Sitting of 29 November 1999

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

    Child Support Agency (Poverty)
    Mr. Chris Pond: What assessment he has made of the likely impact of the reform of the Child Support Agency on child poverty. [98745]
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of the impact of the planned reform of the Child Support Agency on the income of the poorest lone parents. [99069]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): More than 1 million children will benefit from the reforms. More non-resident parents will support their children. A total of 600,000 children in the poorest families will gain more than £150 million a year because parents will be able to keep an extra £10 a week.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the maintenance disregard on
    2
    working families tax credit provides a positive incentive for both parents to co-operate fully with the CSA? Non-resident parents will see that every penny they provide in maintenance will go to the child, and not a penny to the Treasury, while parents with care will see that the money will be of total benefit to them. Is not that one of the major factors in ensuring that CSA reform contributes to the Government's agenda of eliminating child poverty in two decades?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. One of the weaknesses of the previous system was that many parents did not feel that the money that they paid was going into the hands of the parent with care and, therefore, into the hands of the children. We want to ensure that far more children gain. We introduced the disregard so that parents on income support can keep up to £10 a week, which will make a big difference to their children. As he says, it will go a long way towards our objective of eradicating child poverty within 20 years and halving it within 10.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one in three children are in poverty and that, of those, many are likely to be children of separated parents? Will he ensure that, under the new system, the delay in deciding the award for children will be ended? At present, 67 per cent. of decisions are not made within the 22-week target. What will the target be under the new system?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes two good points. First, of 1.5 million children on the CSA's books, only 300,000 are directly seeing the benefit of child support. Secondly, she is right to say that the children who live in families that have broken up are more likely to be poor.
    The advantage of the new system, whereby we will require some three to four pieces of information, rather than nearly 100, will mean that the maintenance calculation can be made within days of an application, rather than within months, or sometimes years under the

    3
    present system. Not only will 1 million children gain from that, but far more children will see what is due to them far more quickly than ever before.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the Secretary of State convinced that child poverty will be relieved by his reform, which will result in absent fathers who do not pay being criminalised? The taxpayer will have to pay twice: to keep absent fathers in prison and for the children. Would it not have been better for the Government to proceed along the excellent lines suggested by the Woolf report and replace criminal with civil remedies in this difficult area?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the agency will try every possible means to ensure that fathers who will not pay do pay. A variety of sanctions can be brought to bear against a parent who will not pay. For example, if a parent enters into an agreement to look after the children and breaks it, the CSA will immediately attach that person's wages so that it can get that money into payment. Clearly, if all else fails and a parent will not co-operate, criminal sanctions might have to be brought against that person.
    The problem is twofold. First, the system is complicated. Many people who want to look after their children are unable to do so because of all the red tape and bureaucracy involved. We are resolving that through the simpler formula. Secondly, a minority of fathers can pay but will not pay. That is why we are being far tougher on them. If necessary, we will take criminal sanctions against them. I would have thought that most people would support that objective. When someone who can perfectly well afford to pay for their children does not do so, that person should be made to pay in whatever way is appropriate.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it must be in the interests of both the paying and receiving parent that the system works efficiently? Is his experience in constituency surgeries the same as mine—namely, that the CSA is woefully inadequate and gets the most basic calculations wrong? People who come to see us give a litany, which is always the same, of telephone calls that are not answered and letters that are not adequate. Does he agree that, in the end, the reforms will stand or fall on whether the CSA provides a service that does justice to both parents?
    We know—the right hon. Gentleman is about to remind me—that the system was set up under a Conservative Government, but will he move away from that part of his script and agree that, after two and a half years, something rather better is necessary?
    Mr. Darling: I did not think that I would ever see the day when I agreed with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. However, he misses the point. He sets out the difficulties that the present system has encountered. That is precisely why we are making changes to the CSA. Fundamentally, it does not work because the calculations needed to work out how much is due to a child are so complicated and convoluted that it takes far too long for the payments to be made. That is why we are introducing a simpler formula that can be easily calculated. The ready reckoners are in the back of
    4
    the White Paper for anybody who wants to see them. We are making payment easier for those who can pay and want to do so, but we are going to be far tougher on the minority who can pay but will not.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Those ready reckoners do not show the number of people who will lose out under the proposals. Some 350,000 parents will be worse off by an average of £17 a week. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to tackle child poverty in those households that are going to be worse off? The Conservatives are broadly supportive of the Government's attempts to reform the Child Support Agency, but unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to address the fundamental flaws in his proposals, we might not be able to support him as readily as we would like.
    Mr. Darling: I hope that the Conservatives and others will reflect on the fact that, as a result of the changes that we are making, nearly 1 million children will be better off. Of course some people will be paying more—that is clear from the White Paper proposals—but they will be paying it to their children.
    Mr. Pickles: Parents with care will be worse off.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says that parents will be worse off. It is a parent's obligation to look after their children. The children will be better off. I remind the children—sorry, the Conservatives—[Interruption.] It is easy to confuse the two. The Tories have to work out which side they are on. I believe that we should be on the side of the children, not on the side of those who can pay but will not.
    Ms Sally Keeble: I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has set out. Simplifying the system will reduce non-payment and ensure that the problem of child poverty is dealt with. However, I should like him to explain two points. First, how will the income of the self-employed be assessed? That has been a particular problem in my constituency. Secondly, when will existing claimants come into the new system, which people in my constituency have welcomed?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has raised two points. First, we have made it clear that if a self-employed person will not co-operate with the Child Support Agency, we shall take powers to gain access to Inland Revenue records to see what they are saying to the tax authorities. We have all come across constituents who tell us that they are not getting a penny from the absent father, yet they see him driving around town enjoying a good quality of life while the children have to go without the basic necessities of life.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend asked when we will switch the existing case load on to the new system. I have made the position clear time and again. I do not want to repeat the mistakes that were made when the Child Support Agency was set up in the early 1990s, when too many cases were put onto an untried system that could not cope. We want to switch the existing cases onto the new system only when we are satisfied that the new CSA can cope. I understand the frustration of those who would like us to proceed faster, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that if

    5
    we repeat the mistakes of the early 1990s, the new system will not succeed. It can succeed if we ensure that it is up and running before we put the new cases on it.

    CSA (Reform)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on reform of the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [99060]
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the Child Support Agency. [99067]
    Helen Jackson: What plans he has for reforming the Child Support Agency. [99076]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): There is widespread support for radical changes to the current system. We have received a wide range of views on the detail of the proposals since the White Paper was published in July. New legislation on child support, announced in the Queen's Speech, will address the failures of the current system and put children's rights at the heart of the child support system.
    Miss McIntosh: Page 7 of the Green Paper gave a written assurance that
    "responses will normally be available to the general public unless you specifically ask us to keep your views confidential."
    We have now been told that all responses are to be treated as confidential apart from 110 from academic organisations. I gave a written submission, as did 34 Members of Parliament and more than 1,300 members of the public. Have these responses been deemed to be confidential to cover up the overwhelming opposition from the general public to the Green Paper proposals?
    Angela Eagle: There was not overwhelming opposition to the basic restructuring of the CSA, although many comments were made on some aspects of it. Some responses have not been made public because they would disclose individual circumstances which it would be unfair to place in the public domain without the say-so of both parents involved.
    Helen Jones: What steps will be taken under the new proposals to deal with absent parents who either refuse to co-operate with the CSA or give deliberately misleading information to the organisation, ensuring, in many cases, that parents with care have a long wait before they receive any money while others play the system to their own advantage?
    Angela Eagle: One of the basic points about the new system is that in place of more than 100 different facts about the non-resident parent, three or four facts will be all that is needed to calculate maintenance. Non-resident parents can have a good idea of their liabilities if they have a calculator. We will have simpler assessments which will be made much faster. If the non-resident parent refuses to pay, deduction of earnings orders can be
    6
    introduced. If the parent provides misleading or false information, that will be a criminal offence—for the first time—and subject to penalties of up to £1,000.
    Helen Jackson: Has not the bungled way in which the CSA was introduced meant that, far from children being put first, there has been increased acrimony so that shared care arrangements have been jeopardised and sometimes have fallen down as a result of the CSA? Will the Minister assure me that shared care arrangements will be brought into the reckoning in the new reforms, and that a fair way will be found to balance financial obligations and care arrangements in the interests of children?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend and I could spend all day talking about the many things that have been wrong in the practice of the CSA and in the legislation that set it up. I believe sincerely that the reforms will do much to take away the acrimony. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that we wish to encourage the sharing of care by increasing the allowance made in the maintenance assessment for time spent with the child by the non-resident parent. We hope that this will encourage estranged parents to work together, rather than using the agency as a further attempt to pursue their own vendettas against each other, and to put the child and his or her welfare at the centre of their thoughts.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the Minister is so keen to reduce acrimony between parents and to encourage shared care and shared financing, and as the Government are so keen to proclaim joined-up government, why are the Government delaying the implementation of part II of the Family Law Act 1996? What discussions is she having with the Lord Chancellor's Department on that matter?
    Angela Eagle: The right hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that that is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    Mr. David Willetts: Could I invite the Minister to correct the Secretary of State, who seems to have got the wrong end of the stick? Will she confirm that about 350,000 parents with care, whose non-resident parent is in paid work, would have a lower maintenance assessment as a result of the new child support rates, and that the average reduction would be about £17 a week? Just to help her, that was in a written answer that she gave to the House only three weeks ago. Does not that reveal that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was correct? How is that fact compatible with the Government's rhetoric on child poverty?
    Angela Eagle: I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to play one parent off against the other by talking about gainers and losers. The people who will gain from the proposals will be the children. The hon. Gentleman's analysis of my parliamentary answer would be absolutely accurate if 100 per cent. of people were paying maintenance. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, 1.5 million children are on the agency's books, but only 350,000 of those children receive any maintenance at all, and only 100,000 receive

    7
    full maintenance payments. The reforms will get maintenance flowing and more children will be better off—everyone will gain.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Given the inept operations of the Child Support Agency, the continuing problems in the Benefits Agency and the difficulties that the Passport Agency has been through, have the Government considered that the problem may lie with the agency model? Perhaps we should consider getting back to a system in which civil servants and public service provisions are to the fore.
    Angela Eagle: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the Passport Agency. After all this time, only 20 per cent. of women on income support receive their maintenance. The figure was the same the day before the Child Support Agency was set up. We must consider why the agency's existence has made no difference to the flow of maintenance. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the formula was too rigid and prescriptive and there was simply too much to do, which is why we have gone for a very basic, simple and easily calculated formula.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What estimates he has made of the numbers of people receiving means-tested benefits (a) in May 1997 and (b) in May 2001. [99061]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We estimate that the number of people in receipt of one or more of the means-tested benefits in May 1997 was about 8 million. We forecast that the number will reduce to about 7.9 million in May 2001, including those receiving the working families tax credit. The reduction reflects the Government's success in enabling people to get off jobseeker's allowance and back into work.
    Mr. Brazier: The reply reflects the fact that unemployment is falling at this point in the economic cycle. Does the Minister accept that putting a large number of new people onto a means-tested benefit—the working families tax credit—and putting many of them on a combined tax and benefit withdrawal rate of more than 80 per cent. will in the long run militate against self-help, lead to a loss of self-confidence and encourage dependency?
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that our economic policies have reduced unemployment and increased the total number of people in work by 400,000, to the highest level ever. His comments about the working families tax credit are entirely wrong. It will boost the incomes of 1.5 million families by an average of £24 a week. Come the next general election, the Conservative party will find that its opposition to it will cost it hundreds of thousands of votes.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend will no doubt have been encouraged to learn that over the first two years of this Parliament the number of income support claimants fell by more than 400,000, or more than 750,000 if one includes children and other
    8
    dependants. Is not that proof that the Government are not merely talking about defeating poverty but are getting on and doing it?
    Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely powerfully. The Government have set extremely challenging targets over the long term to reduce poverty. We have made a start and our policies are having the desired effect.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Minister reflect on three facts: that pensioners resent being forced to go through a means test simply to get a decent income; that his decision to increase pensions by 75p next April will force thousands more into the means test; and that his policy of a state second pension and stakeholder pension will not touch pensioner incomes for a decade or more? Is it not true that the Government have no policy to reduce pensioner dependence on means tests for a decade to come?
    Mr. Bayley: That is absolute nonsense. The Government have policies in the long term to reform the pension system so that so many elderly people—the proportion is one in five at present—do not have to be dependent on means-tested benefits, and we are taking action now to improve the position of pensioners. Our predecessors, the Conservatives, simply increased the pension each year by the rate of inflation. On top of the 75p inflation increase this year, we have provided a £100 winter fuel bonus for all pensioners—that is almost £2 a week extra for each pensioner household.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Has there been a reduction or increase in the take-up of housing benefit, and how is the review of housing benefit coming on? Are we getting somewhere?
    Mr. Bayley: The review of housing benefit is continuing, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make an announcement in due course.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Howard Flight: What plans he has to improve the confidence of the public in the handling of individual cases by the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [99062]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Our plans to reform the child support system were set out in a White Paper on 1 July. The new system will be effective and easily understood, ensuring that maintenance is paid regularly and reliably. The Child Support Agency is also being reformed to provide a service that is better focused on its customers.
    Mr. Flight: May I have the Government's assurance that the computer system will be properly tested for the new system, simple though it is, because many of the problems with the existing system have reflected an inadequate and failing computer system? Secondly, will the approach be changed, because the absence of case officers has, in many of the cases I have dealt with, caused mistakes due to clerical error, with no apparent central

    9
    responsibility for any one case? The new system may be simpler, but unless its software is efficient and it is administered well, it runs the risk of experiencing many of the same weaknesses as the present arrangements.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right on both counts. The present computer system operated by the CSA is not very good. It was purchased by the previous Government and it should have been a lot better. I can assure him that the new system will not be brought in until we are satisfied that the IT systems can cope and also that the culture in the CSA has changed, because we have to offer a radically different approach. In the meantime, the staff, who still have to cope with a complex system, are making changes.
    We have made changes to the decision-making process, so that things can be put right as soon as a mistake is discovered and parents do not have to appeal. In addition, we have introduced more face-to-face interviews for people who want them and more discussion over the telephone, which can sometimes resolve problems. However, I have to tell the House that until the new system is introduced and becomes operational, we have to operate under the existing system. While we will do our best to ensure that it is improved week by week and month by month, some of the problems that we are all familiar with will continue until the new system, which I am determined will work far better, is introduced.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No one doubts the Secretary of State's commitment to making the system work better, and indeed it would be difficult to make it work worse, but is not the hazard involved in the length of time the changeover is taking the fact that many people are in real trouble because they are not receiving assistance from the CSA? I had three cases on Saturday—each one was genuine—and unless some urgent action is taken, many people will not receive assistance. Some people feel that the agency does not investigate when they provide evidence and others are loth to get involved with the CSA because of its apparent incompetence.
    Mr. Darling: I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend makes. She will appreciate that, at the moment, before any calculation can be made, some 100 pieces of information have to be obtained from the non-resident parent. Sometimes that is difficult, and even when the agency gets the information the position can change before the application is processed and the amount due to be paid is calculated. I do not apologise for that; it is simply a matter of fact.
    The present system is inherently complex and difficult to operate. As I said to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), we are making changes within the agency to improve performance. It was woeful in the past, but it is improving. Unfortunately, the increase in the case load of some 60 per cent in the past few years is putting additional strains on a system that was already creaking.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she wanted change as quickly as possible, and I understand that. Unfortunately, it will take primary legislation before we can make any of the changes, and that will be included in the legislation that will come before the House shortly. As the hon. Member
    10
    for Arundel and South Downs said, the changes are dependent on a new IT system, which we are in the process of procuring. However, I repeat that it will help no one, least of all the 1 million children who will gain under the new arrangements, if we rush our fences again. By doing that, we should end up with exactly the same problem, with which we are all too familiar.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact target time in which Child Support Agency staff should return telephone calls to members of the public? Furthermore, according to exactly what criteria will individuals under the new system be able to appeal against decisions under the flat-rate formula?
    Mr. Darling: It is made clear to the staff that they should return calls as quickly as possible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that performance is sometimes not as good as it should be. However, we have put some £28 million more into the agency this year to ensure that we retain some of our best qualified staff and to improve things.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that earlier this year we introduced a new decision-making and appeals process throughout the social security system, which is now being rolled out across all the agencies. Instead of individuals having to go through a full-scale appeals process, which is what happens at present, under the new arrangements, people on the front line will, for the first time, be able to put matters right when the facts are brought to their attention.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the progress being made by his Department in improving the accuracy of testing for eligibility for disability living allowance. [99065]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are making progress on work to ensure the correctness and reliability of awards of disability living allowance. We are doing so in consultation with organisations of and for disabled people.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I recognise that there will always be cases in which the decision on eligibility is debatable. However, a number of constituents have sought my help in the past 12 months because of perverse decisions or recommendations by doctors carrying out medicals for DLA eligibility. My concern is that the Department should monitor doctors' performance in carrying out such medical checks. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the number of cases in which perverse decisions are made is reduced, because the unwarranted removal of DLA eligibility creates a great deal of distress and hardship for constituents everywhere?
    Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Let me reassure him and the House that the Government's approach to DLA and other benefits is to change the delivery system so that the decisions are right in the first place, and continue to be right thereafter.

    11
    We have made significant changes to the way in which the medical services operate since they were contracted out to Sema just over a year ago. We monitor the performance of medical board incentives and doctors, doctor by doctor. When performance strays from the norm, follow-up management action is taken with the doctor concerned.
    We are also introducing more rigorous training for medical services doctors and more rigorous tests before such doctors are employed. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that we recognise the problem that he describes and are taking action to deal with it.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: But is there not a conflict of interest here? Doctors obviously want to remain on the panel, but if they find in favour of applicants too often they might find themselves off the panel.
    I share the experience of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). In a recent appeal, a young gentleman suffering from multiple sclerosis was refused DLA because he said that he probably could walk 102 yd, or whatever the silly distance was. The whole system and the forms are weighted against people who suffer from an illness that is partly physical and partly not. Will the Minister urgently consider the need to review the initial forms?
    Mr. Bayley: I reassure the House that doctors employed by the Benefits Agency have never been remunerated according to the decisions that they make. Such a system has never existed, and will not exist in the future. Doctors must make the best clinical judgment. There is no pressure on them to err in the claimant's favour, or against the claimant's favour. When we review doctors' performance, through the review that I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), management action is triggered as a result of variation from the norm in either direction; discussions about a doctor's clinical practice then take place.
    Mr. David Heath: Does not the Minister appreciate the real distress caused to many people with disabilities when they are reassessed despite the manifest difficulties that they have? What proportion of appeals is allowed? Will he give me an absolute assurance that the initial assessment process is not used to reduce the number of benefit recipients to those who are sufficiently articulate or well advised to appeal successfully?
    Mr. Bayley: The assessment process was agreed with disabled peoples' organisations, and with those organisations that represent and speak for disabled people. They wanted a self-assessment system. The form used is a long one, but it allows people applying for benefit to put their own views. That is the primary basis on which the award is made.
    When this Government took office in 1997, 59 per cent. of appeals were successful. Although the proportion has now fallen to 48 per cent., it is still too high and the Government must go further. We are, however, moving in the right direction, and we are doing so in consultation with bodies that represent disabled people.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disability benefits system works better when
    12
    disabled claimants understand it more clearly? Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of local disability information and advice line organisations, which provide advice to disabled people?
    The Government have introduced much excellent legislation on behalf of disabled people, and have changed the benefits system for the better. Will my hon. Friend consider working with local organisations to set up or support information seminars? Such seminars, which would have to be held in more than one locality in a region, would help disabled people to understand the system. Would that not save time spent on fruitless appeals and on the other problems described earlier?
    Mr. Bayley: I agree that local disability information and advice workers have an extremely important job. In fact, on Friday evening in Birmingham, I spoke at the conference of the Alliance of Disability Advice and Information Providers. My hon. Friend will know that I recently made a couple of presentations in the House to inform hon. Members of what the medical service of the Benefits Agency is doing to improve the quality and consistency of decisions. I shall certainly consider taking those presentations out on a roadshow with voluntary bodies up and down the country.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What research his Department is currently evaluating into the advantages and disadvantages of means-testing benefits. [99066]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department is not currently carrying out any research on the advantages or disadvantages of means-testing.
    Mr. Viggers: The Government's pensions Green Paper, published a year ago, had as one its objectives the aim of giving
    "greater rewards to those who have made provision for their own retirement."
    It acknowledged the resentment felt by those who, having saved for their retirement, are therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. Are not the Government, with their guaranteed minimum pension for the improvident, doing the opposite of the priority that they set out? Moreover, there has not been the promised review of capital disregards for those with modest savings. Have not the Government, once again, said one thing and done another?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Disgraceful.
    Mr. Rooker: I understand the reasons behind the question but it is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend says, to describe as improvident people in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. Such people, because of the nature of their employment, may never have had the opportunity to contribute to an occupational works pension or superannuation scheme.
    However, I take the point that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) makes about capital limits, which have been fixed for many years. We are committed to

    13
    reviewing those limits and we will do so, because we do not wish to send a signal that thrift does not pay: we must send a signal that it pays to save. The fact that capital limits were frozen year after year was a disgrace, but we shall correct that by reviewing them during this Parliament.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the complexity and duplication in having to produce information for many means-tested benefits. What progress are the Government making on one-stop benefits, which will help people and save cost?
    Mr. Rooker: We are piloting the one-stop benefit around the country. Eight new pilots start today.
    Mr. David Willetts: Does the Minister recall the Chancellor's statement to the Labour conference before the election, in which he said:
    "I want the next Labour government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved, the end of the means-test for our elderly people"?
    Does the Minister understand that if the basic state pension is increased in line with prices and the minimum income guarantee is increased in line with earnings, we will end up with more means testing, not less? Why will he not admit that that is the clear, deliberate, conscious policy of this Government and that it deters people from saving?
    Mr. Rooker: I am not clear what solution the hon. Gentleman advances—he would probably argue that that is not his job. Too many pensioners are on the means test, and that has been the case for many, many years. Without the proposals in the Green Paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), 3.5 million pensioners—one in three—would be on the means test in 2050. The proposals in the Green Paper on the stakeholder pension and on the second state pension will reduce that figure considerably. We do not intend to tip pensioners into the means test, as the Opposition allege.
    Mr. Willetts: There is no point in talking about such long-distant visions if, year on year, the Government spread means testing. Does the Minister accept the calculation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that people will need a fund of £130,000 to avoid being trapped on the Government's minimum income guarantee? If he does not, will he offer an alternative calculation? People planning for their retirement must know how much to save to keep themselves above the Government's means tests?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, indeed. The No. 1 priority of people should be to plan for their retirement throughout. They were never told that by the previous Government; they were left high and dry and too many have ended up on the means test. As we have made clear, there must be a policy for today's pensioners and for tomorrow's—but not the same policy. There are pensioners who have to be helped today, which is why the minimum income guarantee was introduced. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, helping those pensioners by an across-the-board increase would not put an extra penny in their pockets. We are determined to target resources on today's poorer
    14
    pensioners while making adequate plans and preparations in law to ensure that tomorrow's pensioners retire on a decent income above the means test.

    Volunteering
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the obstacles raised by social security rules to volunteering. [99068]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are keen to encourage voluntary work. We recognise that it can play a significant role in preparing people to enter work, especially those who may have been out of the labour market for some time. People who are in receipt of social security benefits may do unlimited amounts of voluntary work without it affecting their benefit, as long as other eligibility conditions continue to be met.
    Mr. Kidney: On Saturday, I co-hosted a conference in Stafford for voluntary organisations about recruiting and retaining volunteers imaginatively entitled "Desperately Seeking Volunteers". Those present were complimentary about the Government's attitude to allowing people to undertake voluntary work, but they identified two residual areas where obstacles remain. The first was the obstructive attitude of a small number of staff at the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service who tried to get in the way of their volunteering. The second was the medical eligibility test for benefits such as incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, where, if people put their heads above the parapet for voluntary work, they run the risk of being ruled as fit for paid work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with a little central direction from her, both those minor obstacles could be smoothed away?
    Angela Eagle: If there are pockets of obstruction, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know where they are and I will see what I can do to put an end to them. When we abolished the 16-hour rule for incapacity benefit, we made it quite clear that we encourage people who are currently on benefits to volunteer. There is no limit to the number of hours for which they may volunteer. If my hon. Friend can give me further details on that matter, I shall deal with it.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does acting as a local councillor qualify as voluntary work? If so, should a local councillor be able to collect disability benefits?
    Angela Eagle: I understand that there is a disability benefit disregard for those who serve on councils. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point of detail, perhaps he will write to me and I shall certainly deal with it.

    Benefits Expenditure
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on his Department's forecasts for expenditure on social security payments. [99070]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Social security spending is growing at well under half its rate during the previous

    15
    Parliament, and is now taking a declining share of national income—an achievement that the Conservative Government never managed.
    Mr. Paterson: That is exactly the answer that I received during the statement about two weeks ago. When the Prime Minister spoke at Church house on 7 May 1997, he said that one of his main priorities would be to reduce social security spending. In that case, why does table B12 of the Government's figures in the pre-Budget report show that social security benefits will increase from £93.3 billion to a massive £103.6 billion?
    Mr. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now getting the message that social security spending is growing at well under half the rate that it did under the previous Government. Of course, it is growing slightly, but it is growing at half the rate that it did under the previous Government. He may be interested to learn that so far in this Parliament, as a result of getting more people into work, we have saved more than £7 billion. That is a direct result of the Labour Government's economic policies and of our policy of getting people back into work.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Opposition's attention to the simple fact that, if more and more of us live for longer in retirement, the social security bill—for example, that for pensions—will rise? Is not the important commitment made by the Government that, although the total social security bill will rise, the proportion met by taxpayers—if we consider public and private provision—will fall?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government's strategy, as set out in the Green Paper published a year ago, is to ensure that all those who can make provision for themselves should do so. The first leg of improvements needed to implement that is part of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999; the second is in legislation that will be put to the House shortly.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the second most important reason for the reduction in social security plans between March and November is the £1.7 billion fall in disability benefit expenditure? Will he explain why, over the past seven months, he has miraculously reduced his forecast for disability benefit spending by £1.7 billion? Does that have anything to do with the means-testing of benefits that was put through the House only the other day?
    Mr. Darling: When the hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter—he has a reputation for thinking about things—he will realise that the changes in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act do not come into effect until 2001. There are two reasons for the reduction in expenditure, the first of which results from changes introduced by the Conservative Government in 1995. Secondly, we are tightening all the gateways to the social security system to ensure that those who are not entitled to benefit do not receive it. If they are entitled to benefit, we ensure that we give more help than ever before. Those changes will be welcomed by most reasonable people.

    Pensions
    Mr. David Crausby: If he will make a statement on his policy on the link between pensions and increases in pay. [99071]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Our policy, which was set out in the manifesto, is that the basic state pension should be uprated at least in line with prices. The poorest current pensioners will, of course, benefit from the recently announced increase of 4.6 per cent. to the minimum income guarantee. In the longer term, pensioners will benefit from the state second pension, legislation for which we shall shortly introduce. I can also announce that a consultation document on the contracting-out aspects of the state second pension will be published later today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The Conservatives broke the link between pensions and pay. I accept that the Government cannot cure overnight the problems associated with 18 years of the previous Government, but does he agree that pensions received by the elderly are not charitable donations from the Government, but are earned as a result of the national insurance contributions that they paid throughout their life, which increased as their wages increased? Is it not morally right that pensions should increase as wages increase?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right about national insurance contributions, but let us not beat about the bush. The basic state pension has never provided an adequate income on which to live, whether people have been fully paid up or not. I remind him that in the first three years of this Parliament pensioners as a group have received, via the winter fuel discount, which is not means-tested, and the minimum income guarantee, which is means-tested, £800 million more than they would have received if the basic state pension had been increased in line with earnings.
    Mr. David Prior: Does the Minister agree that his policies will increase the number of pensioners receiving means-tested benefits?
    Mr. Rooker: No, I do not accept that.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What estimate he has made of the number of pensioners benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [99074]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In May 1999, 1.4 million pensioners were benefiting from the minimum income guarantee.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. That figure means that a huge number of pensioners throughout the country, including in my constituency of Gedling in Nottingham, have benefited from the Government's policy. However, as he is aware, there is a

    17
    problem with take-up. Will he investigate whether we can introduce imaginative measures to get pensioners who are not claiming the minimum income guarantee to claim it?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a problem with take-up—which, before anyone says anything, is inevitable with a means-tested benefit. However, there are also problems with take-up of attendance allowance, which is not means-tested. Too many pensioners are missing out. We estimate that take-up is about 40. per cent., so there are opportunities to increase take-up of that allowance. Millions of pensioners receive council tax benefit and housing benefit, as do millions of other people, and no stigma is attached to those benefits. We shall run a Government-sponsored take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee early next year.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has the Minister taken any notice of the results of the focus groups that insurance companies have been running on the minimum pension guarantee, and is he not concerned that the message has obviously got across to generations of people whose retirement is some time away that they will gain no advantage from investing and saving for their future if their income is low?
    Mr. Rooker: I hate to admit this, but the answer is yes. I have taken account of the focus groups because, along with some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I recently attended one of those groups, which was illuminating. The reaction was exactly the same as that of some of my constituents.
    Nevertheless, the central issue that emerged was the need to save and prepare for a pension many years in advance, and the thought that, if it is left too late, it becomes more expensive. That has got across to people, as has the point that I made earlier—that anyone who relies solely on the basic state retirement pension and makes no other provision will, as has always been the case, retire in abject poverty.

    Household Income
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on the gap between the rich and the poor, as measured by household income. [99077]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The gap between rich and poor widened dramatically in the 1980s. We are, as a Government, serious about creating a fairer society—an aim that I hope the hon. Lady shares. We want all our citizens to have the opportunities to maximise their potential and we want to create a society in which all can share in the growing prosperity of the nation. The facts on poverty and social exclusion in this country are absolutely shocking; we intend to address them.
    Miss Kirkbride: As usual, the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. Before the election, the Labour party made great play of the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor was widening. That is still true under this Labour Government and it must increasingly be true while state benefits—some people will always rely on state benefits—increase according to inflation and the market
    18
    increases salaries by a greater percentage. Is it not one of the great Labour lies that his Government will do anything to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor?
    Mr. Rooker: I regret that the hon. Lady takes that approach. It is a fact that we have taken hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, have introduced the working families tax credit so that no one else will ever be better off on benefit than in work—that must make a substantial difference—and are the first Government to produce a poverty audit of this country. In effect, that was an audit of the legacy of the previous Government, for which we are prepared to be accountable year in, year out. Between 1979 and 1995 –96, the share of income received by the bottom 20 per cent. of the population went down from 9.8 per cent. to 6.7 per cent. while the share of the top 20 per cent. went up from 35 per cent. to 41 per cent. I do not know how the hon. Lady had the brass neck to ask her question.
    Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate for every Tory Member in the Chamber to apologise for the appalling poverty into which so many people—my constituents and others—were forced as a result of Tory policies during their 18 years in government? Does my hon. Friend expect any such apology to be made by any Tory Member from the Front or Back Benches?
    Mr. Rooker: I expect it, but I suspect that it will not happen.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister depart for a moment from ploughing through his set text to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? She referred to the increasing gap between the rich and the poor under this Government. Is it not a fact that the latest survey of households on below average income shows that the gap between rich and poor is increasing under this Government? Will he nominate—or will he even take a flier at guessing—which year the Government will succeed in closing that gap rather making it wider?
    Mr. Rooker: I answered the question that I was asked. I was asked to make a statement on the gap, and, as I said, it is too wide. Although I thought that the hon. Gentleman was bright enough to do so, he cannot take on board the fact that, as everyone knows, for the first two years of this Administration we kept to the spending limits of the previous Government —
    Mr. Eric Forth: It was the Government's choice.
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, it was our choice. We kept to those spending limits and the policies of the previous Government will permeate for some time to come. There is no doubt about that. Everything—[Interruption.] I am telling the truth. Everything cannot be solved in 32 months.

    Customer Service
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on steps his Department is taking to improve customer service in the social security system. [99078]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Department is considering how to ease the transition from benefits to work as part of customer services improvements and to improve the administration of benefits to remove barriers to work. Among other things, we are looking at linking rules and run-ons, such as the two-week run-on for lone parents who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance that was recently put into effect and the 12-month linking rule for those on the new deal for disabled people.
    Mr. Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Does she agree that as well as addressing the poverty trap we
    20
    need to continue to address the process trap, by which I mean the problems that claimants can experience in moving off benefit and into work and back again, which act as an obstacle to seeking a job?
    Angela Eagle: I cannot agree more with my hon. Friend's comments, and I assure him that we are focusing on the path leading from benefits back into work and on what happens when people take part-time or temporary jobs. That is why the new ONE pilots include a better-off calculation to reassure people about whether they will be better off in work. We are considering redesigning the system to ensure that if a job does not work out, people can get back on to benefits with the minimum hassle.

