father"? There are three elements. He has to be a good husband; he has to set a good example; and he has to be a good teacher. Tomorrow, my wife and I will have been married for 68 years. She was once asked whether she had ever thought of divorcing me and she replied, "No, but
808
sometimes of murdering him!". I do not know whether that qualifies me as a good husband, but that is my record.
Perhaps we should take examples. My father died a war hero, leading his brigade into certain death at Gallipoli. I, in my youthful excitement, tried to follow his example. I joined the Army as a private before the war and very soon was invalided out with a nervous breakdown. That example did not quite work out.
My father's final words were delivered to someone called Fred Cripps, brother of Stafford Cripps who told me about it. My father said, "I wish you would stop ducking, Fred. The men don't like it. It doesn't do any good.". That at least has remained; I tried to avoid ducking.
As regards training, we have wonderful proof of what it can do. In my eyes, leaving out the Church, present company, my relatives and some of my closest friends, the Queen is the greatest woman alive. Do your Lordships know what her secret is? She said, "I have been well trained.". Her father trained her, so he was a great father.
Those are a few points. When all is said and done, the good father is a loving father and every father here tries to live up to that standard.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, on his maiden speech, I am sure that the House will want to congratulate also the noble Earl, Lord Longford, not only on his remarks but also on the longevity of his marriage and the advertisement for family life that he presents. Tomorrow is his wedding anniversary.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Northbourne for initiating tonight's debate. As he said, the number of people who have applied to speak in the debate, and the brevity with which we have to make our remarks, illustrate the need for a longer debate at some future time.
It is a staggering reality that some 800,000 children in this country have no contact with their fathers. Anyone familiar with areas of urban deprivation will know that there can be whole streets and urban estates where father figures are absent. About one in four of our children experience their parents' divorce; one-third lose touch with one parent immediately after separation; and another third lose touch with one parent within five years.
Part of the cause of that has been the move towards easier divorce and the ideology that argues that lone parenthood is a desirable present and future state. Fertility treatments which seek to exclude men, other than as donors, further degrade fatherhood. I hope that we shall give that aspect longer-term consideration.
Absent fathers have had a threefold effect on the state. Let us take, for instance, the debate on the green belt. It is not necessary to build more houses because

809
of an increase in the population; it is necessary because there are many more households following the massive increase in the number of broken families and the 43 per cent divorce rate. The effect on the Exchequer is that it now costs more to support broken families than it does to support even the unemployed.
Let us examine the effect on the children. You can divorce your spouse, but you cannot divorce your children. Fatherhood and responsibility to one's children continues.
Being unable to perform their role as fathers also has an effect on men. In the United States, for example, single men are six times more likely to be imprisoned than married men. Marriage, stability and family life can work wonders for people in that situation.
Unless we make it abundantly clear that family stability is crucial for children and for society generally; unless we acknowledge that ideally a child should have both a mother and a father; and unless we reaffirm the importance of fathers in child-rearing, we risk a further long-term social collapse and civic disaggregation of society.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this important debate and I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, on his excellent maiden speech.
The Asian culture attaches enormous importance to the role of fathers in the family and in the rearing of children. It is the father's responsibility to provide guidance, support and protection as well as giving love, care and affection to the family.
In Islam, the father is charged with shouldering all the financial obligations of the whole family. He is under a legal obligation with regard to the maintenance of his family. The Qur'an says:
"Men are maintainers of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on some of them than on others and with what they may spend out of their possessions".
A father's responsibility begins long before the birth of the child. He has to provide psychological and moral support to his wife, showing more love and affection during her pregnancy. The Qur'an says:
"Wife and children are comfort of your eyes".
The Prophet said:
"Of all that a father can give to his children the best is their good education and training".
However, there are also rights with responsibilities in Islam. While it is the duty of the father to provide, the children's responsibilities are to show kindness and respect and to speak with affection.
My experience o f being a father is to provide money, take responsibility, deal with crises and act as a bank manager who does not receive repayments of loans. But the love and affection that I receive in return is unconditional and is probably the best experience of my life.
Sadly, there are many Muslim and Asian parents who have lost control within their own families. The gap between the first generation and the second is
810
widening. There is mistrust and a lack of understanding, of tolerance and of the patience to understand each other. The gap in some cases has caused enormous problems in the community.
Perhaps I my conclude by saying that the vast majority of Asian parents are very responsible and provide excellent care, support and guidance, and particularly financial support to their families.
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Hood and thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I once watched a film of a middle-aged Peter Pan, I believe played by Robin Williams. Before the main actors fly off to Never-Never land, Peter Pan promises to spend time with his children over Christmas. But a business deal took priority and the children missed out on his time.
Perhaps "Dad has no time for me" is one of the most poignant complaints of our children today. If a father is reading a book at bedtime to his children and the telephone rings, do the children or the telephone receive priority? Fathers' relationships, particularly with boys, depend on spending time together, talking through their worries and interests, their sport and education.
The Government are responding commendably to the increasing concern in the country for fathers' involvement with their children, particularly sons. The right honourable Harriet Harman was right in saying to fathers, "Your children need not just your money. They need you." There is a large correlation, as already mentioned, between boys in trouble and the low involvement of their fathers.
I warmly commend parenting courses, but plead with the people advertising them to be positive to fathers; for example, to say, "Please come as caring parents for the sake of your children." Parenting courses for fathers should be for men only and led by a man. If there is a hint in the advertisement that the course is for better parenting, or for problem parents, I suggest that men will run a mile. I look forward to hearing what the Government's plans are to encourage fathers, and particularly teenage fathers, to be involved long-term with their children.
In conclusion, I say to fathers, "If you want the best for your child, love the mother."
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I have been a police officer for 19 years. I am currently serving in the Thames Valley where I am head of youth justice for the force.
The principle aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people. The influence of parents is a key determinant in achieving that aim. We know a good deal about the risk factors which can result in criminal behaviour. They include poverty, poor housing, drugs and alcohol misuse, peer pressure, truancy and exclusion from school. But they include also poor parenting, harsh and inconsistent discipline, and lack of parental supervision.

811
A 1995 Home Office study revealed that 42 per cent of children who received low or medium levels of supervision offended, compared with only 20 per cent where the level of supervision was high. The same research showed that the quality of the relationship between parent and child was critical and that offenders were more likely to have a poor relationship with their father than with their mother. It has been shown also that children are protected against some of the risk factors to which I referred earlier if they are able to form strong affectionate bonds with their parents.
Helping fathers to develop good parenting skills is therefore an effective way of ensuring that the small problems in a child's development are identified and addressed, rather than growing into major difficulties for child, family and community. Within our force we are working with our youth offending teams to develop such initiatives, helping parents to increase their self-awareness and self-confidence and improving their capacity to support and nurture children.
We are discussing this issue at a time when there is renewed and welcome interest in mentoring and befriending schemes, where the mentor helps young people to achieve their potential through coaching, explaining, listening and guiding. Such schemes cannot diminish the importance of our role as fathers, but their aims are ones to which we too can honourably aspire.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has done your Lordships' House a major service in introducing this debate. I shall try to pick up just one of the points he made, which relates to the title of the debate, namely, what the Government are doing to support men.
If young men are to accept the sort of responsibility about which we have been talking, they need to respect themselves and have self-confidence. All through this century, women have had to fight for their place and their self-respect. In wide areas that I know in Liverpool and London, generations of working class men have been able to hold their head high because they have been willing to sell their strength, their readiness to work in a gang, and their readiness and ability to support their family.
As other noble Lords have said, those types of jobs have gone away. In many big estates around Liverpool and in the borough of Knowsley, the figures, certainly until two years ago, showed that 45 per cent of all children were growing up in a home where no one was in work. The story was often one of a third generation unemployed. It is a huge mountain for a young man to climb to believe that he is needed and that he matters, to find that self-respect and to break out of the destructive circle of generations without work.
The Government have an important first priority in saying that the best way out of poverty is to find a full-time job. The New Deal is of the first possible

812
importance. So far, so good; employment has gone well. We need to break down the statistics. I read the other day that the south east of England has perhaps only 1 per cent unemployment while areas such as Gateshead still have 9.8 per cent unemployment. The Government have done a great thing in naming poverty for what it is and establishing a social exclusion unit which has talked not only about the individually socially excluded, but of socially excluded communities. We need to focus on those, and to make sure over the years that bringing jobs to those communities does not depend solely on prosperity in the whole country, but that real jobs are brought into those communities through which young men can find self-respect.
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, so much of the destructive behaviour that I see among the socially excluded young people with whom I work becomes explicable when one knows the family situation from which it grows. Those who study child development tell us that good fathers are vital. Their relationship with the mother shows children how to be intimate themselves when they reach maturity. I could not agree more with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that to do the best for your child, you must love your wife, or in accordance with the Koran's command, love and honour your wife.
Longitudinal studies of children from divorced parents show clearly a far higher incidence of divorce in the next generation. If we want to reduce rates of divorce and crime, drug abuse, rough sleeping, school truancy and academic failure, we must offer support to fathers, particularly those who were neglected or abused by their own parents. We cannot afford to continue having the highest divorce rate in Europe. We cannot afford to continue throwing money at the symptoms of family dysfunction rather than treating the cause.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I too must thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss these important matters. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, on an admirable maiden speech.
I must declare an interest. I am vice-chairman of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, an all-party group made up of Members of both Houses, formed some years ago by parliamentarians worried by the repeated and vigorous attacks on the traditional family.
When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was introduced in 1990 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the then Lord Chancellor, it was pointed out that the Bill could lead to the introduction of fatherless children. I remember well raising the issue in the early stages of the passage of the Bill and being told that that was certainly not the

813
intention of the Bill. I replied that whether or not it was the intention of the Bill, it would certainly have that unfortunate effect.
The Heritage Foundation, based in Washington DC, produced a report in March 1995 entitled The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family and the Community. The report concluded first, that, among other things, over the past 30 years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. Secondly, high crime neighbourhoods are characterised by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers. Thirdly, the rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers. And, fourthly, the father's authority and involvement in raising his children are a great buffer against a life of crime.
Still across the Atlantic, the sociologist, David Papenhoe, writes that the decline of fatherhood is the major force behind the pressing problems of American society; namely, crime, teenage pregnancy, educational failure, drug abuse and the growing number of women and children in poverty.
Fatherless children are more likely to be abused by stepfathers or unrelated men in the family. That is why David Papenhoe says in Lost Fathers that in no society has the birth of children out of wedlock been the cultural norm: a concern for legitimacy is almost universal.
It was President Reagan who once affirmed that the family is the fundamental building block of society and that families without fathers are dysfunctional and contribute to the breakdown of law and order in this country.
8.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Northbourne is to be thanked for raising this important Question. In today's changing world the role of both parents in a family is changing, both here and across Europe. The Family Policy Studies Centre has examined the role of the world of work and family life. The father is often working longer hours and finding it difficult to balance work with his family's needs. Drawing on interviews and surveys within a group, the centre's study looks at families with different parental employment patterns to see whether there is a connection between work and the way in which fathers engage in everyday relationships with their family. The study shows the crucial importance still attaching to a father's role as provider by his partner and children, and identifies some of the problems fathers experience when they cannot meet that expectation.
The National Children's Bureau has found that men's expectations of themselves as involved fathers are growing, especially when the mother is also working. The father is then taking greater responsibility for the children, often sharing the care of a sick child. At present there appears to be very little attempt to help fathers to reconcile work and family. Will the Minister say whether the Government are
814
considering what help they can give to fathers to reconcile their work and the time spent with their families? Will he agree that one way would be to adopt father-friendly employment policies within a company which could benefit employers from the point of view of production and company loyalty?
Enabling fathers to have more satisfying relationships with their children helps to reduce their stress levels, improves their effectiveness at work and supports their relationship with their partner. That can lead to less employment disturbance and family disruption.
Will the Minister agree that the role of the father in a family is of equal importance to that of the mother? They can be equally good carers. In some cases that has proved to work when the father looks after the children while the mother works. That is very often the case when the father is unemployed.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I know we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this debate. I add my congratulations to my noble kinsman Lord Hood on an excellent and, I may say, expert maiden speech.
This is time for essentials only. We have today an under-class—at times, one has to say, an under-gender. Several speakers have referred to this: the easy availability of sex, frequently the pressure of a successful career by the mother, and also the loose ties of marriage and partnership which young couples see all around them, frequently involving those whom they would otherwise naturally look to as role models. There is an all too easy temptation for men to walk away from it all, despite the best efforts of the Child Support Agency, prompting the frequently heard complaint from mothers that the men hold all the cards.
However, let us look at the other less depressing side. I hope that I am not in conflict statistically with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. A survey by the British Household Study Panel found that, despite the increased rate of family breakdown, more than eight fathers in 10 still live with all their biological children and seven in 10 do so with their first family. In many cases they are coping with all the difficulties to which I have referred or with the appalling discouragement and feelings of low esteem of unemployment—the feeling of guilt that they are unable to fulfil their responsibilities. I suggest that that is a peculiarly male concern, whether or not the mother is working and earning. Therefore, it is to those points that we need to address ourselves, just as much as to the errant and absentee fathers.
I suggest that the media's portrayal of fathers as by and large feckless is not entirely accurate. A recent sample group survey showed that the interviewees wanted to be good fathers. But there is a great need for more support, particularly for the young fathers. It is an enormous challenge to the Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling this Question. It has stimulated one of the most interesting debates in which I have had the pleasure of participating in the time that I have been in your Lordships' House. It has led to some wide-ranging comments. I am bound to say that, given that there are some 17 contributors to this debate, I could spend my entire time at the Dispatch Box answering all those points. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not manage to deal with all of them, or even the majority of them.
I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, for his maiden speech, which was full of wisdom on the subject.
We in government see families as the building blocks of healthy communities. We also recognise that modern families take many forms and we work to support them, however they are made up. Last November we published the first ever government consultation document on family policy, Supporting Families.
Supporting Families emphasised the importance of the father's role in the family and in his children's upbringing. There can be many pressures on a man in his role as a father. He may not live with his children. He may feel torn, wanting to spend quality time with his children, yet working long hours to provide for them. We have been looking closely at the support available for fathers in the modern world and are helping them in a variety of ways. First among those is the dedicated support the Government are providing for families, and in particular for fathers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will know, in the past year we have spent over £1 million funding the work of organisations which provide support for families, including his own organisation. Over three years, £7 million of grant funding is available for this purpose. Through this funding we are providing practical support on the ground for families, and creating models of good practice in family support which can then be disseminated around the country. We are supporting parents to be able to do a tough job to the best of their abilities. We have set up the National Family and Parenting Institute as an independent charity. In its first year it will map the parenting support available all over the country, right down to local level.
The Parenting Education and Support Forum, with which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is associated, is doing valuable work to improve the standard of the parenting programmes available and is looking at accrediting them through a national training organisation.
We are also giving £1 million funding to Parentline Plus to expand its telephone helpline service for parents. That "listening ear" service will be available nationwide from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. It will provide information on a range of specific parenting problems, from bad behaviour to bullying.
816
We recognise that fathers are often less likely than mothers to access parenting support or this type of telephone helpline. Fathers may be put off seeking help and advice by stereotypes surrounding their role. They can feel hamstrung by feeling that as men they should not show weakness and should be able to provide for their families without asking for help.
To address these issues, we are funding Fathers Direct to work with Parentline Plus on the telephone helpline for parents. They will develop a marketing plan aimed at fathers to break down the barriers they feel prevent them accessing the helpline. They will then train the helpline's call takers to respond appropriately to fathers' needs.
That is just one example of the practical steps being taken to improve the support available for fathers. We are funding Fathers Direct to do more than just work on the telephone helpline. It will also provide information to fathers and highlight fathers' issues in public life. It is creating a website for fathers to provide information on fathers' groups and other resources. It will mount a media campaign to raise the profile of fatherhood. And it worked on the recently launched Bounty Guide to Fatherhood, the first practical guide of its kind for expectant fathers.
Fathers Direct contributes to the Government's concerted effort to change the culture around parenting support. We want parents to view asking for help and support in their role as parents in a new light and to view it as a positive step, taken by a responsible parent for the good of the family, not as a sign of weakness or an admission of failure.
The Government alone cannot change that culture, but through the organisations that we fund we are making an important start. We fund several other projects which will make a real difference to the quality of support available for fathers, and their likelihood to take it up. In fact, 60 per cent of the family support grant funding this year was dedicated to projects which work to support fathers. I shall give you details of just a few of those projects.
NEWPIN has worked successfully with parents for years, and is now developing and disseminating support services for fathers. YMCA is being funded to disseminate an intriguing programme called "Dads and Lads" which uses sport to bring fathers and sons together. Dads take their sons to football training on a Saturday and, while there, engage in a parenting support programme based around sport.
The Thomas Coram Foundation is approaching fatherhood from another vital angle. It is working with young black men and men of ethnic minority, tackling their concerns about fatherhood and masculinity. Those young men have been in local authority care and may have suffered from the lack of an involved father figure in their lives.
That brings me to another important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne: the current underachievement of some young men. There are, of course, many factors that contribute to that trend, and the Government are tackling the issue on several fronts. An important one is the role of the father, and

817
indeed the whole family, in the lives of young men. By helping fathers we shall also benefit their children, particularly boys and young men, who benefit greatly from the involvement of a father figure in their lives.
The Leading Lads report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, highlights how important it is for young men's self-esteem, their attitude to school and a range of other factors to have a highly involved male in their lives. That man need not be their biological father, but any older male who has a supportive, constructive and engaged relationship with the young man. The report says, and I quote,
"Can-do people appeared in every type of family … although there are more No-can-do boys living without their fathers than Can-do boys, family structure proved less important than the way people parent".
It is our hope that the family support measures that I have outlined will make a big difference in this area.
Another way of providing young men with such a highly involved finale is through mentoring. That is already being trialled by the Youth Justice Board. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in that respect. The Youth Justice Board is spending £6.6 million on mentoring schemes which intervene in the lives of 10 to 17-year olds to prevent offending. Mentoring has proved extremely successful in improving the life chances of young men in the USA, especially those from lone-parent families.
Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on Work and young men finds that,
"The nature of young men's underachievement is complex, and possibly less severe than some people may have feared".
I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, put his finger on the point. It continues:
"Nevertheless, some men during the mid-1990s did experience problems securing paid employment."
The study found that young men who lived with their parents or family were less likely to be unemployed long term, and concluded that providing support to families is an effective tool in improving the employment prospects of young men.
The education maintenance allowances which are being piloted will give financial help to the families of 16 to 17-year olds who are improving their long-term prospects by staying in education or training past the age of 16. Many noble Lords made reference to the value and importance of education. We recognise that. As we all know, having a job or solid training is the best insurance against the sort of social exclusion that faces some young men. On this front, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, the New Deal for Young People has helped over 84,000 young people into sustained employment.
We believe that the holistic, multi-faceted approach to tackling the difficult issues that face young men will prove effective. In the same way, the steps that we have taken to support fathers go much wider than the specific, targeted measures I have mentioned.
Finance is a matter close to all our hearts, whether fathers or not. However, money worries can be a particular pressure on fathers. The new working families tax credit will make a real, appreciable and
818
marked difference here, by guaranteeing families with one person in work a minimum income of £200 per week.
Perhaps the next most pressing problem for those fathers in work is finding enough time to spend at home with their families. How many of us here this evening would rather be at home with our children as they enjoy their spare time or work on their homework? But we have to strike a balance between work and home. The Government are consulting widely with businesses on making family-friendly employment a reality. That does not mean putting a burden on business or being prescriptive about how employees manage their work and home commitments. We are collecting evidence of good practice and we are researching the best ways of implementing family-friendly working practices.
Already we have made a major advance in improving the work/home balance for parents. From 15th December this year, parents will be entitled to 13 weeks parental leave to be taken over the first five years of their child's life. For the first time fathers will be entitled to time off to care for their children. That includes non-resident fathers. That is a major step forward in recognising and lessening the conflicting pressures on fathers. The leave will be unpaid, but we have made sure that it will be made accessible to those on low incomes. Lone parents and couples who are in receipt of benefits such as the working families tax credit will be eligible for income support while they take parental leave. That is a real and progressive move forward.
For non-resident fathers, maintaining a good relationship with their children can be especially difficult. Time off work under the new entitlement to parental leave will help. We are working to reduce tensions which arise out of the payment of maintenance by non-resident fathers. The reform of the child support system announced this summer will make the system of maintenance payment both fairer and simpler.
We plan to introduce the new child support system as soon as possible, but we must ensure that it works effectively. We shall not repeat the mistakes of the current scheme. We need to introduce new legislation and a new IT system and we must be sure that those delivering the new scheme are well prepared. It will mean a radical change of culture and working practices in the Child Support Agency.
Nevertheless, there are radical improvements that we shall have to make to pave the way for reform. The CSA has already increased the number of staff who work on the client helpline and the number of hours the telephone service is available. By the end of the year the CSA will have significantly increased the number of locally-based staff who will be able to carry out face to face interviews and visit parents at home when appropriate.
The reform of the CSA encourages non-resident fathers to share the care of their children with the parents who have residential care. The present system does not do enough to recognise fathers' caring responsibilities.

819
We believe that all these measures taken together will make a real difference to the quality of fathers' lives and help them in their vitally important role within the family.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this debate and for the work that his organisation carries out on and for families. As your Lordships can see from the initiatives that I have outlined, we in the Government are concerned with what we can do to support both families and fathers. Our economic and social policies address issues in all areas of fathers' lives and we shall continue to look at what we can do to help more. This debate has been most helpful and useful in informing that important work.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.47 p.m. to 8.50 p.m.]

Immigration and Asylum Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
REQUIREMENT TO STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER: PARTNERS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS
(" . The Verification Project under section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 shall not be applied to the partners of asylum-seekers.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a rather complex piece of interaction between immigration, asylum and social security law. On advice from the DSS, I tabled this amendment on both this and the Welfare Reform Bill. I am not certain—and it is not certain—to which Bill it applies in the first instance. What we are all certain of is that it creates a need for dialogue.
I shall explain a little of the background to this matter. Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act is concerned with establishing the correct identities of benefit claimants. That Act requires that claimants should be prepared to produce their national insurance number. I confess, to my own shame as much as that of anyone else, that when we passed that Act we did not think about the effect on the partners of those required to produce national insurance numbers. Under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, a requirement for identification is binding on the partner of the claimant as well as on the claimant. Where there is a marriage premium, a partner's premium or a child premium, the identity must necessarily be established.
That creates a problem when there are asylum seekers in this country waiting for some length of time for their claim to be heard. As others do, they tend to
820
marry and on occasion they have families. We are not arguing about the asylum seeker as regards this amendment—he is taken out of the social security network—but the British-born partner of an asylum seeker resident in this country. I cannot see any reason why, when any of these Acts was passed, anyone in Parliament should have imagined that such a person would be disentitled to social security because he or she had married an asylum seeker. It makes the status infectious in some kind of way.
But what happens when he attempts to make a claim, for example, for housing benefit? He is required to produce his national insurance number, which he can do and does. He is also required to produce his partner's national insurance number, which very often the partner does not possess and is not in a position to obtain. So, like the asylum seeker, the partner of the asylum seeker is disentitled to ordinary benefits. That is happening regularly in various housing benefit offices around London and the south east. I am aware of a considerable number of cases. When we passed the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act, I do not believe that any of us intended that to happen, but it is what has happened.
I think it a good idea to do something to tidy up this matter. I am not quite certain what is the best thing to do. I am asking the Minister to put his head together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and see whether between them they can work out a solution acceptable to all parties and compatible with the intention of Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl has been very economical in setting out the background to this matter. I believe that the same amendment was discussed at Third Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill. As the noble Earl has indicated, this amendment seeks to exempt all partners of asylum seekers from the requirement put on benefit claimants and their partners to provide sufficient information to allow their national insurance number to be traced or one allocated to them. If I have understood the noble Earl's amendment correctly, it is not limited to the exemption of partners who may be citizens of this country and is not referable at all to the country of origin.
The requirement was introduced under Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. Benefit claimants have either to produce or to apply for a national insurance number. The aim of Section 19 obviously was to verify identity and to ensure that benefit went only to those entitled to it and those who could establish that they were the person they said they were.
I do not see that that is a harsh or unconscionable requirement on someone who is the partner of an asylum seeker. The asylum seeker himself or herself will have to apply. The noble Earl is troubled about the effect on the partner. I am sure that it is my obtuseness, but I cannot see any injustice or harshness in requiring the partner to do the same.

821
However, he has put the matter very moderately. I believe that essentially his invitation is to raise the question and invite the Home Office to liaise with my noble friend Lady Hollis to see whether or not there is some resolution to a problem which he has identified. On behalf of my Home Office colleagues I am perfectly happy to say that they will raise these questions with her. I do not believe that I can go further than that this evening. Indeed, I am not sure that the noble Earl expected me to do so. I shall not trespass on the patience of the House by simply repeating the full explanation which my noble friend Lady Hollis gave in answer to the noble Earl a few days ago.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may briefly explain where I do see an injustice. It is not in the requirement to produce a national insurance number, but in the consequent disentitlement of somebody otherwise fully entitled to social security for not producing something which he is in no position to produce. It is the infectious use of disentitlement extending to those whom the asylum seeker may marry. That seems to me to be contrary to what I imagine was the intention of Parliament.

The noble and learned Lord is quite right. I did not expect him to go any further tonight. I accept his point about the drafting of my amendment. It never was my intention to press it to a Division. I did not have—and I may never have—the necessary knowledge to work out how the amendment should have been drafted to produce the desired effect. If they wish to do something about this matter, I am sure that the combined resources of the two departments will be able to find a satisfactory wording. If I have induced a serious considers Lion of this matter, I have achieved all that I wanted. I thank the noble and learned Lord formally and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 93 [Persons for whom support may be provided]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 64, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations supplementing this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group contains a series of amendments and it is perhaps of assistance if I read it aloud. It contains Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 42, 45 to 57, 64, 65, 68, 72, 73 and 84.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord claimed Amendment No. 73 as his own.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not claim parentage of all of the amendments in this group; I said that the group contained Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 84. Not all amendments can conceivably be my fault.
822
The government amendments stem from the undertaking we gave at Report to hold back a set of provisions which we felt the Select Committee should examine. The regulation-making powers are, all contained in the new schedule introduced by Amendment No. 72 which would replace Clause 96. We held back the remaining amendments, as was indicated at the time, because they contained references to the new schedule and could not be inserted until that schedule had been approved. Many are consequential drafting changes.
I explained on Report that the new regulation-making powers to be contained in the new schedule had a specific nature; that is, to amplify the powers to make regulations regarding the resources to be taken into account in determining whether or not an applicant is destitute or with resources at his disposal. They also make provision for a period of notice when an asylum seeker is required to leave the accommodation made available to him under Part VI.
The committee raised a question in relation to the scope of the powers conferred by paragraph 2(2). That is the import of Amendment No. 73. That power does no more than enhance powers already contained in the schedule which have been found acceptable in discussions both in this House and in another place. These are contained in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the schedule.
The power to which the committee has drawn attention is subsidiary to the principal power. The intention is that the new power will enable us to treat a person with assets of more than a given amount as not being destitute, except in exceptional circumstances. We could achieve the same end result by using the principal power, but the subsidiary power provides additional clarity which allows us to set out in legislation the exact threshold at which we would not regard someone as being destitute. The underlying concern is that an asylum seeker with several hundred pounds in his pocket at the time he approaches the Asylum Support Directorate for assistance should not be treated as destitute until he has used at least some of those resources and thus put himself below the threshold for destitution.
I should make it clear that we do not propose to use this power to exclude broad categories of genuinely destitute asylum seekers from access to the new support arrangements. I hope on that basis that the House will find the new power acceptable.
Amendment No. 39 paves the way for the schedule. Amendment No. 42 deletes Clause 96 which is substituted by the new schedule.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 relate to Clause 116; Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 relate to Clause 119 and Amendment No. 55 relates to Clause 120. They all have a substantive effect. In each case, the effect of the amendment is to limit the extent to which the clauses on which they impact can exclude asylum seekers from access to various social services and health services assistance. At present, certain provisions in those clauses exclude a person who is subject to the restrictions under Clause 144—that is, someone who is