Crime Reduction Strategy
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's crime reduction strategy, which I have published today. Copies of the strategy document and of the Home Office model of recorded crime are available in the Vote Office.
First, however, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my shock and outrage at the attack that took place yesterday at St. Andrew's church, Thornton Heath in the London borough of Croydon, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). It is hard to think of anything more terrible than to have the serenity of a church service destroyed by such an attack. I should like to express our deepest sympathy for those who were injured, their families and friends and the entire congregation who witnessed that awful event. I should like also to express my admiration for the courage of those who intervened to save the largely elderly parishioners from even worse injury.
Over the century, recorded crime has risen by an annual average of around 5 per cent. Recorded crime in fact doubled in the 1980s and early 1990s. Thanks to the tremendous work of the police and local authorities, it has fallen steadily since then—by 19 per cent. over the past five years and by 9 per cent. between 1997 and 1999. For the first time, last year's British crime survey showed that the overall level of crime, including incidents not reported to the police, was on the way down, as was fear of crime.
Over the past two and a half years, we have sought to lay the foundations for the most co-ordinated attack on crime and its causes: 375 local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are now up and running; over the next three years, £400 million will be put into evidence-led crime reduction programmes, including the biggest ever investment in closed circuit television; £60 million is being invested in schemes to cut burglary, and there is help to protect the most vulnerable pensioners.
A new crime fighting fund has been established with new money to recruit 5,000 more officers over and above those already planned. We have made available £34 million for extending the DNA database and are putting an extra £50 million towards transforming police communications. All that is on top of the extra £1.25 billion provided to the police over this year and the next two years.
We are insisting on tough, consistent prison sentences for serious criminals, far more rigorous enforcement of community sentences and zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour. Alongside that we want quicker, more effective punishment for persistent young offenders, with a thorough modernisation of the whole system for dealing with young criminals.
There is, however, more to do. Despite recent falls, crime is still way above its level of the late 1970s, and the level of property crime is significantly higher than in most comparable countries.
Over the past five years, as figures published this morning show, all forces have achieved reductions in crime, but some have been much more successful than
22
others: for example, Northumbria, Kent, Durham, Surrey and Gloucestershire have all achieved reductions in recorded crime of more than 30 per cent. Those statistics reveal that similar police forces and local authorities, with similar problems and similar resources, achieve widely differing performances in crime reduction. Reducing the crime rate of the 21 forces with the highest rates to that of the average would cut recorded crime by 0.5 million. However, we want to aim higher: our emphasis is on encouraging the police, local authorities and others to raise their performance. I have set out how we can raise performance and reduce crime across the country in the strategy document.
The best value regime set up under the Local Government Act 1999 establishes the process for delivering a step change in the quality of all local services, including crime reduction. From April 2000, we should like every police authority and local crime reduction partnership to set five-year targets for reduction in the three sets of offences of greatest concern to the public: vehicle crime, domestic burglary and street robberies. For police authorities, the aim should be, over that five-year period, to raise the level of their performance to that of the top 25 per cent. of comparable authorities. We shall discuss the comparators and the process in more detail with chief constables and police authorities. Of course, we shall take into account the particular circumstances of individual forces.
From January next year, we shall publish crime statistics not only for entire police force areas, but for individual police divisions, or basic command units. By April 2001, we should have data available to ensure top quartile targets at the level of the local partnerships. Together, those measures will enable people to see how their local police and partnerships are doing, compared with performance in equivalent areas.
I recognise that, to raise the performance of the local partnerships, strong leadership and support are needed at national and regional level. At national level, we are to establish a new national crime reduction task force to be chaired by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), with the chief constable of Kent, Mr. David Phillips, as vice-chairman. We are discussing with the Local Government Association the appointment of a second vice-chairman to represent local authorities. At regional level, we shall appoint new crime reduction directors, based in the Government offices for the regions. The regional directors will work with the police, local government and other agencies to support crime reduction work and help to sustain improvements in performance.
From January, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will lead a new inspection on crime reduction with the Home Office and the Audit Commission to examine how forces, at basic command unit level—that is, district level—and partnerships are dealing with local crime and disorder problems. I should also tell the House that, in response to calls from the police service for a simplification of Government priorities, the number of ministerial priorities for the year 2000–2001 has been reduced to two: reducing crime and disorder and increasing confidence among minority ethnic communities.
On the Home Office model of recorded crime, from the early 1990s, economists in the Home Office have sought to isolate those factors external to the criminal justice

23
system—such as levels of economic activity and employment, the stock of goods, and the number of young men—which might historically have been related to movements in recorded crime. The models suggest that there is a strong historic association between changes in the level of recorded property crime and some of the key economic and demographic factors.
The economists have made a projection of what effect they believe that association would have on the level of recorded property crime, assuming no positive intervention by the police, local authorities or Government. Those projections are not forecasts of what the Government believe will or should happen. Criminal behaviour is wrong and the model provides no excuse for it. Moreover, there is nothing inevitable about the trend in the model. The models for the four-year period 1997 to 2001 suggest that, if no positive programmes had been or were to be put in place, by 2001, theft would be 40 per cent. higher and burglary 25 per cent. higher than in 1997. However, half way through this 1997–2001 period there is good evidence that we are bucking the projected trend. Burglary in the first two years of this period is down and not up; and vehicle crime is down, not up. The research therefore underlines the relative success achieved so far, but also the scale of the challenge that we face. One key of many to meeting that challenge is the better targeting of crimes and of criminals.
We therefore have a strong focus in our strategy on vehicle crime and burglary, which together account for 40 per cent. of all recorded crime. Tomorrow I will be announcing the successful projects in the first round of the £150 million CCTV programme, significantly aimed at reducing vehicle crime. From Wednesday, any offender convicted of three separate domestic burglary offences from that date will face a minimum prison sentence of at least three years. Also on Wednesday, curfew orders enforced by electronic tagging will become available to all courts across the country.
Later this week, we will be announcing plans for the distribution of the £20 million for drug arrest referral to establish such schemes in every police custody suite by April 2001, to get offenders off drugs and into treatment. The crime and public protection Bill will facilitate the use of drug testing at arrest and charge, and for offenders on community punishments to deter further drug use and offending. The Bill will also extend the possibilities for electronic tagging and provide for reform of the probation service.
Also published today are figures which show that on youth crime we are well on our way to meeting our key pledge to halve the time that it takes to deal with persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence by March 2002. In 1997, the average time was 142 days—more than 20 weeks. In 1998 it was 125 days. This fell to 110 days across the first half of 1999. Individual areas are showing how much can be achieved through good partnership between agencies. Two areas, north Wales and Warwickshire, have been particularly successful, managing already to achieve an average of fewer than 71 days.
By modernising and speeding up the court process with the national roll-out of the Narey changes we are meeting our pledge to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat and on to operational duties. Above all, we are
24
transforming the way in which victims are treated, with the measures in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, and a 50 per cent. increase in funding for victim support to provide witness services in every magistrates court.
The Government are determined to put the public's protection first. Ours is an ambitious programme which will, if achieved, make major inroads into reducing crime. The fight against crime is an integral part of our commitment to make Britain a better place in which to live. If we can cut crime, we can add value to every aspect of our life. I commend the strategy to the House.
Mr. David Lidington: First, I associate the Opposition with the Home Secretary's comments about the appalling crime which took place at St. Andrew's church in Croydon yesterday. I am sure that the Metropolitan police will be conducting a full investigation and that lessons can be learned when their report is made known. For today, however, I think that the right response is just to express sympathy for the victims and their families and pride in the courageous actions of those who managed to disarm the alleged criminal.
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and also for his courtesy in giving me early sight of the background documents to his announcement. I thank him also for giving me the opportunity some little while in advance to see a copy of the statement.
We can welcome and endorse several aspects of the statement. Indeed, one or two items in the right hon. Gentleman's list of measures seem more than a little familiar from the period before May 1997.
First, may I ask about the extension of electronic tagging as a means of enforcing curfew orders? The Opposition support that in principle, but we have some questions. We would welcome the use of electronic tagging as part of a community penalty. Does the Home Secretary accept that in many cases, it would make sense to link a tagging order to a compensation order, so that a criminal is deprived of his liberty during his leisure time, but during his working hours he is earning money from which to pay compensation to the victims who have suffered from his actions?
Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to deny media reports last week that the Government are planning to use tagging to allow for the early release of serious, violent and sexual offenders? Does he accept that such a step would be an abuse of the tagging system, and that such criminals ought not to be released early?
Secondly, I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement of the expansion of the DNA database. That follows his announcement of that during his Labour party conference speech, the announcement during the Prime Minister's Labour party conference speech, and the exclusive briefing to the Daily Mirror. Can the Home Secretary confirm what the Government intend should happen to samples taken from people who are subsequently acquitted of charges brought against them? Are we right to understand that, as with fingerprints, those DNA samples should be destroyed after an appropriate period?
Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the £34 million that he mentioned in his statement? Is that entirely new money, is it funded from the reserve, or is it

25
coming from elsewhere in the Home Office's budget? Can he assure us that it will not cause cuts to other services in his Department?
Finally, on the measures that we welcome, I very much applaud the Government's decision to implement the three-strikes provision in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 in respect of recidivist burglars. Presumably, that will lead to a revision of the Home Office forecast of the future prison population.
Can the Home Secretary say by how much he expects the prison population to expand, following the introduction of that measure, and over what period? Does he agree that no Government could implement the legislation
"unless there were an assurance of the resources to house and finance the increased prison population"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 March 1997; Vol. 579, c. 885.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the noble Lord McIntosh of Haringey when the Bill was going through Parliament. How does the Home Secretary reconcile that need with the reported letter from the then Chief Secretary, which made it clear that the Treasury was not prepared to countenance a further reserve claim to accommodate the pressures on the Prison Service?
How many extra prison places will be required? What are the implications for the prison building programme— for example, does it mean that the Government will be contracting for more private sector prisons over the next few years? How much will that prison accommodation cost, and where will the Home Secretary get the money?
The Home Secretary made much in his statement, and makes even more in the strategy document published today, about the various measures that the Government have introduced. May I urge on him the need to keep those measures under constant review? Will he confirm, for example, that of the drug treatment and testing orders so far passed by the courts, more than half have been breached, and about one third have been revoked because of the seriousness of the breach? Can he say whether the number of anti-social behaviour orders has now risen above the grand total of seven? Can he confirm that there are still no child curfew orders in operation?
There have been reports recently that the Home Secretary plans, just one year on, to introduce amendments to his flagship Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Can he confirm that? Does he agree that there is a need for independent audit and scrutiny, not just of the police service, but of the Government's measures on crime and crime reduction?
We are happy with the idea that there should be greater public access to information about police performance, but the Home Secretary must understand that, after the smoke and mirrors trick over the figure of 5,000 extra police officers that he claimed at his party conference, there will be an element of suspicion that the publication of league tables amounts to an effort by a Home Secretary who knows that crime is once more rising to deflect blame for that away from himself and on to the police service. We know that the 5,000 promised additional officers have proved to be a mirage. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the vice-chairman of the Police Federation said
"he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of recruiting 20,000 officers over the next three years",
and that the chairman of the Police Federation claimed that his service was being "short changed"?
26
The Home Secretary set up a convenient Aunt Sally in the form of an economic model, which, to no one's surprise, predicts a rise in crime. I suspect that the predicted rise is likely to be even higher than the actual increase over which the Government will preside. People want a fall in crime and reduced fear of crime, not simply an increase that falls slightly below that predicted by a team of economists in the Home Office.

After a five-year fall in recorded crime, it is increasing; police numbers are down by more than 1,000 and are due to decrease further in the next 12 months; police budgets are stretched, and efficiency savings are used to plug the deficit rather than to improve front-line services. Will the Home Secretary accept that his success and that of the Government should be measured not only by targets, aspirations or good intentions, but on whether their policies lead to the fall in crime that the public want? The Government's record contains little to suggest that they are capable of achieving the success that the country needs.
Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his remarks about the terrible events in the church yesterday. As he said, questions will need to be asked and answered about that eventually, but I know that the House accepts that the day after the event, and while the police investigation continues, is not the right time for that.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes many of the announcements that I made. I am happy to put on record—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will wish to know that it is already on record in a Home Office press notice—that the genesis of the provisions for burglars who are convicted on three separate occasions is the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which was passed under the previous Administration.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of the provisions on the prison population and whether the prison projections took that into account. The effect has already been fully taken into account because, although we inherited the policy from the previous Government, I was also committed to it. I have not got the projections in my head but I am happy to send them to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the prison population has risen by approximately 5,000 in the past two years and that we are making arrangements to deal with a further increase.
I understand those people, mainly outside the House, who sometimes suggest that we should set an arbitrary limit on the number of prison places, but I believe that we should provide as many prison places as the courts require to deal with criminals who need to be imprisoned. We shall have a chance to reduce the prison population significantly only when we can get crime down to 1970s levels.
The hon. Gentleman asked about DNA. I am pleased to tell the House that the Prime Minister gave a DNA sample today and that it did not match any samples on the DNA suspects database. The £34 million is new money, over and above that announced in the comprehensive spending review.
The hon. Gentleman asked about electronic tagging—I am glad that he now appears to support it. That may be because he has read the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which supported its use not

27
only as a court punishment, but for the early release of appropriate prisoners. We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the drug treatment and testing order. Recently, we published a research study of the pilots and, from recollection, I think that the figures he gave are correct. That shows the importance of rigorous enforcement of community punishments, which has not occurred in respect of traditional punishments meted out by the courts and enforced—or not enforced, often—by the probation service. I am sorry that a third of those orders are being revoked, but they are being revoked quickly and on clear scientific evidence. If there were similar rigorous enforcement of other community punishments, such as probation or community work service orders, we would not have such levels of repeat offending on them. We are determined to make sure that the order is used by the courts—not in respect of offenders who would otherwise go to prison, but for those who would otherwise be given a community punishment—to ensure either that they get off drugs and off crime or, if they do not, that they go to prison.
The hon. Gentleman asked about child curfew orders. There have been none, as he knows, and we are consulting local authorities and the police about whether the age limit should be raised from 10 to 16. I am at a loss to understand where he is coming from on anti-social behaviour orders. They were asked for by the police and local authorities and they have been welcomed by them. Where they have been used—for example, in Lancashire and in Derbyshire—they have turned out to be an important tool in cracking down on anti-social behaviour. It is often the case that criminal justice agencies, being conservative with a small "c", take some time to get used to and to implement new and fresh measures, but I would have thought that Conservative Members would be doing themselves a favour if, instead of criticising the measure, they said that, wherever we are faced with evidence of serious anti-social behaviour, the orders should be used. That is what Labour Members are saying. Conservative Members will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument if they say that such orders should not be used.
I have two more points to make. First, the hon. Gentleman asked about an independent audit of our measures. I am happy for there to be such an audit and those matters should be kept under continuous review. One way in which that can happen is through the Home Affairs Committee continuously monitoring what we are doing and I would welcome that. He talked about what he described as the mirage of 5,000 additional officers. The money that we are putting in to secure 5,000 officers over and above the 15,000 who are predicted to be recruited in any event by the police service is wholly new money. We are also providing for that money to be ring-fenced so that it is used for that purpose, and that alone.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the previous Administration were in office, his boss, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), said that she had
"already reminded hon. Members of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister"—
28
the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—
"to provide funding for an additional 5,000 police officers over three years."—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 457.]
The only thing was that they did not provide sufficient funding and did not ensure that the money was ring-fenced. Instead of that pledge being met by even a 1,000 or 2,000 increase in the total number of police officers, the number fell by 1,500 over those five years.
Lastly, what will be our measure of success? We want the crime reduction partnership to succeed, but on one measure I am confident beyond peradventure that we shall succeed: under our Administration, crime will not double, as it did under the Conservatives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I would remind the House that that opening exchange has taken almost 30 minutes. I do not want long, rambling statements from hon. Members, but pertinent questions to the Secretary of State and brisk exchanges. I am sure that he will oblige me with brisk answers.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement.
On behalf of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and myself, I should like to offer our deepest condolences to the victims and their families who suffered in the brutal attack at St. Andrew's church, Thornton Heath yesterday. We also pay tribute to the bravery of PC Tracey, who was involved in preventing further bloodshed and probable death. I ask that the House extends its sympathy to the community, which is in a state of shock and horror. Will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest in the investigation of that horrific event?
Mr. Straw: The House will wish to be associated with the remarks of my hon. Friend. I am grateful that he also places on record the concern felt by the Under-Secretary, in whose constituency this incident took place. As the House understands—although the public outside sometimes does not—my hon. Friend is a Minister and a member of the Front Bench, so is not able to take part in these exchanges. I fully associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) said, and I am taking a personal interest in the investigation of that appalling crime, as is the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
Mr. Michael Howard: I also associate myself with what has been said about the dreadful attack in Croydon yesterday.
I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals, virtually all of which, so far as I can see, build on the measures that I put in place between 1993 and 1997. Will he confirm— because I have never heard it from his lips—that recorded crime fell from just over 5.5 million in 1993 to just over 4.5 million in 1997, which was a reduction of about 17 per cent. and the biggest fall ever recorded? In view of some of the reports in this morning's newspapers that the Government intend to create a national DNA database, will he also confirm that the national DNA database—the first in the world—is in existence, having been established by the previous Government, and has been making a

29
significant contribution to crime reduction for a number of years? Finally, will he tell us whether the Prime Minister's DNA sample will be preserved?
Mr. Straw: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I think that he has undergone a Pauline conversion to consensus politics. I say that with generosity, and I hope that he takes it in that spirit. He is right, and it is ridiculous to argue about the figures, which are a matter of historic record. He will also accept that the fall that took place between 1993 and 1997—and a fall it was—
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh!
Mr. Straw: Of course it was. I am happy to concede that, if Conservative Members will also concede that, in the previous 14 years, crime had risen relentlessly to the stage at which we had the worst record compared with almost any other major industrialised country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the DNA database. I am sorry that I omitted to reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I understand that the Prime Minister's DNA sample will be destroyed, because it disclosed nothing suspicious. The same regime applies to any DNA sample as applies to fingerprints.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the range of measures announced. It is not just the courts that are reluctant to make use of the powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I have evidence from my constituency that some police officers—although not all—and many housing officers do not know about the powers available to them to obtain anti-social behaviour orders or are not talking to each other. Will my right hon. Friend and his team constantly remind local government in particular of the availability of those powers?
All that people in my constituency want is a return of the safety and security that has been stolen from them over the years. They will judge the Government's success and that of the police—I welcome the publication of performance figures—by the way in which measures are taken in partnership to reduce crime and the fear of crime in their streets and in and around their homes.
Mr. Straw: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's frustration. I have written to every chief executive and every chief constable in the country, urging them to make use of the orders—orders which did not fall out of the sky, but were sought by them, and on every detail of which they were consulted. To ensure that there are no bureaucratic blocks in the use of the orders, in some areas but by no means in all—many areas now intend to use them—I have asked my noble Friend Lord Warner of Brockley, who chairs the Youth Justice Board of England and Wales, to spearhead action in the Home Office and with local authorities and the police to ensure that individual officers at local level, and individual housing officers, understand that the powers are available, and understand the value to them and, above all, to local communities of using those powers.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate both my Liberal Democrat
30
colleagues and those of us who represent south London constituencies with the expressions of sympathy and thanks to those who assisted at St. Andrew's church in Thornton Heath yesterday.
All right-minded citizens are in favour of crime reduction, and a crime reduction strategy. Does the Home Secretary accept that people also believe that crime reduction is directly linked to the number of police who are there to achieve both a reduction in crime, and a reduction in the fear of crime?
This morning, the Home Secretary issued a table showing figures for the police forces in England and Wales. He divided them into the 21 with the highest crime reduction rates, and the 22 with the lowest. Will he comment on the fact that his own table shows that only eight of the 21 forces with the highest reduction rates have experienced a fall in police numbers since his party took office, and that, on average, there has been a rise in numbers in those forces? Of the 22 forces with the lowest rates, 17 have experienced a fall in numbers; the average number in each force has fallen by 55, and the total has fallen by 1,200. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a reduction in crime and the fear of crime depends on the number of police officers available to fight crime? Will he give a pledge that all those forces will have the increase to which he aspired for the country as a whole?
Let me ask one more question. The Home Office budget for crime reduction proposals is about 3 per cent. Only about 3 per cent. of crimes ever result in people being arrested or cautioned. Will the Home Secretary consider again a change in the balance, so that a much larger part of Government resources, effort and interest can be devoted to crime prevention, and we can reduce the amount of crime by preventing it from happening in the first place?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): He has lost the plot completely.
Mr. Straw: That is probably accurate.
I believe that good police forces can always make use of additional police officers. That is one of the reasons why we have established a crime fighting fund to increase the number of officers. If, however, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), rather than picking out the odd two-year period, compared the changes in crime levels in police force areas with the changes in police numbers over five years, he would see that there is the weakest correlation. I am happy to send him the regressions.
As it happens, in the Metropolitan police area the number of police officers has fallen by 2,000. To be fair, it fell by 2,000 under the last Administration. At the same time, the force has made significant inroads in dealing with the crimes that worry the public the most. It is crucial for us not just to put additional resources into the police service, but to ensure that they are used effectively, and that the forces that are at the bottom or the middle of the tables aspire to the performance of the best of those that are comparable.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about crime prevention, I simply do not know where he gets his figures. We have put £400 million into crime prevention, more than any previous Administration have provided.
Dr. Tony Wright: We know from DNA and CCTV that science and technology can make

31
an important contribution to crime reduction. May I make a point about vehicle crime, which my right hon. Friend mentioned? Car advertisements all tell us that cars are pretty, that they are cool and that they are fast, but never that they are secure. Why are we not making vehicle manufacturers produce secure cars? Would that not make a huge contribution to crime reduction?
Mr. Straw: It is true that cars are advertised for their speed and for other attributes, but I place on record the fact that, over the past 10 years, vehicle manufacturers have gone through a step change and taken security seriously. They understand that it is an important selling point for them, as it is for insurers. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the vehicle crime reduction task force is chaired by a leading executive of the Ford Motor Company. All the big manufacturers recognise that their interest lies in getting vehicle crime down.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Crime reduction task forces and regional directors are all very well, but my constituents in outer London are looking for more policemen in the community doing their job visibly and effectively. In those circumstances, can the Home Secretary justify the inadequacy of the funding by his Department to the police service? Is it not true that, in the past five years, Hillingdon division has seen a 14 per cent. drop in manpower—no fewer than 16 uniformed officers and civilians last year and a projected 17 next year? That is wholly inadequate and needs to be rectified, as the police consultative committee has put to him.
Mr. Straw: One of the things that I can claim to have done is to stem the reduction in funding to the Metropolitan police. I ensured that, from 1998–99, there was funding in the budgets that I set not just as the Home Secretary, but as the police authority for London, to stem the reduction in numbers, which had been severe in the previous five years.
The exact distribution of police officers within the Metropolitan police is a matter for the Commissioner. I will pass on to him the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but, at any level of policing, some police services and police divisions are able to deliver more effective reductions in crime than others. The Prime Minister and I were in the Medway area today. As a result of very good intelligence-led policing—not the addition of officers, but greater intensity of work by officers—the area has recorded a 26 per cent. reduction in burglary and nearly a 40 per cent. reduction in motor vehicle theft. It is about resources, but it is also, critically, about how those resources are used.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware of the satisfaction among my constituents at the increase of £10.3 million in the Greater Manchester police budget for this year, which is equivalent to an increase of about £22 million over the past two years. That money will be well used by the excellent police force in our division. Recently, the representative of the police force, Superintendent Brinnand, attended a crowded meeting of my constituents at, ironically, in view of the dreadful events to which hon. Members have referred, Sacred Heart church in Gorton,
32
where, among other things, my constituents asked for the extension of curfew orders to 16-year-olds. We look forward to that. We also look forward to my right hon. Friend adding impetus to the invocation of such orders and anti-social behaviour orders. Having told me in correspondence that he is happy to come to my constituency, will he give us a date?
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask not for statements, but for questions.
Mr. Straw: I am glad to know that the increase in the budget for Greater Manchester police has gone down well. In view of your comments, Madam Speaker, the answer to my right hon. Friend's last and direct question is that I will give him a date very soon.
Madam Speaker: That is the sort of answer that I like.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State knows that those who already live in the most unattractive parts of our towns and cities suffer disproportionately from crime. Will he make every effort that he can to ensure that the people who live in those areas can take responsibility for clearing up the mess that is a large part of making people feel that the area in which they live does not matter, so crime and disorder does not matter?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that areas that look neglected and have high levels of incivility suffer the highest levels of direct crime, such as burglary, robbery and vehicle crime, even if they may be similar to other inner-city areas in other respects. That is why we should all be highly intolerant of anti-social behaviour. Unless graffiti and criminal damage are nipped in the bud, an area will quickly graduate to more serious crime.
Mr. Paul Clark: I welcome the strategy. My right hon. Friend has already referred to his successful visit to Medway this morning with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to learn about the success of Kent county constabulary, particularly the police force in Medway, on Operation Radium, which has targeted car crime and domestic burglary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success was achieved through the careful use of the resources that were available to the police force, particularly through proactive intelligence and the multi-agency working approach?
Mr. Straw: Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend was with the Prime Minister and me at the presentation today. He makes an important point. More police officers could have been used as bobbies on the beat, but the chief constable made a courageous and entirely correct decision that those resources would be better used on the careful targeting of the crime problems in the area. Crime has been reduced far more by that overall strategy than would have been the case if the officers had simply been on generalised patrol.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: There is an estate in Bransgore that has been tormented by under-age drinkers and miscreants for some time. On the 13th of this month, the police finally apprehended two of them lighting a fire—and they let them go! Has the

33
Secretary of State seen the survey of police morale published in national newspapers last week, showing that 50 per cent. of police officers are reluctant to make an arrest and that two thirds are looking for another job? What is there in his glossy strategy to answer that?
Mr. Straw: I have not seen the survey and I do not believe it. If the level of juvenile nuisance is so great that it is driving the hon. Gentleman and his constituents mad—as evidently it is—I suggest that he urges the local authority and the police to apply for an anti-social behaviour order. We have had similar problems in Blackburn. The police secured an anti-social behaviour order in respect of one offender and I understand that it has proved very effective.
Mr. Martin Linton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he will ask police authorities and crime reduction partnerships to set five-year targets for reductions in vehicle crime, burglary and robbery. Will he set national targets for reductions in burglary and robbery in the same way that he has set a target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime?
Mr. Straw: Because burglary and robbery are more local than vehicle crime, we intend to set a national target that will be an aggregate of the local targets, whereas for vehicle crime we have adopted the opposite approach.
Mr. Forth: Will the Home Secretary assess the contribution to crime reduction made by the closure of Chislehurst police station, caused directly by his underfunding of Bromley police in particular?
Mr. Straw: I wholly reject that point. The right hon. Gentleman has to explain his position to his constituents. On the one hand he calls, on their behalf, for increases in spending on the police, and, I dare say, on health and education. On the other, as a member of the extreme right wing of the Conservative party—he seems to be acknowledging the fact—he supports the shadow Chancellor's criticism of our levels of spending on the police and every other public service as reckless and irresponsible. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend's strategy do anything about people who make wild, vexatious and unfounded criminal allegations in public? For example, is he aware that the Royal Bank of Scotland has said that it is satisfied that there is no evidence of any computer hacking into its accounts? Is it not time that the Tories apologised for their ridiculous Watergate-style conspiracy theories against Labour?
Mr. Straw: Our strategy is designed to deal with real incidents of crime, not with ludicrous allegations. I understand that, six days later, the Conservative party has provided no details whatever to back up its wild allegations. There is an offence of wasting police time and, unless we get details, the chairman of the Conservative party might well be considered a candidate for being charged with such an offence.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) has just written to tell me that, after taking into account the
34
increased area of Surrey police's responsibilities, its budget is to be cut. Why is that the force's reward for producing among the best figures that the Home Secretary listed today?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman knows that the distribution of police grant is based on the standard spending assessment, which is agreed by the police authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Government. However, it is not a formula over which any Home Secretary has ever sought control, and it is designed to distribute resources as fairly as possible. I well understand the concerns in Surrey, which I have sought partly to offset by the transitional grant—although I accept that that does not go the whole way. Surrey's problems illustrate that when the previous system operated before 1995–96, spending in Surrey was historically higher than in other comparable authorities. That is the root of the problem. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see me about this matter, I shall be happy to arrange a meeting.
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to deal faster with young criminals. Is he aware of the evidence of the success of the restorative justice experiments in the Thames Valley area? Does he believe that there is some conflict between using restorative justice—where young criminals accused for the first time may be asked to confront the victims of their crime—and speeding up bringing such people to justice?
Mr. Straw: We are certainly aware of the value of the systems of restorative justice that have been pioneered in Thames Valley by Charles Pollard, the chief constable, which are now being rolled out across the country under the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. There is no conflict between our determination to secure a halving of the time between arrest and sentence and restorative justice, as the procedures of restorative justice start at the beginning of the sentence, not the end. We have taken that into account.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Home Secretary has been saying for years, rightly, how important it is to nip the plague of graffiti vandalism in the bud. What exactly will his strategy do to put that into practice?
Mr. Straw: There are serious problems of graffiti and criminal damage in many areas which sometimes require action by the police. Usually, however, they require action by the local authorities, voluntary agencies and the police working together. I have seen a number of examples where the local authority has 24-hour anti-graffiti patrols or better lighting, where the authority is applying to the Government for closed circuit television and where the police are taking a properly oriented approach to those difficulties. Every single page of the document is designed to improve the safety and tranquillity of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as well as the other 500 or so constituencies in England and Wales.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I welcome the increased money for CCTV and for DNA testing—something that the general public will understand

35
to be a good investment. Is not the best way to reduce crime to reduce unemployment, which is precisely what we are doing? Is not that why the new deal really works? In the 1980s, when unemployment was rising, crime was rising and, in the 1990s, as unemployment has fallen, crime has fallen. Was not the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), probably correct?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often said, the new deal is not only an economic programme but a programme to reduce crime. One of the encouraging examples that we were shown today in the Medway area was of new deal people being used to fit locks and bolts onto people's houses. Jobs were being provided, which is one way of getting down crime, and the targets were being hardened, which is another.
Mr. Steve Webb: When members of the public voluntarily give DNA samples as part of a mass screening in a murder inquiry, for example, is it the Home Secretary's intention to allow those samples to be retained on a database with the member of the public's consent?
Mr. Straw: Yes.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of his strategy will depend not only on the police, but on the partnerships in which they are being asked to engage? Historically, we have tried to secure efficiency through the inspectorate of constabulary; perhaps we need a body with wider powers if we are to eliminate the discrepancies in efficiency.
Mr. Straw: I agree. That is why I announced today that joint inspections would be conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission, so that the other partners in the partnerships against crime are subject to the same rigorous assessment as the police.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Home Secretary rightly said that it is a priority to reduce administration and bureaucracy for the police. What estimate has he made of the additional work load imposed on senior police officers, in particular, by his own crime and disorder legislation?
Mr. Straw: I have not made an estimate. Senior police officers and operational officers throughout the country tell me that they regard the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as the most important single anti-crime measure to be passed by the House since the war. They wanted it and they are delivering it. I am grateful to them.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the 20 per cent. reduction in crime in Lancashire. I urge him to get local partnerships to pay especial attention to the horrendous problem of street crime, which can have the most devastating consequences for its victims and leads to the widespread fear of crime, contributing to the decline of the value of visits to town and village centres and rural centres. Does he agree that street crime is more a matter
36
for partnerships between local authorities and the police than some other crimes, which require more emphasis on evidence-led policing?
Mr. Straw: Street crime is terrible wherever it takes place and can cause great fear. I know that my hon. Friend is making great efforts with the local authority and the Lancashire constabulary to tackle street crime. Exactly how it is tackled is a matter for the police and the local partnerships but part of the purpose of our crime reduction investment, including in closed circuit television and police targeted hot-spotting, is designed precisely to tackle street crime.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Why has not the Home Secretary implemented the recommendations of a recent internal Home Office report, which clearly stated that the sparsity factor should be taken into account when policing rural areas?
Mr. Straw: Because we said that we would not make changes in the standard spending assessment for three years. I understand the concerns about rural policing. Incidentally, the same concerns about policing levels are felt by hon. Members in inner urban areas, as they always will be. Under the guidance for the bidding for money from the crime-fighting fund for the additional 5,000 officers, we will invite bids that take into account, among other things, the need to improve crime fighting in rural areas.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the drug referral scheme. I have in my constituency an excellent drug rehabilitation group, the Open Road. Will such groups be involved in the initiative and will they have adequate funding to help them to help the Government to combat the drug problem?
Mr. Straw: The drug action teams should be fully involved in the crime reduction partnerships, because they are an integral part of tackling drug-related crime, which probably accounts for about half of all acquisitive crime. On the issue of resources, what is crucial in drug treatment—even more so than in policing—is not only the total amount invested, but the need to ensure that the money is properly used to purchase adequate numbers of treatments. The bureaucracy that has grown up around some drug action teams must be broken down to ensure a real and direct connection between the young people—as they are typically—who need drug treatment quickly, and the delivery of that treatment. In some areas, the contracts for drug treatment have been re-let, and twice—or more— the treatments are provided for the same amount of money than before.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it will be critical to the success of his strategy—we all hope that it will be successful— that those who are guilty are convicted? Will he, therefore, agree to look again at the rule that states that a jury may not, except in exceptional circumstances, be entitled to know about the previous convictions of the person appearing before them? Was it his experience in the past as a barrister, as it was mine as a solicitor, that sometimes juries look on in stark disbelief when they have

37
acquitted someone as they realise that he is to be dealt with for offences to which he has already pleaded guilty and for which he has previous convictions? I accept that the Home Secretary cannot revisit that territory immediately, but will he agree to do so, in the context of his strategy?
Mr. Straw: That is one of the most difficult areas of the law of evidence. People's previous character should not be dragged gratuitously into trials as proof of their guilt of the offences with which they are charged. Previous character should be adduced only if it is probative of the offence for which they are being tried. As the hon. Gentleman will know, if a defendant challenges the character of any witness, he has to put his own character in. We have no plans to change the law in that area, and I understand that the Law Commission has considered the issue of character. It may consider it again and, if it does, we shall consider its report. The current rules exist to ensure not only that the guilty are convicted, but that the innocent—including those with previous convictions who are innocent—are not unjustly convicted.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge frustration in many communities, not least in my constituency, at the failure of the police and local authorities, such as Gedling borough council, to use the anti-social behaviour orders—the parenting and curfew orders—and allow young people to terrorise the elderly and people who live near parks? Will he do all he can to continue to encourage local authorities and the police to use those orders to tackle that blight on our communities?
Mr. Straw: Yes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the leadership that he is showing—as I know from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—in his constituency. It is frustrating, because those police services and local authorities that have used anti-social behaviour orders—or injunctions in respect of social housing tenants—have discovered that they can solve the
38
problem more effectively than by simply resorting to charging those involved with minor public order offences, and they can save time, and much money, in the future.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I, too, welcome any attempt to connect the drug misuser with responsive treatment services. However, there are long waiting lists of volunteers for treatment at the moment despite what my right hon. Friend has said. Can he assure me that adequate training programmes exist to get enough people in place by 2001 and will he also recognise that up to 50 per cent. of those presenting for treatment are also likely be suffering from mental illness? That is not widely recognised, but if we do not begin to recognise dual diagnosis, the revolving door will merely spin faster.
Mr. Straw: We are investing considerable additional resources in drug treatment and testing, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are examining whether that money is well spent. Of course I understand that many of those with serious drug addiction problems—I do not know the exact number—also have problems with mental illness. We must stop such people committing crimes if we are to ensure that they are properly treated.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Will my right hon. Friend remind the police and local authorities that anti-social behaviour orders can be used to deal with anti-social behaviour in privately owned or rented dwellings? After all, if such anti-social behaviour occurred in a council or housing association property, those responsible could be subject to eviction.
Mr. Straw: One reason why we designed the anti-social behaviour orders was because of the concern of local authorities and the police that the avenue of an eviction order was not available, in most cases, for tenants of private landlords. Anti-social behaviour orders can be used to deal with private tenants, owner-occupiers, juveniles over 10, and they do not have to be used as a last resort.

Orders of the Day

  Electronic Communications Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Trade and Industry Committee reported on the Draft Electronic Communications Bill in its Fourteenth Report of Session 1998–99, HC 862. Its Seventh Report, on Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce: The Government's Proposals, HC 187, and the Government's response thereto, contained in Promoting Electronic Commerce, Cm 4417.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.36 pm
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When my grandmother left Britain nearly 100 years ago, it took her months to reach Australia, and it took months for her first letter to reach home. These days, a letter takes less than a week, but an e-mail takes less than a minute. That is just one small example of how our world is being transformed by electronic networks.
  The Electronic Communications Bill will modernise our laws for the world of e-mail and the internet. It is just part of our strategy to make this country the best place in the world for electronic commerce.
  Electronic networks—the convergence of communications and computing—are changing everything. They destroy jobs and create new ones at quite terrifying speed. Already in the United Kingdom, one in six people works for companies that did not exist five years ago. Networks have transformed global trade, creating financial markets in which billions of dollars are moved around the world daily. They are transforming manufacturing, allowing global teams of engineers to work around the world, around the clock, designing new products and testing them in simulation before the prototype is even built. They are transforming education, and they will certainly transform politics. Indeed, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on achieving a parliamentary first—an electronic petition. I am not sure whether the House is yet equipped to receive an electronic petition electronically—I fear not. When I saw the electronic petition in my in-box this morning, and when I saw "You've got mail", I confess that I was not thinking of the hon. Gentleman.
  Our goal is clear. This country led the world into the first industrial revolution, and now we are determined to be winners in the new economy. Our strategy for that is also clear. We need modern, competitive markets that will enable the fast growth of electronic commerce; confident consumers with the skills and access to exploit the potential of the internet; and a leading-edge Government, who are exploiting to the full the potential of the new technologies to transform the ways in which we deliver services to citizens and citizens communicate with the Government.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: One of the biggest impediments to the use of the internet in my constituency, where incomes are generally low, is the cost. How can British Telecom retain the right to charge
  40
  people at the current level and deny millions of people the access that we believe that they should have, and that is enjoyed by people in the United States of America and other countries? Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the Government are doing something about this? BT will hang on to its profits like grim death and concede nothing unless it is pushed.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of reducing internet access costs. I represent a similar constituency, and low-income consumers—indeed, all consumers—can already benefit at weekends and off-peak times from some of the lowest internet access charges in the world. The real difficulty arises with peak-time access. We need to get the costs of that down, and we need tariffs that allow unmetered access. Oftel has made it clear repeatedly that there is no regulatory barrier to that, and it is considering BT's recent proposal for a new wholesale pricing system. Today, Oftel announced a new consultation on the matter of digital subscriber lines in the local loop; tomorrow, it will announce its decision on local loop unbundling, and how it intends to progress on that matter.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr. Brian White.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will assist me. When several hon. Members stand to intervene in her speech, it would help to know to whom she is giving way.
  Ms Hewitt: I apologise.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Minister said that there was no regulatory obstacle to getting costs down. However, BT is recognised to be the main provider: it has a real monopoly, and needs to be pushed. Costs will be reduced not because BT volunteers to lose some profits, but because the company will be required by Parliament to do so—even though we recognise that it is a private company. My constituents want the same free, day-time service from BT that internet users in America enjoy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members to make short interventions, especially if they are repetitive.
  Ms Hewitt: I have already made BT aware of my views, and of the Government's objective in this matter. However, I remind my hon. Friend that BT has to set interconnection charges that are fair. Because of that, prices are already coming down. A wholesaler unhappy with the interconnection price offered by BT can go to Oftel, which will make a determination in the matter.
  Mr. Brian White: Is not one of the problems the length of time taken by Oftel to come to a judgment? Can Oftel's investigations be speeded up?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Oftel is increasingly aware—as are Ministers—of the need to move in internet years, rather than in parliamentary or calendar years.
  Mr. John Bercow: In a speech given in Cambridge on 13 September, the Prime Minister said that the Government attach a great deal of importance to getting their policy on e-commerce right. What assessment has the Minister made of the recent survey showing that two thirds of e-commerce companies feel let down by the Government's proposals? What is her assessment of the verdict of Mr. David Grossman, of the distinguished solicitors firm Berwin Leighton, that the industry was "distinctly underwhelmed" by the Government's proposals?
  Ms Hewitt: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to industry, but that is typical of Conservative Members these days. In fact, Bill Gates and Microsoft have already described the Bill as a model for Europe. In addition, Intel, IBM and other major industry players in this country have welcomed the Bill. I hope that the House will do the same.
  The Bill will help us to get the market framework right. It will build trust in the authenticity, confidentiality and security of on-line transactions. It will confirm the legal validity of electronic signatures, a matter for which business has pressed urgently. It will enable us to modernise the statute book by allowing the Government to amend references to paper signatures, documents and records—there are about 40,000 such references so far—to include their electronic equivalents.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Would it surprise my hon. Friend the Minister to know that the pharmaceutical industry, in which I used to work, has been pressing for that measure on electronic signatures since the mid-1990s? The Conservative Government of the time did nothing about it.
  Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes exactly the right point. I shall come to the record of the Opposition in a moment. The Bill is the product of extensive consultation, which finally began in the dying days of the previous Administration. In March 1997, the then Conservative Administration consulted on proposals to introduce a mandatory licence scheme for trust service providers, with mandatory key escrow. In April 1998, one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), announced that we were abandoning the Conservative party's approach. In March, we consulted again on our voluntary approval scheme. In July, we published the draft Bill for further consultation.
  At least some Opposition Members have abandoned the view that they held in government. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said:
  "I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has fileted from the previous draft of the Bill various aspects of the statutory trusted third party regime. I have recanted proposals that I made when I was a Minister".—[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 241.]
  He was right to recant because, as he recognises, the policy of this Government has been quite different from that of our predecessors.
  The Conservatives wanted a system of mandatory licensing for trust service providers. That was rejected by industry. We have always preferred a voluntary approval scheme. The Conservatives wanted a system of mandatory key escrow that would have required users of encryption to deposit copies of the keys protecting their confidential
  42
  data to be lodged with a third party. We listened to business and industry and ruled that out in March. In May, we published a Cabinet Office study that confirmed that partnership with industry rather than mandatory key escrow was the best way to meet law enforcement concerns. Clause 13 explicitly prohibits key escrow requirements being imposed in any order made under the Bill.
  Now the Conservatives tell us that they will oppose the Bill until the European Union has sorted out every issue to do with the framework of statutory regulation and private international law. I know that the Conservative party has lost touch with business and is obsessed with the single issue of Europe but, even for it, that is ridiculous. Increasingly, the Tory party reminds me of some of the computer games that our children seem to enjoy so much: Aliens 3, starring the hapless Leader of the Opposition; Quake 2—follow the latest upheaval in the Conservative party as it gets stuck further and further in sleaze; and Tomb Raider—await the return of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend mentioned Microsoft. Has she seen this morning's letter from its chairman, David Svendsen, congratulating the Government on introducing legislation that will serve as a model for Europe? Does that not contradict the position adopted by the official Opposition?
  Ms Hewitt: Precisely so. If British people and British businesses are to win the benefits of electronic commerce, we need this Bill. We were determined to get the Bill right and to get it soon. We will achieve both goals.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Does the hon. Lady really think that she has delivered the Bill as soon as she could have? She said in a press release:
  "We are determined to get e-commerce law right and to get it in fast."
  The Bill was in the Queen's Speech last year, but was not published in its final form during the period covered by it. Does she agree with the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Trade and Industry that the Government have been moving as fast as a glacier on this?
  Ms Hewitt: That is a bit rich coming from a supporter of a Government who did nothing whatsoever about the matter until their final weeks. We made it clear that we want the Bill to achieve Royal Assent by next April. I have no doubt that we are on track.
  Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister agree that, if regulation is to apply, it must be transparent and justiciable? Will she comment on the case raised by Article XIX in which the Lord Chancellor has closed a website simply because he does not accept that its content is appropriate or suitable? Will she ensure that, if the Government wish to take action against electronic communication, they do so within the law?
  Ms Hewitt: I am not aware of the details of the case to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) refers. The law applies on-line just as it does off-line; I am sure that he supports that.
  I shall return to the European legal framework, but, first, I draw the House's attention to an important change that we have made to the Bill since the consultation draft.