823
subject to immigration control—from all access to the welfare services mentioned. We recognise that it is too broad exclusion—a point made on a number of occasions by several noble Lords. Now, by virtue of the amendments, the restriction on access to those services would apply only where the asylum seeker's recourse to those provisions would be on the ground of destitution, and for no other reason. Thus, if an asylum seeker needs assistance under, say, the Social Work (Scotland) Act or the Mental Health (Scotland) Act by reason of his physical or mental condition, he will be granted access to those services.
The only effect of the amended clauses, therefore, is to prevent welfare legislation being used solely as a means of supporting destitute asylum seekers in preference to their having recourse to the arrangements under Part VI. The amendments mirror the provisions already contained in Clause 115 which the House has already accepted. I therefore commend them on that basis.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are consequential, providing that the new support arrangements will commence when the first regulations have effect, which we intend to be 1st April 2000.
Amendment No. 84 extends to Scotland the free school meals provisions already in the Bill.
I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for raising in her Amendment No. 41 the issue of asylum seekers who remain in the support system for more than six months. We are fully alive to the need for the speedy resolution of asylum applications, for the reasons I set out earlier this evening. We are taking a range of steps to speed up the process and clear the backlog.
As your Lordships are aware, we are not enormously entranced by the provisions in Clause 92, which was introduced on Report. But that is an argument that we have deployed substantially here and it may not find universal favour in the House of Commons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised the question of those persons who have not had a final decision, through no fault of their own, within six months. I am able to reiterate that we have decided to introduce a discretionary payment to asylum seekers who stay in the support system through no fault of their own for more than six months. I can give a little more detail which I hope is acceptable. We believe that this payment, which would help to meet the cost of replacing essential items that had worn out, should be £50 each for an asylum seeker and his or her dependants. It would be available as a "cash back" voucher, convertible into money, and would be in addition to the normal weekly support that will be made available to asylum seekers. If there is a small number of cases—I recognise that there may be—where a person remains in the support system for more than 12 months, a further payment will be made.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that matter. I hope that my response now negates the necessity for her to press Amendment No. 41. I repeat
824
my genuine thanks to her for raising the question and I hope that she is pleased that I have been able to give a more particularised response. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, as we indicated at the time, we were grateful for the Government's review of the exclusion from certain National Health Service services under, at that time, Amendment No. 118. We are grateful that the Government looked at that again and decided not to maintain that exclusion in the case of asylum seekers and those who come under the European Convention on Human Rights. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Goodhart will cover the issue of the definition of "destitution" on Amendment No. 73, so I shall not waste the time of the House by talking about that.
In relation to Amendment No. 41, the noble and learned Lord has taken the step of ensuring that I do not waste my eloquence on desert air. I realise that the Government have taken a considerable step towards improving the situation that worried us; namely, that the original support system recognised that this provision would not make money available for the replacement of essential, durable goods. I cannot guarantee that there will not still be an effort to try to bring in a more generous support system, but I am most grateful for what the Government have done in this respect. Indeed, it goes at least some way towards meeting the point that I raised about the position of asylum seekers who remain here for some length of time.
Sadly, for reasons that the noble and learned Lord outlined earlier in the debate, it may well be the case that people have to wait six months or more. The promises given by the Home Secretary, in all good faith back in June, cannot be completely held to because the kind of targets then given were, of course, dependent upon a continuing flow of asylum seekers at roughly the rate current at that time. I realise that that may well create problems. Nevertheless, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for everything except depriving me of the chance to give an eloquent speech.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as my amendment forms part of this group, I think it might be convenient for the House if I were to speak now. The effect of Amendment No. 73 would be to leave out Paragraph 2(2) of the proposed new schedule to the Bill which is to be added by way of Amendment No. 72. That subparagraph states:
"The regulations may provide that in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed, a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of section 93".
Clause 93 contains a definition of the word "destitution", which I need not go into. However, the point that worries me—one which also worried the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—was that there cannot be any meaning to sub-paragraph (2), except that it will enable the Secretary of State under these regulations to treat as not being destitute someone who is in fact destitute. Otherwise, there would be no purpose behind the provision. If a person

825
is destitute, there is no need for a provision that says that he should be treated as such. Equally, if the person is not destitute, there is no need for a paragraph stating that he is to be treated as not being destitute.
Therefore, one wonders what the provision is intended to achieve. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General suggested that this might be necessary to cover, for example, the asylum seeker who comes to this country with several hundred pounds in his pocket. However, such a sum of money would surely represent assets which are available to him for the purposes of support within the meaning of sub-paragraph (1) of the new schedule. One might want to amend that subparagraph so that it would refer to,
"assets of a prescribed kind and value",
and that would be easy enough.
All the circum stances that come to mind in which one would need regulations that would exclude this sort of problem are easily covered by sub-paragraph (1). While I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about this, I remain very concerned because he cannot commit any future government as to what regulations they may choose to make. The fact is that subparagraph (2) could be used to treat a person who is destitute as not being destitute. That is something which I believe should not appear in the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may add a little more to the debate on Amendment No. 72. Many of these proposals run fairly clearly along the lines of recognised social security law. Therefore, one is entitled to draw attention to some of the recognised social security problems on which I believe the Home Office will need to do a certain amount of thinking. Perhaps I may take one obvious example. Under Paragraph 2 of the new schedule, the department is proposing to lay down in regulations the limits of income or of assets which would entitle it to treat a person as not being destitute.
The first question that occurs to me is: will these limits be regularly uprated for inflation? If they are not, we shall very soon have a problem. However, if they are to be regularly uprated, I would prefer—though I am sure the Home Office would not—to have them included in he regular provisions for mandatory consideration of uprating. Because capital limits in ordinary social security law were left out of that provision, they very often do not get uprated. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, has admitted in this Chamber quite frequently, some of them have not been uprated since 1988. So there could be something here which might create a lot of further hardship in the future.
I am also concerned about whether the words,
"might reasonably be expected to have",
Or,
"might reasonably be expected to be",
are appropriately placed here. Those, again, are regular words in social security law. They are designed to deal with the sort of person who is a company director with an apparently moderately prosperous company, but once the accounts have been audited by
826
someone with whom he has a long-standing business relationship, there suddenly turns out not to be any money to pay maintenance to his ex-wife under the CSA. In that case one understands the meaning of the words,
"might reasonably be expected to have".
But of course, in the case of an asylum seeker whose case has not yet been adjudicated upon, whether one might reasonably expect him to have income from the country he has left might have something to do with prejudging whether his claim is genuine.
The noble and learned Lord said something—I have been trying all day to track it down, but I have not succeeded. I was just about to ask him about it when the Lord Chairman made an appearance—reassuring about the application of Paragraph 2(1)(b) to personal effects, sentimental jewellery, wife's wedding ring, things of this sort. For some people who are perhaps the only survivors of their families things of this sort may have a sentimental value, and indeed far more than that. They may have a value to their collective memory and collective sense of their own identity. It would, I think, be peculiarly important that such things should not be taken into account in any assessment of what people are to be assessed as being worth when support is being considered. I thought when I heard the noble and learned Lord use the relevant words on Report that they were probably sufficient on this point and I am sorry to have to come back to the matter. But because I was not able to track them down and the amendment, of course, by his generosity was not moved, I would like a little further clarification on this.
The other point on Amendment No. 72 that I want to take up concerns the proposed new paragraph 8, which states,
"The regulations may make provision for the suspension or discontinuance of support",
because of,
"the cessation of residence in accommodation provided under section 93".
This is an area where I can see miscarriages of justice taking place quite easily. It is sadly true that a number of people from ethnic minorities suffer a quite considerable degree of harassment in their residence. There was a recent case in Lancaster of someone who it seems had been assaulted in his house several hundred times but the local police authorities had not taken any action. I do not think that such cases are common but they happen. When an asylum seeker says that he has left his accommodation because he was constantly subjected to racial harassment there, this statement is ex parte. If the local police in that place are—shall we say?—somewhat less zealous in this matter than some other police forces might have been, there will be no way of verifying that ex parte statement. Therefore it could well end up being disbelieved when it was in fact totally true. I would like to know whether there is a good cause provision here and whether the good cause provision will be used, with some investigation into the possibility of getting independent evidence, because otherwise there could be serious trouble.

827
Also, of course, other good causes can include the state of the accommodation. If, for example, you have an asthmatic child and the accommodation is damp, you may well want to leave that accommodation without being in any way nefarious, or wishing to evade the system. I hope that the measure will not be applied rigorously and I hope that it will be applied sensitively. I would be grateful for any comments that the noble and learned Lord can make on that point.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a rather different point, I ask the noble and learned Lord about Amendment No. 84, which, as he mentioned in his preliminary remarks, relates to Scotland. This amendment alters the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and I understand that it extends the provision of school meals in Scotland in order to comply with the requirements in the Bill.
Education is of course devolved to Scotland. I am aware—the noble and learned Lord will remember well from his involvement at the time—that Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act allows this Westminster Parliament to legislate for anything in Scotland, whether it is devolved or not. This is a devolved matter. I wonder how the Government have handled this. Have they consulted the Scottish executive on the point to see whether it agrees to school meals being extended in this way? Has the Scots Parliament considered it? Does it realise that it is happening? This may increase to a small extent the expenditure on school meals that will be required. I wonder whether the Government have perhaps agreed a concordat with the Scots Parliament for dealing with the matter. This kind of thing will obviously arise quite often. I gave the noble and learned Lord notice of the question, and I should be grateful if he could tell me how this has been handled.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, this cluster of amendments relates to support for asylum seekers. I looked particularly at Amendment No. 39, which bites on Clause 93. That gives the Secretary of State power to make further provisions. One of the major provisions relates to accommodation. Noble Lords raised this matter at an earlier stage. Some of the new arrangements are now coming about. I would like to read part of a letter, copied to me, from the chairmen of several voluntary agencies in Merseyside which are dealing with the most acute cases. It is a letter to the Home Secretary, written on 26th October:
"We were dismayed to hear on 25th October circumstances under which the Government intends to send several hundred asylum seekers to Liverpool very shortly under the new legislation. It is not the fact that these people are coming to our city which caused the dismay—indeed, I am sure we will do everything possible to ensure that they are assimilated as smoothly as possible—but rather the fact that the City Council and its carefully selected group of statutory and voluntary agencies will not have sole responsibility for housing and supporting them. We have had saddening experience of the effects of placing asylum seekers in privately negotiated accommodation and we would refer you to the refugee arrivals project for confirmation of the worst example of this in Liverpool itself. We believe it would be
828
extremely unwise to pursue this policy and would beg you to reconsider it, even at this late stage. Unless the local authority has control as well as responsibility for these unfortunate people, they run the very real risk of becoming victims of greed among some private landlords and of local racist attitudes, as many of those already here have sadly discovered. A properly established, funded and monitored operation by the City Council, which is already well advanced in its planning and has the benefit of recent experience gained through hosting Kosovar refugees in our city, could prevent many of the inevitable problems by providing community support and other facilities".
I should be most grateful if my noble and learned friend the Minister could spell out how the Government expect local authorities and others to make provision for accommodation. Arising also from this cluster of amendments, could he spell out in a little more detail how voluntary bodies would know whether they qualify for the "hard cases" money that the Government have spoken about? In what way it will be made available to voluntary bodies?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, my question follows on from those of the noble Lord. Has the Minister taken note of the serious shortfall in the money available to local authorities for housing asylum seekers? The magazine Housing Today says that the Government's framework is on the brink of financial disaster and that local authorities would lose out by £100 million unless more Home Office cash is forthcoming. This article, which appears in the current issue of Housing Today, is entitled:
"Councils warn of £100 million shortfall as numbers rise".
I know that the Association of London Government and the Local Government Association have taken this matter up with the Home Office. The Home Office has said merely that it is all the more important that this legislation gets on to the statute book. When it does, the number of asylum seekers will fall from the current level—which is expected to be 70,000 during 1999—to an estimated 42,000 next year.
That is all very well, but what happens to the additional burden which, according to this report, is being imposed on local authorities in the meanwhile? Where is the additional £100 million—if that figure is correct—to come from? Can the Minister verify that figure? Will any more cash be forthcoming from the Government for the local authorities which are facing this colossal burden?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular, emphasised the difficulties which the Home Office and its Immigration and Nationality Directorate will have in implementing the whole of the support system. It is very complicated; it is being set up from scratch; and it will have all the kinds of ramifications which have caused great complications for many years—both on the social security side and on the immigration side—all of which must be dealt with at once all over the country. It is a formidable administrative task. I hope very sincerely that the Home Office is alive to the scale of the task and that it is addressing itself very carefully to it.

829
I rise merely to add a word or two on Amendment No. 73, on which my name appears. I cannot add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in speaking to the amendment, except to draw attention to the wording of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which said that,
"The House may wish to consider removing or limiting this wide power"—
that is, the power to treat someone who is otherwise destitute as not being destitute—
"if the Government do not provide a persuasive justification for it"
No one is more able to provide persuasive justifications for almost anything than the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. He has not done so yet, but I am sure that he is about to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for giving me prior notice of the point that she raised. Perhaps I may deal with the distinct Scottish question first. My understanding is that the request for this provision came from the Scottish Office. We understand that it undertook the necessary consultations. The noble Baroness is right, education is a devolved matter; but immigration and asylum are reserved. The amendment parallels the provision in paragraph 116 of Schedule 13 in relation to the provision of free school meals in England and Wales under the Education Act 1996. There will not necessarily be any further expenditure in Scotland. At present, children of asylum seekers get free school meals because their parents are on income support. So the expenditure, by and large, is being incurred already.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, inquired about good cause. I am able to confirm that t he provisions of paragraph 8(1) would be applied only if someone left accommodation without good cause. He specifically asked about asthmatic children. If accommodation is inadequate by reason of dampness, as he suggested, for those with particular health problems—whether children or the asylum seeker—the scheme allows for personal circumstances to be taken into account.
The noble Earl further asked me for examples in practice of the phrase, "reasonably to be expected". In some circumstances I revert to his original point. A partner of an asylum seeker is entitled to claim social security—perhaps because he or she is British—and he or she would be reasonably expected to claim that benefit and not to rely on asylum seeker's support.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is quite right, subparagraph (2) is a subsidiary part of sub-paragraph (1) and we intend to use the power in the way that he indicated.
In the context of the Bill, we are not regarding destitution as an absolute condition. We would want to treat as destitute someone with less than £200; we would not want to treat as destitute someone with a higher amount.
830
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the uprating of limits for inflation. We intend to hold an annual review so that we can make our own assessment, separate from other systems. The noble Earl also asked about sentimental jewellery. My understanding is that sentimental jewellery will not be taken into account when assessing destitution.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool asked about responsibility. He gave an example of an asylum seeker placed in Liverpool by another authority. In Schedule 8 the interim arrangements provisions provide for case responsibility to be transferred so that an asylum seeker placed in Liverpool by another authority could be transferred to Liverpool City Council by agreement. My noble friend Lord Sheppard also asked about private landlords. Any accommodation to be used by asylum seekers will need to meet proper standards to be set out in regulations. We will also, of course, be establishing with the voluntary sector one-stop shops to provide advice and support.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the financial provision. Local authorities will be paid per asylum seeker family. If numbers rise, they will get a special increased grant. Other general expenditure by local authorities such as schooling and social services will be reflected in the standard spending assessment of the local government financial settlement in the normal way.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder whether the local authorities may nevertheless have a cash flow problem because the number of asylum seekers this year has been rising extremely rapidly. I presume that the assessment will not take place until the spring of 2000. In the meantime, all the money will have been spent by local authorities and they will have to wait until the middle of 2000 to retrieve any of it under the standard spending assessment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a perfectly reasonable point. The figure of £100 million was not one that I had put my mind to earlier. However, I am not complaining. The noble Lord probably himself had the figure quite recently as a matter of information. If it is convenient, either I or, more likely, my noble friend will write to the noble Lord and, as always, a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard also asked about integration. I am happy to be able to tell noble Lords that today the Home Secretary published a consultation paper setting out our plans for the integration of refugees following successful asylum decisions. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, from the Cross Benches, have raised the question of how we should look to the longer term life of refugees who have been granted appropriate status in this country. Are they constantly to live in actual or notional ghettos, or are they to be integrated into the mainstream of our lives? I hope that