  43
  The draft Bill included provisions to modernise the powers of the law enforcement agencies. Those provisions are essential because, unfortunately, the internet is transforming crime as much as it is transforming commerce. It provides new opportunities for money launderers, for fraudsters and for those who trade in child pornography.
  I am sure that all Members of the House agree that the police must have adequate powers to deal with such crime. If they have the power—under warrant, for example—to seize a suspect's files or to intercept his communications, they must also have the power, if those files or communications are encrypted, either to obtain the material in plain text or to obtain the key to decipher it.
  Those measures were originally included in the consultation draft, but will now be included in the Bill for the regulation of investigatory powers, to be introduced during this Session by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). Much of the response to the draft Electronic Communications Bill concentrated on those law enforcement measures. I know that my hon. Friend will consider that response carefully before the investigatory powers Bill is finalised. I also know that he will take into account the concerns of business—especially those of the internet service providers—as to the possible costs to them of those measures. Indeed, I shall ensure that their concerns are effectively and strongly represented to the Home Office. Furthermore, the Bill—like every Bill introduced by the Government—will be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The debate on the Bill will give right hon. and hon. Members ample opportunity to discuss those important law enforcement issues.
  The first aim of the Electronic Communications Bill is to build trust among consumers and businesses in the providers of trust services. There is widespread agreement as to the need for a kitemark, so that consumers and business alike can trust the providers of cryptography and confidentiality services. They need to be sure that messages will not be altered en route, that their credit card details will be kept secure and that their signature will not be misused. Our strong preference is for self-regulation, and I am working closely with the Alliance for Electronic Business, which is drawing up a self-regulatory approvals scheme. The alliance has made good progress; last Friday, I received an update, which I am urgently assessing. The proposals demonstrate the commitment of the industry to the self-regulatory approach—companies such as British Telecommunications plc, IBM and Royal Mail are involved.
  Our policy is underpinned by the principle of co-regulation, which is especially suited to the world of the internet. Co-regulation means that the Government should define the public policy objectives, but that industry should deliver the solutions through self-regulation.
  Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Will the hon. Lady tell us when that new regime will be in place? Will she publish a timetable to tell us exactly when it will be finalised and up and running?
  Ms Hewitt: During the passage of the Bill, I shall report on the progress made by the Alliance for Electronic Business, and shall try to publish a timetable for the introduction of the scheme.
  44
  The point of co-regulation is that legislation should be used only when self-regulation does not deliver. Part I thus provides a statutory default option. In July, we spelt out the criteria for a kitemark for this sector; they include a broad coverage of industry sectors and of its range of services, consumer representation, clear standards and the ability to ensure compliance and to meet EU standards so that British businesses and consumers can take advantage of the single market.
  I am confident that self-regulation will work, but the industry is fast-moving, and self-regulation is at an early stage. It would be irresponsible to do what the Opposition appear to suggest—to abandon the possibility of a statutory scheme in future. The sensible course is to work with industry on self-regulation—as we are doing—but to create a statutory default option in case we need it.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: By what criteria will the Minister deem a voluntary regime to have succeeded or to have failed?
  Ms Hewitt: We have already published—and I just summarised—the criteria by which we shall judge a self-regulatory scheme. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we shall hold part I in reserve, in case self-regulation fails. Then, in 2004, we shall conduct an open review of how self-regulation is working; and, provided that it is working well, the powers in part I will lapse, according to the provisions of clause 15.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if a statutory scheme is introduced, it will still be open to any commercial provider who is not satisfied with the clauses to operate outside the scheme—that it will be statutory in the sense of a Government register but not in the sense of a compulsion?
  Ms Hewitt: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. We rejected the mandatory approach that our predecessors had adopted, so any statutory scheme, were it to be introduced under part I, would still be voluntary.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Would it not be more straightforward if the Minister, instead of putting propositions before the House now to save her face and that of her colleagues, admitted that her Department had made a mistake and that part I was not needed, but said that it would be possible later, if self-regulation was not working, to come back and justify the introduction of part I on the basis of the evidence available at the time?
  Hon. Members: U-turn.
  Ms Hewitt: The Opposition are in an extraordinary state. On one hand, we hear that we are not moving fast enough. On the other, we are told, "Do not do this. Find the parliamentary time and introduce a fresh Bill if we need it." It is much more sensible to take the approach that we are taking.
  Part II confirms the legal validity of electronic signatures.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I hope that the hon. Lady does not distinguish between me as the

  45
  unofficial Opposition and Members on the Opposition Front Bench as the official Opposition in these matters. However, having been the Minister mentioned as having recanted, as it were, may I ask the hon. Lady to clarify two things? First, can she confirm what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told me on 19 November 1999—that the Home Office Bill for the regulation of investigatory powers will not override her desire for a voluntary system? Secondly, can she confirm that the Government, in their dealings with business and consumers, will not adopt a key escrow system? If they do, it may well become the de facto system that others will have to adopt.
  Ms Hewitt: It is a pleasure to hear from the unofficial Opposition, and I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on both the points that he raises. There is no suggestion of the Home Office, in its Bill, taking over the self-regulatory scheme that we are pursuing with the Alliance for Electronic Business or seeking to substitute its own powers for the statutory default powers in part I.
  I repeat that mandatory key escrow has not been part of the Government's policy since March 1999. We have ruled it out from the Bill so that it cannot be introduced under part I or part II. Part II deals with the conditions on which electronic transactions may take place between Government and the citizen.
  Part II—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: On part I, what assurance can the Minister give the House that if, at some time before 2004, she conducts a review of how self-regulation is working, she will not at that stage have to introduce amendments to the Bill in the light of the fast-changing scene that we all know is represented by e-commerce?
  Ms Hewitt: In a world that is changing rapidly, we have to try to make the legislation that we pass today as flexible and future-proof as we can. That is why the Bill is drafted on the basis of technological neutrality. It is not designed to prescribe, or to surround with conditions, any specific type of technology. That is very important in relation to the provisions in part II that will confirm the legal validity of electronic signatures.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister come to the House if she decides to invoke part I or will it be invoked through an order? Will the House have any say?
  Ms Hewitt: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I would, of course, come to the House in those circumstances.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: I shall give way one last time.
  Mr. Gibb: The Minister has missed the point. As currently drafted, if part I is invoked, the Bill does not require a statutory instrument to be introduced under
  46
  either the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. What assurances can she give the House that it will have a say and a vote on whether part I is invoked?
  Ms Hewitt: I have just given the hon. Gentleman an assurance in what I thought was plain English.
  Mr. Duncan: It was ambiguous.
  Ms Hewitt: It was not ambiguous. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the point in Committee, I am sure that we can spend many a happy hour on it.
  Part II also gives Ministers the powers to update the statute book by providing electronic equivalents to paper signatures, records and documents. Lawyers argue about whether electronic signatures would be recognised as valid by the courts, but we cannot afford to wait while lawyers argue and the courts decide. Instead, clause 7 will allow businesses and consumers to have confidence in electronic signatures, because it puts beyond doubt that a court can admit evidence of an electronic signature and a certificate in support of that signature not only to establish from whom the communication came, but to establish the date and time at which it was sent and whether it was intended to have legal effect.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Minister help the House by explaining when clause 7 will be implemented? What is the timetable?
  Ms Hewitt: I anticipate that clause 7 will come into force immediately that the Bill has secured Royal Assent. I think that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, particularly supported this measure.
  As some of my hon. Friends have said, the proposals for electronic signatures have been widely welcomed by industry. For example, Intel said that it was
  "delighted that government … is focusing on the real issue of legal recognition of electronic signatures which will give a vital boost to business and consumer confidence".
  We also have to modernise the statute book to enable electronic transactions between citizens and government, and between citizens themselves, to take place. Clause 8 will therefore give the Government and the Scottish Administration the power to sweep away obstacles in existing laws that insist on the use of paper and formalities, such as sealing and—if my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness will forgive me for mentioning it—the requirements to deliver documents through the post. The clause will give people the option of using electronic means when they prefer to do so.
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office has agreed that the Cabinet Office's central information technology unit will now co-ordinate the use of that power to ensure the equivalence of electronic and paper ways of doing business with government. We want Departments to use those powers quickly, and the Cabinet Office will lead the drive across government to ensure that that happens.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way twice to me. Can she assure me that there will be consistency across government in putting those powers

  47
  into practice? Will the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise join everyone else, or will they devise their own systems?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for consistent and open standards across government and the Cabinet Office will certainly continue in that co-ordinating role. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have already taken the power in the Finance Act 1999 to conduct their own modernisation of their relevant statute book. I am delighted that the Inland Revenue will shortly offer on-line tax filing for businesses and individuals as will Customs and Excise for VAT filing.
  The Department of Trade and Industry will use the power that we shall obtain under the Bill to amend company law, so that companies can communicate electronically with shareholders and so that shareholders can lodge proxies, including voting instructions, on-line. Such measures will save the companies and shareholders that take advantage of them significant sums of money. I therefore propose to publish a draft order for consultation early in the new year, so that it can be introduced and take effect as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I shall announce other plans to make use of clause 8 powers during the Bill's parliamentary passage.
  Part III modernises the out-dated system for modifying telecommunications licences. There is widespread agreement in the industry that a more flexible and responsive approach to licence modification is essential. I have to say, however, that the industry was unhappy with our proposed mechanism, particularly the proposal that the Director General of Oftel should be able to make modifications without a reference to the Competition Commission, despite objections, provided that those objections did not constitute a significant minority. Following our discussions with the industry, we have considered that proposal further and decided not to proceed with the "significant minority" concept.
  We are continuing to discuss possible alternatives with the industry. As I informed Opposition Front-Bench Members earlier this afternoon, I should like to make it clear that I will table amendments in Committee to simplify our proposals and ensure that they command wider support.
  We have to get right our own legal framework, and we are doing so, but we also have to get right the European and global frameworks, and we are working to do that too. There is a very big prize to be won in the European Union—a single market for electronic commerce. Tomorrow, at the European Union Telecommunications Council, we shall adopt the electronic signatures directive. That sets out a legal framework for EU-wide recognition of electronic signatures, the establishment of approval schemes for service providers and the liability of providers. We are anticipating the directive in the Bill, and I am surprised that the official Opposition have not congratulated us for doing so, instead of carping in their amendment.
  The next priority is to complete the electronic commerce directive. As drafted, the directive enshrines the principle of the trader's country of origin. In other words, a British company complying with British
  48
  regulation should be able to sell on-line to consumers in any other member state. We believe that that is the right way to legislate for electronic commerce.
  Over the past year, the Brussels convention has been under review. As hon. Members will know, that convention governs the issue of which court can hear a private law dispute between residents of different member states, including disputes about certain consumer contracts. The European Commission has now prepared a proposal to convert it, with amendments, into a community regulation.
  The Brussels convention has existed for 31 years and, in that time, almost no consumer has used it to sue for breach of contract. None the less, the Commission sought to extend its provisions to electronic commerce by providing in a draft recital that any website that could be accessed from another member state would thereby qualify as advertising directed at consumers in that member state and could activate the convention's provisions. That, of course, misses the point that, on the internet, any website is, by definition, accessible from anywhere else. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there is growing agreement among member states with our view that the new recital should be dropped.
  We anticipate review next year of the Rome convention, which deals with the issue of which jurisdiction takes effect in private international law. We shall play a full part in those discussions, but we cannot possibly wait until they are resolved to introduce the electronic commerce directive or the Bill. Instead, we need to put forward our own proposals to ensure effective protection of consumers in the world of e-commerce.
  It is consumers, above all, who stand to benefit from e-commerce. Price transparency will be a boon to consumers throughout the European Union and beyond. I welcome the fact that at least one leading car manufacturer has already announced that it will sell its own models on the internet throughout the European Union, and I know that others are planning to follow suit.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: This is a terribly interesting issue. Where will European, American and Japanese car manufacturers pay corporation tax and VAT? Is there a European understanding of how that will work with sales on the internet?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. I refer him to an excellent discussion paper on that subject, which was published by the Inland Revenue last Friday. In any case, there is a clear set of EU rules governing VAT liability. Those have not given rise to problems as they have been translated into the sphere of electronic commerce.
  We have to ensure that consumers are protected from unfair dealing on the internet; they need to know which suppliers they can trust. That is why we are working with consumer groups to develop TrustUK as a hallmark, to ensure that consumers are given clear and fair contracts, truthful advertisements and clear and accurate information about what they are buying, prices, delivery costs, the returns policy, and so on. We can now work with our

  49
  European partners to create a TrustEurope equivalent, building on the provisions of the new distance selling directive.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the kitemark be available to companies based elsewhere that want to operate within the European Union, or will it be restricted to companies based within the EU, initially within the UK?
  Ms Hewitt: We envisage that the TrustUK mark will be available to companies that sign up to approved codes of practice that provide both proper consumer protection and effective alternative means of dispute resolution. The issue is not where the company is based, but whether it offers proper consumer protection through an effective code of practice and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
  The Bill will be Britain's first 21st century law. It was the first Bill referred to in the Queen's Speech; it was the first to be introduced; and, tonight, it will become the first to receive Second Reading. It will bring our statute book into the 21st century, provide a sound legal basis for electronic commerce and electronic government, and help to build consumer and business confidence in trading on the internet.
  The Conservatives' opposition to the Bill provides further evidence of how out of touch and out of date they are. While they remain stuck in sleaze, we shall legislate in the interests of the country as a whole. While they are stuck in the past, we shall legislate for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Electronic Communications Bill because it introduces a completely unnecessary element of regulation in the supervision of electronic commerce which will damage the United Kingdom's lead in this field and because no proper consideration has been given to the manner in which United Kingdom law will interact with impending EU law, in particular with regard to the jurisdiction that will govern electronic trade."
  I should do the House the courtesy of drawing its attention to my interest, which is fully registered in the Register of Members' Interests.
  We are dealing not with some sort of techno-fad but with an important matter that increasingly affects the lives of millions. We are in the middle of a fantastic technological revolution and the Opposition accept the need for an element of legislation to facilitate that revolution's advance. Britain has a golden opportunity to put itself well ahead of the game, but the Government's slow handling of the issue risks relegating us from the premier league to the second or third division. There is a strange division between those who, faced with that revolution, champ at the bit and those who remain completely bamboozled. The revolution offers information, communication and trading networks, but the Bill is primarily concerned with the third category—electronic commerce.
  E-commerce is a much misunderstood term. Despite forest-loads of hype, many outside the world of information technology retain a vague notion that e-commerce has something to do with selling books and CDs over the
  50
  internet and with dull brochures and junk mail served up on screen instead of posted through the letter box. The commercial internet is still in its infancy, but it is growing prodigiously. Only six years ago, Europe was considered an internet backwater, with a mere 200,000 computers connected to it; now, 50 million Europeans are believed to be connected. The "Computer Industry Almanac" predicts that, by the end of 2000, 327 million people around the world will have internet access. It is forecast that that dramatic increase in the number of people on-line will lead to an explosion in global e-commerce revenues: one report estimates 183 million on-line buyers spending more than $1 trillion by 2003.
  Impressive as those figures are, I would argue that they partly miss the point about what e-commerce is. It is not only about massive numbers or about who is or who is not making a profit on-line. It is about how this fledgling technology can transform entire industries and enable companies to reach markets that were previously unattainable. It is also about saving money by moving core business processes on-line, such as customer service, shareholder communication, procurement and supply-chain management. Above all, it is about creating and experimenting with new business models such as Priceline, which lets consumers suggest their own price for everything from new cars to holidays and mortgages, or about computer companies that allow customers to configure their own personal computers on-line and use sites that offer direct access to the travel industry's computer database.
  E-commerce is also about the way in which companies re-engineer their businesses. Encyclopaedia Britannica International Ltd, no longer employs salesmen to lug heavy tomes from door to door. Instead, it sells student subscriptions to its multimedia website to colleges and universities around the world.
  Britain can and must be the nerve centre of the worldwide business revolution. This is a world in which there is a mini revolution every week. British businesses will not forgive us if we do not act fast and with a clear head. [Interruption.] In one respect the Government seem to support the same objective—they talk as though they share that objective. As in so many other areas of policy, they have adopted convincing language. In his speech at Cambridge, the Prime Minister said that
  "we need to be quick on our feet."
  Some might think that he has been quite busy off his feet recently. However, the Government have not been quick off their feet because the Bill has been a very long time coming. Anyone who has paid any attention to the progress of the Bill knows that it has been the product of a messy turf war between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office, which have been squabbling for more than two years. The Bill was promised last year but it never came.
  Dr. Ladyman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me by explaining how his call for more speed ties in with an amendment that calls for less speed.
  Mr. Duncan: The reasoned amendment calls for less legislation. It was completely misrepresented by the Minister when she said that the Opposition are calling for nothing to be done until everything has been done in Europe. Rather, we are saying that Britain should proceed now, but in a simple way with a shorter Bill that is not so cumbersome and laden.

  51
  It is the Government who have taken their time. They have said for years that they will appoint an e-envoy. At last they have got round to doing so, but he will not be at his desk until January.
  Mr. White: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about speed, why did not the Opposition agree to a carry-over motion in July and table amendments in Committee? Their objective could have been achieved in that way.
  Mr. Duncan: I shall specifically address that issue.
  It is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow. Although they talk much about IT and about how they believe in it, their track record in implementing it in their own house is abysmal. Much of what they try to do in government immediately crashes.
  The essence of the internet revolution is that it divides clearly into e-government and e-commerce. The internet is a fantastic mechanism for improving the delivery of government. That is certainly what the Government say, but in practice everything that they touch crashes. About 500,000 people had to wait for a passport in the summer because computers would not work. The Inland Revenue could not properly implement its new system of self-assessment, and a crash led to the absurdity of 56,000 people receiving an apology for being sent the wrong sort of threatening letter.

  The Government may speak the language of IT, but in practice their IT crashes. As if that were not enough, they set themselves a target. In 1997, the Prime Minister pledged that 25 per cent. of Government services would be available electronically by 2002. An inter-departmental audit of Government dealings soon afterwards found that 38 per cent. of them were already capable of being conducted electronically. Perhaps the Government think that a target that takes them backwards is easier to achieve.
  Worst of all, the Government, pretending that they favour IT and the great internet revolution, plan to introduce IR35—a £500 million e-tax that would drive people abroad. The supreme irony is that those who helped to create the technology to produce the e-signature for which the Bill provides will face a sustained attack from a Government who say one thing and do another.
  The Minister was kind enough to refer to the e-petition that I electronically signed this morning. We started it on Friday and we had thousands of names by Sunday evening. Many more thousands came in today, at the rate of one every five seconds at its peak. This is the first electronically signed petition. I look forward to the electronic reply, which I trust the Minister will send in due course.
  The Secretary of State, however, is a little slow off the mark. As I walked into the Chamber this afternoon, I saw on the board a press notice informing us that in a week the Secretary of State will become the first British Cabinet Minister to become a digital signatory. He is a little behind the times, and in internet time a week is a decade.
  Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he has collected so many signatures on
  52
  the subject of IR35, will he tell the House whether he believes that an IT subcontractor earning £18,000 a year should pay the same level of national insurance contributions as a nurse or a teacher on £18,000 a year, or whether, as some—some—who wish to evade tax would suggest, that person should be able to escape paying any national insurance contributions at all?
  Mr. Duncan: The Minister knows perfectly well that those who are employed as a limited company are doing so legally and that she is replacing their ability to help Britain lead the internet revolution with a £500 million tax, which will be detrimental to Britain's future and to theirs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Duncan: I give way to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).
  Dr. Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber in the belief that we would be debating electronic communications and commerce. We seem to be debating tax. Is that in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order so far.
  Mr. Duncan: It seems that the Labour Government are about to add insult to injury. According to The Independent on Sunday, not only are they driving thousands of people out of Britain by taxing them more, to the tune of £500 million, but it seems that they are to give visa exemptions so that people from overseas can come into Britain if they can add to the IT revolution. How does the Minister square kicking people out with bringing them in with special exemptions?
  Mr. Mark Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would his party reverse the change if it were in government?
  Mr. Duncan: I am sure that, unlike the Labour party, we will stick to what we say in the run-up to an election.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Duncan: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
  The Government have been unable to get their house in order and have made a complete hash of e-government. In contrast, our approach to e-commerce is entirely clear. We believe in minimum interference.
  Mr. Miller: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the petition, will he confirm that the website from which the petition was derived has been up and running for several months, and that it is not the instantaneous vehicle that he claimed? Will he answer the question from

  53
  my hon. Friend the Minister? What would he do about the national insurance contributions of IT contractors on £18,000, as opposed to those of nurses on £18,000?
  Mr. Duncan: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we collected all the names over the weekend.
  Mr. Miller: Rubbish.
  Mr. Duncan: I defy the hon. Gentleman to disprove me. We announced the petition on Friday and received 1,700 signatures over the weekend and a further 2,000 this morning, witnessed by many people. Even in the 20 minutes during which I held a press conference this morning, a further 387 signatures came in.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Duncan: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government invited us to allow the e-commerce Bill, as everyone believed it was called, to be introduced in the last Session and carried over. We rightly refused because we were not prepared to aid and abet the passage of a dog's dinner of a Bill, which would have been burdensome and detrimental to the progress of the revolution that we support. We knew the Bill's main contents and we were not happy. At least we thought that key escrow had been rejected and I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm that today. However, only a few groups were adequately consulted in a secretive, cosy process. The Minister shakes her head, but the Government did not properly consult small, infant companies, which are at the cutting edge of the progress that we support. The consultation process concentrated on the larger, established companies.
  We forced the publication of the Bill in July; the Minister was not prepared to publish it. All companies, large or small, had the summer in which to consult the Government only because we refused to allow the carry-over procedure, and demanded the Bill's publication. Our efforts gave them that opportunity.
  Ms Hewitt: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to reveal discussions that took place through the usual channels. However, as he has done that, I emphasise that we published the draft Bill for consultation because we believed that that was the right way to proceed. We made it clear that we wanted to introduce the Bill; we published it and we have now introduced it.
  Mr. Duncan: I mentioned the matter only because it was raised during the Minister's speech. I am puzzled about how the Minister could have published the Bill for consultation if she had already laid it before Parliament. We forced its publication. Interforum, which probably represents the largest group of companies in the sector, stated:
  "Although the consultation document is titled 'Promoting Electronic Commerce', some of the provisions in it could actually put the UK at a competitive disadvantage."
  54
  At that stage, Interforum said what we were saying:
  "We advocate a simple e-commerce Bill containing part II," —
  the provision for electronic signature—
  "a four-page Bill genuinely designed to help the development of e-commerce in the UK."
  It continued:
  "Far from promoting the UK as the best place on earth to trade electronically, the Bill is dominated by provisions which will make it more cumbersome to set up services in the UK, rather than elsewhere."
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government had presented a short Bill in the summer, it would have been relatively easy to have got it on the statute book already?
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government had done as we requested, and presented a short, simple Bill, it could have been close to being enacted by now. However, the Bill that they published for consultation caused many anxieties, especially about the extent of the powers of intrusion, which would have been granted under part III of the draft Bill. Only a few weeks ago, I argued from the Dispatch Box that part III should be removed. The Minister looked across the Chamber and scoffed at me as if to say that that was an absurd demand. However, in my typically tactful fashion, I demanded its removal again. Now, lo and behold, part III has evaporated. The Government accepted the Opposition's sensible, constructive demands. The Minister relented and part III has been removed. We backed business; business backed us; the Minister backed down.
  Part I remains a mess. We believe that the industry is best equipped to set standards, and that it can be relied upon to do so. We do not need Government interference in the process.
  Part I is confusing and muddled. It is part statutory, part voluntary and, during the Minister's speech, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) described the absurdity of companies not being compelled to participate, should its provisions be invoked. It is not needed at all. Indeed, the measure, which is part of a Bill for a fast-moving sector of the economy, is designed not to be used. It is designed as a dodo—it will lie on the statute book, extinct. She hopes that she will never have to invoke it, but, even today, has been unable to say under what criteria she might decide to invoke it.
  The whole point of part I is that it is bound to be overtaken by events and rendered obsolete by technological advance. At least there is a sunset clause, but I suggest that it would be better to invoke it now and not have part I at all. The Minister will perhaps have seen from her own mailbag—as I certainly have and many other hon. Members will have today—that the Law Society recommends the total removal of part I.
  The Bill contains some unsatisfactory elements. There is, lying within it, the prospect of a completely new regulatory office. Will it be called Ofcrypt or Ofweb? Who knows, but provision exists for detaching control of the regulatory regime from the Minister and passing it to some new body designed to regulate the internet. The last thing that the internet needs is an interfering regulator.
  Mr. Wyatt: If Britain is to be the fastest-growing e-commerce country, is not it important that consumers feel confident about how we trade on the internet? If there

  55
  is to be not a statutory body but a partnership with the internet community, we in the House have to enable that to happen so that consumers can feel confident about using websites. If we do not do that, they will not use them.
  Mr. Duncan: No such interference is necessary when there are so many well-established companies connected to the internet that can set their own standards and prove to consumers that they are worth using. The Government do not need to interfere and the partnership to which the hon. Gentleman refers would simply lead to them slowing the development that we want. Indeed, because it has taken them two years to produce the Bill, those companies are already being dragged back in a way that, otherwise, they would not.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. When he reads what he has said, I wonder whether he will realise that he has proposed a policy that would exclude all new and small companies from using the internet as a way of trading. He is saying that the only firms in which people should have confidence are existing reputable businesses. Surely he cannot seriously be telling us that.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman wilfully misunderstands me. Plenty of companies are already established in the industry and they could set up a voluntary regime in which all could participate. The Government do not need to interfere—they would be a brake on progress. Indeed, the whole point of part I—even to the Minister, as she would say—is that it is designed not to be used. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of including a provision that is designed not to be used and, I hope, never will be.
  The kernel of the Bill is part II—Provision for electronic signature, which is all that the industry needs. It wants to know that there will be a proper legal framework within which a person can contract with another and that the contract will stand up in law. As the Minister rightly said, in many examples a handwritten signature is required—in many cases, it must be witnessed by someone else—but as the world advances it should be possible to achieve such verification and signature electronically. That is what the industry needs, and that is all that it needs, which is why we would have fully supported, even in the previous Session of Parliament, an e-commerce Bill that provided for electronic signature.
  Dr. Palmer: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman believes that, at this stage, we should not provide for a statutory register, no matter how disastrously a voluntary scheme might fare. He admits that we are in a new area. Does he think that past precedents—for instance, on BSE, which was caused by a similar lack of regulation—are encouraging?
  Mr. Duncan: The Minister has just said that she is confident that self-regulation will work—so am I. I am pleased to find common ground with her. We could expedite the passage of the Bill if she would base her thinking on the comment that she made, and proceed with the Bill without this unnecessary provision, which will be a brake on progress.
  56
  Everyone recognises that part III is a bolt-on extra. Any provision that is retrospective, as the amendment of telecommunications licences would be, gives cause for concern. We reserve judgment on that. What matters is that existing licence holders are not disadvantaged. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining to the House that she will consult more widely and that she intends to remove some parts of the Bill in Committee. We are getting nearer to the four-page Bill that we would like.
  A broader issue that affects not only this Bill but others is the language in which it is drafted. Any hon. Member who reads it from cover to cover will see that some parts of it are pretty incomprehensible and unintelligible. It is not an easy Bill to understand. As legislators, many of us would like our style of legislative language to be made simpler.
  Mr. White indicated assent.
  Mr. Duncan: I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Legislation in Australia and the United States is in much simpler language. A sentence such as
  "the enactments relating to the functions of that body or office shall have effect as if the functions of that body or office included the functions specified in the appointment"
  makes us wonder how people reading the Bill will know the rights and wrongs of what they plan to do. I hope that I shall have support from both sides of the House if I join the Campaign for Plain English on the drafting of our law.
  There is also concern about the loose and extensive nature of the secondary powers that the Bill grants. Many of them are vague and ill-defined. Some broad and unspecific matters are left to the Minister's whim. We shall consider that in more detail in Committee, but it is a point of principle that the secondary powers granted in the Bill go too far. Bills should be written in simple language. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, it is a matter of principle that hon. Members will want to scrutinise anything that emerges from the Bill, particularly something as significant as whether to introduce a voluntary regime—although it is fair to say that, under the Bill, that matter would have to come before the House in a statutory instrument.
  Another area gives cause for concern. I am not saying that we should not proceed until everything is agreed in Europe—quite the opposite. I believe that we should proceed rapidly in the simplest possible form, while keeping more than an eye on what is happening in Europe. I detect an element of confusion in the Government about how they will handle European legislation. I welcome what the Minister said about the nature of the directive, which was that the country of origin of the sale shall be the jurisdiction of the law that will govern the transaction. She also said that there is great pressure in the European Union for a different code to govern internet transactions.
  There is much confusion. As the Minister knows from what I said to her in European Standing Committee C, I am concerned that she and her fellow Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are saying one thing, but her colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department are saying another. We will not tolerate it if a small or even a large company in Britain that sells goods over the internet to another country is suddenly subject to the law of that country unreasonably.
  The position becomes all the more confusing when geography becomes less and less significant, because the same person can plug in, wherever he is in the world,

  57
  and enter into a contract via his laptop. Where that contract was executed must be clear, and the arrangements must be fair. I am glad that the Minister is going to press for the European Union recital to be dropped, and I hope that she will report to the House when she has been successful.
  Our position is straightforward: we want a short, simple Bill. We do not believe that part I should be in the Bill. We believe that part II is the kernel of the Bill, and is essentially all that is needed. We believe that part III must be watched very closely, and we will ensure that there is no unfairness among existing telecommunications licence holders. If the Minister prunes the Bill and prunes it sensibly, making it a short, sharp, effective measure for the benefit of those who want to trade electronically, we will support her; but if she introduces other burdens that prove to be a drag anchor on such progress, we will oppose her.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: In my brief intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), what I was trying to say about IR35 was that anyone with an ounce of technological know-how would have worked out how to generate that kind of signature response in a few days. If the Conservative party had not got that far in its use of technology, woe betide it. All the names have been in the public domain for several months, following a web campaign on the subject. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point, to which I shall return later.
  The language in which the Bill is drafted reflects a broader weakness in the way we conduct our legislative arrangements in spheres in which technology is driving our thought processes.
  For the benefit of hon. Members who have not yet experienced the web, let me illustrate just how powerful the tool might be. Last night, when reading the paperwork relating to the Bill, I thought that it might be fun to pick a name at random from the list of Opposition Members to demonstrate the power of the web in accessing information. It took me a few minutes. There was a list under "A"; I used an old piece of technology, the pin, which identified the word "Aldershot". I then looked at the web connections relating to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I have put a note to the hon. Gentleman on the board, telling him that I was going to raise this.
  The local website for the hon. Gentleman's council—a very good website: www.hart.gov.uk—tells us that the local MP has joined a
  "War on Waste with a pledge to compost his garden waste at home."
  There are instant connections, not from there but through a search list under the hon. Gentleman's name. The website of The Freedom Association, of whose council the hon. Gentleman is a member, is www.tfa.net, and that linked me, via a number of extraordinary areas, to a site that is partly in the public domain and partly an e-commerce site. It showed, at the heart of the search for that one name, a company called Astra Holdings.
  Those of us who have been in the House for some time will remember all those areas, but the exercise showed the power of this research tool. It can link areas of work that we have never been able to link by any other means.
  58
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton started his speech in a way that we all find ourselves forced to do in the context of the web. We see asymptotic curves, talking about billions of dollars of potential commerce, processing power, or take-up of the web. All that may be a little hackneyed, but it is true. The problem that we face is legislating on something that is moving so rapidly. No hon. Member can do more than guess at the scale of the growth of e-commerce over the next 10 years. The phenomenon equally applies in other areas of scientific and technical evolution. In my short time here since 1992, those developments have included digital broadcasting—I served on the Bill that provided the framework for that—and human genetics, on which the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I used to be a member, worked. Like the information technology revolution, such developments are moving so fast as to render legislation potentially out of date before, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), the ink is dry on the vellum.
  In the case of e-commerce, the Government have tried to use the collective wisdom of the nation by publishing a draft Bill, a procedure that the House should use more often. In sectors such as electronic communications, I commend to the House the use of witness examination at the Committee stage, so that, at the point of coming to detailed decisions, we are as up to date as possible about the technologies that impact on us. That will not solve the problem of keeping up to date, but it will at least give us an opportunity to be up to date on Third Reading.
  I recommend that the Government avoid something that happened in several sectors under the previous Administration. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred to procurement processes. The biggest weakness in those procurements was that they were technology-based, rather than designed to provide solutions. When looking at technologies, we need to use the best brains both in industry and in academia to deal with the impact of generic technological evolutions, rather than to focus on particular boxes.
  To a certain extent, the Bill achieves that. I congratulate Ministers on their foresight and on the way in which they have addressed some of the difficult problems, but I make some observations on what is not in the Bill, rather than what is. I shall not stray too far because I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would want me to concentrate on the content of the Bill.
  It is clear that we will have to come back to some of these issues, but it will be at the expense of Great Britain plc if we are not careful and do not get things right first time. Just remember those asymptotic curves that I mentioned earlier—the Bill is about how fast we will get to the near vertical slope predicted. If we get it wrong, who knows what disadvantage we will create for businesses in the United Kingdom.
  The next point is specifically targeted at the little Englanders among Conservative Members. Without international agreements and partnerships, we might as well pack up now. The growth of e-commerce will be more important at the next GATT and World Trade Organisation discussions than the price of Canadian wheat ever was. Perhaps that is not a profound statement today, but few hon. Members accepted it when I made that prediction five years ago.