831
when your Lordships have seen the consultation paper, it will prove itself to be a useful first step in addressing such longer term problems.
My noble friend Lord Sheppard also asked about the hard cases grant. Again, we will be issuing guidelines to the voluntary sector on how to administer that grant.
I believe that I have dealt with all the distinct questions put to me. If I have not, I shall read the account and I shall be happy to write to noble Lords. I may not have dealt with matters to the perfect satisfaction of all my interlocutors, but those are the replies I am able to provide.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 64, line 24, leave out subsection (12).
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it was good to learn of the extra resources that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General announced will be made available towards the end of the support scheme. Amendments Nos. 40 and 78 refer to the other end of the support scheme and have the effect of removing from the Bill Schedule 8 which provides for interim arrangements from the passage of the Bill until the main support scheme takes effect.
Because your Lordships' House supported Amendment No. 118 tabled on Report, which made Clause 92 part of the Bill, interim arrangements have already been provided by giving asylum seekers access to the full benefits system. Strictly speaking, therefore, Schedule 8 is redundant and should be removed. I realise, however, that your Lordships need to consider every eventuality and speculating, unlikely though it might be, that Clause 92 could be amended or even removed in the other place, it could be argued that other interim arrangements need to be in place. Perhaps, but not the interim arrangements spelt out in Schedule 8—for surely a mistake has been made.
The interim arrangements in Schedule 8 are designed to mirror the eventual support package, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General made clear at Report stage. The interim arrangements will be managed by the local authorities but within the parameters and boundaries as specified by the Government along the lines of the eventual support package. It has been made clear, not least by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in Committee, that these support arrangements are designed only to last for a few months. Yet the interim arrangements are precisely similar and so the time asylum seekers are on interim arrangements has to be added to the time they might be on the support arrangements. We are getting into years, not months.
It could be argued—I am sure that it will be—that anything, even the proposed interim arrangements, would be better than the present system. The interim arrangements are not better for one important group—families with children. At present, families with children who seek asylum at a port of entry
832
qualify for virtually the total sum of benefits available for a citizen of the UK. If they do not seek asylum at the port of entry but later, the local social services department provides support under Section 17 of the Children Act and in most cases cash support is given to the level of income support. In all cases children at present fall under the full protection of the Children Act. Under the proposed interim arrangements in Schedule 8, all this falls away.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave this assurance:
"I repeat what I said earlier this evening: we have listened carefully to the concerns about children. I said quite plainly earlier tonight that we have now indicated that children under the age of 18 will have a support level set at a level equivalent to income support personal allowances".—[Official Report, 21/7/99; col. 1122.]
What is proposed provides support perhaps equivalent to income support but it is provided mostly in vouchers and not cash and the protection of the Children Act is removed under the interim arrangements. The families are certainly worse off than at present.
I must confess to feeling a little let down by the proposed arrangements. I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—again at the Committee stage—had indicated something a little different. He said:
"I repeat what my right honourable friend Jack Straw said on Report in the other place. He confirmed that asylum seeker families with minor children would not be taken into the new support system at 1st April 2000 unless he was satisfied that the target of two months for a decision time in those cases could be achieved".—[Official Report, 21/7/99; col. 1097.]
Strictly by the letter, the Government are honouring that pledge. Families are not being brought into the support system yet. But under the interim arrangements they are being brought into a mirror image of the support scheme. It is as though the letter of the pledge is being honoured but not the spirit.
Indeed, on Report in the other place the Home Secretary went a little further than the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has suggested. He said:
"I also give the subsidiary but very important undertaking that, if we cannot achieve those targets for families with children, and if I am not satisfied that they can be achieved, we will not introduce those applications into the new support arrangements in April 2000. The existing arrangements will continue until we are so satisfied".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/99; col. 475.]
Perhaps I may repeat that last sentence:
"The existing arrangements will continue until we are so satisfied".
But the existing arrangements are not continuing. Schedule 8 introduces another set of arrangements which I believe disadvantage children. Has the Home Secretary changed his mind? Have I missed a subtle political interpretation of what seems to be a clear promise regarding keeping families under the existing arrangements until time targets are met? Or has a mistake been made? I prefer to think the latter. For that reason, I believe that the proposed interim

833
arrangements should be removed so that families can continue to have the full support that they need. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to express concern about Amendments Nos. 40 and 78. We know that the Government have inherited a chaotic system of support for asylum seekers. We also heard earlier today from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General of the surge in new asylum seekers coming into this country. The present rate is about 7,000 a month. The Home Secretary has already entered into discussions with local authorities in an attempt to reduce the pressure on authorities in London and the south east. Those arrangements are taking place largely on a basis of voluntary negotiation.
I suggest that Schedule 8 enables the Home Secretary to put on a firmer statutory basis many of the accommodation changes involving dispersal that have already been discussed in this House. My concern is that, if we vote to remove Schedule 8, we shall hold back the whole policy of dispersal from London and the south east. The effect of that would be to put continuing pressure on the London boroughs and on Kent County Council.
As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to introduce a set of arrangements whereby the interests of asylum seekers would not be best served; nor would the interests of hard-pressed local authorities and their home populations in London and the south east. Another concern is whether we should end up spending more money from the public purse on keeping asylum seekers in very high-cost accommodation areas in London and the south east when there is perfectly satisfactory, lower-cost accommodation elsewhere. The amendment would also make it more difficult to settle asylum seekers in areas where there are already communities from the countries from which they come.
I hope that we shall not enter into another set of changes that we have not thought through—as happened in regard to Amendment No. 118 which was passed by this House last week. It turned out that the price tag for that amendment was about £500 million. We need some assurances from the Government as to the cost of this change. We also need to know whether it would, as I suspect, hold back the application and implementation of the policy of dispersal.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could assist us by putting us in the picture. There are a large number of uncertainties and anomalies in the area that we are now examining.
In the light of what has just been said, I understand that the Local Government Association suggests that the interim arrangements would be difficult to introduce and that it would prefer to go straight to the April 2000 new system without going through the interim arrangements on the way. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can say something about that. As my
834
noble friend said earlier, local authorities believe that, as matters stand, they are short of the money that they need to operate the interim system.
I believe that what drove noble Lords to support Amendment No. 118, which was accepted by this House, was their view that it would be helpful to hold the Home Office to the then six-month target effectively to guarantee that families with children would move from one system to another; that is, that until their cases were dealt with they would be able to continue under the existing support arrangements. Since the pledge quoted by the right reverend Prelate was given by the Home Secretary in the other place, we are no longer certain about the position of families as distinct from other asylum seekers. The noble and learned Lord may be able to shed some light on that. On the face of it, the interim arrangements look less good than the existing support system. That concerns many of us. We understood that the Home Secretary was prepared to treat families rather differently from other asylum seekers.
We do not want to make difficulties for the Government. We are grateful for the steps that they have taken. However, it would be of immense help if the noble and learned Lord could refer back to the words of the Home Secretary in the other place in June of this year. What is the exact position with regard to children during the interim period? Can he assure the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that provision under the interim support arrangements will be as good as under the existing system? If not, can he confirm that families will not be brought within those arrangements and that other asylum seekers may be?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this group of amendments, particularly having heard the right reverend Prelate who put the position extremely clearly. I rise only to refute the suggestion made in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the cost of Amendment No. 118 (which was made to Clause 92 at Report stage) might be of a very large order. That estimate depends on wild guesses and highly dubious assumptions. I do not accept it for a moment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not my experience of my noble friend Lord Warner. He is a man of enormous experience and expertise in these areas. I have never known him make wild assertions. I believe that the figure he gave is correct. Amendment No. 118 was carried against the advice that we sought to give. Without trespassing on ground that I should not enter into, my belief is that that amendment will be overturned in another place. I believe that it was a mistake to press that amendment and to carry it. I repeat: my noble friend Lord Warner has enormous and lengthy experience of dealing with the problems of young people and families. I believe that what he said is correct.
Amendment No. 40, which was moved by the right reverend Prelate, gives me the opportunity to explain the reason for Schedule 8 to the Bill. It is concerned

835
solely with the way in which local authorities should give support to asylum seekers in the period prior to the main new support arrangements set out in Part VI. At the moment, local authorities in England and Wales have to support asylum seekers under social services legislation: the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Those statutes were never intended for that purpose. Schedule 8 provides a sounder legal basis for the provision of support to asylum seekers. Critically, it allows for a degree of dispersal of asylum seekers from hard-pressed local authorities in London and the south east to other parts of the country where there is less pressure on local authorities from asylum seekers. To an extent, the interim arrangements pave the way for the main new asylum support arrangements, but in most respects they allow local authorities to continue to support asylum seekers in the same way as they do now.
The schedule is a set of regulation-making powers and provides a framework. We put out the consultation paper in August and are currently drafting the regulations in the lights of responses we have had. It is fundamental to our thinking that we have relieved the pressure of over-concentration. I have not heard from any of your Lordships at any stage of our debates on the Bill that anyone disputes the fact of that mischief.
Some local authorities are having to cope with very high numbers of asylum seekers. This is taking up a huge amount of accommodation in the capital and surrounding areas. It is making it very difficult indeed for local authorities to discharge their statutory duties towards local homeless families under the homelessness legislation. It is idle, I say, to concentrate on one feature of a local authority's responsibilities and duties and to forget that they have other responsibilities and duties which they are finding it hard to charge. The Government and the Local Government Association are clear that there needs to be a dispersal mechanism to share responsibility. The LGA, to which I pay credit, is currently establishing new arrangements for the transfer of asylum seekers between hard pressed authorities and others who have spare accommodation capacity in different parts of the country. The interim arrangements provide the vehicle to bring that about.
I cannot emphasise this too strongly. We want to see dispersal achieved by agreement. The schedule contains powers that would allow the Home Secretary to set a maximum on the number of new asylum seekers that a hard-pressed local authority is required to accept. We hope that in practice it will not be necessary to deploy those powers. As I said a moment ago, we hope for voluntary agreements.
The schedule contains powers that would allow us to set limits on the number of asylum seekers who may be placed in a particular area by any or all local authorities. We have to bear in mind the small local authorities such as Thanet and Dover. The number of
836
asylum seekers placed in bed and breakfast accommodation by other authorities is simply not sustainable.
We hope not to make use of the power. We hope for a co-ordinated voluntary basis of response. We want to give guidance to local authorities and hope to be able to commend the new dispersal arrangements which are being drawn up by the Local Government Association.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may ask a straightforward question. We fully understand the need for dispersal. Many of the powers of dispersal occur under Schedule 13. Can the noble and learned Lord say why the powers in Schedule 8 are necessary as well as those in Schedule 13?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall come to Schedule 13 in a moment. The asylum seekers affected by the interim provisions in Schedule 8 are those asylum seekers already accommodated under the 1948 Act and the Children Act 1989. Those asylum seekers will be deemed to be transferred on to support under the interim arrangements within the auspices of the local authority currently supporting them.
The interim arrangements will apply also in respect of all new applications for support by people seeking asylum before 1st April 2000. These are people who have applied for asylum in country, not at the port of entry, and those asylum seekers who apply for asylum at port of entry and therefore were initially entitled to social security but are staying in this country pending an appeal against initial refusal of asylum. Local authorities will carry on with the responsibility for such cases after April 2000 but on a declining basis.
The interim arrangements will continue to be led by local authorities who have already substantial experience of accommodation and support. I do not believe that there is any reason to conclude that they will result in asylum seekers receiving any less favourable treatment than they do at present. Indeed, with phased dispersal to areas better able to support them, we believe that asylum seekers will benefit from these arrangements.
The government amendments are of a technical nature. As drafted, Schedule 8 would allow regulations to place a ceiling on the number of asylum seekers that a local authority is required to accommodate so that it could refer those in excess of that ceiling to any other local authority. I repeat that we are looking for agreement rather than compulsion.
At the same time as we bring the provisions of Schedule 8 into effect by regulation, we shall also bring into effect Clause 115, which removes asylum seekers' access to assistance under the 1948 Act. Clause 115 relies in part on a definition of persons subject to immigration control contained in Clause 114. But Clause 114 will not be brought into substantive effect until the main support arrangements come on stream in April 2000.

837
We therefore, at Report, made a supplementary provision in the transition in paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to allow that definition to have effect, even though Clause 114 is not in full effect. The amendments to Schedule 14 within this group would similarly apply the definition in Clause 114 to the other restrictions on access to social welfare which we find in Clauses 116, 119 and 120. We do not believe at present that that interim provision needs to apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland simply because the pressure from asylum seekers in those areas is much less severe.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 14 provides for a phased move from the interim arrangements and from social services support. Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 extend these provisions so that they apply equally to all support that may be provided under English and Welsh legislation.
After 1st April 2000, the prime responsibility for the support of asylum seekers goes to the Secretary of State; local authorities will have a residual duty to support certain persons who sought asylum before that date. But we also hope to see them actively, positively and willingly involved as contractors providing accommodation for the Home Secretary's scheme. Amendment No. 69 is intended to support this approach by commencing the provisions that allow local authorities to prepare contracts from the date of Royal Assent.
Particular matters were raised and I hope to deal with them all. I shall deal with Schedule 13 as I am giving my answer. Schedule 13 deals with dispersal powers under the homelessness legislation; that is, port applicant asylum seekers who become homeless. On the other hand, Schedule 8 relates to dispersal powers relative to in-country applicants.
It was suggested that the interim arrangements would be less good for families. No, the interim arrangements allow local authorities to continue to support families on broadly the same basis as now. They will not be worse; they will probably be better than the existing arrangements.
I mentioned the tribute which we need to pay to the local government associations. They are actively cooperating in establishing the interim arrangements. Officials were discussing this at a seminar with a local government association only today. In response to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Sheppard, I repeat that the interim arrangements are a continuation of the existing arrangements of support by local authorities. They are not a trailer for the new Home Office arrangements.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark suggested that the interim arrangements are a mirror of the main scheme. In fact, they continue current local authority support; for instance, by way of Section 17 of the Children Act, which is not being done away with, but they allow for dispersal. I believe that we have an obligation to the London and south east authorities to which I referred earlier.
The right reverend. Prelate was troubled that the Children Act "falls away", as I believe he said. It does not. The protection of the Children Act remains for
838
social services' needs, other than destitution needs. The basic support needs will be met under the interim arrangements, but on the same basis as they are currently applied.
I mentioned earlier that interim arrangements do not cover port of entry cases but in-country cases in the way I suggested. Looking at what is being provide by Schedule 8 and coming to the determinative feature of the Bill as it now stands, everyone recognises that the present system is a shambles. If we do not make a determined start, we can have debates about this at 10-yearly anniversaries in the future. We are not putting people into destitution; it is not right to say that we are.
We are providing cash and voucher facilities, with furnished accommodation and utility charges fully found. That is not unreasonable for the limited period to which Jack Straw has referred time and time again. Family cases will not be introduced until we can meet the two to six months targets.
Some of the attacks on the Bill are based on a misunderstanding. I respectfully commend again the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. We are determined to reform a system which serves no one well at present.
10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, if anything, I am more confused than I was 10 minutes ago. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General made clear on Report that the proposed interim arrangements were meant to be a preparation for the main support scheme rather than a continuation of the present arrangements. I am rather confused by what he has said this evening.
Ministering in London, I fully understand the need for dispersal. But, again, I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did not, to my satisfaction at least, respond to the request of the noble Baroness to indicate exactly how the position of children under the interim arrangements would correspond with the clear assurance of the Home Secretary that the present arrangements will continue until the Government's time limits are met.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that it is idle to concentrate on one aspect of a local authority's responsibility and ignore others. However, where that one aspect concerns the welfare of children and the possibility of children becoming destitute, I for one make no apology for focusing upon that aspect, even though the removal of the interim arrangements may have other difficult consequences.
I am still not sure that what seems to be a clear undertaking for family support by the Home Secretary has in fact been honoured in the Bill. Perhaps that will be discussed further in the other place where the promises were made. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 96 [Secretary of State's scheme]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 42:
Leave out Clause 96.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107 [Failure of sponsor to maintain]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 73, line 5, after ("neglects") insert (", without reasonable excuse,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. It concerns two clauses, Clauses 106 and 107, which appear in the part of the Bill headed "Support for Asylum Seekers".
Clauses 106 and 107 create two criminal offences. The crime in Clause 106, stated shortly, is refusing to provide information which the defendant is under an obligation to provide. The crime in Clause 107, stated shortly, is the crime of refusing to provide maintenance for an asylum seeker which the defendant is under an obligation to provide.
However, there is written into Clause 106, which relates to information, a defence, which is "without reasonable excuse." Therefore the defendant is not guilty of the crime of refusing to provide information which he is otherwise bound to provide if he can show that he has a reasonable excuse. However, there is no such defence written into Clause 107. Therefore, a defendant remains guilty of the offence of refusing to provide maintenance even if he has a reasonable excuse. Why is "reasonable excuse" a defence in the case of one clause and not in the case of the other?
Let us take the scenario that the defendant has a small business; perhaps he runs a village shop. That is quite a likely scenario because many people who come from abroad take up business as shopkeepers. Let us suppose that he is under an obligation to pay a weekly sum for the maintenance of an asylum seeker; that there is a period when his business falls off; also that he makes enough money to support himself and his wife and children but not enough to pay also for the maintenance of the asylum seeker, despite his best efforts, unless of course he sells the businessl—his livelihood—and uses the proceeds of sale for as long as they last. In those circumstances, he declines—your Lordships may feel that he declines reasonably—to continue to pay the maintenance which he can no longer afford. Nevertheless, he has absolutely no defence if he is prosecuted because "reasonable excuse", although a defence to the Clause 106 crime, is not a defence to the Clause 107 crime.
That anomaly was touched on briefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in slightly different terms in Committee. The only answer given by the Government was that,
"it is not the intention of Clause [107]"—
I have changed the number of the clause—
"to catch those who, despite their best efforts, have found themselves unable to maintain … someone".—[Official Report, 28/7/99; col. 1543.]
840
Why is that not made clear in the Bill as it is with regard to information which is reasonably refused? Why is "reasonable excuse" spelt out in Clause 106 but not in Clause 107, where we are told that it is intended to apply?
I did not return to this point on Report because I took the view that it was really a drafting amendment and the Companion advises that the convenient point to raise a drafting amendment is at Third Reading. I know that drafting amendments are not particularly encouraged, but this amendment reflects exactly the Government's stated intention, as expressed in Committee. In my respectful submission, that intention should be written into the Bill.
Of course, I appreciate that the obligation to provide information under Clause 106 is imposed by law while the obligation to pay maintenance under Clause 107 results from an undertaking given voluntarily. However, that difference means only that it may be more difficult to prove that the refusal to pay is reasonable. The fact remains that if there is a reasonable excuse for non-payment, that should be a defence under Clause 107 just as much as it is a defence in the case of a refusal to provide information. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble and learned Lord has caught me with a conundrum. I have to throw myself on the mercy of the court. I had assumed that the answer to the question of the noble and learned Lord on this amendment was that there may be a comparison between Clause 107 of this Bill with Section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act, which similarly lacks the "without reasonable excuse" proviso.
However, the noble and learned Lord has been astute. With great deference to him, he makes an important point. He has not co-related Clause 107 of this Bill with Section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act provision, but he asks a question to which I have no answer that convinces me and, therefore, will convince him on the difference between Clause 107 of the Bill and Clause 106 of the Bill. It is possible that an answer will occur to me as I speak a little longer.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene. I may be able to offer him small assistance in his cogitation.
What would be the position of a sponsor who took an asylum seeker into his home and provided him with food and accommodation according to the guarantees that he had given, but later found that that asylum seeker was molesting his wife and children? Would the sponsor not have reasonable grounds for throwing him out of his home—I would have thought that he would have—and to cease to support him? As I understand the wording of the Bill, it would be illegal for him to do so. Therefore, his wife and children would continue to be in danger, which, I am sure the

841
noble and learned Lord, as a husband and I assume a father, would find most disagreeable and most dishonourable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for succour in this instance from whatever source. It is on such occasions that one longs to be able to say, "My noble friend Lord Bassam will deal with this point"!
The only answer that I offer—it is riot marvellously convincing to me—is that Clause 107 mirrors Section 105 of the Social Security Administration Act. Plainly that does not attend to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, which is different and distinct.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would allow me a little time to consider this matter. I am not prepared to put forward any explanation that I do not believe is worthy of consideration, certainly not by the noble and learned Lord. I ought to think about this further.
In policy terms—this does not deal with the Clause 106 point at all—there would be no prosecution under any of the circumstances that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. This is not intended to attack someone with criminal liability who does not have some blameworthiness. I do not believe that that is entirely satisfactory. In fact, I regard it as vestigially satisfactory. Perhaps I ought to give this matter further consideration.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the Attorney-General that if he wants to keep open his options for a little while in order to consider the matter, he could allow this amendment to pass this evening as the noble and learned Lord has the option of trying to influence his colleagues in another place to remove it if it turns out that on further consideration it is not necessary.
I thought it was a good amendment to make and one that may stick. The only way that I can see to keep the matter open at this stage of the Third Reading is to pass the amendment, even if the noble and learned Lord wants to reserve his position as to the attitude he recommends to colleagues in another place at a later stage.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support that very sensible suggestion and add one other example, which is perhaps rather less sinister than that produced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If someone enters into an agreement in all good faith that they will maintain an asylum seeker and bear the cost and responsibility for him, but find that they are made redundant and do riot have the means to support the asylum seeker, that sounds like a reasonable excuse. Once the noble and learned Lord addresses his mind to that for more than the 30 seconds that he has had, despite the interventions that have given him at least
842
three minutes, I am sure that he will find that the drafting is excellent and can be commended to another place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness is giving me my lifeline. I am able to deal with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about Clause 107 as it mirrors the social services legislation. What I do not find convincing—I am about to be wholly overwhelmed with conviction'—is that the noble and learned Lord said perfectly rightly, why is there a "without reasonable excuse" defence in Clause 106, but not in Clause 107. I remain underwhelmed. But your Lordships are always kind and generous, particularly as it is 10.15 p.m. in the evening. My riding instructions are that I should accept the amendment. If we need to, we can overturn it.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I regret that I did not quite hear the noble and learned Lord's last comment. I was not certain whether he was accepting the amendment or whether he wished to reserve it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was accepting the amendment, but only on the basis that I reserve my position when I have a convincing argument. I trust that that will be before the millennium.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am very much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Exclusion from benefits]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 76, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (g) of subsection (1) above do not apply to a person seeking asylum in the United Kingdom or a spouse or dependant of such a person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that asylum seekers retain the right to disability benefits. The most humane and efficient way of supporting asylum seekers is by using the mainstream benefits system. That approach has been rejected by the Government in favour of creating an entirely separate system of support for asylum seekers which appears to be a recipe for social exclusion.
However, I do not believe that disability benefits can be simply removed along with all the others without giving the matter separate attention. Disability benefits are only payable to those living with the qualifying level of disability as attested to by doctors. Thus we are here talking of a limited class to which access is strictly controlled. They are not benefits anyone can access. I have seen no figures setting out the number of asylum seekers who receive such benefits, but I am aware that it is small.
The Government's rationale for removing access to benefits is that cash benefits are an attraction. That rationale cannot and should not be applied to disability benefits. They cannot, because a person only qualifies for disability benefits when they have a disability. I do not believe that it can be argued that

843
anyone would choose so to qualify. They should not, because that would suggest that we in this country want to provide a special deterrent for disabled people.
This amendment was discussed at Committee stage with Amendment No. 118. When replying the noble and learned Lord referred to paragraph 3(b) of the new schedule that had just been introduced into the Bill. It was not moved at Report stage. It was then Amendment No. 124.
I wish to know how the Government see the proposals of paragraph 3(b) working and whether they would work as well as the disability benefits. How will the asylum seekers be assessed? Will it be on the same basis as for those who already receive benefits? Can the Government give me any kind of undertaking or guarantee about those who come to this country with a recently-acquired disability which, although looked after properly from the medical point of view, is not looked after properly in terms of accommodation and the way in which they are allowed to live, and their disability gets worse? That may well put them in a position where they are not as able to earn their living as well as they might either in this country or elsewhere. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in his amendment. I underline what he said in relation to the necessity of getting away from the idea that paying disability benefit will encourage people to come to this country. The number of people who come here suffering from a disability must be extremely small; but many of them, as we discussed, are those who have suffered in their country of origin from severe ill-treatment and torture. They may indeed be clients of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, an organisation which we so much admire.
If the Secretary of State provides equivalent support to disability benefit under paragraph 3(b), as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, suggests he might according to the assurances given in Committee, that needs to be clearly underlined today. I would not object to such an undertaking if the Minister could say that the levels of support which are to be provided are no less advantageous to somebody suffering from a disability than is the normal disability benefit. However, as the arrangements are in place and everybody knows how they work, it will be better to leave that system in place and allow people to claim disability benefit notwithstanding the fact that all other kinds of support come under Part VI of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister finds his way clear to accepting this excellent amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which will reassure many people who are particularly concerned about those asylum seekers who come from overseas suffering from ailments or severe disabilities which arose because of their treatment in their country of origin.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In a sense, the burden of proof of establishing that the subsection
844
should not apply rests with the Government. I have not participated in debates on this point previously, but the plea on the grounds of common humanity, eloquently voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Avebury, raises an important question mark. That being so, I shall listen with interest to my noble and learned friend. However, the Government must establish in this instance that the assertion made in the Bill is right, rather than the burden of proof resting on those who take a contrary view prima facie.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the Minister may recall that in Committee I moved an amendment to reinstate the position of disabled people. I am happy this evening to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Clinton-Davis. I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that they advanced and therefore do not need to reiterate them. However, perhaps I may ask two questions of the Minister concerning the position of disabled people as reflected by other provisions of this legislation.
The first returns to a question I raised at Report stage concerning accommodation. The Minister will recall his response that people will be made one offer which they will have to accept. However, will those offers take into account questions such as mobility, so that people with such problems will not simply be placed in high-rise blocks of flats or in hard-to-let properties without access and, therefore, doubly disadvantaged?
Further, can the noble and learned Lord comment on the question of mobility? For example, if, with a voucher system, all that is to be made available to people will be £10 a week, I am sure he will agree that it will be extraordinarily difficult for disabled people with mobility problems to get around on such a limited sum of money. Can he say whether those questions will also be taken into account when looking at the wherewithal for survival that disabled people will have at their disposal?
Earl Russell: My Lords, having not been present in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate on this amendment—and I apologise to the House—I shall not risk repeating what has already been said. I shall merely say that I have supported this amendment before and I will do so again tonight.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 44 is to seek to restore entitlement to attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance and disabled persons' tax credit to all asylum seekers, their families and dependants. However, this would not be the effect of the amendment as all those benefits were withdrawn from disabled people by our predecessor in government. No disabled asylum seeker has had access to any of those benefits since that time. Therefore, the amendment is trying to re-introduce an entitlement which does not currently exist.
Before I turn to other matters, I must point out that there is a further problem here; namely, that anyone who was affected by Clause 114 and excluded from the

845
benefits would only have to claim asylum to be entitled to all the excluded benefits again, even after an asylum claim had been dismissed. As long as there was an immediate re-application, the person in question would still, in the words of the noble Lord's amendment, be "a person seeking asylum". Plainly, on the phrasing of the amendment, there are those two defects. I can only repeat that the amendment would not restore benefit.
I shall now deal with the more important matters touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Alton and by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. As the noble Lord said, we had a fairly substantial discussion on Report and I shall not weary the House by repeating it at length. We have recognised that those who suffer physical challenge may have special needs. That is why we have expressly taken power in the new schedule which, by virtue of Amendment No. 72, is to replace Clause 93, to make provisions in regulations as to the circumstances in which support may be expected at levels other than what will be provided as a general rule.
What we want to do—and I hope this is an assurance of the sort that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis was looking for—is to ensure that appropriate support can be offered to asylum seekers with these particular needs and, of course, to their families. We will be addressing the needs of disabled asylum seekers through the Part VI support arrangements. We can do so in a number of ways; indeed, some of these particular questions were raised.
It is open to the scheme to provide additional levels of financial support in particular cases—I turn to the accommodation point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—to provide specialised accommodation; to provide ongoing additional support (for example, commissioning supported housing from a specialised housing provider where this is appropriate); or—and I return here to the conversations that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I have had over a period of time—to help the individual gain access to specialised services, such as those offered by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I believe we have already acknowledged the need to provide access to such services in appropriate cases.
Further, asylum seekers with disabilities will be able to look to local authorities for assistance through the appropriate social services legislation. We are looking to separate out the delivery of support for asylum seekers, whose needs generally, I have to say, are of a short-term character, from the mainstream benefit system that caters more for those with long-term needs. For this group, as for the great majority of asylum seekers who lack special needs, we intend to ensure a parallel but separate pattern of provision appropriate to need.
It is intended to take account of all the circumstances, including the support needed and the resources available, in assessing what a disabled person requires. Therefore I have to say that I do not think that the aim of Amendment No. 44 is capable of
846
being achieved in this way but I hope that the reassurances and the undertakings I have given prove satisfactory to noble Lords who have spoken on the matter.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response which sounds most encouraging. It is quite likely that I shall not be here for much longer to bully him but I am sure that if in the future it is found that disabled asylum seekers are not being properly looked after, there will be others not only in this House, but in the other place as well, who will certainly "chase his tail" to make certain that he or some other Minister comes up to scratch. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there are a number of people endeavouring to make certain that people with all kinds of disabilities are properly catered for. That will not go away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Amendment of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 77, line 40, after ("1999") insert (", and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act,"). Page 77, line 42, after ("(7)") insert ("of that section and in that paragraph").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116 [Other restrictions on assistance: England and Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 78, line 6, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(4B) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (4A) as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local authority.").
Page 78, line 12, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(2B) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (2A) as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local social services authority."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 119 [Other restrictions on assistance: Scotland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 54:
Page 79, line 41, after ("1999") insert (", and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act,").
Page 79, line 43, after ("(7)") insert ("of that section and in that paragraph").
Page 80, line 5, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(5) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local authority."").
Page 80, line 10, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(4) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local authority."").
Page 80, line 16, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(4) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsection (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local authority.").
Page 80, line 21, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(5) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsection (5) and (7) of that section and in that paragraph to the Secretary of State substitute references to a local authority.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 120 [Other restrictions on assistance: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57:
Page 80, line 29, at end insert ("solely—

(a) because he is destitute; or

(b) because of the physical effects, or anticipated physical effects, of his being destitute.