  59
  Essentially, the main principles of such international agreements should be no different from those on which all trade works: trust. All good trade works on the basis of that. If the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and I decided to enter into an agreement with each other, I suspect that the degree of trust would be limited. I would want to see his goods; he would want to see my money. As trade develops, trust is increasingly built into the relationships. We currently use intermediary vehicles such as credit cards to help us establish those processes. We need to make it possible for electronic signatures to be used for verification. The nations that move furthest and fastest on that will be in a position to succeed.
  Ideally, the codes to provide vehicles for trust should be established on a voluntary basis, but if that fails they will have to be statutory. The relationships involved will be a 21st century mail order protection scheme. We need to establish that principle worldwide. Hallmarks such as TrustUK, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce mentioned, will give the individual or trade consumer confidence that their goods will be delivered on time and at the agreed price and quality and will give the supplier confidence that the money will arrive on time, to the correct value and in the right currency. Nation states have an interesting role to play. The complex question of taxation has been mentioned and needs to be considered carefully.
  Self-regulation can work and I believe from my discussions with industry that the will exists to deliver it.
  Part I of the Bill deals with cryptography. The Government were right to rule out a mandatory key escrow, not least because it is the most unintelligible phrase ever to appear in the House. I suspect that very few people here, let alone outside the House, could explain what it meant. I hope that the Conservatives will look a little beyond the horizons of the green Benches to consider the interests of Great Britain plc and will support the principle that we have adopted. We need to send out a gentle warning to all our industrial partners. It would clearly be improper for any company that is a provider at any level to stand in the way of the legitimate needs of the police and criminal investigation authorities. Such companies should remember that their shareholders have children who are targets of paedophiles and drug barons. Of course industry should try to remain on the leading edge, and we want to help in that, but companies should not forget their responsibilities.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about responsible cryptography providers co-operating with law enforcement agencies, but I hope that he is not suggesting that part I is about law enforcement. My understanding is that nothing in part I should be related to law enforcement, because those issues are to be dealt with in another Bill.
  Mr. Miller: I am referring to the context of the Bill as a whole. I take the hon. Gentleman's specific point, but in the general picture, while we give British companies and players in the field the advantages of being on the leading edge, we must send out a gentle warning that their shareholders also have children who are targets of those to whom I referred.
  60
  Criminals will continue to exploit the net. I gave away some web addresses earlier, but there are others that I am not going to specify. I did a search a few years ago in the wake of the awful Oklahoma bomb, when it was suggested that white supremacists were involved. Some of the information that I uncovered in the public domain on the web was outrageous. I do not think that any Member of Parliament would associate himself with some of the views that I unearthed. It is up to society as a whole to decide where the line is drawn and it is up to all of us in the House and outside to bring to book those who cross it.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: There is too much confusion about the key escrow system, which is often associated only with the problems of the Home Office trying to track criminals. Key escrow, public-private key infrastructures and the use of asymmetric cyphers are all valuable tools for industry for purely commercial reasons. When I introduced a mandatory key escrow system, there was a lot of industrial support for it. Time has gone on and I have already recanted—I do not have to keep doing it. However, we should not talk about criminality every time that key escrow is mentioned. We also have to understand the serious commercial interests involved.
  Mr. Miller: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman's judgment on many of these issues.
  Mr. Wyatt: He should come and join us.
  Mr. Miller: There are several issues on which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) should come and join us, not the least of which is Europe. I take his point that we should not automatically link key escrow simply with issues of criminality. There are broader issues involved. His point is well made.
  Part II deals with electronic signatures. I am not a million miles adrift from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—for once—in seeking an assurance that the nature of the signature required by any parties to a contract will be driven by the needs of the parties, not simply by the needs of the state. The state clearly has a legitimate role through its various agencies, but just as parties to any civil contract have arrangements that are acceptable to them in pen and ink—or whatever other vehicle they use; perhaps a shake of hands—the state should not seek to interfere in the process, but should aid it by helping to set standards and directing people to where such standards can be found.
  The reasoned amendment says that we should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading
  "because it introduces a completely unnecessary element of regulation in the supervision of electronic commerce which will damage the United Kingdom's lead in this field".
  The only aspect of that on which I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is that the United Kingdom has a lead in the field. We have that lead because the Government's general policy has helped to build a framework that assists such development. That is adequately recognised in several large company responses to the proposals. Dell—a company that I hold in high regard—says in its submission:
  "Dell welcomes the Government's decision to move away from the use of key escrow and third party key holding.

  61
  Dell supports efforts to establish a self-regulating, non-statutory accreditation scheme for Trust Service Providers.
  Dell welcomes the removal of the proposal for a rebuttable presumption of validity for electronic signatures.
  Dell proposes that electronic signatures should be recognised as completely satisfying the requirements of UK statutory law, which have been traditionally fulfilled through the mediums of paper and writing."
  That is not dissimilar to the points I just made.
  I referred earlier to Microsoft and the letter I received from David Svendsen, the chairman of Microsoft in the UK, in which he set out a number of bullet points. He
  "strongly supports the Bill's prohibition on the imposition of key escrow by Government Ministers … strongly supports the Bill's granting of legal recognition and admissibility to all electronic signatures … believes that the Bill's approach to allowing electronic fulfilment of written and paper requirements in UK law needs to be strengthened".
  Again, that touches on a point that I made. Mr. Svendsen
  "supports the Government taking powers to establish a voluntary approvals scheme for cryptography service providers."
  Finally, he congratulated the Government on
  "introducing legislation that will serve as a model for Europe".
  That was from the largest IT company in the world—indeed, probably the largest company in the world.
  Mr. Allan: At the moment.
  Mr. Miller: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is thinking of my next sheaf of papers, which is from amazon.com.uk. He may have an insight that I do not have. However, similar notes of accord have been coming in the post over the past few days.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton would have been right had we been debating the Bill as originally proposed, as some of his points were those raised by industry at that time. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not catch up by recognising that the Government have moved positively in partnership with business, commerce and industry—not just in the UK, but worldwide.
  I welcome the Bill, and I hope that my minor observations can be debated in Committee. I hope that we get the Bill rapidly on to the statute book to ensure that Britain remains a lead player in this important area of business and commerce.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: At last—this is the most elephantine pregnancy ever. In the dim and distant past, I was the Minister who started on this process in 1995. Now we have the Bill, and the Home Office has been seen off, thankfully. I congratulate the Minister on achieving something that I did not achieve. To put that into context, I had an achievement in terms of the Internet Watch Foundation. That was a self-regulatory body, created when the Home Office was ready to pounce in the absurd legislative way that only it knows.
  I would like the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce to pass on my congratulations to her officials, many of whom were full of enthusiasm in 1995. I hope that they still are, although I am less than sure. Nevertheless, they have done a remarkable job in seeing the Bill through its various periods of gestation.
  62
  I declare the interests which are in the register. From time to time, I am asked to advise companies, and I am a director of one or two technology companies. If it is thought that the benefits to the UK that the Bill will bring will also benefit them, I will be delighted to have declared my interest in that context.
  It is difficult to remember the atmosphere when we proposed the ideas of key escrow and trusted third parties. I came across a delicious quotation from Janet Street-Porter, now the editor of The Independent on Sunday—bless her heart. Back in those days of 1996, she said:
  "Forget the superhighway, get a life. The future isn't wired. In fact historians will look back on the 1990s and the current surge of techno-hype and net-euphoria as a bizarre blip, a meaningless cul-de-sac in the cultural story of the 20th century."
  That will not make me rush out to buy The Independent on Sunday. Nevertheless, somebody has to be that wrong.
  Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem that he had in the previous Administration was that that was precisely the view of that Administration?
  Mr. Taylor: The House, as always, was full of wisdom on those occasions—it just did not happen to understand what I was saying. That was the problem.
  It might have been a good job that the House did not understand. Since then, the National Security Agency in the United States has genuinely become a hate figure. In 1998, the plot of a film called "Enemy of the State" revolved entirely around the NSA murdering a politician who was trying to bring in a Bill with powerful encryption. I hope that no one gets that sort of encouragement, because we cannot afford to lose any politicians from the Conservative Benches—we have few enough as it is.
  In principle, I welcome the Bill. It is difficult for a Government, and the Minister should be humble in one respect. The rate of progress since 1997 has not been as fast as many of us would have liked. In addition, it is dangerous for a Prime Minister to put so much emphasis on the importance of an e-envoy, only to find that the e-envoy does not take up his post for about 18 months. In fact, the e-envoy will not start until 1 January.
  There is a problem in translating the fine words used by the Prime Minister and across Government into effective implementation—that is what the industry is looking for. In that context, I hope that the Minister will indicate when the 60 recommendations of the "e-commerce@its.best.uk" report, from the pen of Jim Norton and his committee, are to be put in place. What is the action plan for that? In many cases, they are ahead of what we think the Government's plans are. That is important, particularly in terms of education. The Department for Education and Employment still talks as if it has not read the report.
  I hope that the Minister will use her undoubted charm, but also steel, to make sure that other Departments understand what is going on. I shall give her a tip in a spirit of co-operation—she should use powers which are trans-departmental to make an impact on the Government's understanding of e-commerce. I had those powers in the scientific sense, as Science Minister, and I arrogated to myself the powers in the technology sense. She must do the same if she is to be effective, and if any of the report's action plans are to be put in place. Somebody has to browbeat other Government Departments and Secretaries of State to apply them.

  63
  There is still a degree of confusion, which is not clarified by the Bill, about whether internet service providers are common carriers or are to be more responsible for the content that they carry. It is a complex matter, and I know only too well that there has been much thought about it. However, I would be grateful if the Minister would remove the uncertainty. She should continue, with Oftel, to look at the problem of unmetered calls. I will try to clarify this point. If I do so wrongly, I am sure that the Minister will assist the House by pointing out why.
  The difficulty with unmetered calls is not the willingness of companies—although one should watch BT carefully, because if it were to introduce very low-price or even free calls that were in a sense subsidised by its other activities, it would be eliminating competition rather than spurring it on—but the need to protect poorer people, who would by definition probably face higher than normal subscriptions.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) over-emphatically attacked BT, which was unfair, but he missed the point that unmetered calls are often attached to a service with a monthly or quarterly subscription. The consistent policy of this Government and the previous Government has been to try to ensure that the subscriptions are kept low, because of the problems of poor people. The clash between the subscription levels and the unmetered calls is one of the obstacles that Oftel is still wrestling with. It is a pretty intractable issue.
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is precisely for that reason that we do not want a single pricing model—nobody with any sense wants that—that would require low-income low users to pay very high subscription charges. It is perfectly possible to have a range of tariff models, as we already have for mobile telephony, to enable low-price or unmetered internet access calls, especially at peak times.
  Mr. Taylor: I endorse that point. The competitive market—the result of the Conservative Government's policies—enabled that to happen.
  I want to be naughty to the extent of saying that I believe that the Secretary of State's recent referral of the Cable and Wireless-NTL deal was a mistake. It broke the pattern of encouraging substantial competitors to grow in the marketplace. Growth in the cable industry has been based on an aggregation of franchises. The reference gave the wrong signal to the market. We want more competition, not less.
  Mr. Wyatt: On access to the internet for poorer communities and families, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good precedent was set when we took £3 million from television licence receipts to subsidise the creation of the Open university?
  Mr. Taylor: There is a huge opportunity to be innovative. The hon. Gentleman is one of the more innovative Government Members. Perhaps one day Oftel will take the Independent Television Commission within its bosom and we will get a more rational debate.
  64
  Others have emphasised the importance of the on-line world. The figures are hard to verify and can be approximate, but we know that there are about 11 million internet users in the United Kingdom, with 11,000 joining each day. Many more people have access to the net, at work, home or school—about 18.6 million is 40 per cent. of the population. The critical mass is already with us. The rate of growth is astronomical.
  Andersen Consulting's figures show that the value of the European internet market could be $430 billion by 2003, with 170 million users, as against $19 billion this year. That represents a growth in the European market from less than 20 per cent. of the size of the United States market this year to 60 per cent. by 2003, which shows how dynamic the European single market is.
  There is further expansion because the internet is not a personal computer monopoly. Digital television is moving ahead dramatically, and most exciting of all are the wireless applications and the delivery of messages to mobiles. They are slightly taut messages in stretched second-generation digital but on third-generation mobile we will get the full multimedia impact.
  Someone asked what we were doing in the dark, distant days before history began—meaning the previous Government. We were preparing the auctions that the Minister is about to launch. The auction arrangements were already thought through by the Conservative Government, but the trouble with the processes of government is that they move so jolly slowly. They had to move more slowly than we would have liked because of the need to get international agreements on what are known as the UMTS arrangements, so that the system, when it came, could be truly global.
  Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman made such proposals in government but Opposition Front Benchers are now vehemently against them, which shows how far out of touch they are.
  Mr. Taylor: The Opposition's job is always to oppose, whatever the justification. I am not on the Opposition Front Bench, for reasons that we will not go into.
  It is important to understand what the Minister thinks she is signing up to in the e-commerce directive—which is based on host-country legislation, as she rightly said—because I understand from a senior member of Directorate-General XV that there are some specific caveats, for example concerning moves by any country to protect its consumers that are justified by public policy or public security. They are pretty big caveats. I hope that we will get some clarification before we sign up because one can drive a coach and horses through home-country control with such caveats in place.
  I pressed on the Minister the need to have a trans-departmental authority. She should ensure that home-country control under European directives also applies to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, clause 19 of which creates concerns about the powers taken to regulate internet sites outside the United Kingdom. The conflict needs to be reconciled. There is no doubt that the financial services market is becoming global. I am glad to say that both the Corporation of London and the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists welcome the Bill and are determined to ensure that London plays its full part. We must be careful to base both British and European legislation on sound principles that encourage e-commerce rather than restraining it.

  65
  The alarming skills shortage both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union as a whole could hold back many of our good efforts to stimulate the growth of e-commerce.
  The Government should show leadership. It is no good for the Prime Minister to say—correctly—that companies that are not entirely on-line in five years' time may well be out of business, when the Government's own target for providing their services on-line is only 50 per cent. by 2005. Is the logical extension that the Government themselves will be out of business by 2005? I doubt that they are saying that, but that is the logic of the situation. There is no excuse for not pushing ahead more quickly.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between businesses that need to be at the leading edge and Governments who have to provide services to consumers who currently have limited access. There is a chicken-and-egg argument there, and clearly the Government needs to take action to encourage the growth of access, but it would be improper for them to seek to deliver all their services on-line if all our citizens are not fully wired.
  Mr. Taylor: That is an admirable but not very powerful contribution. The reality is that the Government have to act as a catalyst. The dates set are too lax and the targets set are not realistic. It is as if a large company were to announce that within a year no member of its supply chain would be accepted unless it were capable of dealing on-line in all aspects of its business. Those companies affected get on-line if they want to stay part of the supply chain. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) should talk to the Minister about innovative ways in which public-private partnerships can finance moving to on-line status.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister have reassured me about the risk that the regulation of investigatory powers legislation that is proposed would undermine what the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to do with this Bill. I take the Minister's word that it will not, and I am more relaxed on the subject.
  I also welcome the sunset clause in part I, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that part I is an intrusive element in the Bill. Given that it is included, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there will be a proper discussion if the powers that she has retained are ever to be triggered. If so, we can accept the clause in the interests of speed, although my hon. Friend will make a shrewd, tactical judgment on how to progress it through Committee. I do not intend to serve alongside him, because he will do it so well without me.
  In part III, I welcome the explicit restriction on key escrow, which is well put. It is hidden away in part III, but at least it is there and it is a key development. Natural concerns arise about whether the Alliance for Electronic Business scheme will be acceptable, but it is the only one being discussed. The more that the Minister can do to review her latest proposals and then give comfort, the better. Certainly, I know that industry is waiting for formal announcements in support.
  The Minister should not ignore my intervention in her speech. I say that because I am not sure that she fully took the point. If the Government introduce their scheme with
  66
  the private sector, whether business or consumers, as a key escrow system, it may become the de facto standard for others to follow. It is best to be sure that the Government understand what influence they would have on the shape of the market if it were to adopt the wrong approach.
  The biggest criticism of the Bill is that it focuses on cryptography. The process of encryption is important, including signatures—I do not underestimate their importance in getting the process going—but there are many other confidence-building measures that can be taken. Some of those 60 points in the earlier report I mentioned should have been slotted in during the consultation period—perhaps when no one was watching—and there would then have been huge excitement when the Bill was introduced, because it would have seemed to encourage electronic business more generally.
  If the Government can be consistent about electronic signatures, I hope that we will see dramatic, exciting progress. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton will criticise the lack of other legal changes. I mentioned the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, because I know that they are working on the issue—that is what worries me. I am interested in the basis on which those organisations are working, because I do not want the Minister to be thrilled to have got the Bill through only to find that the Treasury announces that her system is incompatible with its system. That would not be the first time that had happened.
  No time scale is given for the co-ordination of technical solutions for some of the other Government changes. There is also a lack of visibility for Government changes. I hope that the Minister will talk to other Ministers in her Department about the impact of the Bill on international trade agreements, for example, and whether they will be brought on-line in conformity with the Bill.
  We also need urgent guidance, although I am not qualified to make comments on it, on how the courts will interpret some of the provisions in the Bill. What will constitute an acceptable signature for the courts? That will have be tested, but the issues include whether a certificate or identity is binding, the reliability of signature processes and technology, and the intent or possession—instead of relying on technical solutions alone. Those are complex issues and I hope that the Minister will at some stage assure the House that she has a grip on them. When the electronic signatures come to be tested in the courts, we do not want to find that the Minister's work is undermined.
  Confidence is not just about encryption, but it helps enormously with verification of the identity of the people with whom one is dealing. Encryption can enable transactions to take place on the net in circumstances in which people do not know each other's identity and need some reassurance and verification. Certificates will be increasingly issued to identify people, but confidence and security can be given in other ways. Firewalls have been the normal way to protect information, but secure networks will be the way forward. The Government need to consider other methods of reinforcement that they can use when dealing with the consumer—we used to call it Government direct, but I cannot remember what phrase this Government uses for it. Will the Government use smart cards? I warn the Minister, if she is as keen on smart cards as I was, she will have the same battles with

  67
  the Home Office that I had. In my day, the Home Office seemed to think that smart cards are identity cards and a terrible threat to civil liberties, which is of course nonsense.
  I welcome the Bill. It will provide a Government framework for a self-regulatory prospect, but I warn the Minister to be careful in building confidence. We should not rely on the back-up powers. The Bill will underpin the admissibility of electronic information and I hope that the Minister will clarify the commercial law in other areas across Government. I hope that she will also ensure that the Government adopt the Bill as soon as possible after it hits the statute book. In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, I hope that it hits the statute book in fine form, without any of its frills, as soon as possible.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Brian White: I had intended to start my contribution with an attack on Tory Front Benchers but, before I do so, I wish to exempt the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). I agreed almost entirely with his comments, most of which were sensible and constructive.
  Dr. Ladyman: That is why he is not on the Tory Front Bench.
  Mr. White: There may be one or two reasons for that. It is interesting to contrast the consultation on this Bill with the record of the previous Government, because one or two points stand out. I remember working in the IT industry when the previous Government did not have an IT strategy. Their approach was very laissez-faire. I welcome this Government's IT strategy, which will build on what small businesses and the IT industry are doing and are good at.
  The issue of key escrow has already been raised, so I shall not go into it. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned IT failures, but I suggest that he considers the record of the previous Government and their decisions. The civil service used to be one of the best training grounds in the country for programmers and analysts. The previous Government's decision to bring in outside contractors and sell off parts of the civil service caused a lot of people to leave. We lost a whole generation of analysts and programmers in the mid-1980s; they went abroad because of the detrimental actions of the then Government. The Conservative party would do well to remember that many of the people who went abroad helped with the development of the internet in silicon valley.
  The previous Government also created local monopolies with cable companies, which are causing some of the infrastructure problems. British Telecom used to be the cable company in Milton Keynes, which is a growing new city. BT laid the cable into the new parts of the city, but would not touch the older areas. Many households did not get cable because they were in the poorer, older areas. Because of its local monopoly, BT had no competition. The creation of local monopolies goes completely against the ethos of competition.
  When BT was privatised, the Tory emphasis on ownership, rather than liberalisation, of the market—which is still apparent in some of the comments of
  68
  Conservative Members tonight—distorted the argument. It should be about how to create a marketplace and the conditions for competition, not about who owns a business. However, the Tories have adopted that approach time and again, and they are making the same mistake tonight with this Bill.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be helpful, in creating a better marketplace, for there to be competition over the single piece of copper that still goes into most households, by splitting off the local loop? Does he see that as the best way of generating unmetered calls and all the packages that we want?
  Mr. White: It is not the only way, but I would not object to it.
  I find it distressing that e-commerce is referred to as something new, which suddenly appeared out of a vacuum, with no history. Electronic commerce is not just the internet. Britain leads the world in electronic data interchange. We were responsible for a range of electronic innovations that are used when people make credit or debit card transactions over the phone. We must remember that, and learn from it. I ask the Minister to consider how the credit card industry started, and the ways in which credit cards have come to dominate the market. Although the industry's speed of change over the past 20 or 30 years is different from that of the net, there are similarities in market regulation and the way in which electronic communication has facilitated the interaction between shopkeepers and banks. The two industries are not exactly the same, but there are a number of similarities to build on.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton raised an important point. The internet is not one thing, nor will it become one thing—it will be a range of technologies, linked to the web. Intranets and secure market places, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will become increasingly important. They have different regulatory requirements from consumers interacting with an open system. There are very important considerations when it comes to secondary legislation.
  The growth of call centres raises a number of issues. The Competition Commission is carrying out an investigation into the ice cream industry. Walls Direct is in my constituency, and I shall not use this debate to argue the rights and wrongs of such an investigation, but it has a direct effect on how e-commerce can develop or be retarded. It is important that regulatory bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission—I am not including Oftel—recognise the impact that their decisions have on electronic commerce and on what we are doing in making Britain a leader in electronic commerce.
  With electronic commerce, we are talking about a global economy, not simply about Britain and the European Union. Decisions made by regulatory bodies in France and other countries, particularly the United States, have an impact on us. It is critical that we get the international agreements right.
  The Competition Commission needs to consider new entrants as well as existing players. One problem with electronic commerce is that many of the key players are new entrants to the market—they did not exist when consultation took place in March, and that illustrates the speed of change.

  69
  My local newspaper runs a forum on its web page, to which anyone can contribute on the subject of their choice. I go through it regularly to respond to constituents on local issues. Somebody contributed an e-mail item about a court case and a paedophile. The item was withdrawn from the forum because it was considered libellous. A newspaper could have gone to its solicitors and published the article or not, depending on the solicitor's advice, but, because the item was transmitted instantaneously, with some people seeing it and responding, there was an argument about the legal definitions of when an internet service provider can withdraw such items. That example, although not about commerce, illustrates the change that has occurred, in that electronic commerce is instantaneous, and there is not necessarily time to obtain the legal advice, as there would traditionally have been.
  This is a useful Bill, and I welcome it. Unlike the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, I think that part I is important, for one simple reason. Although I hope that it is not used, and agree that it should not be, its inclusion gives the industry the impetus to create a voluntary system. The hon. Gentleman talked about the internet watch foundation—an excellent example of what should have happened and will, I am sure, happen. I hope that, when five years are up, the sunset clause will be implemented.
  One of my concerns about part I, however, relates to fees, whether charged on a voluntary or statutory basis. We must learn from our experience with the Food Standards Agency fees. One standard fee leads to problems for small businesses, while a sliding scale leads to questions of fairness. Why should larger companies pay massive sums to subsidise smaller ones? I do not have an answer, but we must get the issue right.
  It is important to have a problem-solving mechanism in the voluntary system, as it evolves, so that the Government and the industry can resolve any concerns. One of the worst things that the Government could say is, "We have a problem. That is the end of the scheme, and we will implement part I." The Government should include problem resolution in their dialogue with the industry, and I am sure that they will.
  Part I will have an impact on other consumer legislation. We must ensure that that legislation outlined in "Modern markets: confident consumers"—the Government's consumer White Paper—is compatible with part I and does not unintentionally implement it through the back door ahead of time or undermine what we are trying to do in agreements with the industry. Part I will give the industry a spur towards achieving a voluntary system, and allow it to do so in a flexible manner. What is right now may not be right in three or five years. The scheme must be allowed to evolve to accommodate changing technology.
  It was interesting to compare part II with the Irish and Canadian examples. I think that the Government have got it about right. About five years ago, I wanted to introduce a scheme to replace all the mortgage deeds held by the company for which I worked, as they took up miles of corridor space. However, the lawyers told me that that was impossible, as each deed had to be written on a piece of paper bearing a seal. It is of critical importance to recognise that the problem goes beyond electronic signatures and includes the sealing of deeds. We must
  70
  ensure that the electronic equivalents of deeds and seals are included in the provisions. I am therefore especially pleased with part II.
  However, the Bill will permit individual Government Departments to operate at different speeds. I am worried that not every Minister will share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Bill, and that some—especially if, God forbid, we get another Conservative Government—may not want to adopt its provisions. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to set a timetable and to encourage other Ministers to adhere to it.
  When they were set, I considered that the targets for attaining electronic government were right. However, although it has been argued that key escrow was a valid consideration in 1996, we have now moved beyond that point. The time has come to review those targets and to consider whether they are still appropriate, given the changes in technology since they were adopted.
  I congratulate the Government on the inclusion in the latest ministerial handbook of every Minister's e-mail address. I am delighted at that, as I hate writing letters and e-mails are much easier.
  I am pleased that the old part III has been removed, and I welcome clause 13, which is excellent. I was worried that it applied only to part I, but I was reassured on that point—and delighted as a result—by what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier.
  When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister, I mentioned Oftel. The old saying is that anyone not part of the solution is part of the problem, and I continue to regard Oftel as part of the problem. Oftel will investigate complaints about any telecommunications company, but the process could take two to four internet years—about six to 12 months. Even when a solution is reached, it will not necessarily be implemented. The process takes far too long.
  Oftel is also guilty of considering only the current state of the competitive market. It does not take into account the future and what we are trying to achieve. Do Oftel's decisions encourage or discourage e-commerce? I believe that it has a duty to encourage it.
  Oftel says that it does not need more powers to encourage e-commerce. I disagree: however, if it really does not need new powers, it should make more use of the ones that it already has.
  I understand that France Telecom in Paris has introduced an asynchronous digital subscriber loop system for £25 a month. That system is available now. BT has suggested that its system, which will be available at some unspecified future date, will cost about £60 a month. I am worried that we are slipping behind in that respect. The magazine Communications Week International stated:
  "At first sight, the UK will have the most expensive DSL system in the world."
  Last week's decision by BT gets one cheer from me. Oftel must take seriously the question of the local loop, and offer proposals. BT staff say that they are happy to accommodate Oftel's decisions and to deliver on them, but Oftel must take the lead and take a long-term view about where the competitive market is headed. There is a temptation for BT to decide to delay the introduction of ADSL because the lease line system is very profitable. I hope that the company does not give in to that temptation, and that it introduces ADSL as soon as possible.

  71
  The new part III requires a confident regulator with modern powers. Although the changes to part III are welcome and right, we need Oftel to go further.
  The warning has been given before that e-commerce might create information haves and have-nots. Much talk has been devoted to ways in which that problem might be avoided or rectified, but the key lies in the interaction between Government and industry on the one hand, and voluntary groups and local communities—both geographical and in terms of shared interests—on the other.
  Many information technology pilot schemes are under way around the country, and the one in Lewisham is the most famous example. However, they do not cover the whole country. One of the biggest challenges facing the Government is to translate successful pilot schemes into schemes that offer something to everyone.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is critically important to get electronic banking right? Given that the world of e-commerce is based on credit and credit cards, many of the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is talking will be excluded.
  Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. The growth of institutions such as E.Bank, First Bank, Egg and others is an important step forward, which I welcome. That development will transform the way in which the internet is used, just as direct marketing via telephone lines did three or four years ago. An important development is taking place, and the Government should facilitate investment in the new companies coming on line.
  I mentioned the Competition Commission earlier, and a regulatory framework needs to be put in place for e-commerce. The financial markets and the Treasury must recognise that they need to facilitate e-commerce. The Bill is therefore extremely important, but it could fail if other bodies put obstacles in its way. The Government must have a joined-up approach. I welcome the fact that we have an e-Minister, and an e-envoy who knows his way around the civil service, but we must not allow the problems that I have outlined to take root. It is encouraging that the Government recognise the danger, but they must also deliver when it comes to avoiding it.
  I am also made uneasy by the innovations that are taking place. We talk about electronic communications, but there is no guarantee that innovations will be confined to that field. For example, although I am not sure that the solid state transference systems already operating in laboratories are covered by the Bill, the Government need to be aware of the issues that such innovation raises.
  If I can agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about anything, it is with his comments about language. I wholeheartedly endorse what he said about the need for our legislation to be written in plain and non-sexist language. This Bill is one of the better examples of the use of non-sexist language, but it still refers unnecessarily often to "him", "he", "it", and so on. Such references are not needed, and I plead with the parliamentary draftsmen to recognise that we are not living in the 18th century.
  Mr. Baldry: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978,
  72
  which date back almost 100 years, any Act of Parliament allows us to construes the word "she" whenever "he" is used? It is a totally neutral word.
  Mr. White: I accept that there is such an Act, but not that that position is valid. If business, local authorities and most people outside can use non-sexist language as a norm, there is no reason why this place cannot.
  I support this much-needed Bill. The changes that it makes will benefit this country, but other changes in respect of infrastructure and of obstacles in government and business must also be tackled.
  I congratulate the Government on listening to industry. Industry said that it did not believe that the original provisions were right and asked for change. The Government listened and changed the Bill. That is a foundation for success.
  I also congratulate the Government on securing a double whammy by helping British business while exposing the divisions among the Tories and their hatred of the European Union. One has only to mention Europe and they find a reason to vote against things. Opposing the Bill, as the Tories want us to tonight, would damage the United Kingdom's lead on e-commerce. I congratulate the Government on resisting that, and on the Bill.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Unfortunately, owing to a prior engagement, for which I could find no substitute, I shall have to leave before the end of the debate. I have notified Madam Speaker and the Minister.
  I have a small business, although it is not particularly an electronic communication business. My interest is that, like many businesses, we hope increasingly to use such means.
  I know that the Government attach particular importance to the Bill because Her Majesty has announced it twice. I congratulate the Department of Trade and Industry to the extent that, over time, it listened to very real criticisms. The Bill has shrunk and shrunk, for which many of us are grateful. We are particularly glad that the Department has excised part III of the draft Bill, which had no place in trade and industry legislation. It would have been better suited to the Home Office.
  The final Bill is slim, but I regret that I must still question the relevance of some of its remaining limbs. Its ultimate aim is to facilitate the growth of e-commerce. The DTI's press release states that the Bill is designed
  "to develop the UK as the best environment world-wide in which to trade electronically."
  Liberal Democrats support that because electronic efficiency will increase overall wealth by raising economic efficiency.
  I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is important that traders recognise that the internet offers a new system of trading. Conventional trading techniques cannot simply be translated into cyberspace. I said that I have my own business. Many colleagues would expect me to say that I have an established web presence and that everything is up and running, but that is not the case. Instead, having, I hope, amended our computer systems to ensure that they will not be hit by the millennium bug, we are carefully re-examining our sales strategy and products in conjunction with a marketing company. We will soon be looking to market our

  73
  products through e-commerce. It is important that business does not think that e-commerce is the answer, that one can simply slap something on a page and that is the end of it. The matter must be considered. I hope that the forthcoming Small Business Service will help to facilitate matters, especially for the small business community.
  I well remember that when I was first elected to the House I was one of those who spoke about the millennium bug. I will not embarrass anyone, but a question on the subject was referred to the Minister responsible for the millennium dome. While there may be problems with the dome, that was not the force of the question. I take my hat off to the many hon. Members who know a lot about the subject, but many colleagues clearly knew nothing about it two and a half years ago. That extended to Ministers. It is important to educate people about electronic commerce.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is leaving. He rightly expressed concern about the cost of transmission. The Minister referred to the number of different options with, for example, mobile phones and suggested that that could be a way forward. I accept that, but the choice of systems is wide and it is not always easy to choose the most relevant, cheap and applicable one.
  This morning I visited Meadvale primary school in my constituency, where I learned something that is relevant to the debate. I saw for the first time a system whereby the lesson—in this case a geography lesson—was projected straight from a computer on to the wall. The system is quite expensive, but the school was able to employ it through special funding. Children could see the whole globe on the screen. It could be adjusted to show the country concerned. My point is that this is another means by which we should be able to communicate sales or other messages within companies or to other companies.
  I will concentrate on the Bill's two substantive sections: the setting up of the approved cryptography provider register and the legal status of electronic signatures. I am not sure that the section on approved cryptography providers could not have been dropped altogether. That is the opinion of the Law Society. The case for such a register has not been convincingly made. The market is developing fast. Lack of confidence in cryptographic efficiency is not a significant barrier to trade.
  Mr. Allan: Does my hon. Friend share my experience of common information technology standards? Their great joy is that there are so many from which to choose. Is he worried that the cryptography service may fall into the same trap as other Government-promoted standards such as those for networks, whereby the Government produce a scheme that industry rejects because it has moved on years by the time that it is implemented?
  Mr. Cotter: Exactly. I hope that the Minister understands that point of concern and will address it.
  I welcome the clause that explicitly forbids the introduction of requirements for key escrow. I shall not say much about that because many hon. Members have covered it. The fact that the Government feel obliged to put a curb on their secondary powers is of concern.
  Mr. Duncan: I am most encouraged by the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with so much of what I said. Do Liberal Democrats intend to vote with the Opposition on our reasoned amendment?
  Mr. Cotter: We are concerned about many points, and we shall listen closely to the Minister's response.
  74
  Although the Bill has some faults, we shall be able to discuss it in Committee. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton pointed out, the Bill has its faults, but it also has some merit. We shall consider carefully what the Government say. The welter of reserve powers is of great concern, and occurs increasingly in Bills introduced by the Labour Government.
  Another problem relates to a basic concept of the legal process. At present, a signature is valid only if one intends to make it so. In any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who intends to rely on the signature, not on the person who is alleged to have made it. I am concerned that that distinction is in danger of being overturned by the measure. The evidential weight of a signature certified by an approved provider will be in favour of its recipient.
  If consumers receive goods or services that they claim not to have ordered, a supplier may be able to hold them liable simply on the grounds of receipt of their electronic signature, and the burden of proof will be on consumers to prove that they did not make it.
  Mr. Allan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the phenomenon of "granny chose a weak password and lost her house"? It applies where a grandson uses a computer to send something with a signature that was apparently valid, and—exactly for the reasons to which my hon. Friend referred—the consumer is held liable. If people cannot have confidence in their passwords, and the security of their home tenure, it will undermine the whole of e-commerce.
  Mr. Cotter: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the light of earlier comments about including both genders, it would cover not only grannies but grandfathers. The Bill needs some tightening in respect of signatures.
  Problems arise in relation to secondary powers and provisions that confer legislative powers on other Departments. The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce referred to sunset regulation. She also answered a question about whether the Home Office would be able to overrule the Bill, and made several other points. I look forward to hearing those points strengthened later in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Department had stopped the transmission of an e-mail, and asked the Minister for an explanation. I understand that it contained a somewhat rude reference to a judge. I am not sure whether that was grounds for not permitting the transmission.
  The Government's aims are admirable, and we welcome the slimmed-down Bill. It is important that we should have a Bill, but we urge the Government to consider the concerns expressed by Liberal Democrats and others, so that we can produce a Bill that we can all support.
  7.4 pm
  Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important and timely debate, because, in the last few days of the second millennium, it is fitting that we should prepare for the demands of the third. Those demands are already with us. It is not only the century and the millennium that are coming to an end;

  75
  as we speak, our old ways of communicating, trading and gathering information are on the way out. We are in the middle of a change so swift and so silent that many of us are scarcely aware of it. None the less it is there, and it is profound.
  During our debate, people throughout Britain have been buying clothes in America, books in London, shares in Australia, gifts in Scotland, cars in Bristol and groceries down the road—all without leaving their homes. Sitting at screens in their bedrooms and living rooms, people are looking for jobs, debiting and crediting their bank accounts, downloading information and entertainment and chatting with friends on the other side of the world. If they want, they can go on all night or all weekend, or throughout all public holidays. That is a radical change in our use of time. It is a 24-hour world, with 24-hour trading, communication and information available, globally, at the click of a mouse.
  I welcome that. As a mother with children scattered all over the world, whose working hours are unsociable, to say the least, that change is a real boon—especially at this time of year, when, with alarming regularity, I remember that there are only 25 shopping days until Christmas, that I have bought only two presents and that I do not know to whom to give them. Christmas is hard on the feet and on the wallet; on-line shopping does nothing for the second, but does wonders for the first.
  It is estimated that the British people—including my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness—will spend £14.2 billion on Christmas this year. As 13 million of us now have access to the internet, it is fair to assume that a sizeable amount of that money will be spent on-line. With 10,900 users coming on-line every day in Britain, that amount can only rise. In a year, the 179 million people who use the internet worldwide will rise to 250 million. Much of that growth will be in Europe, where it is predicted that one in three households will be on-line by 2004. Let us hope that much of that growth will take place in Britain. At present, we are second to Germany in the league table. By 2003, I want Britain to have the largest number of internet users in Europe.
  Predictions for the growth of internet usage suggest slow but steady growth. Predictions for the growth of e-commerce suggest a sudden dramatic rise. In February this year, the market for e-commerce was estimated to be worth £12 billion; by 2004, it is predicted that it will reach £1 trillion. With figures like those, British businesses have no alternative but to go on-line. Many of them are on-line—especially retailers. That move may revive the fortunes of our high streets, where the reduction in the pressure for space resulting from the bigger supermarkets moving out may allow smaller niche stores to take advantage of the trend towards leisure shopping for unusual, individual items. I welcome that.
  Most of the supermarkets are already on-line. Even the venerable Marks and Spencer went on-line at the weekend, although, admittedly, only to 1,000 select customers in Beaconsfield. I am not sure why Beaconsfield was chosen for the pilot scheme. Perhaps it has something to do with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister piloted his political career in that constituency, so perhaps it is a good area for pilots.
  76
  Banking on-line is well under way. Young people, in particular, prefer on-line accounts. As someone who, 30 years ago, worked in the hallowed marble halls of banks, I know how intimidating they are. On-line accounts are much more accessible, flexible and user-friendly; they are also far cheaper. However, the culture of call centres obviously needs a shake-up.
  On-line share dealing is relatively new, but it is already enormously popular and it helps small investors to take on the mammoth firms. The launch of cut-price brokers has slashed the cost of buying and selling shares. Not surprisingly, the number of web-based share deals has more than tripled during the past few months. Small investors are making about 50,000 internet share deals a month, compared with fewer than 10,000 in January 1999. In the United States, where web-based share dealing began as recently as two years ago, a quarter of all trading is now done on-line, and 5 million people buy and sell electronically every day. Thanks to on-line information, small investors are coming into their own.
  One of the newest developments on-line is the giving of donations, especially to the third world. I welcome the part that the Grameen bank—one of the leading groups in micro-financing in the third world—has played in bringing the internet to places such as India and Bangladesh. A subsidiary of the Grameen bank is now the largest internet provider in Bangladesh.
  There is also much talk of third-world countries using the internet to make direct contact with firms in the first and second worlds, to deal directly with them, cut out the middle people and get a fair deal for their goods. That, like the other lightning-quick changes associated with the internet, poses problems for individuals, trading blocs and, in particular, Governments—problems that require careful and considered responses if they are not to kill the very thing that they are trying to foster.
  Therefore, I am glad that the Bill, although a long time in coming, has been out to consultation twice before coming to the House. I am also glad that the Government took seriously the comments of those consulted, and amended the Bill in parts. We should be proud of the result. It addresses the concerns of consumers and producers alike, without overburdening them with regulation—a difficult balance to achieve—and despite the language, on which I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I thank those who drafted it.
  On-line shoppers, bankers and share dealers throughout the world want security and confidentiality in their dealings on the net. Without that, we shall not get the trust necessary to develop the potential of the new technology. That is illustrated by a headline in this weekend's edition of the Sunday Express—
  "We're afraid the 'E' stands for easily cheated"
  says Simon Hinde, commenting on the software malfunction that caused a security breach in a major bank last week and allowed people to view other people's shares, causing a great deal of anxiety.
  The Bill addresses some of that anxiety, especially with the introduction of electronic signatures, which are vital for the building of that trust. Part I, which provides for a list of the providers of electronic signatures, is also vital. We need the information, we need to know who the best providers are and we need the voluntary kitemark to which providers are being asked to subscribe.