(3A) Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 93 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act, apply for the purposes of paragraph (3) as they apply for the purposes of that
848
section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) of that section and in paragraph 2 of that Schedule to the Secretary of State substitute references to the Department."").
Page 80, line 39, after ("1999") insert (", and paragraph 2 of Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) to that Act,").
Page 80, line 41, after ("(7)") insert ("of that section and in paragraph 2 of that Schedule").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
("PART VIA
COMPLAINTS.
THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY: COMPLAINTS AGAINST IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
(" .—(1) The Police Complaints Authority (the Authority) established under Schedule 5 to the Police Act 1996 shall investigate complaints against immigration officers exercising their powers under the Immigration Acts.
(2) The provisions of Schedule 5 to the Police Act 1996 as amended by this Act shall apply to the Authority in the exercise of its duties under this section.
(3) At least two members of the Authority with experience of immigration and asylum matters shall sit as members of the Authority when it is investigating any complaints under this section.
(4) The Authority shall recommend disciplinary or criminal action against immigration officers against whom complaints are upheld, where appropriate.
(5) The Authority shall publish an annual report on its activities under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulation make provision in relation to the duties of the Authority under subsection (1).
(7) When exercising his duty under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult persons and organisations with experience of immigration and asylum matters as to the desirability of making provision similar to that which is made for the investigation of complaints by the Authority under Part IV of the Police Act 1996 and to such modifications of that provision as may be required.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 85 which deals with the consequential effect in relation to the Police Act 1996. On Report I had the support on this or a similar amendment of the former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and also of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was at one time the permanent secretary at the Home Office. At every stage during the passage of this Bill I have pleaded the need to establish an appeals machinery to deal with complaints about immigration officers.
On Report I withdrew an amendment which would have brought this service within the scope of the race relations legislation. In fact the definition of direct and indirect discrimination would have been to an extent in conflict with the administration of immigration policies because it discriminates on the grounds of nationality and national origin.
One may ask why we need a statutory provision. Following the Macpherson Report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, the Home Secretary accepted that certain government actions were outside the scope of, or excluded from, the provisions of the race relations legislation. For example, if you are discriminated against in the provision of services or as regards

849
employment or housing provision, you can approach an industrial tribunal or the county court to seek redress. However, if one is discriminated against in the provision of services either at the hands of a police officer or an immigration officer, you do not have any recourse whatever as the Law Lords have interpreted that the services provided by immigration officers and police officers do not comprise service to an individual but service to the Crown. Therefore it is vitally important that some ways and means are devised to ensure that police and immigration officers are accountable for their actions.
Police and immigration officers are more or less given the same powers as are stipulated clearly on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State has accepted that there is this anomaly within the race relations legislation and it needs to be rectified. Whether we have that or not, at some stage there is bound to be some amendment to the race relations legislation which will bring immigration officers within the scope of the Race Relations Act. I look forward with great interest to the forthcoming Queen's Speech to see whether or not such a provision has been included.
I shall explain why I feel so passionate about the need to have some kind of machinery such as I have mentioned. In the 1980s, the Commission for Racial Equality, where I worked, investigated the administration of the Immigration Service. As part of that investigation, in which I was involved, we were privileged to be able to visit British posts abroad and examine the files of entry clearance officers. Those officers are responsible for interviewing people before they come to this country. They can determine whether or not entry should be granted. In a number of files, we found comments which were racist, which were anti-immigrant and which were to an extent very damaging. If that had happened in this day and age, some of those people would have been sacked.
The situation has, of course, changed over the past 20 years. However, there is still a public perception that the Immigration Service fairly frequently treats people unfairly. It is right and proper, therefore, that there should be some statutory machinery by which we can examine such complaints. The situation has certainly improved aver a period of time. There is no way in which we can monitor the decision-making process of the Immigration Service to determine whether it is a sound process. I do not know of a single entry clearance officer or an immigration officer being dismissed or disciplined because of some of the actions that he may have taken which may not have been professional.
By comparison, at least 20,000 complaints against police officers are being investigated on a regular basis by the Police Complaints Authority. At least 10 per cent of such complaints are substantiated. Indeed, they are substantiated on the basis of a high standard of proof— beyond reasonable doubt. The standard is now being lowered to that of the balance of probabilities. On that basis, we may find that as many as 30 per cent of complaints against police officers are substantiated.
I mention that because immigration officers now have similar powers to those of the police. By the admission of the Minister at Report stage, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act now applies equally to immigration officers. The powers of arrest, body searching and fingerprinting are some of the measures now available to them.
Where do we go from here? I believe that we cannot exclude immigration officers from the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. They perform the same task as the police. Therefore, it is right that there should be some independent machinery, similar to that of the Police Complaints Authority, which can in reality conduct investigations.
Let me give a practical example. Most of your Lordships are aware of the instance that I cited some time ago of a black woman named Joy Gardner. Police officers, together with immigration officers, went to her house for the purpose of arresting and deporting her. They bound and gagged her, as a result of which she died. As I understand it, the two police officers were at that time investigated by the Police Complaints Authority and faced criminal charges; the immigration officers did not. In that respect, what is the difference between police officers and immigration officers? They were present at the same time. There is no point in saying, "We have the immigration audit body which will examine such complaints". If, for example, an immigration officer indicates that a case similar to that of Joy Gardner has been investigated by the Immigration Service, what is needed is an independent body that can effectively look at whether or not the powers have been abused.
I do not want to repeat the argument that I put forward about the immigration audit committee, on which the Government seems to place so much emphasis. However, perhaps I may make some very basic points about it which the Minister did riot dispute on the last occasion that I spoke about it. The audit body does not investigate individual complaints. It simply supervises and calls for the files to find out whether or not a proper investigation has been carried out. It does not consider whether or not an investigation was undertaken. It has no power to discipline. If it wishes to discipline, the matter has to be referred back to the Immigration Service, which has its own internal procedure to determine what will happen to a particular individual who has abused his or her power. If the machinery is so internal, who can have any confidence that people outside will ever know the final outcome of the procedure?
It is a little known body. I would bet that if one went out on to the street and asked the first 50 people one met if they knew anything about the immigration audit body, none of them would have a clue what one was talking about.
There is a need for openness in the system and a need for an independent investigation when complaints of this nature emerge. My amendment meets all those points. It seeks to protect immigration officers as much as it seeks to deal with those who are in breach of the disciplinary code. The three people appointed as

851
audit members could easily be incorporated within the existing structure of the PCA and the service could still continue to investigate. One would be giving it an independent element to determine within the balance of probability whether there has been a breach of the disciplinary code. If there has been a breach, at least an independent body will be able to say to the Immigration Service what kind of disciplinary action should be taken.
The immigration audit body that was referred to on Report does not necessarily deal with the actions of the entry-clearance officers who operate at British posts abroad. We are talking now about immigration officers here—but who is responsible for the actions of the entry-clearance officers abroad? I mentioned what we found some years ago when we investigated some of the files. A substantial part of the control mechanism does not take place in this country; it takes place abroad. The visa system stops people from coming to this country. How are people to complain if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the operation and administration of the immigration control procedures?
We cannot have confidence in internal machinery. We need to develop machinery in which the public have confidence. At the same time, we are talking about a need for fairness, dignity and justice in the way we deal with people of different colours who are trying to come to this country, legitimately in many cases. That is the least we can expect from setting up a body such as the Police Complaints Authority, with members qualified in immigration matters, which can determine whether the service operates fairly, justly and with dignity. If we reject the amendment we will deny ourselves the right to talk about justice and fairness as far as concerns our procedures. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, especially in relation to aberrant activity on the part of immigration officers abroad. However, I am not convinced that the machinery he has chosen to deal with the problem is either adequate or right. To graft on to the police complaints procedure something of this nature is misguided. I understand that it was necessary to do this within the compass of the debate, but in terms of acceptance of the amendment it would be a misjudgment.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend who is to reply to the debate what action can be taken in the circumstances described by the noble Lord in his opening speech. If aberrant behaviour is indulged in—and I am convinced it is—what swift remedy applies? One does not want to see situations that drag on and become purposeless because of the long passage of time.
It is important to establish some form of independent body to deal with such matters promptly and with understanding, staffed by people with experience of immigration and asylum issues, as has been called for. Furthermore, it is important for the
852
reputation of this country. From my own experience—admittedly it was some time ago when I was in practice and dealing with immigration matters—I know that when offensive conduct does occur it is essential for it to be dealt with. It is damaging to the country if a festering sore is allowed to develop because of a few—it is right to say only a few'—aberrant immigration officials.
I urge the noble Lord to recognise that this is a very different problem from that which underlay the setting up of the Police Complaints Authority. That form of machinery would be wrong, but the noble Lord's arguments are compelling.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, a number of years ago, two of my undergraduate contemporaries married each other. They went to live in Hong Kong, where they had a son. I remember asking them whether they were afraid that when they wanted to come back to England, their son might have trouble with British immigration control. They replied very simply, "No, he's white." If they said that, and I could not tell them that they were unjustified to think that way, what might one think if one's own relatives daily had experience of the kind of action envisaged here?
I cannot stress enough how important it is that all concerned with the enforcement of the law—that includes immigration and entry clearance officers to a far greater extent than ever before—retain the confidence of the whole community in which they enforce the law. If officers of the law come to be seen as the agents of one part of the community and not of the whole, it is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to the situation described in the Patten Report. I do not ever want to see mainland Britain descend all the way down that slope. The amendment of my noble friend will erect an avalanche break on that slope, and it will erect the break in a place where it will be extremely valuable and is much needed.
If the Minister listened carefully to my noble friend's statistics, he will have heard that very far from all complaints are justified. There will be circumstances when even in the short term the Government may be very glad to have such an amendment on the statute book.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, my noble friend may recall that in the 1970s I was an active caseworker on behalf of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. That was when Ministers had far greater areas of discretion which they could exercise in relation to immigration matters. I must have dealt with literally thousands of cases in those years. When people complained of racism or offensive behaviour by immigration officers, at the time the only thing that one could do was to take up the matter with the Minister concerned. Presumably that is still the case. One would write, and no doubt others in the JCWI were equally assiduous in taking up cases with Ministers. I can honestly say that in all the years I worked on those cases, not one single allegation was ever confirmed. Not one immigration officer was

853
disciplined, dismissed or suffered any penalty in respect of the allegations made by the clients with whom we dealt. If the Minister cares to ask the JCWI, he will find that my words are true of the whole of its experience.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord is perhaps guilty of some slight exaggeration. I cannot point to the cases now, because it is such a long time since I was in the House of Commons, but I can distinctly recall instances where it was said that the matter would be pursued vis-à-vis the officer who was alleged to have committed the offensive conduct. Perhaps the noble Lord is reflecting a position on the basis of his own experience, but it is not one which I recall entirely myself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not sure whether I was unlucky or whether I am accurately remembering what happened at the time. But I certainly do not recall ever winning such a case. Obviously, many allegations of this kind are not made in good faith. The person has lost his application to come to the United Kingdom and feels aggrieved. He may feel that it was because of racism on the part of someone in the Immigration Service. If one said that 95 per cent of the cases were attributable to those reasons, there would still be a nasty residue of 5 per cent that one felt were due to the characteristics of the immigration officers concerned. But there was no way of getting to the bottom of the matter. Once the Minister in charge of immigration at the Home Office, or at the Foreign Office as the case may be—my noble friend said that the point applies to entry certificate officers in overseas posts—had said that the matter had been thoroughly investigated and he had found no truth in the allegation, as a Member of this House or of another place one had come to the end of the process. There was nowhere else to appeal and there was no independent procedure or mechanism by which one could get at the files, as one can in the case of the prisons ombudsman.
If someone in prison has a complaint against prison officers, he can go to an official who has power to question all the people who know something about the case. He can look at the papers and reach a conclusion. My noble friend is asking for a similar procedure that will apply to immigration officers. I hope that when people in the immigration and nationality department read this debate they will not say that your Lordships are trying to get at them. I hope they will understand that what we are seeking is merely a procedure which applies to many other parts of the public service.
Perhaps I may take the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, back to our Report stage debate on 20th October when I pointed out that if the Home Office were to accept designation under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act it would be possible to examine discrimination by immigration officers in the Province. Under Section 75, if the Home Office is one of the designated public bodies it has to carry out an assessment of its own compliance with the equality provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That would apply not only to discrimination in relation to race but it extends even
854
into gender and sexual orientation. It could well be that if later on the Home Office became subject to this procedure in Northern Ireland we would have a mechanism for testing its fairness and compliance with the equality provisions that we should like to see it observe. However, in the rest of the United Kingdom there would still be no mechanism.
Even if the Minister cannot accept my noble friend's amendment as it stands I hope he will be able to tell the House that the Government will introduce a procedure or mechanism which enables complaints to be heard by an independent authority so that people can at least be satisfied that when they think there is racism or there has been offensive behaviour they can obtain some remedy.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia is to be congratulated on his persistence and determination, and perhaps also on his lateral thinking on this issue. He has skilfully returned to a subject that he raised in Committee and on Report. I know that he feels strongly about it. I, too, share his desire that immigration officers should be clearly accountable for their actions when exercising their powers. An effective complaints system is vital to maintaining public confidence in the way they operate. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have made that point in a compelling way. The Government would not be seeking to introduce new powers unless we were entirely satisfied that such oversight existed.
However, I cannot agree that establishing a statutory system or requiring the Police Complaints Authority to investigate complaints against immigration officers would be right. Noble Lords may possibly need to be reminded that the Police Complaints Authority does not investigate complaints; it merely supervises. The Complaints Audit Committee does the same, but with one critical difference. The Complaints Audit Committee, whose application is within the Immigration Service, provides much closer supervision by examining each and every case in detail and on its merits.
My concern—and it is one that we have long held—is that we need to have a sense of proportion in relation to the complaints process. That is an important factor. More importantly, I should be fearful that, in the light of experience, the noble Lord's proposal would work against the best interests of those whom he deems to be in need of assistance under the terms of his proposal.
As I advised the House at Report stage, an independently and objectively monitored system for overseeing complaints against the Immigration Service is already in place. Listening to some of the comments in this debate, it might almost be imagined that we have no system for the investigation of complaints.
We need a system that serves the complainant first and foremost—and we believe that we have such a system; one under which quick action to eradicate malpractice is possible; which is flexible enough to respond to different types of complaint; and which delivers conclusive results. The system that is currently