  77
  I welcome all the provisions of the Bill, and I especially welcome the help that it will give my region. The eastern region, although one of the most developed areas, still lags behind London in its use of e-mail. Eighty-one per cent. of firms in London use e-mail, as opposed to 57 per cent. in the eastern region. That shows that we have a problem with take-up, because in the eastern region we have as many computers with modems as people have in London, but there is 23 per cent. under-usage of those PCs.
  Mr. Cotter: Would the hon. Lady elaborate? Does she feel that that under-usage results from the fact that people are not well enough informed or from the costs of transmission?
  Barbara Follett: I have spoken to businesses in my area about that. It is partly to do with the costs—although those businesses have invested in PCs—and partly to do with lack of training, but mainly to do with lack of confidence. People believe that if they put out on the net their signature, or something confidential, it can be read. In some cases, that fear is still well founded. People cannot be sure that their e-mails will be confidential.
  The Bill goes a long way to restore that trust and confidence, so I welcome it. I know that, when it becomes law, people in the eastern region will feel better about giving credit card details. Worldwide transactions on the net are most often aborted when people are asked to key in their credit card number. Therefore, the net is being used much more as a marketing tool than as a purchasing tool. If we want to gain the maximum benefit from it, we must ensure that it is also used for buying and selling goods. That is such a challenge in the east of England that the development agency considers that its main task in the next few years is to encourage the spread of e-commerce.
  As the Government will be doing 90 per cent. of their routine procurement on-line by 2000, businesses must take up the net. They must meet the challenge of that new technology. Furthermore, if we are going to face the future—the future in which we have set-top boxes and can access the net in ways other than by using PCs—we must ensure that people have confidence in that technology.
  I look forward to the day when I can access NHS Direct as NHS on-line, interactively with my television or my PC, but I know that I shall want that information to be confidential. Who wants to share their bunions with the rest of the world, still less with the rest of the press? However, if I can be certain that my personal information will remain confidential, such access will be a marvellous tool. The Bill goes a long way to ensure that we meet, and are prepared for, the future.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I start with two declarations of interest and two apologies. My first declaration of interest is the one in the Register of Members' Interests. I am chairman of a United Kingdom subsidiary of a Saudi Arabian company which owns one of the seven internet licences in Saudi Arabia. Other companies with which I am involved also have internet interests.
  My second declaration is that I shall speak on behalf of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The Committee has 11 members, 10 of whom are in Sweden
  78
  at present. I am sure that they are doing very valuable parliamentary business there. I am the only member who appears not to be in Sweden, so it has fallen to me to speak in the debate on behalf of the Committee. For reasons that I shall explain, the Committee has done a fair amount of work on the Bill. I hope to share some of our—unanimous—thoughts with the House; during this Parliament, all our reports have been unanimous.
  My first apology is that, in the Bill and the debate, there are many words that one just has to assume that everyone understands. Perhaps Hansard should include a glossary of terms such as escrow, encryption and T schemes. One must assume that everyone who takes part in the debate understands those terms, because it would otherwise be difficult to communicate.
  My second apology is as follows. I discovered a little while ago, when things such as A to Zs and telephone directories became a blur, that I needed glasses. I have not yet cracked how to read and look at the Chamber simultaneously, and I have a choice: either hon. Members will be a blur or what I want to read will be a blur. I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I decide that it is preferable that they should be a blur and that I can read what I want to say.
  The Select Committee has been considering e-commerce for more than a year. As I believe that we have all heard, proposals for the Bill have now been in two Queen's speeches. So for the first few months of 1999, the Select Committee was in a curious position: we began to take oral and written evidence, but the Government were unable or unwilling to produce a Green Paper or a White Paper, let alone a Bill. We had to respond to proposals of uncertain weight.
  In March, a consultation document proposed, among other things, a statutory voluntary licensing scheme for cryptography service providers, a legal regime for electronic signatures centred on the introduction of a rebuttable presumption, the promotion of key escrow and key recovery technologies without making key escrow a criterion for licensing, and power for the law enforcement authorities to require keys or decoded texts under the equivalent of a warrant. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry considered the consultation document's proposals swiftly and reported in May. We recommended that there was a need to justify the rebuttable presumption regime, that powers to introduce a statutory scheme should come about only if a self-regulatory scheme was seen to fail, and that key escrow should be dropped altogether in favour of the proposed new power.
  In June, the Select Committee reported on a range of e-commerce issues not in the legislative programme. In July, the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit reported on a similar range of topics and, at the end of July, the Government published a Command Paper containing the reply to our report and the draft Bill. I am glad to say that the draft Bill adopted the Committee's recommendation that a statutory scheme should be introduced only when a voluntary scheme was seen to have failed, followed the Committee's lead and abandoned rebuttable presumption in favour of prevailing legal doctrines, and dropped key escrow promotion.
  Earlier, it was said that the Government had listened to industry and business. I hope that, in taking evidence, the Select Committee also provided a way by which those concerned could make their views known to the House.

  79
  By producing a report, I hope that we were able to consolidate and harmonise those views. It is to the Government's credit that they took on board the unanimous report of the Select Committee.
  The Select Committee does not hang about—indeed, we worked over the summer and produced a report based on the previous evidence. The Minister was once a member of the Committee, but he found the pace so fast that he asked the Whips whether he could be transferred to a job in government; he found it too difficult to keep up with us. The Committee considered the Department of Trade and Industry's response to written questions and the responses received by the Department about the draft Bill. It agreed a report on this draft Bill in late October. The report was published on 3 November and made several detailed recommendations.
  It would be fair to say that the Select Committee welcomed the Bill. We welcome clause 13, which is in part III. It is a crucial new provision that responds to the Select Committee's recommendation that the Bill should explicitly exclude the use of key escrow as a criterion for accreditation under a statutory regime. Of course, more information is required on some subjects. In particular, information is required on the timetable for the commencement of parts I and II, on a draft of the T scheme and on its start date, which will be independent of the Act, and on the level of fees. Doubtless, such issues will be dealt with in Committee.
  Some measures have been added to the draft Bill that require explicit justification. They include the clause 8(3) change to relax the criteria for record keeping of electronic storage or communication, and the clause 9(6) rider, which expands the scope of orders made under clause 8. Part III, which was formerly part IV, on telecommunications licence modifications, is not only an ever more evident add-on, but raises fresh unease because it will give added powers to the director to decide what constitutes a significant minority for objections. There has been no sign of movement on the process for changes deemed regulatory, but it is balanced by an attempt to clarify grounds for appeal.
  I suspect that the members of the Select Committee and of the Standing Committee will want to ask specific questions. It would unfair to detain the House on those points now, because they are matters for Committee. However, it will be good if the Government can keep the House and industry abreast of the implementation dates for various provisions in the Bill. They are not always self-evident from the Bill and people will want to know when the different provisions will apply.
  Although it is a narrow Bill, its provisions are clearly worth implementing. I hope that the kitemark of approval and the Bill itself will start to encourage consumer confidence. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) made a sensible and proportionate contribution and she made it clear—I think that everyone would agree with this—that although the internet and e-commerce are expanding exponentially, huge numbers of people are wary of using the internet simply because they are worried about fraud. If the Bill can help reassure consumers that such fraud will not take place, it will promote consumer confidence and e-commerce in this country.
  80
  Whatever we do in legislation, concerns will remain with which legislation simply cannot deal. In an earlier report, the Select Committee expressed concern about what is known in shorthand as the "digital divide", through which the poor and the elderly feel excluded from the internet. It is not easy to legislate for that problem, but public policy should be concerned about it. As public policy makes provision for services, such as NHS services, to become more readily and more easily available on the internet, we must recognise that, for all sort of reasons, some people will for a long time find the internet difficult to use.
  Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that voluntary groups have a key role to play in ensuring that access to the internet and similar facilities is available to all? I commend the example of Sweden and Finland, which have gone down that route. Does he think that such an approach is useful?
  Mr. Baldry: When my colleagues return from Sweden, I am sure that they will bring with them good news about that. I visited a college of further education in Banbury the other day and saw signs for a course entitled, "Computing for the terrified". I have enlisted for the next course that the college runs.
  On Europe, it is important that we recognise the value of the European Union's internal market as our marketplace. In so far as the Bill sets a precedent for the rest of the European Community, it will be good news. However, the Standing Committee considering the Bill must recognise that the European single market is our domestic market and that we must consider liabilities and consumer rights in the internal market. I accept, however, that that will involve complex issues, such as when contracts are signed.
  Will the Minister say a little more about the e-envoy or e-tsar? Everyone now seems to be a tsar, and I am looking forward to being appointed one. Some of us are not allowed to sit on the Opposition Front Bench, so perhaps a few more "tsarships" could be given out. It strikes me that one of the great virtues of the Russian royal family was that everyone seemed to be related to one other and everyone had a title.
  The story of the e-envoy is not a happy one because that seems to be a virtual appointment, and he or she has a role to demonstrate that e-commerce is not all pornography, gambling and electronic boot sales. I suspect, however, that the e-envoy has a very important role, but I am not sure that it has been fully or sufficiently promulgated to the House, to industry or more widely.
  If or when the Bill obtains its Second Reading, the Minister and the Department might consider using the vast army of Government information officers to ensure that more work is done in the business pages and in the media generally to explain the Bill, not to those who are already knowledgeable about it, but to the broad sweep of people in business or commerce. They will want more clearly to understand the Government's proposals and what exactly people such as the e-envoy will do.
  I have seen the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the Opposition have decided collectively that they must vote against the Bill. As I believe in collective government and therefore in collective opposition, I shall join my colleagues in

  81
  the Lobby. Suffice it to say that the Select Committee's recommendations were unanimous and, on behalf of the Select Committee, I thank the Government in so far as they have listened to those recommendations.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Thirty years ago last month, the internet was born. It connected nuclear scientists in a restricted number of universities across America, courtesy of the Pentagon. I suppose that today we would call that an intranet. A second system was then devised that linked all academia in America. That was our first e-mail system, and it is called the internet.
  Eight years ago, however, a Brit, Tim Berners-Lee, working at the CERN laboratories in Switzerland, gave us a brand new language—www, or the worldwide web— and the modern graphical internet arrived to change our lives. Tim, who is not yet Sir Tim or even Lord Web, ought to be a vice-chancellor or a professor of computation in the United Kingdom, but alas he works at the media laboratory at Harvard. Although we have just announced a link between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge, it is a pity that we have not properly enabled Imperial college, which is easily the best science and technology centre of excellence in the United Kingdom. Imperial already outstrips Oxford, and ought to be given university status of its own and the chance to become our own Stanford university. However, I digress.
  Before discussing the Bill, I should put on record that I am the—alas unremunerated—non-executive chairman of the council of Clicksure, which has offices in Oxford and Washington DC. Clicksure is an ethical—I must be careful about the use of that word—standards association on the internet which analyses websites.
  Last week, on the BBC show "Watchdog", Anne Robinson took great pleasure in upsetting a website called "lastminute.com", which is a brilliant site run by a brilliant UK company. Somehow the "Watchdog" team managed to book two tickets from its site with a dodgy credit card. Had "lastminute.com" been clicksured, that could not have happened. Clicksure evaluates a website to check that it is safe, so that consumers can trust it. That has some relevance to today's discussions of the Bill.
  I am also the founder of the World Internet Forum. This morning, we addressed more than 60 ambassadors and their staff on the subject of the forum, which will take place in Oxford next September. The World Internet Forum aims to become a portal for public services in the world.
  E-commerce can have the most stimulating effect on a company's bottom line. Let us consider Cisco, the US Nasdaq-listed router company, which worked out that the cost of a conventional invoice was just over $100. When it switched to electronic invoicing, it saved a cool $600 million in the first year because the average cost of the same invoice was just under 50 cents. I wonder where the innovation in this country is when a company such as Cisco can show us the way.
  The Bill has been a long time in gestation, but it is all the better for it. It is in three parts, and I shall discuss each one, in reverse order. The last part, which deals with telecommunications issues, is a bolt-on and clears up issues dating back to 1984. I shall not detain the House
  82
  further on that because I have noted that the Minister has already agreed to go out to wider consultation on that; and it needs wider consultation.
  The middle part, entitled "Facilitation of electronic commerce, data storage, etc.", deals only with electronic signatures, and I want to address the problem of voice signatures. I shall try to explain the new technology that is already on the market, which inverts the www language, and is currently called "mmm". Mmm is part of the WAP—the wireless application protocol. I shall try to explain how it works.
  I have said before that the House is not kitted out for the 21st century, but I have here a tri-band mobile phone which is currently on sale in the United Kingdom. It is voice-activated, as most phones are, but in this case I mean that I can gain internet access by talking to it. I can phone a number and by talking via the website on the phone I can ask for the train times from Sittingbourne to Victoria. That information will be voice-activated and sent back to me.
  Hon. Members may ask what that has to do with signatures, but what if I were phoning my bank? There would have to be a voice signature for the new technology as well as an electronic signature. I want better to understand whether the electronic signature arrangement adequately covers the voice wireless application protocol. I can see civil servants nodding and I will be reassured if that is the case.
  Mr. Duncan: Is not voice recognition a form of unique encryption which is delivered electronically? I therefore guess, and hope, that it is included in the Bill.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am getting reassurance from the civil servants who drafted the Bill. Let us wait and see whether that is the case.
  I am not quite sure which Department would be responsible for the second part of the technology that I shall describe, but I shall try to explain it clearly. I have here a mobile phone and a credit card. I am sure that hon. Members understand what those things are, but from next year, credit cards will change and will contain a chip. That can be inserted in the phone, and, using the voice mode, I can phone and order money to be downloaded on to the card, or I can tell the card to purchase jeans or anything else that I want to buy.
  For that technology to be effective, a third party must hold my details, such as the interests that I subscribe to, which include Charlton Athletic and English rugby. I would therefore have to trust the details of the card to a third-party holder. That is not provided for in data protection legislation. That technology is already available in trials, and 1,000 such phones are on trial in Leeds this week. They are also on trial in Finland and America.
  Changes are occurring in the way in which the internet is accessed and credit cards are used. If one says, as the Opposition do, "Let us not have regulation," I reply that we have to be careful not only to explain what is happening to the UK population but to make sure that we

  83
  have a proper safety environment. That is why I think that you are wrong, if you do not mind my saying so, about your opposition to that part of the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Chair is never wrong.
  Mr. Wyatt: I wish that I could get away with saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I want to know, as the technology is currently available, whether there will be an opportunity to include it in the Bill, so that the Bill is the best that we can provide.
  That brings me back to the light-touch framework that we have agreed on. The basic issues of the internet are ones of trust. We have to make sure that when we order goods, we receive what we ordered. It is very easy to trust amazon.com.uk. Why? All the credit card companies came together and guaranteed purchases from amazon.com.uk. Unfortunately, not every credit card company will give its guarantee that every one of the 10 million websites can be trusted. We need to develop a common trust—a way of branding a website front page, so that when people see the brand, such as the Clicksure, Consumers Association or "Which?" brands, they will know that the site is safe and secure. The more the Government can do in that respect, the better, and that is what is laid out in the Bill.
  Dr. Palmer: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, efforts in the United States to develop some sort of kitemark have run into difficulty, because a great many websites display some form of kitemark, but do not fulfil the functions envisaged for it. Does he have views on how we should tackle that problem, so as to prevent our kitemark from being discredited?
  Mr. Wyatt: That is a tough problem, and I do not think that there is a technical solution to it.
  The first part of the Bill, entitled "Cryptography service providers", is the most interesting. However, I have a problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to ease my concerns. The internet is global, but in the Bill, we are agreeing a UK signature scheme inside a European framework. Fifty-eight per cent. of our business is in Europe and 12 per cent. in America. What is the validity of a UK signature on the one hand, and an American signature on the other, on an electronic document?
  In addition, we have to take into account enlargement of the EU, which currently encompasses 15 countries, but which might include as many as 28 in future. Not all those countries are internet friendly or internet savvy, so what will be the legal position in respect of the directive in countries other than the current 15?
  I struggle with the question of where in the world we are to draw up a global standard. I am not sure it will be the United Nations and I doubt it will be UNESCO; it might be the G8, but that might not be fair; I hope it will be the World Internet Forum, but I might be prejudiced. We have to consider the issue, because signatures must be uniform; otherwise, America will determine the rules by default, based on the fact that 90 per cent. of all servers are American and 92 per cent. of all traffic is either American or goes to America. We do not want America to take all the trade, and thus all the tax.
  84
  I know that OECD committees are struggling with that issue and with ways in which to account for VAT and corporation tax. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce referred my attention to a commendable Customs and Excise paper that she received on Friday. I hope that it is more reassuring than the telephone conversations I have had with representatives of Customs and Excise.
  Let me explain the problem. When ordering CD-ROMs from Amazon.com, one is allowed to order only £18 pounds' worth before becoming liable for purchase tax or VAT. However, the orders go through at such an alarming rate that Customs and Excise would have to treble or quadruple its staff to measure how much VAT was leviable. Hundreds of pounds worth of goods can be delivered to one's home, but one will not be asked to pay any VAT. Where is tax to be paid? How is it to be collected?
  Mr. Gibb: When goods are ordered from abroad by phone or by post, if they come in a parcel—as physical goods—Federal Express or whoever delivers the parcel independently and charges the buyer VAT and duty on the goods. There is no difference if the goods are ordered via new technology.
  Mr. Wyatt: That is not the case—I have talked the issue through with Customs and Excise. It ought to be so, but it is not.
  The other EU-related problem arises from its attempt to base its regulations on country of origin. How big a police force would the EU need to police the net when trillions of deals are done on it every day?
  I support the unmetered calls brigade. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce also favours such a move, and I wonder whether she can give us a clue as to how it can gradually be introduced, initially to socially excluded people. A gradual approach, extending over the next two years, should be taken to the introduction of unmetered calls, so that poorer families receive the benefit first.
  I have led the campaign in the House to end BT's local loop monopoly. It should be broken up sooner than Oftel recommended. Mention has been made of the Oftel culture, an example of which is that Oftel agreed that the local loop should be broken up, but gave BT 18 months to gets its opposition in first. However, there is no logical reason why the local loop cannot be broken up tomorrow.
  I hope I can persuade Ministers to consider how we can become a smarter nation, even though the matter is not covered by the Bill. In 1951, we gave a tonic to the nation, and I hope that in 2001 we can give a present to the nation. The Millennium Commission ceases on 31 December 2000, giving us an opportunity to reallocate the lottery money. I am making a pitch for infrastructure to become something on which lottery money can be spent. It would be wonderful if, on 1 January 2001, we could give every home an internet machine, thus becoming the smartest community in the world. We can afford it, the lottery money is there, and it would be a fantastic gesture.
  The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the Government
  "has set itself targets for making Government services available electronically: 25 per cent. by 2002, 50 per cent. by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008. The Government has also set a target for 90 per cent. of its routine procurement of goods to be done electronically by 2001."

  85
  Over the past two years, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has ultimate responsibility for dealing with the millennium bug, and I have engaged in friendly debate. I asked her to produce a league table of Departments to enable us to assess risks from the bug Department by Department. Eventually, a sort of league table was agreed.
  In the same spirit, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce to designate a single Minister to be responsible for procurement delivery systems—it would be helpful if it were she. May we also be told the name of the Minister in each Department who is responsible for procurement? As was done in respect of the millennium bug, would a quarterly report to the House be possible, to enable the House to know how each Department was implementing the electronic delivery system?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I was interested to read the hon. Gentleman's comments, published on the BBC news website. He said:
  "The trouble is that many traditional Labour people come from the public sector and they are the last people to understand where we are on this."
  Will he confirm that those were his comments? Does he think that the necessary talent to fulfil such a role is available on the Labour Back Benches? Did he not also say that the Government's approach—to establish an e-tsar and a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry—was mad?
  Mr. Bob Russell: Deny it.
  Mr. Wyatt: I should never deny that—it was on the web. It is a serious point that many Labour Members of Parliament have come from the public service sector, and many of those who were elected in 1983, 1987 or 1992 missed the introduction of the internet in their place of business or their public service office. As for the e-tsar and the e-commerce Minister, I have been on record since October 1997 as saying that they should form part of the Cabinet Office.
  During our first debate on the internet, in March 1998, I stated my belief that we needed a new Government department of communications; I still believe that. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred to this matter in his speech, but did not seem to know where to take it. The internet would enable services to be delivered better, quicker and cheaper, but it also challenges us with a fundamental question: what is the future of government? As a culture, we have not yet addressed the question of what the internet will do to us, to government and to Whitehall. Massive Departments are not needed if the medium of the internet is understood and utilised to its fullest potential.
  I welcome the Bill. It is drafted in the right spirit and is exactly what we need. I congratulate the Government.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): The Bill addresses a subject of monumental national economic self-interest. The significance of e-commerce is difficult to overestimate. The statistics supporting that proposition are certainly worth repetition. It is estimated that in 1998 business-to-business e-commerce amounted to about
  86
  $43 billion worldwide. That is predicted to rise to about $300 billion by 2002. The value of e-commerce between businesses and consumers is at a lower figure. It was about $7 billion worldwide in 1998 but it is expected to rise to about $80 billion in 2002. Citizen-to-Government e-commerce is the subject of some not very ambitious Government targets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) observed. To have 25 per cent. of Government services available on-line by 2001 does not seem especially ambitious, and it does not appear that the Government are leading the way as they should.
  It is clearly the Government's duty to ensure that UK plc is in pole position on the information superhighway rather than having to pull over into the information superlayby. Having read the Bill and having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I am not convinced that the Bill will do much to put us in the first category rather than in the second.
  It is a truism that e-commerce is developing so rapidly that legislators throughout the world are finding it difficult to keep up with the pace of change. It is said by some commentators that in a perfect world it would be best for companies if every country had the same law regulating e-commerce transactions. We know that in the real world that would take years to negotiate, if that ever proved possible. We know also that ratification on an international treaty level would be very much a pipe dream. The Opposition have faith in the market and we have faith also in light and effective legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton observed, only where legislation is absolutely necessary.
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce said that the industry had welcomed much of the Bill, and followed that up with some selective quotation. She should not get carried away. We have only to read what the Select Committee on Trade and Industry stated in its report, which was published at the time of the draft Bill in the summer. It made many criticisms of the Government but the one that caught my eye was in paragraph 34, which referred to
  "inadequate political control being exercised over the development and determination of cryptography policy. The policy … has been allowed to drift for too long. It is imperative that Ministers take a firm grip of the issues from now on."
  In her opening speech and in her press notice launching the Bill, the Minister was voluble in her near-breathless enthusiasm and excitement about Britain leading the world in the first industrial revolution. She was keen for us to be leading the new revolution. She talked about how important it was to modernise—a key new Labour word— so that we could lead the world again. She said that she was determined "to get e-commerce law right and get it in fast." She also spoke approvingly of how the Bill would become one of the UK's first 21st century Acts.
  It has taken the Government two-and-a-half years to get the Bill into the Chamber. We had a draft Bill in the summer which was manifestly a false start. We now have a deeply flawed Bill which has not been completely cleaned up following the draft Bill. I wish briefly to speak about the Bill's defects.
  In part I, the Government propose a kitemarked self-regulated approval scheme covering all companies offering cryptographic services. That replaces the original proposal to require all such providers to have a licence, a

  87
  condition of which was that cryptography providers would have to hold copies of customers' private encryption keys and provide law enforcement agencies with access to such keys in certain circumstances. That so-called key escrow proposal has been dropped, and I think sensibly. We have heard comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House to that effect. Instead, we now have a self-regulatory scheme which purports to ensure minimum standards of quality and service. A register of approved providers of cryptography support services will be established.
  I agree with the Law Society and with my hon. Friends—even the Liberal Democrats chipped in with support on this point—when they say that part I could properly have been dispensed with. In the interests of a lighter and more punchy Bill, we could have done without it.
  Part I purports to allow people to check who has sent an electronic message, ensure that it has not been tampered with and that no one has had access to it in any other way. The register will be voluntary. No provider is obliged to apply for approval and the provider who is not on the register is at liberty under the clauses within part I to provide cryptography services. I think that the Minister pats herself on the back by saying that there is a sunset clause in relation to the implementation of a statutory scheme as a last resort. She seems to hope that that will not be necessary within the five-year period.
  That does not get away from the fact that there are unanswered questions on part I. First, there is no indication how we can tell whether the self-regulatory regime works. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has asked about that on two occasions. How will it be judged? When the Minister for Competitiveness replies, I hope that he will explain why Ministers could not publish a timetable in advance of this evening's debate for the establishment of the industry-led voluntary scheme. The Department has had a couple of years to get to grips with the matter. I would have hoped we could have more details by now.
  The second unanswered question in relation to part I is the thorny issue of fees for certification, which has not been debated very much so far this evening. Fees under the industry-led scheme are still murky. The Department of Trade and Industry said that the scheme should be run on a non-profit-making basis. In its draft regulatory impact assessment, the DTI talked about the difficulties of estimating the scale of fees that approved service providers were likely to be charged. Its excuse was, "We have not determined the standards, therefore we cannot work out accreditation costs." I fail to understand why the Minister cannot give us an indication of the fees that are likely to be charged to approved providers under the industry-led scheme. It is particularly important that service providers which are small or medium-size enterprises are not deterred from seeking accreditation by the level of fees charged.
  If the fees are set at a commensurate cost of accreditation—in other words, a flat rate—they may be heavily disproportionate for smaller businesses. Have the Ministers done any work at all on the case for a sliding scale of fees to be set for accreditation so as to reduce the barriers to entry for very small companies? The Department is keen to emphasise how pro-business and
  88
  pro-small business it is. Let us have some answers about what it will be doing to help smaller enterprises that seek to enter the market, once the scheme is up and running.
  I shall deal next with part II and the admissibility of electronic signatures. The Bill seeks to clarify the admissibility of electronic signatures in legal proceedings, while leaving it to the courts to decide what weight to assign to those electronic signatures at law. That is sensible in principle and we support it.
  However, clauses 8 and 9, which introduce that, are rather a dog's breakfast. They empower Ministers through statutory instruments to amend existing statutes to allow for the use of electronic signatures and records, but the decision to allow electronic signatures and records to fulfil paper and writing requirements in existing UK statute depends on individual Ministers across all Whitehall Departments, in their own sweet time, when they feel like it, reviewing all the relevant statutory provisions under their departmental territorial jurisdiction.
  As the Society for Computers and Law observed, there are an estimated 40,000 references in existing British legislation to the words "writing" and "signature". The Bill gives no indication of the time scale by which all that will be reviewed by all relevant Ministers across Departments. That is why the Government should ensure now that each Department publishes its priorities for using secondary legislation to update the definition of those words in law. The Government should also be encouraged to publish a timetable by which the review is carried out by each Department. This is too important a matter to rest on the individual priorities of Ministers—many of them hard-working, I am sure. I urge the Minister to consider the matter without delay.
  Unless the Government follow the suggested course of action, businesses will be confronted with great uncertainty. They will have the regulatory burden of monitoring the haphazard introduction of amendments to existing statutes, in order to find out which statutory requirements can be satisfied by electronic writing.
  In offering that modest proposal, I have the Alliance for Electronic Business on my side. The alliance was prayed in aid by Ministers earlier in the debate, and I know that the Minister for Competitiveness has a great deal of time for it. With regard to clause 8, the alliance states that statutory instruments must be put before Parliament rapidly. It goes on:
  "Industry would be disappointed if the deadline were set later than the end of 2000. This probably means that work must begin immediately, in anticipation of passage of the Bill."
  The alliance continues—and this is the key point:
  "Our member companies have a number of electronic commerce initiatives that depend upon a legal framework for electronic signatures being in place."
  Most importantly, the Alliance for Electronic Business states:
  "Unless the statutory instruments are laid quickly, those initiatives cannot be implemented, reducing the growth of electronic commerce in the UK and risking the leadership that our industry currently holds in European and global markets."
  Conservative Members endorse the concerns of the alliance.
  Has the Minister for Competitiveness done any work at all to examine the adoption of the approach which, I believe, is found in the draft Irish Electronic Commerce Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act in the

  89
  United States, and the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act in Canada? Those statutes apparently allow all written and paper requirements found in law to be satisfied electronically, except for a limited carve-out relating to documents representing quasi-public legal acts such as deeds and wills. Can the Minister tell us whether any work has been done by the Department which would meet the concern that I flagged up, and which the alliance has also flagged up.
  Finally on part II, I am concerned about the way in which the Government view businesses' applications for Government licences or permits, when those businesses make the application using electronic writing. The Government's suggestion is that different fees might be charged for electronic communications, compared with non-electronic communications, because as we know, electronic handling of data is typically less expensive than the use of non-electronic systems. The implication from the Government is that firms and individuals who are able to communicate electronically with Government will benefit from lower fees than those reliant on pen and paper.
  From a glance at last year's Finance Bill, we already know that the Revenue proposes a financial concession to those Inland Revenue taxpayers who are able to submit their tax return electronically. Do the Government propose to charge different fees for electronic and non-electronic communication? Will disadvantaged groups, who are not IT-literate or do not have access to IT, be penalised as a result? The Bill is strangely silent on that, but it is a topic that we need to discuss, if not tonight, then in Committee.
  In addition, can Ministers clarify the Government's policy regarding discounts for those who use electronic communications when dealing with Government Departments—for instance, in connection with a VAT return or a corporate tax return?
  The DTI stated in evidence to the Select Committee:
  "In the case of a service designed to cover its costs rather than to raise revenue, it might be appropriate for the Government to pass on its cost savings expected from the electronic handling of data to the fee payer."
  That is hugely important. Should we take that to mean that the Government will not treat that regime of differential discounts for those who use electronic writing in their dealings with Departments as a revenue-raising exercise? Many Opposition Members are suspicious of the Government and are worried that that may be a ruse for more Government stealth tax in this area, and that any cost savings will not be passed back to the fee payer, but will be trousered or pocketed by the Government in the process of levying fees. We will watch carefully how the Government handle the fee regime.
  This is a limited Bill, the more so as part III of the draft Bill now falls to be dealt with by the Home Office. Nevertheless, the defects of the Bill before us are manifest. I trust that Opposition Members will use straightforward common sense to table amendments to remedy those defects.
  8.9 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It was interesting to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). I understand the games that the Opposition must play. If the Government
  90
  are over-regulating in some area, they must accuse the Government of heavy-handedness and say that they are in favour of a light touch. If the Government decide to take a minimal approach to legislation, the Opposition must accuse them of neglect, and say that a heavy approach is required. If the Government go too fast, they are being hasty. If they go too slowly, they are accused of dragging their feet.
  If the Government consult and listen, they are accused of U-turns; if they consult and do not change the Bill, they are accused of arrogance. I understand these games, but this debate is unique in my experience because the Opposition have taken all six positions on the same Bill. Therefore, I am left to conclude that they know deep down that the measure is reasonable, and they are simply doing what they perceive to be their duty: opposing it on any grounds.
  Before I proceed, I declare a small interest, which is in the Register of Members' Interests. I have an unremunerated directorship in a charity that provides IT training in the Thanet area. I have also had a long career in IT, and I shall say a little more about that shortly.
  The Government should be congratulated on their approach to the consultation exercise. They have introduced a variety of novel methods for scrutinising legislation, including Special Standing Committees and Special Select Committees, and publishing draft Bills. The Government have consulted endlessly on the Bill that we are considering today.
  Today's debate has been a bit of an anti-climax for me because when the Government published their initial proposals, I had some major anxieties about them and I imagined myself getting involved in a rebellion and fighting for change. [Interruption.] I did not mean that seriously, in case any Whips are listening. The Government have listened to every point that was made in the consultation process and the Bill is consequently benign, and is supported across the IT industry.
  For most of my life, I have worked in jobs related to IT—I have spent nearly three decades in the industry. That is probably a unique record. I started learning programming when punch cards were used. When I did my research degree in the late 1970s, on the site of the National Engineering Laboratory in East Kilbride, the technology had moved on a step and we used punched paper tape. We punched our data or programmes on to paper tape and left it in specific mail boxes around the site. A lady would come round on her bicycle to collect it once a day and she would return it later. When the processing power of the computer was to be upgraded, the most cost-effective method of achieving that was by buying the lady a faster bicycle. The following year, the processing power was reviewed again, and it was decided that the best way of improving the system was to employ a younger lady.
  I had a variety of jobs that involved managing and building computer networks. I built one of the first mini computer networks in the country. In the late 1980s, I introduced one of the first ethernets in the country. In those days, ethernet used a protocol called Xerox Network Software—XNS—because the Xerox corporation invented ethernet. Later, I converted it to a new-fangled piece of software called the Transaction Computing Protocol and Internet Protocol, or TCP/IP. It was probably one of the country's first intranets, but I did not realise

  91
  that at the time. In the 1990s, I worked in IT management for a major pharmaceutical company. Later, I want to refer especially to my experience there.
  I tell the House about these aspects of my past partly to establish my authority to speak about IT matters and to make a case for being considered as a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill. I also want to bring home the point that the pace of change in the industry has been so dramatic that the complexity of computer systems and the available processing power has increased by a factor of about 1,000 in a small part of one man's career. We cannot even begin to imagine the shape of computing if the pace of change increases by a further factor of 1,000 over the next 20 years. Can anyone begin to contemplate the future of business and IT in those circumstances?
  In our deliberations on the Bill, we must be careful to include nothing that will hold back the pace of change or tie us to obsolete legislation as technology moves on. We cannot use the law to restrict the pace of technology; we can only hope that the law will harness it for us.
  Mr. Gibb: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience in IT and in view of his comments, does he want part I of the Bill to be enacted, or would he prefer that it was not enforced?
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts one of my points. I may be alone among hon. Members in worrying about the Government's intention to allow self-regulation. I doubt whether that will do the job. As I said in European Standing Committee C recently, in my experience, many people who work in IT believe that they cannot make mistakes. They see themselves as being in total control of the technology, knowing everything about it and being able to devise systems that contain no errors or loopholes. It is only when managers become more experienced that they realise that everything has holes in it and can be overcome. Therefore, I wonder whether there is a case for the Government to prescribe who is a trusted third party, establish the rules and ensure that the third parties are policed and the system monitored. I hope that the Government are right and that the industry can devise a system for self-regulation. They are certainly right to retain the power to regulate the industry if it does not come up to scratch.
  The Bill has improved greatly during the consultation process. Mandatory key escrow would have been disastrous for many reasons, not least for civil rights reasons although, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said earlier, key escrow can benefit some industries. I can envisage circumstances in which the pharmaceutical industry would find key escrow beneficial. Therefore, the Government are right not to make it mandatory, but it should remain an option for industries. We should not simply say that it has no value.
  I do not believe that many industries that exist in a heavily regulated environment will support the Opposition amendment, which claims that the Bill provides for unnecessary regulation. One of my key tasks in the pharmaceutical industry was to help to devise computer systems that could manage the publication of the regulatory documents that the industry had to put together.
  To get approval to sell a drug in this country, an international regulatory dossier has to be produced. In the United States, such a document is called a new
  92
  drug application. An international regulatory dossier will certainly extend to tens of thousands of pages, but in the United States, where the raw data are produced for the regulatory agencies to go through and there is no process of reducing that data, documents running to hundreds of thousands of pages have to be produced. When I started work in the pharmaceutical industry, such documents were pumped out on printers and typewriters and armies of people stood at photocopiers all day long producing copy after copy after copy. One used to turn over the largest conference hall operated by the company to the collation of all that paperwork and eventually—when the 12 copies of that huge document were all bound and the 100,000 pages were in the right order and catalogued—someone would come running in and say, "I'm sorry, we've dropped a page and there is a new page 5. We have to go through the whole document again." It would then have to be put into removal vans to be taken to the regulatory agencies.
  That process was obviously crying out to be computerised, which it now is. I do not know whether the same situation still pertains, but a couple of years ago— even though it was possible to produce an electronic review aid for such material called a computer-aided new drug application in the United States and a computer-assisted product licence application in this country—a paper copy of the document had to be printed out for someone to sign and authorise as the true copy. For all legal purposes, the electronic version was never the true copy.
  There will be a cost saving to the industry because it will be able to produce an entirely electronic version of its regulatory documents—with an electronic signature— and use something that the House has not focused on in the debate: the ability, if one is using public and private key encryption, to encrypt an entire document. For the first time, not only will a document carry a signature on the last page saying who has produced it, but there will be a way of guaranteeing the authenticity of that document, from the title on the first page to the last full stop. That is what the industry is crying out for and the Bill's key function is to make such provision. I would not call such measures over-regulation, nor would the pharmaceutical companies and the defence industry; they represent a much-needed improvement to the way in which companies work—one that they will be able to use in the future.
  The Government are also to be particularly congratulated on their work in another area. There was some talk from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the Opposition spokesman, about the complexity of the Bill's wording, but the parliamentary draftsmen have been particularly astute in clause 7. Nothing in that clause will have any detrimental effect if technology changes in the near future. If we were to use such technology now, we would probably use some form of private and public key encryption to achieve our aims, but in five years there may be a far better way of achieving them, or certainly a different way. I understand that the clause would be just as valid whatever form of technology was deployed and the Government should be congratulated on that.
  The Bill should not be considered in isolation because it is not enough alone to achieve successful IT and e-commerce industries in this country. In addition, we need the regulations that are currently being considered

  93
  by the European Union and were recently discussed in European Standing Committee C. Those regulations will govern such things as where a contract is made, if one is ordering from an internet site, as well as further extending the way in which we view electronic signatures. I have some concerns about the way in which that debate is developing and I believe that, in certain circumstances, internet service providers are fulfilling the role of either a retailer or a wholesaler. Sometimes, there should be a contract between a customer and the internet service provider, never mind the person who provides the goods being sold through the internet service provider. I am not entirely sure that the EU regulations have got that as clear as it ought to be.
  We need this e-commerce Bill and the regulations that the EU is considering, but we also need the TrustUK hallmark, which my hon. Friend the Minister discussed earlier. I consider that to be absolutely vital. If we want customers to use an internet service to buy material, they have to have absolute trust in it. As hon. Members were speaking, I made a list of what I would look for in a site before I would send it my credit card details. I would want to know that the company had quality management and that its technical back-up and management was of an appropriate quality so that security issues would be dealt with appropriately. I would want to know about the probity of the company, its financial backing and integrity, the quality of the goods, the exchange policy for the goods and the reliability of supply. The final two issues of course, are cost and range of choice.
  The only two requirements effectively available to small businesses or start-up companies would be cost and range of choice. People would not have heard of such companies, so there would be no way in which they could satisfy the first seven requirements in the mind of the customer. Companies such as Marks and Spencer are going on to the internet because they know that their brand name is a guarantee to customers. People will be prepared to shop with Marks and Spencer in a way that they would not be prepared to shop with Bloggs and Co, or any other company that might have decided to set up on the internet.
  It was particularly unwise of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton to imply that the brand name and reputation of a particular company would make it acceptable for people to trade with it in an unregulated environment. He was saying, "If you're a new business, go away; if you're a start-up company, go away; if you're a man in the street who wants to set up an internet site, go away."
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there are now virtual shopping malls where a business can set up shop and come under the umbrella of a recognised method of selling via the internet? When people purchase a product through the internet, they probably use a credit card. The credit card companies ultimately take the risk, because they guarantee that their customers will not get ripped off on the net. Is it not the companies at the heart of the system that are at risk, not the customer or the small guy who is trying to get on the bottom rung of the ladder?
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he makes a good point about shopping malls. If credit card companies guarantee products on behalf of companies operating from those malls, they will charge a commission
  94
  for that service, and a small business may not want to pay that. As the hon. Gentleman said, people can pay with a credit card. I have a credit card that I use only for internet shopping, so that I can check the bill carefully and make sure that I am not being cheated. On the other hand, how many people realise that debit cards with a little Visa sign on them, which often look like other credit cards in their wallets, are not covered by the same credit protection legislation? People may shop with a debit card thinking that they are getting the protection to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but they have no protection at all. Indeed, they may be in a worse position, because their debit cards may give away bank account details to unscrupulous people. What the hon. Gentleman says is true to a certain extent, but the Conservative party has not thought out its opposition to the Bill as well as it should have done.
  Dr. Palmer: I agree with my hon. Friend about the Opposition's position on new companies and the bias towards certain trade names. Does he agree that having an established brand name is not necessarily a guarantee for the customer? For instance, the Conservative party has a website. If he were to check it against his nine criteria, it would fail all nine.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right to remind me that not all brand names are as reliable as others.
  I believe that the Government have listened to representations made to them. Had they rushed into this legislation, as some Conservatives wanted, we would have been saddled with a Bill that would have been wrong. They have done the right thing by listening, and they have adapted the Bill appropriately. As someone who is experienced in the industry, I am delighted to say that I shall support it tonight, and I hope to have further to do with the Bill at later stages.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Despite an element of partisanship in some of the remarks that we have just heard, I count it a privilege to participate in a debate in which hon. Members are so evidently knowledgable about their subject. It is a tribute to the House that we have so many Members with outside interests who are engaged at the forefront of new developments in commerce.
  Like other hon. Members, I have some interests to declare. They have spurred my interest in e-commerce, and have helped me to realise the potential of this new world. I am chairman of a joinery business in the west country that has recently set up its own website. In our own small way, we see the advantages of the Bill and the development of e-commerce for our business, because it enables us to extend our network of contacts.
  Through the Industry and Parliament Trust, I am currently involved in a fellowship with DHL, the international company that provides a delivery service overnight around the world from business to business and business to consumer. For that company and their many competitors, there has been a revolution in expectations and in the way in which they do business. One of the results of the growth in e-commerce is a demand for business to consumer and business to business delivery services. Those companies are set to grow rapidly.
  I am privileged to represent Guildford, which is at the forefront of new technology. The town is recognised as one of Britain's leading centres for the development of

  95
  software. Not only do we have access to telecom lines, but more than 60 per cent. of houses will have cable access by the end of next year as an alternative and more efficient means of reaching the new technology.
  I come to this issue from a different angle. I sense that our country is on the threshold of a golden opportunity to become a centre for e-commerce in Europe, just as, 20 years ago, we had a golden opportunity to become the financial centre of Europe. We realised that under the Conservative Government, and we are now Europe's financial centre. Indeed, we are one of the world's leading financial centres. With our English-speaking world contacts and our international outlook due to our history, the key event that virtually guaranteed that we would be Europe's financial centre was the fact that, in 1979, the Conservative Government abolished exchange controls. We deregulated: we opened up this country and this city, and it became a success story in the world of finance.
  What are the Government doing? They are introducing new regulation in part I, and attacking the source of future potential—the people. They are attacking the people in IT through IR35. They will drive thousands of the most able people with IT skills out of the country, and they will drive them out over a petty tax point. We want them not to spend the money that they are earning, but to accumulate it in their businesses and invest it in the future of e-commerce.
  There is no comparison between someone who works in IT, earning many thousands of pounds, and someone who is an employee with all the rights and guarantees that are granted to such employees, whether that person is working in a hospital, in a school or in any other profession. Those people's jobs are on the line every day. They are negotiating for new contracts with new companies; they do not know where their bread will be buttered in two years, or one year, or, sometimes, one month. What they do know is that, if they can retain the earnings in the companies that they have set up, they can invest those earnings to enable their businesses to grow, and to ensure that this country takes the opportunity to become a centre for e-commerce in Europe.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from someone who employed an awful lot of contractors in his time that, relatively, most have exactly the same rights and privileges as company employees? They are usually taken on because companies do not wish to show head counts on their accounts. There are mechanisms for avoiding costs to large companies, which have been passed on to those people. They will continue to work in this country and contribute to the IT industry even after the change.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I have no doubt that some people involved in providing IT services to companies will stay here after the implementation of IR35, but those who have the most opportunity, who are the most able, and who have the most need to retain earnings and investment to develop their businesses and the potential of e-commerce are those who will go elsewhere. It is a fast-moving environment. No one can afford to give up a competitive advantage, or to give in to what the Government are
  96
  doing. The Government are telling them that they are merely employees, but in fact they are entrepreneurs at the forefront of what should be a golden opportunity.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Ms Hewitt rose—
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I want to develop my point, but I will give way to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
  Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would care to tell us whether he endorses the advice given by at least one computing magazine to some IT sub-contractors to take from their earnings no more than just over £4,000 in the current tax year, and to take the rest in dividend payments, thus avoiding any national contributions on all their income. Does the hon. Gentleman support tax-dodging of that kind?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to describe a perfectly legitimate exercise as tax-dodging. If she wants to prevent or discourage companies from implementing such a dividend policy, let her by all means introduce a specific rule to deal with that point, but people in the world of providing services should not be prevented from setting up companies and accumulating capital to develop bigger and more successful businesses, which is what the Minister's Government have managed to do in a cumbersome, clumsy way in introducing IR35.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: No, I will take no further interventions.
  The Bill is not about IR35; it is about e-commerce. Speaking to a group of Members of Parliament last week in the environs of the House, the managing director of Unilever, Mr. Richard Greenhaugh, said:
  "We need an internet that is allowed to grow rapidly with competition restraints which are minimal."
  The problem with the Bill is that the competition restraints may be very real and very large.
  It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that the powers in part I of her Bill are reserve powers. We have seen the same Jekyll and Hyde trick from the Government before: they have tried to present two faces at once. We know that tonight the Minister has drunk from the bottle by her bed marked "light touch", but we also know that there is another bottle marked "regulation potion". We are very worried about when and where she will drink from that bottle and come back to the House with a very different look in her eye. We fear that she may announce, without sufficient debate, without a further Bill, and without proper consultation, that she will take a sledgehammer to this business and, in effect, drive it off our shores.
  The problem with the light touch and with self-regulation is that they require strong nerves. In the fast-moving world of e-commerce, there will be occasions when people make mistakes and things go wrong. It will be easy at that time for the Minister to come to the House and to justify part I, saying that she is going to enact it. That will probably be the wrong thing to do.

  97
  There were occasions in the 1980s and 1990s when financial institutions were in trouble. They made losses. Indeed, on one or two occasions, taxpayers' money was used to prevent those losses from getting even worse, but let us compare that with the position in countries that had far more heavily regulated financial sectors. They had just as many problems. The difference was that taxpayers had to foot a much bigger bill to put them right because their Governments had said at the outset that they were responsible for ensuring that nothing would go wrong. When it did, billions of pounds, or rather billions of dollars and tens of billions of francs were spent to try to redress the mistakes of Government, not just of businesses. The danger of regulation in such a new sphere is that the Government will find that it is underwriting activities that they do not understand and cannot control until it is too late and until taxpayers' money has been taken for a ride.
  Part I depends on decisions by Ministers, yet we heard criticism after criticism by the Minister of her Department just months before the Government came to office. Why is she so confident that, under her management, the Department of Trade and Industry will always get it right in the sphere of information technology and e-commerce, when she has told us how wrong its original proposals on encryption were in 1997, a point with which we agree?
  Ms Hewitt: In case anyone might be misled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying, let me make the position clear. I was criticising the policy of Ministers in the previous Government. As a Minister, I take responsibility for policy decisions. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), a former Minister, said earlier, my officials have always done an excellent job and, I am certain, will continue to do so. I was complaining about the policy decisions of the previous Government.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The policy of the previous Government just before the election was to issue a document for consultation and to come back with legislation. The Minister's policy is to introduce the clauses before there is any need for them and before there can be meaningful consultation about the need for part I.
  Ministers do sometimes make mistakes. Our Front-Bench team has been big enough to admit that our first thoughts on the subject two and a half years ago, when the development e-commerce was a small cloud on the horizon, may have been somewhat askew. We have learned the full lesson from that mistake. The Minister and her Department have only half learned it. If they had learned the full lesson, they would never have come before the House tonight with part I.
  We know about the saga in the summer with the Lord Chancellor. He gave the green light to the Brussels convention that will kill much of e-commerce's potential in Europe. If, under the convention, a business here with a customer in another European Union state were subject to the law of that state when it struck a deal over the net, that would stop it doing business with large parts of Europe. Many businesses that are happy to receive customers from Italy, Greece and other countries would think twice if they thought that the terms of contract that they had agreed would ultimately be determined by a law in Italy or Greece, rather than by one in this country. That is not to be a little Englander, but to reflect on this country's immense reputation, to which the hon. Member
  98
  for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) alluded, for having the highest possible integrity when it comes to our system of law.
  Another reason why we could become a centre for e-commerce if there is a sane system of developing the law of contract in Europe is that when people around Europe decide that they want to enter an agreement, they will want to do it under English law because they know that it will be fair to all sides. That is a good reason why we stand an excellent chance of developing a centre for e-commerce.
  That will not happen if ideas such as the Brussels convention come into force. The Lord Chancellor was perfectly happy for the convention to proceed. Such misjudgments suggest that part I might be allowed to proceed on the wrong grounds and with the wrong judgment through an agreement by the Minister or one of her colleagues in the near future.
  Mr. Ruffley: Has my hon. Friend wondered, as I have, whether the Minister was even notified that the Lord Chancellor's Department was going to take such action?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Minister owes it to the House to answer it. In the so-called joined-up Government, was there anything joined-up about the decision making of the Lord Chancellor's Department? Did the Lord Chancellor consult with the Department of Trade and Industry beforehand? If he did, can the Minister confirm that she agreed to his decision? What does that tell us about her competence and that of her officials in managing these important matters?
  Dr. Palmer: I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the jurisdiction should be that of the vendor, but does he agree that there is a dilemma? It is conceivable that a medium-sized firm, a large firm or a member of an industry association would feel able to deal with customers with a reasonable familiarity of the law in other countries, but it is barely conceivable that the ordinary consumer will feel comfortable with operating under the law in other countries. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, if somebody in Greece buys something from a British company or somebody in Britain buys something from a Greek company, they must in principle be willing to accept whatever rules prevail in the other country.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I do not have a crystal ball, but I believe that the trade between countries will be primarily between businesses. Consumers will look to firms in then-own country, albeit on a website rather than in a high street shop. The hon. Gentleman's point may prove to be pretty arcane.
  According to figures supplied by DHL, e-commerce was worth $45 billion in 1998 and the latest projections suggest that it will reach $1.3 trillion by 2003. That is five years ahead of the projections made by the DTI committee only a few months ago. The scene is changing very rapidly. The sector is dynamic and it has tremendous potential.
  DHL also pointed out that the cachet of the "Made in Britain" label will be very strong. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) is right and people are hesitant

  99
  about dealing outside their own jurisdiction, they might still be prepared to deal with products made in this country under contracts made in this country, because our legal system has such an excellent record of fairness to those who come to this country from outside.
  Another factor is that we are very wired. The latest thorough survey shows that 40 per cent. of adults in the UK have access to the net. It is estimated that in the past month alone, 20 per cent. of all adults in this country used the net. The greatest usage is among two groups. Some 70 per cent. of 16 to 24-year-olds are on-line. The other day, I was visiting the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service headquarters in Cheltenham, where I was told that its reference bible for college courses will be a virtual manual from next year. There will not be a printed version. Everyone who wants to sign up for a college or university course will go through the net to UCAS. They will find an excellent site, where they can state their area of interest. The search engine will deliver to them all the colleges with the courses that they are looking for.
  If they want to find out what sort of character is going to go to that university or college, they can call down from the database a map of Britain, showing the proportion of students coming from each part of the country. There is tremendous power in this new technology, and UCAS is at the forefront of it.
  Some 70 per cent. of graduates are on-line. I am not asking the Labour party to buy the trickle-down theory, but these groups are the leaders and shakers in society and will be the spearheads of a much-wider usage. We do not need to have angst about how many people use the net today. Anyone can drop in to a net cafe in the high street and get access or an e-mail address for nothing from one of the providers. This is an accessible medium already.
  As a country, we are good at taking on new technology. We have a great deal more success with mail order magazines selling new ideas than other countries in Europe. However, according to the last estimate, our consumers are two years behind those of the United States. I visited the US a month ago, and people can talk about nothing other than e-commerce; it gets a bit tiresome after a while. Nevertheless, one got the sense that consumers over there are getting plugged in. Although we are behind, it will be less than two years before this country reaches the stage that America is at today.
  Britain has a golden opportunity. We have the will, the potential, the background, the reputation and the skills. We also have a driving need. The downside of e-commerce is that the world of financial services—which has brought so much prosperity to this country and this city—will be shrunk by e-commerce. Many of the services carried out today in the City of London will not exist in five years—certainly within ten years. There may be just one financial centre, if there is any need at all for a financial centre in the world. If so, it certainly would be New York.
  We need something to replace the financial services economy that has motored our economy and made us all richer in the past two decades. We must not only aspire to become a centre of e-commerce. We must become a centre of e-commerce if we are to fulfil the potential of the economy. That potential was the golden legacy of the
  100
  previous Government, and tonight, the Minister yet again is putting it under threat by her measures, which will impose regulation and restrictions on the power and dynamism of the British people.
  8.53 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I wish to declare a mini-interest. I am the keynote speaker at a number of conferences on electronic commerce and its regulation. It has not happened yet, but eventually I may be paid for one or two of them.
  There is a huge world market to be facilitated by legislation such as this. I will not repeat the statistics given by other hon. Members, except to note that the total number of internet users expected next year is 250 million, which is larger than the population of the United States. If one considers the attraction to a business of marketing itself to the entire American population, and then considers that this market is a larger opportunity, one can see why any business must get into this area.
  The industry has given a broad welcome to the salient points of the Bill, and we are all familiar with aspects of it that were not popular. It is generally accepted that reasonable compromises have been made, and there is little appetite for delay at this point. Opposition Members gave reasons for that, which sits oddly with the rather mysterious reasoned amendment, which appears to suggest that legislation should not proceed until we have had a chance to study the interaction with European directives that are not yet entirely clear. If we were to make the amendment, it would not be possible to proceed and we would have to delay, with all the adverse consequences mentioned by both Government and Opposition Members.
  It is crucial for any business, political organisation or Government dealing with the internet not merely to recreate the existing ways of working but to adapt them to the new situation. Similarly, we need to adapt the legislation. It is a broadly accepted truism that legislation on-line should be the same in most situations as legislation off-line.
  That was agreed by the G8 as one of the principles and has been quoted rather glibly in many contexts, but there will be situations in which it is profoundly difficult, because if we want diverse national legislation to coincide with the equivalent on-line legislation we will require that on-line legislation differs in different countries. One of the Government's objectives should be, and I think is, to achieve sufficient convergence within European consumer protection and contract legislation to narrow the discrepancy between what is accepted in each country and what is accepted across the countries.
  The Gartner group and others have worked out that there are 40,000 mentions of the words "signature" and "writing" in British legislation, and some have suggested that the Government should impose a timetable for perusing and, if necessary, correcting all those mentions, although it has not been made clear whether we should simply hold up our hands and give up if that timetable is not met.
  I want to draw on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that we have quarterly reports from each Department on progress in implementing that mammoth

  101
  task of legislative revision. It should not be left to individual Ministers to pursue it as and when time is available.
  The location problem often comes up. Some groups say that the difficulty of identifying where the seller and the buyer reside makes it extremely difficult to have any rules for internet commerce based on national jurisdiction. It is not clear what jurisdiction would apply to a virtual vendor floating in cyberspace. That is a genuine problem but perhaps not so great a one as has been maintained.
  An elderly couple in Beeston in my constituency called me to say that they frequently had calls requesting phone sex. A Californian company that specialised in a sex website was advertising the services of girls based in Guyana. To dial Guyana from California, one uses the dialling code 01159 and if one dials that code in Britain, one gets Beeston and my constituents. I wrote an e-mail to the company and said that it was unlikely that my constituents would send it royalties and that it was losing business. Overnight, the company changed the website to give the correct dialling code from Britain.
  That example shows how international internet commerce can hit the vendor in a way he had not expected, how it can hit the buyer in a way he had not expected and how it can hit third parties, who might barely have heard of the internet. If we add to that the possibility that it is not clear whether the website operators are in California, Guyana or Britain, the problem of jurisdiction becomes clear. However, in any contract between two genuine parties, neither of whom seeks to defraud the other, it should be possible to establish the jurisdiction without great difficulty.
  As a basic principle for what is unattractively called the TrustUK mark, which will become the TrustEurope mark, I suggest that people who wish to benefit from the mark should state where they are located for the purposes of jurisdiction. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) suggested, people based in Germany, Honduras or Guyana might deem it desirable, for one reason or another, to base themselves in Britain for the purpose of jurisdiction—perhaps to appeal to British customers. That would be welcome.
  If one of the parties seeks to defraud the other—for example, if the vendor is selling a product that does not exist or the buyer is seeking to get the product without paying for it—the indication of location may be false. That narrower problem can be specifically addressed by the police using credit companies to locate the true address of the person involved. Fraud is a specific case, and there is no need to wreck the whole principle of location and jurisdiction for that alone.
  When we set the requirements for the TrustUK and TrustEurope kitemarks, I suggest that we say, first, that the location for which jurisdiction applies must be given; secondly, that if no location is given, the purchaser's location applies; and, thirdly, that it is an offence to give a false location.
  I welcome the proposals and the industry as a whole, to take a realistic view of what has been said, is enthusiastic about part II. The industry is also willing to accept part I, because it recognises that it is a reasonable compromise and that the Government cannot altogether give up the possibility of legislation should self-regulation not be sufficient. I commend the Bill to the House and thank the Government for introducing it.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: The internet has offered numerous small companies the opportunity for development. It has been the foundation for enterprise and, although originally developed from the seed of public sector investment, has been very much the epitome and the cutting edge of free enterprise in recent history. That needs saying because it is one of the foundations on which I tend to base any thinking about the impact of legislation in this area. Based on the track record, Government should keep as far away as possible from regulatory interference in that activity. I will judge the Bill against that criterion and, although I have some qualms about the first part, I think that it will pass that test.
  The internet is a vital framework for productivity improvement and for simplifying the processes between all sections of the industrial supply chain. As a number of hon. Members have said, it is a critical tool for revolutionising the efficiency of many businesses in this country and internationally. Another attraction is that it provides an extremely low entry barrier to business start-up. That is one reason why it has been the epitome of small business enterprise development: developing from nothing, businesses can be sold on the stock market for astonishing amounts and then, quite often, they disappoint those who buy them.
  What is needed to make the best of this? The first principle is for the Government to step back from involvement. That is a difficult task in this country, because we tend always to consider ways in which to regulate, control and direct. That is an instinct from which we must refrain in this sector. We have seen it in the Bill's development; I commend the Government on the long consultation process. The publication of a draft Bill, careful consideration of Select Committee recommendations on two occasions and a good deal of interest in what the industry said have all helped to shape a Bill that is far better than it otherwise would have been. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on that. When the Bill was initially mooted, my ability to enter the Lobby to vote for it would have been tested, but that is not the case now.
  Another key issue is to regard the Bill as being about information and people, not technology. When I was an IT director, I had constantly to persuade people that their obsession with how something would be solved technically should not occupy their time. The key issues were: what information did they need, and how were the people who would use that information to be trained and helped to use it most effectively? We could find solutions to the technology—that was not much of a problem. The difficulty was having the imagination to conceive the human solutions of organising a business to take full advantage of what was available. Some of the contributions to the debate have contained interesting digressions into technological aspects, but I do not believe that they are the foundations of electronic commerce in this country; they are not critical benchmarks for its success.
  What else do we need? Trust and security have been mentioned as key criteria. We cannot ever have absolute trust and security—they can only be relative. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet ran through the criteria to consider when using a credit card. One could apply the same rules when buying over the telephone. How do we judge the difference between those two

  103
  purchases? We do not know the person at the other end—he or she might record our credit card details and misuse them, or store them in an inappropriate place and abuse them. Those factors run through people's minds but they have gradually become used to the idea.
  People are often driven by their trust in a brand name. That point has been made several times in this debate, and rightly so. A brand name, to me, is one of the critical indicators of trust. That is tough on small businesses, which must sell their products by other means, such as innovation, the excitement of their marketing message and strategic alliances with other businesses that can offer that trust. It is a natural instinct for customers to look for something that they can trust. That is one of the reasons why some websites are more successful at attracting people than others.
  We also need flexibility. In that regard, the Bill qualifies for some solid applause. A good deal of reliance is placed on the opportunity to pass secondary legislation in due course, if that proves necessary. Normally, one would be suspicious of that approach, but in this instance it is absolutely essential and necessary. It would be demanding too much to require that time be found for more primary legislation in the future. Sensibly, the Bill gives Ministers a variety of powers to produce regulations to cover all aspects of the matter, and that is the wisest approach. The principle of flexibility has been adopted in the Bill.
  Leadership by the Government is vital, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) noted earlier. The Government have recognised the need for a strategy on information technology, and that is an innovation in this country. No such strategy has existed here before—a woeful omission that has led to some of the appalling IT failures of the past couple of years and before.
  A clear grasp of how to organise the delivery of information technology requires that there be a relationship with Government policies, as an IT strategy must be founded on what we are attempting to put together for and deliver to our citizens. Moreover, the strategy must be founded on processes, rather than on Government Departments. The important thing is the way in which information flows across activities, rather than how it is channelled through departmental funnels. An IT strategy must be focused on citizens and not on civil servants, and on freedoms rather than restrictions.
  Those are the criteria against which I shall judge the strategy when it emerges, but I welcome the commitment to produce such a strategy, which will be the foundation for effective electronic commerce in Government. That is one of the key areas: it must be possible to conduct transactions with our Government by electronic means, and the Bill sets targets for that. It states that 50 per cent. of dealings with the Government should be delivered by electronic means by 2005, and 100 per cent. by 2008.
  If I were to set the benchmark in that regard, I would judge performance in terms of the reduction in all dealings with the Government. The Bill sets target dates by which certain proportions of the various Government functions should be dealt with by electronic means, but we should be ensuring that the processes of Government are made so much more efficient that it will no longer be true to say that the same information can be found in
  104
  130 different places in the Government structure. We should be able to change a piece of information at one stroke, rather than through multiple contacts. That benchmark is not contained in the Bill, but it is a critically important foundation for success.
  It is clear that core standards are needed, in data storage and in the methodology by which we choose to develop systems. The foundations are still being built, but they will determine how successful we will be in delivering electronic commerce at Government level.
  That we must work towards international agreement has been stressed several times in the debate and I shall not dwell on the point. However, I recall from my university days the concept of socialism in one country, and we are in danger of developing electronic commerce in one country—a rather short-term achievement. We must lay the foundations for effective trade across international boundaries.
  We also need a realistic and proportionate approach to the regulatory process. That again depends on the Government having a light touch in assessing the risk of something going wrong and the need for intervention.
  I have listed the key elements that we must get right. By and large, the Bill is a commendable shot at a fast-moving target. The British instinct for control and regulation has largely been restrained, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Ian Stewart: I am pleased to be called in this debate; I apologise to the House for not being present earlier. Sadly, I had to attend the funeral of my good friend Councillor Arnie Holt. I beg the House's indulgence if I cover points made by previous speakers. I will try not to dwell on the Bill's technical aspects, which have been adequately covered, and address instead some of its wider social and educational implications.
  Of the 28 Bills announced in the Queen's Speech, the Electronic Communications Bill was listed first. While its key provisions relate to e-commerce, which I expect has been the focus of this debate, its title is right because it is not just about commerce and how the United Kingdom can and should be the global leader in electronic business but about communication, the spread of knowledge and enabling the development of society in general.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have a keen interest in information, communication and enabling technologies, or ICE-T as I refer to them. I have an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with IBM and am a member of PITCOM, the parliamentary information technology committee. With PITCOM, I have travelled to France, Canada and Japan to report on how other countries, and particularly their Governments, are harnessing new technologies for the benefit of their citizens.
  I am enthused, excited and passionate not about the new technologies but about what they can and will do to assist people and enhance their lives. I am not a techie or a geek but I am very definitely a people person. I can see the opportunities and widened horizons that the new technology can deliver for people in my constituency and throughout the UK—not only opportunities for their businesses but for their education and the better delivery of local authority and Government services.

  105
  My constituency is, to use census jargon, under-represented in the professional, managerial and technical social groups. I want the benefits of information, communication and enabling technologies to be available to all my constituents, not only those who own their own companies or who can afford a computer at home.
  I welcome Government moves to allow public institutions such as schools, further education colleges, libraries and citizens advice bureaux to take advantage of lower rate internet access. That should allow groups such as the Salford forum for older people and the Eccles afternoon townswomen's guild, whom I met this week, access to information, both general and practical.
  Three categories of transaction were defined in the Trade and Industry Committee report on e-commerce published in July: business to consumer transactions; business to business transactions; and citizen to Government transactions. The Committee reported that in the United States a fourth was found: consumer to consumer transactions, such as on-line auctions. With our local climate in Salford, they could be a welcome alternative to the early morning car boot sale. Much human activity, business, education and leisure is encompassed by this debate.
  The Bill had a previous incarnation only a few months ago, since when the Government have consulted widely and amended their proposals. IBM, with which I have an IPT placement, commented:
  "we're delighted that Ministers support an industry led approach to developing trust in emerging technologies and services. It's now down to industry to take forward its T-scheme"—
  the industry voluntary scheme—
  "initiative not only to meet e-commerce requirements in the UK but also to serve as a model for countries in Europe and worldwide."
  In the north-west, we have been at the forefront of developments in information, communication and enabling technologies. I am the pilot MP involved in the GEMESIS—government, education, medical, industry, social information superhighway—project. It is based at Salford university and provides electronic commerce support to businesses across the north-west. As an integral part of GEMESIS, a virtual chamber of commerce, called the virtual chamber, or TVC, has been developed in conjunction with Manchester training and enterprise council, Manchester chamber of commerce and industry and Cable and Wireless. The chamber now has 140 subscribers.
  Salford university plans to become a virtual university of industry for the north-west, with a special emphasis on the way in which open, distance and flexible learning can be used across a broad-band network to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to become more innovative and wealth creating. In March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry visited the GEMESIS project, and praised its ground-breaking work. He pointed out that such work should be disseminated throughout the country. The recent award of an extra £1.7 million for the project—including money from the European regional development fund—will help to make that a reality.
  My local authority of Salford has its own information society Portal initiative, in partnership with Oracle, called "People not Technology", to ensure that the city council, its employees and the people of Salford have the opportunity to realise the potential of technological
  106
  change—to make those technologies work for them and help to improve their lives. Developments include the introduction of a city-based in-house call centre—currently operating in the environmental services directorate. In the first months of operation, responsiveness improved by more than 75 per cent. Next month, a pilot one-stop shop will open—a multi-service site with a cyber café. Salford city council has the ambitious aim of meeting the targets that the Government have set for themselves for making services available electronically—100 per cent. by 2008. The council hopes to meet those targets early.
  This evening, the Manchester Evening News carried an announcement that the university of Manchester institute of science and technology is to set up a virtual business school that will bring the country's best brains together under one virtual roof.
  I am a regular visitor to the digital world centre at the Lowry centre at Salford Quays—one of the landmark millennium projects. The 50,000 sq ft high-tech building will provide an important showcase for Government IT initiatives. An informative exhibition on the ground floor will be open to the public free of charge. On the first floor, meeting facilities with international high-speed, broad-band connections will be available for SMEs and progressive British companies. The programmes will be directed by the Digital World society—a collaboration of leading global IT companies.
  To establish the United Kingdom as a leader in the digital world, we should establish a national centre to house our digital assets, so that they can be accessed from all over the world. That could be achieved via the digital world centre at Salford Quays. The facility will be at the hub of a broad-band network infrastructure that stretches out to schools, libraries, community centres and businesses. The UK can become the leader in a high-speed internet that will deliver full motion video throughout the world.
  Of course, I have trumpeted the achievements of my locality. However I am keen to ensure that all the important projects that I described work together to ensure effective delivery of our local, national and global strategies. I continually hear the polarised arguments as to strategies: some commentators claim that local strategies are more important than global ones, and vice versa. We need both local and global strategies—perhaps we should call them "glocal" strategies. What is important is that the strategies meet our objectives to encourage maximum access for all citizens; to promote and encourage research development and implementation; and to facilitate e-commerce with minimum, but appropriate, regulation such as that provided in the Bill.
  Without thought-out strategies, local economies may lose out—not just by becoming B-roads off the information superhighway, but by following traditional methods of economic development that ignore new types of activity and alliance, and new modes of learning, emerging networks and communities. Measures to address social exclusion must be central to the e-commerce debate and strategy, as should the role of a broadly defined, non-statutory sector—the so-called third sector. That is why I support organisations such as Communities on Line and Tele Cities.
  The progressive use of information, communication and enabling technologies and the internet forces us to develop new ways to work and co-operate together, to promote what

  107
  I call "co-opetition": the maximum co-operation between traditionally competing organisations and businesses so that they can work collaboratively towards achieving a common aim or goal—whether that be commercial, social or political.
  I am delighted by the Government's bold commitment to make electronically available 25 per cent. of Government services by 2002, increasing to 100 per cent. by 2008. I am sure that other hon. Members have commented on the economic gains to the public sector of e-commerce. In September, an article in the magazine Public Finance reported on research undertaken by the IT consultancy Kable, which estimated that central and local government combined could be saving a staggering £4.1 billion a year within five years, by adopting e-commerce for services that involve financial transactions and by reducing procurement costs. That could be achieved with minimal investment.
  The Bill, when implemented, will enable the UK to take its place as the best country in the world for the transaction of e-commerce. It will broaden the access for UK citizens to open up the internet. In this seemingly dry and very unglamorous Bill, we may even be at the start of remodelling our democracy. It will certainly allow us to embrace the future with confidence, commitment and creativity. People first, technology in support. I welcome the Bill.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: We may start on a note of agreement. The debate has been excellent, with some high-quality and well informed speeches.
  The development of e-commerce is crucial to the country's future wealth and prosperity. If we embrace, encourage and liberate e-commerce, enabling Britain to be seen as a haven for e-commerce entrepreneurs, there is the very real possibility that we shall deliver enormous opportunities for people in this country.
  Throughout the debate, we have been told that there are 179 million on-line users, and that that figure is estimated to rise, next year, to 250 million and by 2005 to some 350 million. In cash terms, e-commerce was worth $12 billion in 1999. Its worth will grow to between $350 billion and $500 billion by 2002 and to a staggering $1,000 billion per annum by between 2003 and 2005.
  Do we want Britain to be at the forefront of those developments or to be an also-ran? Do we, as a nation, want that prosperity or should we just see how it turns out? It is unfortunate for the future of e-commerce in Britain that, at this crucial time, we have a Labour Government. However new it claims to be, although new Labour speaks the rhetoric of enterprise and a free market and deregulation, using that language in its presentation, the reality is that of traditional Labour—suspicion of business, fear of the free market, and an instinct that is always to regulate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gibb: I give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. Miller: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why, if there is a huge divide between the Labour party
  108
  and business, I was able to quote a long and reasonably impressive list of support from companies such as Dell and Microsoft. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) mentioned IBM. Why is their support given to Labour, not the Tory party?
  Mr. Gibb: Well, it is given to the Tory party on this issue. Those companies are expressing a sigh of relief that, thanks to the Conservative Opposition, who opposed the initial drafts of the Bill, they now have a Bill that they feel able to support.
  We saw the regulatory tendency in the early drafts of the Bill. It is the Conservatives who really understand how entrepreneurs work and enterprise flourishes. It was the Conservatives—
  Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gibb: Let me carry on; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  It is the Conservatives who understand enterprise, and it was Conservative shadow Ministers who insisted on the changes to the draft Bills that took out all the restrictions and burdens that would have killed a flourishing e-commerce sector stone dead.
  In her press release, the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce says:
  "This historic Bill will help make the UK the best place in the world to do electronic business. Britain led the world in the first industrial revolution. Now we are determined to be winners in the new knowledge economy revolution."
  Britain succeeded in the industrial revolution, however, precisely because we had a laissez-faire economy by the international standards of the time. If the Government had wanted an industrial revolution in e-commerce, they should not have put in place the whole paraphernalia of state control that could come into effect under part I.
  Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), pointed out in his interesting contribution that the policy for mandatory key escrow came from the Conservative party?
  Mr. Gibb: Yes, and during the consultation that was begun by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, we would have come to the conclusions that we have come to today. What is wrong with the Government is that, even after consultation, they publish Bills containing such paraphernalia. This Bill still allows for the possibility of huge state regulation.
  The Government's own consultation exercise revealed deep unease in industry about these provisions. They create enormous uncertainties, so industry has called for them to be dropped altogether. Perhaps the Minister for Competitiveness could add some certainty to the issue by answering the question that the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce failed to answer properly in response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
  Paragraph 76 of the explanatory notes states:
  "The Government will commence Part I and set up the statutory scheme, only if self-regulation does not work."