855
in place works. It is not failing. In over 30 per cent of cases, complaints are upheld—compared with, on the admission of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, a figure for the Police Complaints Authority of just 10 per cent of complaints upheld. Those who have been found guilty of an offence have been warned, or otherwise disciplined. I am advised that many have been dismissed.
We do not jump around, celebrate, wave our hands and advertise those facts widely in public. We quietly get on with the business of investigating such complaints properly and prosecuting them through our internal complaints process. Silence as a means of frustrating investigators has not been an issue. We have been able to apologise or compensate through ex gratia payments where complaints have been upheld quickly—in a matter of weeks, not months or years, as might happen with a more cumbersome statutory system.
The immigration complaints system is independent. It is not aligned to that of the police. It has been in place since 1994 and is tried and tested. Each year it improves a little more, spreads its wings a little further, and public confidence in it is clearly growing. We do not want to lose that. That is why we are giving the Complaint Audit Committee an enhanced role in monitoring complaints arising out of the exercise of new powers contained in Part VII of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has proposed that the Police Complaints Authority should be required to investigate all complaints against immigration officers exercising their powers under the immigration Acts. Again, I respectfully point out that the Police Act, to which the new clause set out in Amendment No. 58 refers, does not extend the power to investigate complaints to the PCA. The role of the PCA is, as I said, merely to supervise the investigation of certain categories of complaint and to review disciplinary proceedings arising out of substantiated complaints. The PCA is not resourced to investigate complaints; nor is it legally empowered to do so.
I respectfully draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that 90 per cent of complaints against the Immigration Service—there were only 370 in 1998— relate to issues of service quality which can be sorted out quickly without the need for legislative sledgehammers. The types of person the noble Lord envisages sitting as "immigration members" of the authority already carry out this function as members of the Immigration Complaints Audit Committee. They are appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as respected members of the community with experience in race relations, community relations and immigration law. It is worth repeating that members of the committee have unfettered access to every single complaint investigation and are free to make critical comment on the quality of the investigation and its conclusions. They have access to Ministers and produce an annual report for the Secretary of State which is placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
856
Any complaint which alleges criminal activity by a member of the Immigration Service will be investigated independently, and quite properly, by the police. Immigration officers will be legally accountable in the exercise of their powers. Powers of entry, search and seizure are limited by the provisions contained in the Bill. They will be required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice when exercising these new powers. The codes not only govern the exercise of statutory powers but also serve to regulate the manner in which officers conduct their duties. Immigration officers will be no different. If they breach operational guidelines, they will be accountable and properly disciplined. They have been in the past and will continue to be. We believe that the enhanced procedures are capable of handling the type of complaint that may arise out of the exercise of the new powers contained in this Bill. Nevertheless, we have not closed the door to further changes and improvements once we have had the opportunity to examine the impact of the new powers through the limited introduction that we propose.
11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Do these procedures apply equally to immigration officers who serve abroad? How can delay be minimised in relation to complaints that arise abroad?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the powers introduced by Part VII will not be used by entry clearance officers who work abroad. I am not sure whether that completely answers my noble friend; if not, I shall return to it later or provide a written response. We shall continue to keep the procedures under review. If they require further strengthening, we shall do that.
During Report stage in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, stated that the powers of immigration officers were not the same as those of police officers. She suggested that there should be a separate complaints authority staffed in a different way from the PCA by people with some understanding of different countries and their cultures. She rightly said that none of that was met by a proposal simply to extend the scope of the Police Complaints Authority. Only the powers to be given to immigration officers under Part VII of this Bill are similar to police powers. They are also similar to powers held by others in the enforcement field, notably HM Customs.
However, immigration officers are not police officers, and there is no intention that they should become so. Their modus operandi is, and will continue to be, different. Although the coercive elements of the powers are there, it is anticipated that they will be rarely used. I agree with the noble Baroness that a separate complaints system for the Immigration Service is right for the very reasons she expressed, but I believe that it is already in place and is operating well.

857
It is in everyone's interest, not least that of immigration officers themselves, that these powers are underpinned with proper levels of accountability and control. The codes of practice, together with the safeguards written into the legislation, the enhanced complaints procedures and the comprehensive training programme that the officers who exercise the new powers will be required to undertake, provide a level of accountability that is both workable and proportionate. It protects those whom the new powers must be used against while providing the Immigration Service with a clear and explicit framework within which to operate. I suggest that the new clause set out in Amendment No. 58 is seriously misleading, damaging and counter-productive. It is not required to ensure its objective, and we believe that to introduce it would be a profound mistake. Therefore, I cannot invite noble Lords to support the amendment or the consequential amendment to the Police Act 1996 provided by Amendment No. 85.
I understand and sympathise with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the need to eliminate and tackle racism within any of our services. We all acknowledge and understand that point. The Macpherson Report has pointed us powerfully in that direction. In the Home Office, we fully understand and appreciate it. We will not, and cannot, tolerate racism in any of our services. We do not believe that the objective underlying the amendment will best serve those upon whom it is designed to have an impact. I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord withdraws the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he reply to the point I made?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have an answer for the noble Lord relating to entry clearance officers abroad. I have an example. If the noble Lord will bear with me, am more than happy to cite an example of how the Immigration Service works quickly and effectively.
An Indian family sought to embark at Delhi. They were resident in the United Kingdom. At Delhi airport, the airline official refused to allow them to board as the stamp in the person's passport was unclear. The family was required to stay an extra night at Delhi airport until approval from the UK for their readmission was given. The head of the family understandably complained. The Immigration Service upheld his complaint and paid him £300 for the additional expense and inconvenience incurred.
Approval for the payment was given by the head of the complaints unit under delegated powers. It was all sorted out within four weeks of the complaint. Under the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the Police Complaints Authority would have to investigate such a complaint. I wonder how long that would take.
858
I trust that that example gives some feel for how the system currently works and how it might work in the future if the amendment were to be approved by this House today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say a few words about the acceptance or otherwise by the Home Office of designation under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland legislation of 1998? I asked the noble Lord that question on Report. He said that no decision had yet been made. However, bearing in mind that the section comes into operation on 1st January 2000, time is getting very short for assessment by the Home Office of its compliance with the equality provisions under that section of the Northern Ireland Act.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord returns to a familiar theme. We are giving active consideration to the case for formal designation of Home Office functions and hope to make a statement shortly. It may be that formal designation is not the best way forward, but we are looking at the issue. We would want to establish effective arrangements to promote full equality in Northern Ireland in the spirit of that legislation. I trust that that answers the noble Lord's point.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation he has given. He and I come from the same stable in Brighton. However, I want to tell him that I was a councillor well before his time. He was simply a student and I hope that he will bow to my experience on matters about which I know much more than he does.
This is the point I seek to make. I have a British passport. I am sure a number of my colleagues will vouch for this. Every time I come through the Immigration Service in this country my wife, who is Scottish, walks in front of me but my passport is taken out of my hand and occasionally held up to the light to make sure the photograph resembles me. I feel so undignified. I feel as though I am being picked on for no other reason than that the colour of my skin is different. The same applies to hundreds of Jamaican people. They wish to come to this country for a holiday or for Christmas but are locked up for about three or four days at Gatwick airport.
The example that the noble Lord has given is not about an individual immigration officer in Delhi but about the Immigration Service which failed to provide proper care for that family. There is much weakness in the Minister's argument. Perhaps I may give an example. I cited 20,000 cases. I worked at the Police Complaints Authority so I know what it is all about. The Minister referred to 30 per cent of the complaints, but he did not give the numbers. The number which the immigration audit body investigated was fewer than 300. Millions of passengers pass through this country and there are only 300 complaints as against 20,000 complaints against police officers. That gives one an

859
idea that in terms of numbers the argument cannot be justified.
I have worked at the Police Complaints Authority and therefore I hope that the Minister will bow to my experience. That authority does not necessarily investigate, but it supervises. Not only does it supervise investigations; in serious cases it can direct what should happen in an investigation and then recommend the appropriate action. I am not disputing why the Immigration Service should not examine cases, but I am saying that there ought to be an external body which has experience because the same powers are being given to police and immigration officers.
Is the immigration audit body experienced in trying to examine the police-type power within the Immigration Service? It is not, yet the Government are relying so much on that. I do not want to say more. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he has not shut the door. And he will not shut the door because I shall be shouting and harassing him at every opportunity until such time as we have statutory legislation which is more accountable and open and which cares about people's dignity and respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause—

MAXIMUM PERIOD OF DETENTION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish guidance as to the maximum period for which a person detained in accordance with Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may be held in a place of detention as specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
(2) For the purposes of calculating whether the maximum period of detention has been reached, each and every period for which a detained person has been held in a detention centre or prison, whether or not the detention has been continuous, shall be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the amendment earlier tonight, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was kind enough to say that the Government shared its aims. However, he went on to say that if approved it would be unworkable because the Secretary of State could not lay down maximum periods.
However, will the administrative instructions given to immigration officers be continuously reviewed with a view to tightening them up as regards detention? Furthermore, will instructions be given to the visiting committees at detention centres in order to minimise the length of detention? In the hope of receiving a favourable response on those limited points, I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am pleased to advise the noble Lord that we are happy to keep under review the administrative procedures to which he referred. I trust that on that basis he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Clause 165 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 64:
Page 115, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention: No. 2)(10),").
Page 115, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
Page 115, line 32, leave out ("169(2), (4)") and insert ("169(4)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 169 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 70:
Page 117, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 114 come into force on the day on which the first regulations made under Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) come into force.").
Page 117, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention: No. 2);").
Page 117, line 13, leave out paragraph (e).
Page 117, line 15, leave out ("93(13)") and insert (" 93(12)").
Page 117, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) section 98(4) and (S);").
Page 117, line 28, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 1 A and-).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 72:
After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
PROVISION OF SUPPORT: REGULATIONS

General regulation-making power
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make such further provision with respect to the powers conferred on him by section 93 as he considers appropriate.

Determining whether a person is destitute
2.—(1) The regulations may provide, in connection with determining whether a person is destitute, for the Secretary of State to take into account, except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed—

(a) income which the person concerned, or any dependant of his, has or might reasonably be expected to have, and

(b) support which is, or assets of a prescribed kind which are, or might reasonably be expected to be, available to him or to any dependant of his,

otherwise than by way of support provided under section 93.
(2) The regulations may provide that in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed, a person is not to be treated as destitute for the purposes of section 93.

Prescribed levels of support
3. The regulations; may make provision—

(a) as to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may, as a general rule, be expected to provide support in accordance with prescribed levels or of a prescribed kind:

(b) as to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may, as a general rule, be expected to provide support otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed levels.

Provision of items and services
4. The regulations may make provision for prescribed items or services to be provided or made available to persons receiving support under section 93 for such purposes and in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

Support and assets to be taken into account
5. The regulations may make provision requiring the Secretary of State, except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed, to take into account, when deciding the level or kind of support to be provided—

(a) income which the person concerned, or any dependant of his, has or might reasonably be expected to have, and

(b) support which is, or assets of a prescribed kind which are, or might reasonably be expected to be, available to him or to any dependant of his,

otherwise than by way of support provided under section 93.

6. The regulations may make provision as to the valuation of assets.

breach of conditions
7. The regulations may make provision for the Secretary of State to take into account, when deciding—

(a) whether to provide, or to continue to provide, support under section 93. or

(b) the level or kind of support to be provided,

the extent to which any condition on which support is being, or has previously been, provided has been complied with.

Suspension or discontinuation of support
8.—(1) The regulations may make provision for the suspension or discontinuance of support under section 93 in prescribed circumstances (including circumstances in which the Secretary of State would otherwise he under a duty to provide support).
(2) The circumstances which may be prescribed include the cessation of residence—

(a) in accommodation provided under section 93; or

(b) at an address notified to the Secretary of State in accordance with the regulations.

Notice to quit
9.—(1) The regulations may provide that if—

(a) as a result of support provided under section 93, a person has a tenancy or a licence to occupy accommodation,

(b) one or more of the conditions mentioned in subparagraph (2) are satisfied, and

(c) he is given such notice to quit as may be prescribed by the regulations,

his tenancy or licence is to be treated as ending with the period specified in that notice, regardless of when it could otherwise be brought to an end.
(2) The conditions are that—

(a) the support provided under section 93 is suspended or discontinued as a result of any provision of a kind mentioned in paragraph 8;

(b) the relevant claim for asylum has been determined;

(c) the supported person has ceased to be destitute;

(d) he is to be moved to other accommodation.

Contributions to support
10. The regulations may make provision requiring a supported person to make payments to the Secretary of State, in prescribed circumstances, by way of contributions to the cost of the provision of that support.

Recovery of sums by Secretary of State
11.—(1) The regulations may provide for the recovery by the Secretary of State of sums representing the whole or part of the monetary value of support provided to a person under section 93 where it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that that person had, at the time when he applied for support, assets of any kind in the United Kingdom or elsewhere which were not capable of being realised; but

(b) that those assets have subsequently become, and remain, capable of being realised.

(2) An amount recoverable under regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may be recovered—

(a) as if it were a debt due to the Secretary of State; or

(b) by such other method of recovery, including by deduction from support provided under section 93 as may be prescribed.

Procedure
12. The regulations may make provision with respect to procedural requirements including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the procedure to be followed in making an application for support;

(b) the information which must be provided by the applicant;

(c) the circumstances in which an application may no: be entertained;

(d) the making of further enquiries by the Secretary of State;

(e) the circumstances in which, and person by whom, a change of circumstances of a prescribed description must be notified to the Secretary of State.").

[Amendment No. 73, as an amendment to Amendment No. 72, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 72 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Asylum Support: Interim Provisions]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 77:
Page 140, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Page 140, line 37, leave out ("prescribed").
Page 140, line 40, leave out ("prescribed").
Page 140, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of any provision made as a result of subparagraph (2), the regulations may make provision for the determination by the Secretary of State of—

(a) the applicable maximum number of asylum-seekers;

(b) the applicable maximum number of eligible persons.

( ) The regulations may make provision for any such determination to be made—

(a) for local authorities generally;

(b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority; or

(c) for particular local authorities.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 155, line 42, leave out from ("2") to ("sub-paragraph") in line 45 and insert ("paragraph 21 (temporary admission of persons liable to detention) is amended as follows.

863
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) The provisions that may be included in restrictions as to residence imposed under sub-paragraph (2) include provisions of such a description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2B) The regulations may, among other things, provide for the inclusion of provisions—

(a) prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas;

(b) requiring the person concerned to reside in accommodation provided under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and prohibiting him from being absent from that accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him.