  109
  The Minister has 20 minutes to reply, so will he tell us how the Government will judge whether self-regulation does or does not work? What will the criteria be? Part I contains clauses 1 to 9, which make up 60 per cent. of the Bill. Whether part I comes into effect will depend on the answer to those questions.
  The Secretary of State can implement the new regulatory regime without even a debate in the House. It can be done without any parliamentary approval whatever. That is surprising given the Government's expressed view that they always take on board Select Committee recommendations. In its report on the draft Bill, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry said:
  "We are particularly concerned at the proposal that the order necessary to bring in part I of the Bill … should not be subject to any parliamentary procedure. We recommend that … Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the issue."
  Why will there be no vote?
  Will the Minister explain what is meant in clause 15 by an
  "order made by statutory instrument"?
  Will that statutory instrument be introduced according to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure, or will it be one that can be implemented solely by order?
  In her press release, the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce said:
  "We are determined to get e-commerce law right and get it in fast. That is why we are introducing this Bill in the same week as the Queen's Speech."
  This Bill was introduced in last year's Queen's Speech, but it was not ready a year after that speech. Consequently, we have lost a year in the battle to make Britain a world haven for e-commerce. This Government, not the last one, are to blame for that.
  One of the Government's defining features is their fear of confronting issues. That is why in almost all their Bills the meat of the legislation is not in the Bill, but in secondary legislation. Rarely, if ever, is that secondary legislation available before Second Reading. This 15-clause Bill contains regulatory powers in clause 2, which sets out the accreditation criteria, in clause 3, which is on the delegation of functions to an appointed individual, in clauses 5 and 8, which contain a host of regulatory powers to amend primary legislation, and in clause 10. Where are those regulations and why have the Government not published them in time for Second Reading? Will the Minister undertake that, apart from the host of regulations under clause 8, all the other regulations in the Bill will be ready by the time of the Committee stage?
  We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston pointed out that no one in the House really knows the extent of the internet's growth. He called it an asymptotic curve. He went on to say that all good trade works on the basis of trust, and of course he is right, but that is why it is not necessary to establish this hugely cumbersome statutory framework.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gibb: No, because I am running out of time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton made an excellent, informed speech. I now know why his initials and his nickname are IT. He pointed out how long
  110
  it has taken the Bill to gestate and said that it had made elephantine progress. He pointed out, with his usual insight, that Janet Street-Porter, who forecast no future for the internet, cannot count foresight among her many other undoubted qualities. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the uncertainty about whether internet service providers are mere carriers or are responsible for the content of the message is critical.
  My hon. Friend gave us some EU intelligence from his friends at Directorate-General XV, which was very interesting, partly because we found out that he has friends at DG XV. He also urged the Government to show leadership and aim at higher targets than 50 per cent. of procurement by 2005. Why have the Government exempted Customs and Excise and the Revenue from the storage provisions in clause 8? Tax returns can be submitted by e-mail, but why cannot the measures in the Bill apply to record-keeping and deal with the requirement to keep books and records for six years?
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) was right to point out the need for continual consultation on these issues. There may be many companies in the IT sector today which did not even exist when the consultation process took place in March. That was also the view of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised the important point about the fees that the statutory regulatory body can charge. There is nothing in the Bill that limits the level of those charges, and without such limits there is a risk that fees will become a form of taxation—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) called it, stealth taxation—which has not been approved annually by the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds demanded a timetable for amending the legislation for other Departments, as provided for in clause 8. It is a pity that none of those regulations has been published at the time of the Second Reading debate. He pointed out, in an excellent speech, that it has taken two and a half years for the Government to introduce the Bill. He agreed with many hon. Members and the Law Society that part I is unnecessary. Like many other hon. Members, he alerted the House to the murky fee issue.
  Dr. Ladyman rose—
  Mr. Gibb: I shall not give way because I want to finish in a couple of minutes.
  Ministers must give the House some indication of what the level of fees will be. Will the Minister agree to a cap on those fees? Will he answer those questions today or in Committee?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is right to demand a timetable for the publication of the whole raft of regulations demanded by the Bill, and those regulations should be published soon. Finally, he alerted the House to the danger of differential fees for those who struggle with IT or who need a course such as "computing for the terrified", which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said is available in his constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is the only member of the Select Committee who is present today—the others are in Sweden. He raised a number of important questions, including the implementation dates for the

  111
  various elements of the Bill. He expressed concern about the e-envoy or tsar, a post which seems to be turning into a virtual appointment.
  Turning to the speech by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), I must say that I am delighted that Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members agree with us that part I is unnecessary and should be deleted from the Bill. I hope to see Liberal Members in the Lobby with us this evening.
  The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) complained that e-mail is not being used by as many businesses in the eastern region as in London. She gave the figures of 57 per cent. of firms and 81 per cent. of firms respectively. If she knew her constituency businesses better, she would find that the e-mail usage in Stevenage is almost as high as in London.
  The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), in a Clicksure contribution, agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and others that part III is a bolt-on and needs wider consultation. The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting demonstration of the latest mobile phone technology, but he fails to understand that trust on the internet is better achieved by voluntary regulation than by heavy-handed legislation.
  The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) spoke of the law being behind the times in respect of computer technology, but in the same breath said that he was one of the few Members of Parliament who is seriously worried about the prospect of self-regulation. In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) pointed out that it was the ending of exchange controls in 1979 that liberated the City of London and enabled it to become the financial centre of Europe. A similarly deregulated approach, rather than the over-regulated approach set out in part I, is what is needed if Britain is to become the e-commerce centre of Europe.
  The Government have missed an opportunity to create a light-touch legal regime that would have made this country a world leader in e-commerce enterprise. The Bill is late and it is flawed. The Conservatives have successfully forced the Government to remove part III of the draft Bill. We will now have to work hard in Committee to remove part I and limit the Government's regulating instinct.
  If we are successful and the Government accept our amendments, we have every chance of making Britain a world leader in the e-commerce sector. The Conservative approach demonstrates our understanding of the modern world of e-commerce and global competition. For the sake of the industry, I hope that the Government will accept our amendments in Committee.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that this has been a fascinating debate. Listening to it has been a humbling experience. A friend told me that replying to the debate would be as easy as falling off an analogue, but it is not, mainly because of the expertise and knowledge displayed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—albeit mostly Labour Members, I am happy to say.
  112
  Before I reply to as many of the detailed points raised as I can, I shall remind the House of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. The Bill, appropriately introduced in the last Parliament of the millennium, is central to the modernising theme of the Government's legislative programme. Modernising the law to ensure that our economy prospers in the information revolution is a huge task, but one to which we are committed. We are equally determined to create a modern Britain for the new millennium; that involves modernising government itself. In short, we are determined to create a legal and a business environment to make the UK the best place in the world to conduct electronic business.
  The speeches of Opposition Members carried us into the virtual reality—indeed, the parallel universe—they occupy. At the fag-end of their 18 years in government, the Conservatives issued a consultation document that proposed mandatory key escrow and a mandatory regulation scheme; yet, today, they attempt to delay the legislation by tabling an amendment in which they suggest that the Government are over-regulating the industry.
  In a thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to problems in respect of electronic signatures, as did the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats are sitting on a virtual fence, waiting for the Government reply before deciding which way to vote. I assure both hon. Members that the Bill does not include any presumption as to whether or not a particular electronic signature is valid. It does not change the balance of proof between the consumer and suppliers: the courts will decide on the effects of a signature based on the evidence before them, just as they do today in respect of normal signatures.
  The Opposition's virtual reality was momentarily illuminated by the speech of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who is one of those who has a profound knowledge of the subject. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me a note telling me that he was unable to be present for the winding-up speeches. He was extremely supportive of the Bill—indeed, he recanted the provisions of the document issued by the previous Conservative Government. However, in response to the points he raised, I repeat the assurance that we shall not insist on key escrow—indeed, clause 13 specifically prevents that. Orders are made under clause 8 to allow electronic communication where existing laws require paper. If providers want to offer key escrow services and people want to use them, that is entirely up to them; the Government do not intend to interfere.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton referred to independent service providers' concerns that they may be held liable for material transmitted where they have neither knowledge of its illegality nor control over its transmission. He supports the need for legal certainty. The draft EU electronic commerce directive prohibits member states from imposing a general obligation on independent service providers to monitor the information that they transmit or store and proposes exemptions from liability for illegal content for intermediaries although it does not prevent the imposition of monitoring requirements in specific cases. We shall continue to work hard with the

  113
  industry to ensure that the general issue of liability is got right in the European Union electronic commerce directive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) referred to credit cards in another thoughtful speech. We recognise the difficulties experienced by small companies in obtaining merchant status for handling credit card transactions on-line. It is a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of e-commerce. Together with Treasury colleagues, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce is working with Don Cruickshank's banking review to find a solution to this problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred, as did many other hon. Members, to the cost of self-regulation and consultation. I assure my hon. Friend that fees under a statutory scheme or under the self-regulation scheme will be based on the cost of assessment and the scale of operation. This will ensure that smaller companies will not be penalised. I also give the assurance that there will be on-going dialogue between the scheme and the Government. The proposals that I have seen include a Government representative on the executive board.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made a fascinating contribution to the debate. He was released from having to tour Sweden with the rest of the members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I thought that he had gone off to Stockholm but I see him in his place. He is a Conservative Member who has some knowledge of the fundamental issues. The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. Given that the Opposition are saying that part I is entirely unnecessary, I remind the House that the Select Committee said that it acknowledged the need for some sort of accreditation scheme for trust service providers to persuade potential users of electronic commerce that it was as safe and reliable as traditional forms of commerce but questioned whether such a scheme needed to be statutory. It recommended that the Government take powers to establish a statutory-backed scheme but hold them in reserve unused unless and until it was demonstrated that a voluntary scheme had failed to protect the interests of all consumers and service providers.
  Mr. Duncan: The Minister has been asked on about five occasions what the criteria will be by which he will judge whether a statutory scheme is necessary: what are they?
  Mr. Johnson: Hold steady.
  The hon. Member for Banbury drew our attention to the Select Committee's recommendation, and it relates specifically to what we are doing today. We listened to the Committee and we are implementing its recommendations. The hon. Gentleman talked about the timing of bringing clause 7 into force. As he will know, it is normal to leave at least two months after Royal Assent before making a commencement order. We intend that there will be no further delay beyond that.
  Mr. Duncan: What are the criteria?
  Mr. Johnson: When I come to the criteria, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be extremely satisfied with my response.
  114
  The hon. Member for Banbury referred to the significant minority procedure and the mechanism for making deregulatory licence modifications as laid out in part III. As stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce in her opening speech, the Government will bring forward amendments so that the significant minority procedure can be dropped from the Bill. The remaining deregulatory mechanism would allow fast-track licence modifications to remove regulatory burdens only if stringent tests were met.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about the e-envoy, a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I assure hon. Members that Alex Allen is not a virtual appointment. He was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September. Although he is still in Australia he is already spending time on e-business issues. He will pick up the reins full-time in January and among other duties will be responsible for implementing the recommendations in the PIU—performance and innovation unit—report on electronic commerce.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) raised the matter of international activity. We are supporting activity through the EU, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations to develop common standards, but if we wait for such standards to be finalised, we will be the last to benefit. We want to lead, and we believe that self-regulation offers a flexible way of doing that.
  In a fascinating contribution with props provided, my hon. Friend also asked about voice signature. I can reassure him that voice signature is indeed an electronic signature, within the terms of our Bill.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) referred to ideas for carve-out—another example of terminology—which would permit the electronic alternative to paper to be introduced across the board, with some exceptions. As it stands, the Bill adopts a case-by-case approach, but we are already studying the hon. Gentleman's idea and we expect to have more to say about it in Committee.
  Clause 8 does provide the power to charge different fees for electronic and paper transactions, and there is no question of the Government pocketing the savings, but we will need to consider the position of the socially excluded. The Bill is flexible and Ministers may view their areas of responsibility differently. No doubt we will return to the point in Committee.
  While I have time, let me draw attention to the criteria being set for regulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha!] This should be no surprise to Opposition Members. We published a detailed set of criteria in July. Do they not read such documents? It was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce when she introduced the debate.
  The document states:
  "The Government believes any scheme should have the following characteristics:
  The scheme should be wide enough to cover a broad range of services including signature and confidentiality services.
  The scheme should be demonstrably rigorous, impartial and trusted by all sectors of industry … It should not act as a barrier to new entrants to the market"—

  115
  that was one of the suggestions that we heard from the Opposition—
  "The scheme should have a means of taking into account the views of consumers.
  The scheme needs effective mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these standards"—
  including a number of examples set out in the report. Finally:
  "The scheme should take account of the draft EU Electronic Signatures Directive … In particular, it should provide UK providers with a means of showing that their signature service meets the standards envisaged in the draft directive".
  Those criteria have been published, they are clear to the industry and they have been repeated for the benefit of the Opposition.
  I do not have time to refer in detail to all the other contributions, but they were fascinating. In a shameless bid for a place on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made one of the most thoughtful contributions. He described his experience of working in the industry over a number of years, and I am sure that we all benefited from hearing his comments. He pointed out that the wording of clause 7 is technologically neutral, which ensures that developments in new technology will not affect the provisions of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) pointed out what a godsend the internet is to women who have family responsibilities and work unsocial hours, especially at this time of the year. In another thoughtful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) welcomed the Bill. He was enthusiastic about part II and recognised the need for reserve powers in part I. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) supported the Bill, and commended the extensive consultation and the changes that we made to the Bill as a result of that.
  Those are all Members whose knowledge of these matters far exceeds mine. They contributed to an immensely informed debate.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the procedure for a commencement order under part I. There is no provision in the Bill for alternative or negative procedure for the commencement order. That is in accordance with normal procedure for such statutory instruments.
  Mr. Gibb rose—
  Mr. Johnson: I do not have time to give way.
  The situation in respect of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will be dealt with under the Finance Act 1999, not under the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Johnson: I am not giving way. We hope that part I will not be brought into force, so there is no need to present draft statutory instruments yet. We shall report on progress on self-regulation. Clause 8 orders have to cover many Acts and we intend to propose some alternative structure.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Johnson: I will not give way.
  116
  I do not need to emphasise the importance of our proposals; hon. Members have done that during the debate. There may be differences in our views, but we all agree that trust and confidence are essential. Therefore, it is bizarre that the Opposition amendment tries to prevent the establishment of that trust. The industry would not develop a self-regulatory scheme for trust service providers if it believed that that would damage its prospects.
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Johnson: I am not giving way. We are adopting the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton—I am pleased that he has resumed his seat—recanted on Opposition proposals. I shall remind the House of the industry's views. Microsoft says that the publication of the Bill
  "provides a model for the rest of Europe to follow."
  Keith Chapple, the managing director of Intel UK, said:
  "We are delighted that government has confirmed in the Bill that key-escrow is off the agenda and is focusing on the real issue of legal recognition of electronic signatures".
  Carl Symon, chief executive officer of IBM said:
  "IBM welcomes the introduction of this important measure and hopes that it will become law very early in the new Millennium."
  Keith Todd, the chief executive of ICL plc said:
  "This is good news … This new sense of partnership between industry and Government"—
  he refers specifically to part I—
  "will make the UK a great place for electronic commerce."
  The list continues with Cisco Systems, AOL and BT, which said:
  "BT supports the government aim of creating an environment of trust and confidence in UK e-commerce. Legal recognition of digital signatures and writing on a non-discriminative basis, is an important step in this procedure."
  Mrs. Angela Browning: We have received conflicting advice on clause 15. The Minister said that there would be no statutory instrument whereas his colleague said that a statutory instrument would be introduced. Will the Minister clarify that?
  Mr. Johnson: I said that we would follow the usual procedure, but we cannot say now whether the negative or the positive resolution procedure will be used.
  Today's debate will not be the last in which we discuss electronic issues. We all agree about the importance of the electronic revolution and our need to embrace it. It touches all our lives. Indeed, many schoolchildren are probably more adept than us at dealing with the technologies and thus better placed than politicians to discuss their potential.
  The Bill could be the first measure to become law in the 21st century. Although it will not transform our lives overnight, it makes an important start on the transformation that will happen in the future and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Gibb: By leave of the House—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 319.

  Division No. 5]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Loughton, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Luff, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bercow, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Body, Sir Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maples, John

  Brady, Graham

  Mates, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cash, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Page, Richard

  Cran, James

  Paice, James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paterson, Owen

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Pickles, Eric

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Robertson, Laurence

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Evants, Nigel

  Faber, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Garnier, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Steen, Anthony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Streeter, Gary

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Green, Damian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Yeo, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  and

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Oliver Heald.

  118

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darvill, Keith

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allan, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ashton, Joe

  Denham, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dismore, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Austin, John

  Doran, Frank

  Baker, Norman

  Dowd, Jim

  Ballard, Jackie

  Drew, David

  Banks, Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Edwards, Huw

  Beard, Nigel

  Efford, Clive

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blackman, Liz

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Follett, Barbara

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Galloway, George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gapes, Mike

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Browne, Desmond

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harvey, Nick

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Hornhurch)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  119

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rammell, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roy, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salmond, Alex

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Linton, Martin

  Sawford, Phil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Snape, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Todd, Mark

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  120

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Wills, Michael

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wood, Mike

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Webb, Steve

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  White, Brian

  Wyatt Derek

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Electronic Communications Bill

    ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electronic Communications Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

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

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under the Act; and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

    (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Question agreed to.

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2)(Liaison Committee),
    That this House agreed with the Report [23rd November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 21st December, do adjourn till Monday 10th January 2000.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Tuesday, 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Pope.]

    COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Maria Eagle be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Jim Murphy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Pope.]

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

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      DENTISTS
      That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 2nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

      JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
      That the draft Maximum Number of Stipendiary Magistrates Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      TAXATION AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
      That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 8484/1/99, the second progress report from the ECOFIN Council to the European Council on reinforced tax policy co-operation, 6615/98, a draft Directive on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments, 8781/98, and draft Directive to ensure a minimum of effective taxation of savings income within the Community, and 8329/99, a Commission Communication on the action plan for implementing the framework for financial markets; supports the Government's objective of amending the draft Savings Directive to ensure the competitiveness of EU financial markets, including the City of London, are not damaged, through securing among other things an exemption for
      122
      eurobonds and other similar instruments; and welcomes the Commission's efforts to develop further the single market in financial services. —[Mr. Pope.]
      Question agreed to.

    Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
    Ordered,

    COMMITTEES
      That Mr. Richard Livsey, be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Lembit Öpik be added to the Committee.
      That Rosemary McKenna be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Gerald Bermingham be added to the Committee.
      That Mr. John McWilliam be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Mike Gapes be added to the Committee.
      EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
      That Yvette Cooper, Mr. John Healey, Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester), Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Barry Sheerman be added to the Committee.
      That Julia Drown be discharged from the Health Committee and Mrs. Eileen Gordon be added to the Committee.
      SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
      That Mr. John McAllion, Ms Sandra Osborne and Mr. David Stewart be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Mohammed Sarwar and Mr. Bill Tynan be added to the Committee.
      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That Kali Mountford, Mr. Chris Pond and Ms Debra Shipley be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Andy King and Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West) be added to the Committee.
      TREASURY
      That Jacqui Smith be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. James Plaskitt be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Liverpool (Regeneration)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  10.15 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Liverpool's urban renaissance is under way. It is seen most clearly in the city centre, which has been identified in the north-west economic strategy as the engine of growth for both city and region. That is despite the shadow cast by the speculating and exploitative Walton group plc, which has stifled regeneration by acquiring key city centre sites, securing public sector grant, yet failing to develop.
  The Walton group stands guilty of impeding commercial growth, blighting the old post office site, Exchange Flags and now, in bizarre and unacceptable circumstances, Chavasse park, leaving Liverpool without a flagship millennium project and costing the city more than £200 million of committed investment, which has now been withdrawn.
  I thank the Minister for authorising an inquiry into the group's questionable acquisition of £4.5 million of public money, paid between 1992 and 1994 to regenerate Exchange Flags. At the end of 1999, that building remains largely empty. The group is increasing its wealth through capital appreciation of its undeveloped properties, while Liverpool has been sold short. The group's activities are against the public interest. It has committed a fraud on the city of Liverpool. I ask for an assurance that the inquiry will be thorough and determined.
  Regeneration must address economic, social, physical and environmental aspects of urban decline. Much progress has been made in Liverpool. City centre successes include the £90 million Queen's square Neptune development, including one of Liverpool's new four-star hotels, cultural, retail and office facilities; and the imaginative multi-million pound brownfield regeneration in Everton, led by Hope university college, transforming a derelict area into a place of higher and further education opportunities, linked with housing and shopping.
  There has been a significant increase in inner-city housing. Since 1991, there has been nearly a 300 per cent. increase in people living in inner-city Liverpool. Regeneration of the Hope street quarter is under way as one of the city's major cultural areas.
  Much has been done to realise the economic potential of Liverpool's thriving arts sector. The Government have given a lifeline to the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society and to the theatres in Liverpool. Nationally, the arts are the fastest growing sector producing employment.
  Examples of new developments in Liverpool include the imaginative FACT—Foundation for Arts and Cultural Technology—media enterprise project; ACME—Arts, Culture, Media Enterprises—investment; and the Centre for Arts Development Training.
  The trail-blazing Merseyside special investment fund has invested more than £65 million of European and private funding in 4,000 Merseyside jobs. It is hailed as a national and European example of good practice.
  Liverpool's expanding universities provide educational opportunities, together with an economic spin-off, for example, through technology transfer. The CIMS—Centre
  124
  of Intelligence Monitoring Systems—project at the university of Liverpool is spinning out technology into new and exciting projects. For example, new means of monitoring premature babies are being used at Liverpool Women's hospital.
  Major waterfront development in Liverpool is bringing hotels, housing and tourism and the growing trade in the port of Liverpool brings jobs. The north-west and Irish trade group is identifying investment opportunities for business with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government's new deal for communities has started its work in Kensington and Smithdown.
  All those initiatives rest on the imaginative use of funding attracted from a wide variety of sources, but the focus needed to effect major and visible change in Liverpool city centre is absent. That is why I welcome Liverpool Vision, which is the first urban regeneration company in the country to be set up following Lord Rogers' report, "Towards an Urban Renaissance". It brings together the North-West development agency, Liverpool city council, English Partnerships and the private sector to produce strategy and design for the city centre. International competition has produced a shortlist to conduct the design. Public consultation will follow.
  I call on Liverpool Vision, its partners and the local community to show that they can act decisively and collectively. The Government must consider whether additional powers are necessary to bring about the swift action that is needed. I urge Liverpool Vision to use imagination and determination to secure a prosperous city centre, which, with its internationally renowned waterfront and fine architecture, will be the pride of country and continent.
  Liverpool's economy is improving. Unemployment in my constituency has reduced by more than 26 per cent. in two years, but there are still more than 5,000 people out of work. Liverpool still ranks number one in the national index of local deprivation. The recent CACI report found that nine of the 20 poorest postcodes in the country were to be found in Liverpool.
  What is the way forward? It is for local knowledge, commitment and determination to ensure that European, national, regional and local initiatives support all people in Liverpool, including all its ethnic and racial groups, and that those initiatives attract private investment. Examples of good practice, such as the community-led Eldonian co-operative housing, leisure, employment and environmental regeneration in Vauxhall, should be replicated. The North-West development agency must keep Liverpool as its priority, backing local partners. The local authority must show initiative and leadership. Strategies must be turned into action.
  I should like an assurance that the Government will co-operate in identifying matching funding to enable the £840 million second phase of European objective 1 funding for Merseyside to be fully utilised as additional spending. I call on the Government to review regulations that impede the most effective co-ordinated use of funds from the diverse sources available.
  There is much more to achieve. Major companies must remain in the city centre and others should be encouraged to join them. Small and medium-sized enterprises and microbusinesses must be backed. I welcome the proposed new regional and local enterprise funds. The new deal must be used imaginatively. It has already brought great

  125
  benefit to Liverpool and it should be used together with funds for small businesses, training, retraining and skilling to bring new opportunities to all the people of Liverpool. Intermediate labour market schemes must be supported. Education, training and retraining must be accessible. Local people must have the opportunity to take jobs in Liverpool. Universities, which are already making a great contribution to the city, must promote the information society and back the local economy, spinning out more of their knowledge and expertise for the people of Liverpool.
  All housing tenures should be encouraged, particularly as part of regeneration schemes looking at environment and employment at the same time as housing provision. The proposed cuts by the Housing Corporation because of the new formula being applied must be reconsidered. Cuts in Housing Corporation funding of around 13 per cent. for Merseyside are simply unacceptable at a time when we are trying to support and encourage the regeneration of the inner city.
  The Daresbury laboratory must continue to benefit Liverpool and the north-west with its fine research capacity. Integrated infrastructure investment in air, rail, sea and road must be increased. Regeneration cannot take place simply in the place where it is being experienced. Wider investment is necessary, too. Urban spaces and parks must be valued, and investors in Liverpool must continue to be welcomed.
  I call on Liverpool Vision to take up the challenge of restoring Chavasse park as a flagship project and to address the blight left elsewhere in Liverpool by the Walton group's dereliction of duty. It is not good enough for Liverpool city council simply to wring its hands because of problems that may well have been created by others.
  As things stand, Liverpool will be one of perhaps only two cities in the country not to have a flagship millennium project within its precincts. That is simply not acceptable. If the millennium project has collapsed mainly because of the Walton group, and because of the bizarre circumstances surrounding it—and possibly also because of inaction by Liverpool city council—it must be up to Liverpool city council, together with Liverpool Vision, to restore what has been lost and to find new ways forward.
  Lord Rogers, in his urban task force report, concludes:
  "If we are to succeed in creating an urban renaissance we have to change the image of urban areas to one of attractiveness, opportunity and growth".
  Liverpool is already changing both image and reality. We must all rise to the challenge of making Liverpool the prime city of the future.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing this debate about the regeneration of a very important city in the UK. I recognise also her long experience in working to secure regeneration through local government, and her hard work since becoming a Member of Parliament to help Liverpool get back to where it ought to be—one of our foremost cities.
  My hon. Friend has outlined some of the ways in which we can begin to see the seeds of change. There has been much progress in Liverpool city centre recently.
  126
  Liverpool Vision—to which my hon. Friend referred—is the first urban regeneration company, and is building on that progress. The city centre is the prime location of high-quality jobs, business and tourism.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that Liverpool Vision must ensure that the wonderful potential of the sites and historic buildings of Liverpool can make the city a place for the new millennium—more jobs, more homes and more places to visit. That means improving accessibility, and the public realm, and adding value to what is already there.
  If we are to achieve sustainable growth in those areas, we must involve people and communities, and build real partnerships that draw on the strength and experience of everybody. It will be important for Liverpool Vision to produce a top-quality bid in single regeneration budget round 6, which embodies the principles of sustainability and social inclusion.
  We have noted that the North-West development agency has produced its strategy for the region, and that strategy recognises the regeneration of Liverpool city centre as an early priority. The agency is a founding member of Liverpool Vision and is working closely with all the partners to bring forward a strategy to help Liverpool become a world-class city. The agency believes that concentrating on the city centre is crucial to changing the economic prospects for the city as a whole. Many of the proposals likely to emerge from Liverpool Vision will require resources from the agency over the next 10 or even 15 years.
  There has been much movement in the city council, with a new chief executive with an excellent track record of achieving change. Sweeping changes are taking place in the council's management, with clear portfolios of responsibility, a new Cabinet-style structure and a smaller management team. I wish David Henshaw well in his new role and assure him of our continued support.
  The Liverpool democracy commission has tapped into, and revealed, tremendous popular concern about the kind of local government that the city needs for its future and has made some radical and exciting proposals, including a directly elected mayor. Many winds of change are blowing and things are beginning to happen that bode well.
  My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of the Walton group and the Exchange Flags project. The Walton Commercial Group Ltd, was awarded a grant of £4.5 million in July 1992 towards the refurbishment of the Exchange Flags building in the city centre. It was to provide 400,000 sq ft of refurbished office space and a museum. Total grant payments of nearly £4.5 million were made between November 1992 and May 1994, against claimed qualifying expenditure of more than £27 million. The situation regarding the project's realisation is much as she described.
  The Government are taking the issues extremely seriously. English Partnerships, acting as agents for the Secretary of State, is reviewing the project and the use to which the grant has been put. English Partnerships has given notice of its intention to exercise its right under the terms of the agreement to enter the premises and carry out an inspection of the works and of the relevant books and records of the Walton group. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that a thorough and determined approach is taken to investigating all those matters involving the Walton group.

  127
  I stress that the Government are trying to help regeneration in Liverpool across the board, through a variety of mainstream programmes as well as specific regeneration initiatives. That includes health, education and housing.
  Liverpool has been chosen to have two new education action zones, in Dingle, in Granby and Toxteth and in Speke-Garston. Both will begin work next spring. That is an important success for Liverpool. More than 120 applications to run zones were received in round 2 and only 48 were shortlisted for further development.
  As part of "Excellence in Cities", two new beacon schools for Liverpool were announced by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 23 November: the King David high school and St. Malachy's primary school. They are among the best-performing schools in the country and are examples of successful practice that are being brought to the attention of others with a view to sharing that practice. City learning centres will provide state-of-the-art information and communication technology-based learning opportunities for pupils, teachers and the wider community and will be based in the inner city.
  Merseyside has a strong health action zone comprising the local and health authorities across Merseyside. It is the largest HAZ in England and has been allocated £13.7 million over the next three years. It has been operational only since May but several projects are already under way. It is concentrating on developing the strongest possible partnerships with delivery agencies in a well-focused attack on health inequalities. The first mid-year review, conducted in October, was well received and the mood was upbeat.
  The work to find housing solutions for the inner core of Liverpool is crucial but we must have a strategy linking into Liverpool Vision's across-the-board work. Liverpool has already done excellent work on homelessness, refugees and asylum seekers, anti-social behaviour and supported housing. I am aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside about an 11 per cent. reduction in housing provision for Merseyside from the Housing Corporation as a result of changes in the way the figures are calculated. However, that figure needs to be read alongside the housing investment programme for Merseyside. We will make some important announcements on the housing investment programme shortly, and I ask that my hon. Friend waits for those announcements before making her judgments on the matter.
  We need to know much more about demand for housing in Liverpool, because otherwise we are fighting in the dark. I am glad to say that Liverpool has engaged the university of Birmingham to undertake a full assessment of the housing demand picture. It has also commissioned land surveys by Grimleys. It is too early to judge the outcome of the surveys but, so far, the city council has stuck to the task and put resources behind it.
  In addition to those mainstream initiatives that have benefited Liverpool, there has also been the single regeneration budget. Round 5 is the latest, and Liverpool city centre secured £475,000 in total. Liverpool Vision has been asked to submit a comprehensive bid for round
  128
  6 of the SRB in the context of a strategic regeneration plan for the city. The round 5 proposal, which was supported, is a preparatory move for the round 6 bid. The round 5 proposals can shape the round 6 bid, especially in terms of developing genuine community capacity building and testing innovative approaches to regeneration. The bidding guidance for round 6 will be published next month. We are looking for Liverpool Vision to put in a really good proposal for Liverpool in that round.
  In addition, the round 5 scheme for Speke-Garston—a total of £10 million, with an SRB contribution of more than £4 million—will build on the jobs and other benefits of the round 1 schemes in Speke-Garston. The development company there has been a major player in attracting investment, such as the Jaguar X400 investment in Halewood, which has also attracted other companies to the area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Riverside raised the issue of European objective 1 funding for Merseyside for 2000–06, and we are pleased that Merseyside achieved objective 1 status. However, it has never been the case that the Government have had to make matched funding available for objective 1 European funds. It is not correct to state that the Government have to match objective 1 EU funding for £844 million for Merseyside on a pound-for-pound basis in order receive that funding. My hon. Friend will know from her previous experience that objective 1 funds from the EU can be used to fund up to 75 per cent. of regeneration schemes, with applicants having to find the rest from UK sources, either public or private.
  For the previous Merseyside programme, the regeneration partners thought that they could find pound-for-pound matched funds for European objective 1 funds. However, some regeneration scheme applications found it difficult to locate the funding on that basis. The Government are trying to maximise the grant rate from European funding to reduce the matching funding that needs to be found here and also to ensure that the maximum amount of European funding is drawn down, so that the maximum number of projects can be funded. That approach will also free up Government funding for other regeneration schemes in the area. We are not at odds with the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside is trying to achieve, but the position is not as simple as she seemed to suggest when one tries to ensure the maximum resources from all possible sources end up in Liverpool supporting regeneration projects.
  The economic revival of Liverpool is there for us to begin to see. The transformation of Merseyside includes the complete refurbishment of the Albert dock area, where a media cluster has begun to develop. Planet Wild is an independent television production company that has received three Royal Television Society awards since it was established 18 months ago. A company called Amaze, situated in the Port of Liverpool building, is a world-class designer of software, websites and expandable movies—I am not sure what they are, but they sound interesting—and is a leader in computer-mediated communication.
  The transformation of a 64-acre former railway marshalling yard into the Wavertree technology park is further clear evidence of Merseyside's determination to play a major part in the new, technology driven economy. Equally, several automotive companies are locating,

  129
  or will be doing so, in the Speke-Garston-Halewood area, and the Speke-Garston development company has been a major player in attracting that investment.
  I mentioned the Jaguar initiative earlier, and other companies—including Lear, Conix and Johnson Controls—have also brought investment to the Halewood area. That has linked parts of Liverpool such as the Speke-Garston area to areas of need, and thus represents a real opportunity for the city.
  We have heard tonight about the progress already being made in Liverpool. The process of regeneration has already begun. Partnerships between local communities and the business and voluntary sectors are building a foundation for change and growth, along with local and regional government, and central Government. Government initiatives such as the single regeneration budget demonstrate what can be achieved through working together. We recognise the importance of involving local people in finding solutions to Liverpool's problems, and of giving the people of the city a greater stake in the success of its development and its future.
  I hope that we have learned a critical lesson from Liverpool's long history. The change being brought about cannot be sustained unless people are properly involved and have ownership of it. We must build people into the programme of change, from the outset and from the bottom up.
  The Government, and other bodies, are trying to take a holistic approach to Liverpool's regeneration, by combining health, economic and environmental initiatives
  130
  with lasting benefits for the community. I have great hopes for Liverpool Vision, our first urban regeneration company. I am sure that it will benefit the city and demonstrate the value of such companies, of which I believe that there will be more. I am also sure that the North-West regional development agency will be important in implementing economic and social change in the area.
  A great deal of work remains to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Riverside will know. However, we are putting in place a framework that I hope will provide opportunities to raise the quality of life in Liverpool for all those who work there.
  My hon. Friend knows Liverpool very well. I hope that she will agree that Liverpool now has something that it has needed for perhaps 25 years—a constellation of people, business, local governance and local organisations working together and pulling in the same direction.
  In the past, Liverpool has been dogged by the lack of a consensus about what needs to be done and how to go about doing it, and its people have suffered as a result. Matters are different now, and people are willing to pull in the same direction. The work done by my hon. Friend and her colleagues in that regard has been very important. I wish Liverpool well, and assure her that the Government want the city to succeed as it ought to.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (i) the original in-service date, (ii) the current in-service date, (iii) the estimated and actual costs, (iv) the years of expected peak expenditure and (v) the prime contractor for all the endorsed staff requirements. [98583]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of equipment supplied to Indonesia's armed forces by United Kingdom suppliers; and if he will make a statement. [99297]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are in regular contact with our Embassy in Jakarta about the use of such equipment. We have made it clear to Indonesia that UK-supplied defence equipment should not be used in East Timor or against civilians in violation of human rights standards.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99478]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: With the exception of the Public Service Agreement with HM Treasury my Department has no targets agreed with other bodies at the Departmental level. However the Public Service Agreement is consistent with the wider goals of the Government. At a lower level some elements of the Department and the Armed Forces will share goals with outside bodies. It would not be possible to provide a comprehensive list of such shared goals without disproportionate cost.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are currently committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands. [100018]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently approximately 1,650 Service personnel in the Falkland Islands.