(2C) The regulations may provide that a particular description of provision may be imposed only for prescribed purposes.
(2D) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph is exercisable by statutory instrument and includes a power to make different provision for different cases.
(2E) But no regulations under this paragraph are to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
(3) In sub-paragraph (3), after "2" insert "or 2A".
(4) In").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendments No. 80 to 83, as amendments to Amendment No. 79, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 79 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 157, line 28, at end insert—
("The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 44)
. Section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (requirement to provide school meals etc) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) for the words from the beginning to "an", where it occurs for the second time, substitute—

"(3) Subsection (3AA) below applies in relation to a pupil—

(a) whose parents are in receipt of—

(i) income support;

(ii) an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995); or

(iii) support provided under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or

(b) who is himself in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance.

(3AA) An"; and.

(ii) for "him", where it occurs for the first time, substitute "the pupil"; and

(b) in subsection (3A), for "Subsections (1), (2) and (3)" substitute "Subsections (1) to (3AA)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 91:
Page 165, line 33, at end insert—
("Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
1A.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any time before the commencement of the repeal by this Act of section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
(2) That section has effect, and is to be deemed always to have had effect, as if the reference to section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 were a reference to section 13, and any certificate issued under that section is to be read accordingly.").
Page 166, line 30, at end insert—
("Duties under Health Services and Public Health Act 1968
Section 116(1) has effect, in relation to any time before section 114 is brought into force, as if section 114 came into force on the passing of this Act.").
Page 166, line 32, leave out ("Section 119(1) has") and insert ("Subsections (1) to (3) of section 119 have").
Page 166, line 33, at end insert—
("Duties under Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 120 have effect, in relation to any time before section 114 is brought into force, as if section 114 came into force on the passing of this Act.
Duties under National Health Service Act 1977
. Section 116(2) has effect, in relation to any time before section 114 is brought into force, as if section 114 came into force on the passing of this Act.
Duties under Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984
. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 119 have effect, in relation to any time before section 114 is brought into force, as if section 114 came into force on the passing of this Act.").
Page 167, line 31, leave out from ("whom") to ("applies") in line 32 and insert ("an amended provision").
Page 167, line 42, at end insert-—
("( ) "Amended provision" means any provision amended by—

(a) section 115;

(b) section 116(1) or (2);

(c) section 119; or

(d) section 120.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
11.18 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton. )
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to say a few words of thanks to the many who have taken part in the debate on what has been a long, detailed, and sometimes difficult Bill. It would be less than gracious if I did not say in that context that Ministers, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who is not at present in his place, and indeed the Home

865
Secretary, have shown a great willingness to listen, a great deal of patience and a great deal of consideration in a situation where all of us know that we are facing an extremely difficult problem.
We have faced not only the problem of handling a great many people who wish to come to this country as asylum seekers, but also the real difficulties arising from information technology. That is not the Government's fault; the problems predate their time, and have not been made any easier as a result of the technology having to be introduced in a difficult situation. We understand that and we sympathise. Every time I look at my own personal computer swallowing my immortal words when I cannot do anything to stop it, I think of the Home Office and my heart bleeds just a little.
I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and very much also to the Cross-Benchers, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Alton, and others, for their contributions to these debates.
I conclude with two points. I am sure that noble Lords on other Benches, not least on the Benches of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues, the Bishops' Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard—with whom I still dimly associate that particular outstanding role—share with us the sense that we have two matters greatly in mind. The first is the noble, outstanding tradition in this country over many decades of accepting voices of dissent and voices fighting for liberty and freedom. The mind goes back as far as people like Kossuth and Garibaldi. It is a great tradition which most of us would not wish to see brought to an end.
In this Bill there are many powers which affect directly not only the liberties of people who seek to come to this country but also our own liberties. There are precedents which could be disturbing if not brought under control. Therefore, we have had in mind not only the liberties of asylum seekers but also those of our own countrymen and women in the moves that we have made on the Bill.
Again, I thank Ministers for their patience and I thank other colleagues who have been kind enough to sit through and take part in those very lo rig sessions. We are grateful to all those involved.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I join in the thanks expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to the Minister and noble Lords on all sides of the House who have taken part in these long debates.
This Bill leaves the House in a form very different from that in which it arrived. Most of the changes made in the course of our debates are improvements. We continue to share the general intentions of the Government that immigration decisions should be fairer, faster and firmer. But I am not confident that the new machinery established by this Bill will work smoothly.
It has been quite apparent to us that the legislation was put together under great pressure, and the number of government amendments testify to that. There were
866
another 50 or so government amendments today. Whenever we have asked questions about the machinery, which will have to be the most elaborate and sensitive machinery UK-wide, the answers have not been very satisfactory.
New arrangements, new legislation and new systems in government usually slow things down, at least at the start. I am not hopeful that this Bill will be an exception to that rule. The Home Secretary inherited a difficult situation and made it worse. This Bill fills me with foreboding. Nevertheless, I believe that it should pass.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I associate myself with the thanks which have already been expressed, in particular to Ministers for the courtesy which they have shown.
However, I wish to draw attention to a substantive point which arises from a letter to The Times on 28th October from Professor Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at the University of Oxford. He made important points about the procedure for handling asylum applications and, secondly, about the size of the backlog. It seems that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has hardly changed its methods over the past 25 years, since a time when applications were far fewer and the backlog was tiny by today's standards. Asylum seekers are still interviewed and their cases are then considered largely on paper. It is difficult to assess credibility on paper and the applicant often has no opportunity to clear up inconsistencies or to remove doubts until the case reaches appeal. The success rate at appeal shows that time and resources are being wasted.
On Second Reading I asked for better quality decisions and I now urge the Government to improve the system to achieve that end. Improvements should allow for advice and representation at the earliest possible stage.
Not long ago, the backlog of asylum cases stood at 78,000. It may now have risen to 90,000. Whatever the precise figure, it is surely something of a national disgrace, particularly after 22½ years of a new and reforming Government. What should be done? I suggest that the oldest asylum applications should be examined and that one or two years' worth of them should be given full refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, unless they have criminal records, charges outstanding against them or can be shown to be security risks.
The next block of applications up to say 1st January 1999 should then be examined. If those cases conform with the three principles that I explained at Second Reading, those people should immediately be admitted, subject to the safeguards I have just mentioned. I remind your Lordships that the three principles are: family reunion with close relatives already here, a good knowledge of English, and the support of an existing ethnic, religious or linguistic community. Cases not having any of those three kinds of support would remain to be dealt with in the usual way.
Without radical measures of the kind I have outlined, I cannot see that the vast backlog will be reduced within any reasonable length of time. To take a determined but

867
principled approach of this nature would save vast amounts of official time, many appeals and much expense. It would open the way for introducing better procedures for the future. Professor Goodwin-Gill said that the Bill was irrelevant to the real needs that we face. I agree and I ask the Government to produce better policies than we have had so far in this Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I consider this an important Bill, one of the most important that the Government have introduced since they came to power. I want to congratulate the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for the way in which they have piloted the Bill. The subject is confusing and we have dealt with it in far too detailed a way. One realises the pressures that the Government have had to face.
Over many generations we in our country have prided ourselves on the welcome we have given to people who have come from countries where they have been oppressed. However, in recent years the numbers of immigrants—especially asylum seekers but also others—have grown so much that the problems have increased due to the sheer weight of numbers. I have collected a number of relevant statistics, but I shall spare your Lordships as they are all ascertainable. However, I mention that in the past 12 months the number of immigrants, including refugees, has increased by more than 80,000. That is the size of a big town. In addition, even if we have no further immigration, we are told that in the next quarter of a century we have to build another million houses. We are told that in the south of England we shall need the equivalent of five cities the size of Southampton and that they will take up much more of our green and pleasant land.
Our first duty as parliamentarians is to the people who are already here, the native people and those whom we have welcomed and who have now become thoroughly absorbed. They nearly all live in crowded areas. It will not help them if we allow the pressure to increase by too free an admission of people from abroad. For that reason the Government deserve full support for introducing the Bill and in enforcing it. Enforcement will be difficult because the number of asylum seekers, genuine and bogus, whose cases have not yet been decided is now, we are told, 100,000. I trust that the Government will be strong-minded about this matter when increasing the facilities for hearing the cases. That must be done. I am sure that the manpower can be found. The alternative is to relax control, to allow unjustified asylum seekers to remain, and to add to our social problems.
The Bill is vitally important and I wish the Government well in enforcing it.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I take one minute of your Lordships' time and I apologise for that. There are three groups of people we should have thanked. They are not only the Minister but the civil servants who assisted him in a number of the meetings that we had. The meetings have been extremely helpful. There are two bodies
868
working in the refugee field. One is the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture. In particular I refer to Alison Harvey. There is also the Refugee Council and in particular Mike Kay. They have been extremely helpful in providing us with a considerable amount of briefing. Their experience has helped us to make the Bill a little better.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and those expressed by others during the course of this brief debate. We have just been told by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that perhaps as many as 100,000 cases are still outstanding. The Government have said that the target should be to speed things up radically. But the average waiting time at the moment is about 20 months. That is about 10 times the Government target.
For me there is a real sense of déjà vu. I listened to the end of the debate in another place four years ago when I served on the standing committee that looked at the previous asylum Bill. I realise, and I regret, that many of the remedies offered by the previous administration are now contained in this legislation as well. The real challenge is to reduce that backlog, which will only be done by providing resources and personnel. We have made a huge error by putting resources into creating things such as the voucher system which, I suspect, we shall have to revisit again in another two or three years with yet another asylum and immigration Bill.
That said, it would be churlish not to pay tribute to those who have given so much of their time and have been patient and generous in dealing with the many points raised during the progress of this Bill. I am personally grateful to Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General for the very patient way in which they have deal with the issues raised by my noble friend on the Cross-Benches and myself.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, during the passage of this Bill through the House I have concentrated on a small but, I believe, important area; namely, the relationship between the Immigration Service and the port operators. The sadness, as this Bill has gathered pace through your Lordships' House, is that the consultation process has, alas, been neglected.
However, during the latter stages after returning from the Summer Recess, my noble friend has been of considerable assistance. He has assisted us, for example, in understanding the basic service that port operators wish to know about and which is offered by the Immigration Service.
I had the opportunity to see the document only after Report stage. It was distributed on 15th October and did not reach me by the Report stage on 18th October. I have now had the opportunity to read it. I ask my noble friend to ask his officials to revisit the document. It is written in rather complex language and sets off on entirely the wrong foot. Paragraph 2 reads,
"The level at which the 'Basic Service' will be provided will be subject to an overarching qualification based upon an analysis by the Immigration Service of the risk to the integrity of the immigration control generated by passenger movement at a port".

869
The first reaction to that rather long and verbose statement is, phew! But much more basic is the fact that it is not focusing on what the basic service is. It is essential that the Immigration Service itself should operate efficiently so that it can scrutinise, as is necessary, those who are seeking entry into our country. At the same time it should operate in such a way that all arrivals into the United Kingdom, whether UK or European Union citizens, are processed efficiently and fairly with reasonable promptness. That is entirely absent from the statement I read. I should therefore be grateful if my noble friend could visit this. I notice that at the beginning of the document it is described as a draft document representing the views of officials and that it has not been cleared by Ministers. Perhaps it could now have the eye of my noble friend and his colleagues.
My noble friend kindly wrote to me on the other point I raised and shall just briefly identify it again; I take the hint about briefness. I suggested that there should be an efficient dispute resolution process. My noble friend said that the matter was still under consideration. It can be efficiently set up in a way that is satisfactory to the Secretary of State and the airport operators and I hope that attention will be focused on that. Again, this is an area where, alas, there has been a lack of consultation. With that, I wish the Bill a happy journey.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not intended to say much at this stage, but your Lordships have tempted me; I feel driven and compelled to make a long, interesting and perhaps incisive speech!
Perhaps I may make one or two points. My noble friend Lord Hacking raised two issues; they are both under consideration. I am happy to continue the dialogue and correspondence with him to try to resolve those matters in a way which we both find satisfactory.
I should like to follow the gracious way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, so kindly and generously thanked Ministers and other Members of your Lordships' House for the way they conducted themselves throughout the passage of this Bill. As most noble Lords are aware, I came rather late to this Bill. I am still learning and the learning curve is steep, but I am enjoying the experience. This has been one of those experiences which has been more pressing and demanding than many of the others I have had to confront in the short time that I have been privileged to be at the Dispatch Box.
870
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courteous way in which she and her colleagues on the opposition Benches—I include in that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches—conducted themselves throughout the different stages of this Bill. We focused on the practical. We have been hard-headed. As Ministers, we tried to answer as precisely as we could the questions and difficult and wicked issues raised from all quarters of the House. I trust that we have done that in the best traditions of your Lordships' House.
Matters of substance were raised when I moved that the Bill do now pass. I can say, particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hylton, in relation to the way we see this legislation working, that we inherited, as a government, something of a mess. That is widely accepted and acknowledged. We all know that we need to improve upon the quality of the service. We all accept that resources are an issue. It is for that reason that the Government seek to put in place legislation which is effective, firm and fair, and which will deliver a faster, better and more efficient service. We are committed to that. We have put in place measures which will release an additional £120 million to the IND. We have put in place measures which will speed up the decision-making processes—everyone welcomed that—and we recently recruited 300 additional staff and plan to recruit 250 more.
That is a fair indication of our commitment as a government to getting the immigration, nationality and asylum services on a firm, effective and efficient footing. We believe that this legislation will lead us in that general direction. We have put the resources in place to do it. We look forward to enjoying support from all quarters in making the new system work much better than that which went before. It is in no one's interest that we have a system that does not work; one that is ineffective, full of delay, chaos and inefficiency. Our staff have worked tirelessly to improve the situation and for that we must all be grateful.
My final thanks go to the officials who supported us throughout that process.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.

  India: AIDS Prevention
  India: AIDS Prevention
  Benefits: Annual Review
  Benefits: Annual Review
  Court Closures
  Court Closures
  NHS Pay Review Bodies
  NHS Pay Review Bodies
  Youth Club Provision
  Youth Club Provision
  Blackfriars Underpass
  Blackfriars Underpass
  A.303, Stonehenge
  A.303, Stonehenge
  Dangerous Wild Animal Licences: Fees
  Dangerous Wild Animal Licences: Fees
  Refugee Support: Consultation
  Refugee Support: Consultation
  Chinese President's Visit: Policing
  Chinese President's Visit: Policing
  Schengen Acquis: UK Participation
  Schengen Acquis: UK Participation
  Czech Airlines: Passengers' Ethnic Origins
  Czech Airlines: Passengers' Ethnic Origins
  Firearms National Register
  Firearms National Register
  Cluster Bombs
  Cluster Bombs
  Army Manpower: Retention
  Army Manpower: Retention
  Anthrax and Pertussis Vaccine Injections
  Anthrax and Pertussis Vaccine Injections