  Old Ranges, Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the tender documents for the site at the Old Ranges, Shoeburyness, have to be lodged with Donaldsons of 70 Jermyn Street, London SW1; and when the tender documents will be available to possible bidders. [100055]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The sales brochure specified that the extra site would be sold by means of Best Offer bids, and that proposals should be received by 12 noon on Friday 10 December 1999, at the agents, Donaldsons, 70 Jermyn street, London. Donaldsons wrote to all prospective purchasers on 24 November 1999, explaining the basis upon which offers should be made. There is no requirement for formal tender documentation given that the site is not being sold by Formal Tender.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information on(a) costs and (b) time scales of IT projects currently being undertaken by his Department is held centrally; if he will list the (i) start date, (ii) planned completion date, (iii) expected completion date, (iv) planned cost and (v) current estimated cost of these projects where available; and if he will make a statement. [99666]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The information requested is not readily available; however, I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army (Terms of Service)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Army Terms of Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999 on the ability of young people in the armed forces to leave after enlistment; and what is the minimum period of service for which such young persons will have to enlist. [100193]

  Mr. Spellar
  All recruits to non-commissioned service in the Army enter on an Open Engagement of 22 years reckonable service from age 18 or the date of joining, whichever is the later. The Army Terms of Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which came into effect on 1 November 1999, increased the minimum commitment period for newly recruited soldiers from three to four years. Those enlisted after this date will, therefore, serve for an additional year before they have the right to discharge to the reserve.

  The Army Terms of Service (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999 have no effect on the statutory right to discharge provisions. A recruit under the age of 18 can leave the Army free as of right within the first six months of service (having served at least 28 days and having given 14 days notice); for those aged over 18, the statutory right to discharge ends three months after joining for duty.

  New recruits who do not exercise this right are committed to serve for four years from their 18th birthday or 4.25 years after attestation, whichever is the later. Provision does, however, exist for personnel of any age to be discharged from the service at any time for a number of reasons, including compassionate.

  War Widows
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date war widows will be able to keep their armed forces pension on remarriage. [99094]

  Mr. Spellar
  The payment of widows' pensions is being examined as part of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which is currently under way. We hope it will be concluded by next summer. It is not possible at this stage to comment on the outcome.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Ministers or his officials have held with the Department of Social Security in respect of war pensions for widows; and if he will make a statement. [100310]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD and DSS officials have worked closely on the joint MOD-DSS review of compensation for members of the armed forces who suffer illness, injury, and death for reasons attributable to service. The MOD and DSS routinely discuss war pensions issues, including arrangements for war widows. There are also day-to-day contacts between DSS War Pensions Agency and the MOD Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency about the handling of individual cases.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of war widows retaining for life attributable pensions awarded under his Department's armed forces pension scheme. [100313]

  Mr. Spellar
  We estimate that the cost of war widows retaining for life their attributable pensions would be between £2 million and £3 million per annum.

  Marital Status (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy have changed from Maristat One in each year between and including 1989 and the current financial year; into which marital category they have changed; what proportion of each service this represents for each year; and if he will make a statement. [99928]

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

  Air Crashes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, for the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Army, he will list(a) the number of aircraft crashed in each of the past five years to November 1999, (b) their value, (c) the age and type of each aircraft, (d) the fate of the pilots and (e) the attributed cause of each accident. [100311]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is not readily available; however I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  National Employers Liaison Committee
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the budget for the National Employers
  4W
  Liaison Committee for the reserves of the armed forces and (b) the Territorial Army Recruiting Budget for each year from 1994. [99930]

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

  Pay Scales
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the current pay scales for(a) non-regular permanent staff staff sergeants and (b) MOD civil service executive officers. [99932]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current pay scale for a non-regular permanent staff (NRPS) staff sergeant, effective from 1 April 1999, is £20,613 per annum on appointment, rising to £20,723 after nine years.

  With effect from 1 August 1999, the maximum point on the executive officer pay scale was increased from £18,264 to £22,727. The minimum was also increased, from £11,914 to £12,523.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of redundancy payments made to non-regular permanent staff replaced by Executive Officers as Territorial Army financial systems administrators; and how many NRPS FSAs over 50 years of age have been pensioned off. [99934]

  Mr. Spellar
  To date there have been no redundancy payments made to non-regular permanent staff (NRPS) financial systems administrator (FSA) personnel, including those over age 50, who are being replaced by civilian Executive Officers (EOs). It is not currently possible to provide the value of redundancy payments which will be made because such payments will be determined individually and will be calculated on the basis of length of NRPS service and rate of pay on discharge.

  The number of NRPS FSAs over the age of 50 is not held centrally, but is being collated, and I will write to the hon. Member with this detail and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Broadsword
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of repairing and refitting the Joint Services Adventure Sail Training vessel Broadsword in the past year; and what would be the cost of purchasing an equivalent new boat. [99931]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Services Adventure Sail Training vessel Broadsword completed an extensive package of work in May 1998 to extend her life for a further 15 years. The total cost of this work was £256,000. Since then, the only costs incurred on Broadsword have been for repair work associated with her participation in the Transglobe Inter-Savings global yacht race, which has not yet completed. It is estimated that the repair work undertaken to-date will cost about £14,000. No refit work is planned for 1999–2000. The cost of purchasing an equivalent new boat is estimated to be about £700,000.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason Territorial Army financial systems administrators have each received substitution pay of £10 per day; and what has been the total cost to his budget; [99929]

  (2) how many Territorial Army financial systems administrator posts are being civilianised; what is (a) the average and (b) the maximum number of training weeks required to train executive officers as FSAs; what is the cost of that training; what is the cost of (i) subsistence and (ii) travelling expenses per person per day for that training at Worthy Down; and whether overtime will be payable to civilianised FSAs. [99933]

  Mr. Spellar
  The post of Financial Systems Administrator (FSA) was civilianised with effect from 1 July 1999, and this will affect some 78 non-regular permanent staff (NRPS). The executive officer (EO) grade civil servants who will fulfil this function in future will each undergo a maximum of 18 weeks training at the School of Employment (SET) Training at Worthy Down before taking over the job fully. One additional member of staff has been temporarily employed to assist in running courses at SET at a cost of some £35,000 to minimise the impact of this surge in requirement on existing courses.

  The travel and subsistence costs for EOs attending these courses depend on an individual's circumstances. Where EOs stay in the Officers' Mess at Worthy Down, they will receive daily subsistence of £5 in addition to the cost of accommodation. If they stay in a hotel, the rate is up to a maximum of £25 in addition to the cost of accommodation. It is not possible to provide a meaningful figure for travelling expenses because each individual's circumstances are unique. Executive officer FSAs will be entitled to claim overtime.

  Until such time as the executive officers take over these responsibilities, the NRPS staff sergeants who are currently filling the posts are entitled to substitution pay which equates to £10 a day. In order to provide an overall cost, it would be necessary to refer to individual records and this has not been possible in the time available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98699]

  Mr. Straw
  Home Office Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowances in the same circumstances and on the same terms as Home Office civil servants. However, all five Ministers use the Government Car Service. The vehicles available to me, while purchased by my Department, are operated by the Metropolitan Police.

  6W
  The Motor Mileage Allowance Rates offered to Ministers and civil servants using their own vehicles for official business are as follows:

  Home Office (excluding Prison Service)

  Motor Vehicle Rates

  Public Transport Rate
  23.8p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine capacity up to 1500cc
  35.7p for first 5,000 miles
  19p for over 5,000 miles

  Engine capacity 1501–2000cc
  43p for first 5,000 miles
  23p for over 5,000 miles

  Engine capacity over 2000cc
  46p for first 5,000 miles
  31p for over 5,000 miles

  Motor Cycle Rates

  Public Transport Rate

  Engine capacity up to 125cc
  12.9p per mile

  Engine capacity over 125cc
  23.8p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine capacity up to 125cc
  16.2p for first 4,000miles
  6.2p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine capacity over 125cc
  26p for first 4,000 miles
  9p for over 4.000 miles

  Prison Service

  Motor Vehicle Rates
  Public Transport Rate
  24.9p per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine capacity up to 1000cc
  28p for first 4,000 miles
  17p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine capacity 1001–1500cc
  35p for first 4,000 miles
  20p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine capacity 1501–2000cc
  45p for first 4,000 miles
  25p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine capacity over 2000cc
  63p for first 4,000 miles
  36p for over 4,000 miles
  7W
  Motor Cycle Rates

  Public Transport Rate

  Engine capacity up to 125cc
  13.4p per mile

  Engine capacity over 125cc
  24.9 per mile

  Standard Rate Mileage

  Engine capacity up to 125cc
  17.5p for first 4,000 miles
  6.5p for over 4,000 miles

  Engine capacity over 125cc
  27.2p for first 4,000 miles
  9.7p for over 4,000 miles

  Expenditure

  The cost of motor mileage allowances for Home Office civil servants in each of the last three years has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  1,116,202

  1997–98

  1,039,917

  1998–99

  930,237

  Unfortunately, data are not available for the earlier two years: 1994–95 and 1995–96. Also these figures exclude expenditure in the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the Prison Service because these data could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from organisations representing tourism and the travel industry(a) supporting and (b) opposing an increase in fees charged by the Passport Agency for issuing passports. [99401]

  Mrs. Roche
  Representations expressing concern about increases in passport fees have been received from The Association of British Travel Agents Ltd., The Council of Travel and Tourism, the Passenger Shipping Association and the Federation of Tour Operators.

  The Agency has taken careful account of their representations in its review of passport fees.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he plans to publish the Passport Agency's business plan 1999–2000 and its corporate plan 1999 to 2002. [100210]

  Mr. Straw
  The Passport Agency's Corporate and Business Plans 1999–2002 will be published shortly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date his advisory board considered the Passport Agency's business plan 1999 to 2000 and its corporate plan 1999 to 2002; and if his advisory board has now approved those plans. [100208]

  Mr. Straw
  The Passport Agency's revised Corporate and Business Plans were considered by the Advisory Board on 27 September. The plans, which were held back pending the publication of the National Audit Office 8W
  report, have now been approved. They will be issued shortly, together with a recovery plan which sets out the action the Agency is taking to prevent a recurrence of this year's problems.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Board of the United Kingdom Passport Agency considered its business plan 1999–2000 and its corporate plan 1999 to 2002; and if the plans have been approved. [100209]

  Mr. Straw
  The Passport Agency's revised Corporate and Business Plans were considered by the Agency's Management Board on 20 September. The plans, which were held back pending publication of the National Audit Office Report, have now been approved. They will be published shortly, together with a recovery plan which sets out the action the Agency is taking to prevent a recurrence of this year's problems.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in his review of the future level of passport fees. [100214]

  Mr. Straw
  We are looking at various options for a possible increase in passport fees and an announcement of the outcome will be made shortly.

  Airport Vetting
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it became the practice for immigration officers to vet passengers as to the status of their visas and passports prior to leaving aeroplanes arriving in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [99848]

  Mrs. Roche
  While there are powers in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 which allow an Immigration officer to board and search an aircraft and to require the production of a passenger's documents, Immigration officers do not routinely examine passengers' travel documents prior to their leaving an aircraft. However, Immigration officers regularly attend arriving flights and check travel documents shortly after disembarkation in order to identify inadequately documented passengers. This practice has grown since the late 1980s in order to deal with the increasing number of passengers who destroy or otherwise dispose of their travel documents and tickets after departure for the United Kingdom. The procedures have been developed to establish the proof of carriage so that charges under the carriers' liability legislation can be effectively pursued and also to minimise the difficulties and costs in removing persons where the identity of the carrier and the port of embarkation cannot be established.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total amount of the settlements made with the five employees of the Commission for Racial Equality with regard to their claims of racial discrimination against the Commission. [100211]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Details of personal settlements are confidential between the parties involved.

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99556]

  Mrs. Roche
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency has a partnership arrangement with Post Office Counters Limited which was established in January 1996. Under this arrangement, passport applicants can lodge their application at any main Post Office.

  The Agency is currently re-tendering its partnership arrangements, however both the Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. have indicated a commitment to working together in the future.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the advantages of the introduction of national identity cards which include identification for entitlement to social security payments. [99093]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are considering all the relevant issues involved in identity cards including their possible contribution to tackling welfare fraud, increasing individual convenience and simplifying Government. We have not yet reached any final conclusions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress is being made towards a code of practice for clay pigeon shooting. [98827]

  Kate Hoey
  The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and British Shooting Sports Council jointly issued, for consultation, draft guidance on the management and control of noise for clay pigeon shooting in November 1997. The consultation period was completed in March 1998 and the guidance is still under preparation. I understand the authors are awaiting further input from various bodies, and will publish the guidance at the earliest opportunity.

  TV Licence Fees
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people will benefit from the free licence fee for those persons aged over 75 years, announced by him; and if he will make a statement. [98535]
  10W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: Over 3 million households will benefit from the provision of television licences free of charge to people aged 75 or over, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review TV licence concessions available for blind people and those in residential and sheltered accommodation below the age of 75 years. [99173]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: The Government accept that the introduction of free television licences for people aged 75 or over will not remove the need to consider the shortcomings of the existing concessionary arrangements. We shall consider the recommendations of the BBC funding review panel in the light of the responses to the public consultation which has just concluded. We intend to announce our conclusions in January.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement in respect of his policy towards the percentage of home-produced material broadcast on Channel 5. [99133]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: Under the terms of its licence from the Independent Television Commission, Channel 5 must comply with the terms of the European Commission's Directive 97/36/EC (which amended Directive 89/552/EC). Under the Directive, the majority of programmes broadcast by Channel 5 must be of European origin. Channel 5 met that licence condition in 1997 and 1998. For these years, the proportions of European-originated programming transmitted by Channel 5 (other than news, sports coverage, games, advertising and teletext services which are exempted from the Directive) were 60 per cent. and 52 per cent. respectively. A high proportion of Channel 5's European-originated programming is produced in the UK.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to respond to the report by the Independent Review Panel on the future funding of the BBC. [100045]

  Janet Anderson
  The period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations ended on 1 November. We are considering all the panel's recommendations in the light of responses received and hope to announce our final decisions in January.

  Culture/Audiovisual Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the outcome of the Culture/Audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 23 November; and if he will make a statement. [99847]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Culture/Audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 23 November. The Presidency reported on the ongoing conciliation process for the Culture 2000 programme. The Council agreed a Resolution on the promotion of the free
  11W
  movement of persons working in the cultural sector. The Commission will carry out a study on the obstacles to free movement, and the results will be presented at the beginning of the French Presidency. The Council agreed conclusions on the cultural industries and employment in Europe. There was some discussion of the successor programme to MEDIA II and we now await the Commission's proposals for this, which are expected shortly. The Council adopted conclusions on the protection of minors in the context of development in digital audiovisual services. These encourage the parties concerned, (manufacturers, broadcasters and operators), to co-operate in considering ways of evaluating and rating audiovisual content in order to assist parents in the protection of minors. Several cultural initiatives carried out by member states in support of reconciliation in Kosovo were also announced.

  National Lottery Commission
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the National Lottery Commission. [100809]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I regret to report that Robin Squire has resigned his membership of the National Lottery Commission for business and other personal reasons. I will appoint a successor in due course.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Teddy Bear Ties
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee on what authority, and for what reason, the decision was taken to sell teddy bear ties in the souvenir shop. [100435]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services. I have asked her to reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Divisions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate he has made of the cost to the House of(a) the conducting of each division of the House (i) before and (ii) after 10 pm and (b) each hour of the House's sitting after 10 pm, in each case including all costs relating to staff and the Parliamentary Estate. [100746]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The cost to the House of conducting divisions is met from the day-to-day budgets of House departments. The figures are not separately identified.

  For divisions after 10 pm, no additional staff or services are required when the House divides, so no separately identifiable costs are incurred for such divisions. Some additional costs are incurred when House staff have to stay after 11 pm. e.g. for providing late night transport for staff of the House and others (e.g. security staff).

  The fixed costs of running the estate are incurred regardless of what time the House rises.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Russia
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Russian Government concerning help with, and advice on, the welfare and protection of street children. [99523]

  Clare Short
  I have had no direct discussion with the Russian government on street children.

  My Department is developing a project, expected to start early next year, which will directly benefit homeless and vulnerable children in Ekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk oblast. Throughout the design process, DFID officials have maintained close contact with the Russian regional and municipal authorities, who support the proposed work.

  Hurricane Lenny
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received of the effects of Hurricane Lenny in the Bahamas. [99205]

  Clare Short
  The effects of Hurricane Lenny in the Bahamas were limited to heavy rainfall. There have been no reports of significant damage.

PRIME MINISTERS

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reforms that have been made to national insurance as mentioned in the Gracious Speech. [99412]

  The Prime Minister
  Following recommendations in the Taylor Report on "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefits System", the Government have introduced the most far-reaching restructuring of the National Insurance System for 20 years. Measures announced in the last two Budgets have been designed to improve work incentives, encourage job creation and build a fairer and simpler National Insurance System.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits to China since 1 May 1997, specifying for each occasion (i) the(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) numbers of officials who attended, (ii) the matters discussed and conclusions reached and (iii) the cost of the visit. [99130]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: Under the terms of the "Ministerial Code", any member of the Cabinet who wishes to be absent from the United Kingdom for any reason, except for visits to European countries on official business, or visits to member countries for NATO business requires my written approval. Other Ministers who propose to be absent from the country must seek the approval of the Ministerial Head of the Department concerned. A list of visits overseas by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during the period May 1997 to March 1999 was placed in the Library of the House on 17 June 1999. Since then two Cabinet Ministers, the Secretary of State for Trade and

  13W
  Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport have visited China at an estimated cost of £34,000. This includes the cost of travel and accommodation for a Private Secretary accompanying each Minister and in the case of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, a Special Adviser. Both visits were made in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code".

  Detailed information on visits overseas by Junior Ministers is not collected centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total salary bill, including on-costs, of special advisers employed at 10 Downing street for each year since 1 May 1997. [99137]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 21 January 1998, Official Report, columns 567W–68W and to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 15 June 1998, Official Report, columns 5W–6W and that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 11 November 1999, Official Report, column 828W.

  Ministers (Private Health Insurance)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to provide guidance to Government ministers regarding the purchase of private health insurance policies. [99309]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: No. The purchase of insurance policies by individual Ministers in a private capacity is a personal matter.

  State Visits
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the State Visits to the United Kingdom that have been made since May 1997 and the dates of each visit. [98655]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: The following State Visits to the United Kingdom have been made since 1 May 1997:

  Visitor

  Date

  President of Brazil

  2–5 December 1997

  Emperor of Japan

  26–29 May 1998

  President of Germany

  1–4 December 1998

  President of Hungary

  22–25 June 1999

  President of the People's Republic of China

  19–22 October 1999

  Tibet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish in the Official report the reply he gave to the letter from Amnesty International, the Free Tibet Campaign and Mr. Wei Jingsheng of 21 October, requesting an official statement from Her Majesty's Government on human rights and Tibet. [99435]
  14W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: My Office's reply to the letter of 21 October from Amnesty International and others said that I discussed human rights with the Chinese President during our meeting and lunch on 21 October. It added that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would brief Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations concerned on the human rights aspect of the State Visit and the next steps in our human rights dialogue with the Chinese. The briefing took place on 9 November.

  Lord Chancellor
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultation the Lord Chancellor had with him about the newspaper reports that officials in the House of Lords were asked by him to make untrue statements; and what advice he gave to the Lord Chancellor. [100186]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the budget of the Social Exclusion Unit for the current financial year and for each future year for which a budget has been set for it. [99588]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: The Social Exclusion Unit's running costs budget for 1999–2000 is £1,846,334. The Unit's budget for 2000–01 and subsequent financial years has not been agreed and will depend partly on the outcome of the current review of the Unit's future which will be announced before the end of this year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the title of each report published to date by the Social Exclusion Unit, stating the cost implications of the recommendations made in each report. [99644]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: To date the Social Exclusion Unit has published the following reports:
  "School Exclusion and Truancy" (published May 1998);
  "Rough Sleeping" (published July 1998);

  "Neighbourhood Renewal" (published September 1998);
  "Teenage Pregnancy" (published June 1999);
  "Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 Year Olds Not in Education, Employment or Training" (published July 1999).

  Each report contains information on the cost implications of its recommendations

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the title, purpose and work programme of all policy action teams led(a) by the Social Exclusion Unit and (b) by departments with Social Exclusion Unit involvement, indicating in each case (i) the date when they were set up and (ii) the date when their work is due for completion. [99587]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: The remit and timetable for each of the 18 Policy Action Teams is set out in the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal" [CM 4045]. Copies are available

  15W
  in the Libraries of the House. All 18 Teams started work in autumn 1998. The following six Teams have published reports:

  Business;

  Housing Management;

  Unpopular Housing;

  Community Self-Help;

  Arts and Sport;

  Financial Services.

  The others will follow over the next few months.

  Copies of all the published reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed in the Social Exclusion Unit in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and what plans he has for staffing levels in 2000 to 2002. [99643]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: By the end of 1997 The Social Exclusion Unit had 12 members of staff. On 30 June 1998 the Unit had 21 members of staff and on 30 June 1999 the Unit had 35 members of staff. The Unit's staffing for 2000–01 and subsequent financial years has not been agreed and will depend partly on the conclusions of the current review of the Unit's future which will be announced before the end of this year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what the current work programme is of the Social Exclusion unit, including(a) the titles of all reports in preparation, (b) their expected publication dates and (c) any further subjects due to be examined by the unit during the period 2000 to 2002. [99645]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: The current work programme of the Social Exclusion Unit includes support to the Policy Action Teams which the Unit itself leads and liaison with those led by other Departments, the preparation of a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and oversight of the implementation of previous reports.

  The Unit's future work programme will reflect the conclusions of the current review of the Unit's future which will be announced before the end of the year.

  Balkans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action the Government are taking to minimise hypothermia in the Balkans during the winter. [100090]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The impact of the Balkan winter is likely to be the harshest in Kosovo, where 100,000 houses were severely damaged or destroyed during the conflict. The Department for International Development (DFID) aims to complement shelter initiatives being carried out by other donors by rehabilitating utilities, especially power and water supplies, before the weather becomes too severe.

  The electrical distribution system (100KV) sustained considerable war damage and is the focus of DFID's attention. Other donors are working on the 220KV and 440KV transmission systems. Our aim is to help the local authorities with the supply of equipment and technical
  16W
  advice on the electrical distribution system throughout Kosovo. A British management team, jointly funded by the EU Task Force and British Trade International (BTI), is currently working with the EU Task Force, UNMIK and the Kosovo Electric Company, to manage the overall power situation in Kosovo. Specific funding from DFID and BTI is ensuring the continued supply of coal to the Kosovo power stations.

  Additionally, DFID has committed £3 million to carry out emergency works to Pristina airport to keep it operational throughout the winter. The airport is a crucial alternative supply route to the congested Blace border crossing.

  In Serbia heating assistance is being targeted on vulnerable groups by the international agencies such as UNHCR and the European Commission's Humanitarian Office (ECHO). ECHO's assistance to Serbia and Montenegro since May 1999 amounts to 26.6 million euros, of which the UK has contributed approximately 15 per cent.

  Life Peerages
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to change the law to provide a way for a life peerage to be disclaimed; and if he will make a statement. [100126]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: In the unlikely event that a life peer wished to disclaim a life peerage he or she could seek to introduce a Private Bill to enable that to happen.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lift Installations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average waiting time between the occupational therapist's recommendation of a through-floor lift and the installation of the lift in(a) the South and East and (b) the North and West Trust areas in the last 12 months. [98474]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The average waiting time in South and East Belfast Trust area in public sector housing is three months for terminally ill clients and over one year for others. For private sector housing this is 3–5 months if the building work is undertaken by the client and over one year where an application is made for a Disabled Facilities Grant. In North and West Belfast Trust area the average waiting time is 4–5 months.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests for through-floor lifts in(a) the South and East and the (b) North and West Trust areas were made in the last 12 months; and in which areas such lifts are still to be installed. [98475]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The need for through floor lifts is normally identified following an assessment of an individual's needs and home environment by an Occupational Therapist. During the last 12 months South and East Belfast HSS Trust identified a total of 33 clients requiring a through floor lift although 10 clients later withdrew from the scheme. Four lifts have still to be installed by the Trust. In North and West Belfast HSS
  17W
  Trust area 37 clients were identified as requiring a through floor lift in the last 12 months and 22 lifts have still to be installed by the Trust.

  Health Investment
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for investment in the National Health Service infrastructure in Northern Ireland. [99381]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Major hospitals in each of the four Health and Social Services Board Areas are being modernised or replaced. Within the next two years, the Causeway Hospital will come into operation, along with the Altnagelvin Hospital Nucleaus Extension. Following that, a major external refurbishment project will be completed at Craigavon Area Hospital, and the Phase 1 New Block at the Royal Victoria Hospital redevelopment will be completed. The total value of these projects is almost £139 million.

  Construction of a £15 million local hospital at Downpatrick in County Down is planned to begin next year and is due to be completed in 2003.

  Further investment is planned with a £28 million upgrading of Altnagelvin Hospital Tower Block, and Phase 2 of the Royal Victoria Hospital redevelopment estimated at £24 million.

  A £30 million Regional Cancer Centre is planned, and detailed proposals are being drawn up for a Regional Medical Rehabilitation Centre and for a Medium Secure Unit for the mentally ill. It is anticipated that these projects will be procured under the Private Finance Initiative.

  Railways
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will undertake an inquiry into the safety of the railway system in Northern Ireland. [99279]

  Mr. George Howarth
  NIR has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of operations on the network.
  NIR commissioned consultants in March this year to conduct a strategic safety review of NIO's network and operations.

  The final report should be available shortly.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to increase investment in the railway system outside the Belfast to Dublin line. [99280]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Work has recently commenced on the reinstatement of the Antrim Bleach Green line at a cost of approximately £17 million. In addition, work on a new Bangor Interchange Centre is in progress at a cost of £4.2 million.

  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has also examined opportunities for a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to meet future investment needs. It is expected that an announcement on the way forward will be made in the near future.
  18W
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the state of the Northern Ireland Railway's rolling stock. [99281]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is acknowledged that much of the NIR class 80 rolling stock is nearing the end of its useful life and will need to be replaced over the coming years. To this end the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has been examining opportunities for a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to meet the investment needs. A report on PPP options is expected in the near future and an announcement will follow when decisions have been made on the way forward. In view of the time scales involved in bringing forward any PPP option the Department is also examining the interim funding that would be required for rolling stock replacement.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average resettlement grant made to prisoners released under the early releases scheme in Northern Ireland; who is responsible for distributing this money; what criteria are used in determining the levels of awards; and if he will make a statement. [100207]

  Mr. Ingram
  Prisoners in Northern Ireland do not receive resettlement grants.

  Every prisoner, however, including those released by decision of the independent Sentence Review Commissioners under the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, is entitled to a Discharge Grant paid and administered by the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  The Discharge Grant is intended to ensure that each discharged inmate has enough money for his immediate needs and the rates are calculated to reflect the rate of Income Support Benefit currently in payment by the Social Security Agency.

  Current rates, uprated in April 1999, are as follows:

  A Standard Grant is payable at the rate of £40.70 for inmates aged 18 to 24 years and £51.40 for inmates aged 25 years and upwards.

  A Higher Grant is payable at the rate of £103.81 to any inmate who satisfies the prison authorities that he or she is effectively homeless on discharge. The higher amount takes into account the average costs of hostel or bed and breakfast accommodation in Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that all departments and public sector agencies require that pigmeat supplied under their catering contracts be produced according to UK welfare standards. [99057]

  Ms Quin
  We cannot dictate to public procurement authorities, but we will continue to seek to persuade them that buying to British welfare and other standards offers good value and meets the needs of their "customers".
  19W
  To back up this message, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to local councils and health authorities in England to emphasise the importance of sourcing to British standards. As the welfare legislation was passed in this House with an overwhelming majority, we also believe that every right hon. and hon. Member has a duty to raise this issue with public procurement authorities in their constituencies.

  Climate Change Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Ministry has made of the potential impact of the proposed climate change levy on the agricultural sector. [99049]

  Ms Quin
  It is not possible to say what the impact of the levy on the agricultural industry will be. That will depend on a number of factors, including future energy consumption and what use the industry makes of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy or in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants. The use the industry makes of the proposed system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments will also have an impact. In addition certain sectors of the industry will be eligible for an 80 per cent. discount on the rates of the levy if they enter into energy saving agreements with the Government. All sectors of the industry will also benefit from the lower overall rates of the levy announced by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget Report statement.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to(a) introduce and (b) facilitate the passage of a Bill banning fur farming within the current parliamentary session. [99119]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: A Bill to ban fur farming in England and Wales was introduced on 22 November. I understand the Scottish Executive will be introducing a separate Bill to extend the ban to Scotland.

  Primates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulatory requirements must be satisfied by persons seeking to export primates for experimentation purposes. [99138]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: The rules governing the export of primates from the UK to member states of the European Union are set down in Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992. These rules are implemented in Great Britain by the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1998 and in Northern Ireland by the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended).

  Under this legislation primates may be traded within the EU only between institutes or establishments which have been approved by the competent authority. Commission Decision 92/65/EEC sets down detailed specifications for the approval of institutes or establishments engaged in the import and export of primates. An up-to-date list of all such approved premises is lodged with the European Commission.
  20W
  Exported primates must be accompanied by official veterinary documentation confirming that the animals are in good health and that they originate from approved premises.

  In the case of exports of primates to third countries, exporters are required to satisfy conditions agreed bilaterally between the UK and the importing country.

  All primates exported from the UK are subject to rules introduced by The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997. Exporters are required to give a written undertaking that arrangements have been made to comply with the terms of the EU Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport. The animals must not be transported in a way that causes or could cause injury or unnecessary suffering. Strict rules covering the construction and maintenance of the receptacles and means of transport must be complied with.

  Bee Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is putting into effect to contain bee diseases in 2000. [99441]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: The Government fund a range of measures in England through its bee health programme, which is delivered by the Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit. In 2000–01 the programme will cost £1.3 million. The measures include a free diagnostic service for varroa, American Foul Brood and European Foul Brood as well as providing training and guidance on how to improve bee husbandry to help control bee diseases. In addition, in 2000–01 MAFF expects to spend around £244,000 on research and development (mainly on varroa) to support our bee health work. This includes a four year project on the biological control of varroa.

  Arrangements for bee health matters in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly respectively.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to promote ship building and repair in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [99208]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To support and promote the UK shipbuilding industry, in July 1998 the Department established the Shipbuilding Forum whose membership comprises representatives of the shipbuilding and shiprepair industry, trades unions, equipment suppliers and customers, both private and public sector. Also involved are the National Training Organisation for the marine sector and relevant Government Departments. The Forum's terms of reference were to consider the current situation of the shipbuilding and shiprepair industry and how to improve its competitiveness so as to increase its share of the European market, leading to increased output,
  21W
  profitability and employment. The Forum produced a Report (a copy of which was placed in the Library in May 1999) and a subsequent Implementation Plan containing Recommendations—more than 40—addressed to all the participants, not just to Government. The Forum believes that these Recommendations will go a long way towards improving the fortunes of the UK shipbuilding and shiprepair industry.

  The Department has already implemented most of the Recommendations addressed to it, most of which related to improvements to the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund (SIF) and the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme (HSCGS). The Department has agreed to include an element of profit in SIF calculation; has extended SIF to conversion contracts; and has extended access to SIF to a number of previously excluded yards. The HSCGS has been improved by allowing contacts offering "pure cover" and by allowing US dollar and euro financing. In addition my Department has supported financially two projects being undertaken by the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association aimed at improving productivity in shipyards, both new building and repair/conversion.

  As well as these measures we are working in the EU and the OECD to find effective international trade disciplines to tackle unfair trade practices, such as low pricing from Korea. The Industry Council achieved a positive conclusion on this issue at its meeting on 9 November, making clear the EU' s determination to deal with Korean unfair pricing and agreeing further actions to this end, including re-engaging Korea in bilateral consultations and pursuing possible actions under the World Trade Organisation.

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99554]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  By the nature of their operations and activities, this Department and its agencies do not directly provide business for Crown or other post offices and this position is not expected to change over the next five years. Currently no specific new areas of business for post offices are foreseen by this department but the targets for electronic delivery of services (50 per cent. by 2005, 100 per cent. by 2008) represent a real opportunity for additional business for the Post Office network across all public services delivered by central Government. Moreover, equivalent targets are now being set for local Government and there is an opportunity for the Post Office network to gain further business in delivery of services which are the responsibility of local Government. In addition to these Modern Government initiatives, the potential to provide a wider range of banking and other financial services through the Horizon automated system could facilitate an increase in the levels of business generated by or with Government Departments and agencies.
  22W
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; and how many of them transact more than 40 per cent. of their work volumes on behalf of the Benefits Agency. [99766]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: I have obtained from the Post Office a list providing the information requested and have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has approved the Post Office's five year Strategic Plan; and if he will make a statement. [100811]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce Government approval of the Post Office's Strategic Plan for 1999–2004. This is a five year rolling Plan which will be updated annually. The Plan, as submitted by the Post Office Board meets the requirements set out in the Post Office White Paper (CM 434) and represents a key element in the new arm's length relationship that the Government is now establishing with the Post Office in fulfilment of the reforms described in the White Paper. The Post Office will now be pursuing and developing their strategy and this will be reflected in the Plan for 2000–05, which the Board will be presenting to me next spring.

  For the Post Office both to modernise and improve services to customers in this country and to develop into a significant global player in distribution markets poses tough challenges, but exciting opportunities. In an increasingly competitive market place for postal services these challenges should not be underestimated as the Post Office itself fully recognises. This means that the Post Office must successfully build on current initiatives and seize commercial opportunities as they arise in the UK and internationally.

  The key features of the Strategic Plan are commercially confidential, and as such will not be published. However, on the basis of the Plan the Government have set a post-tax profit target of £350 million for the financial year 1999–2000. This figure excludes any exceptional provisions which may be made for the Horizon automation project. As already announced, the Government have set the external financing regime (excluding adjustments for Horizon and acquisitions) as 50 per cent. of the post-tax profits for this year, and therefore, if the Post Office achieves the profit target, this equivalent of a commercial dividend will be £175 million. In the unlikely event of the Post Office falling short of the profit target the minimum figure will be £140 million. The Post Office will not pay dividends until it becomes a plc but in the meantime will set aside the relevant amount in its reserves.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to allocate funding for a permanent hearing centre in North Wales for employment tribunal cases; and if he will make a statement. [99985]
  23W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service is presently seeking to identify suitable premises in North Wales. Decisions on funding priorities for 2000–01 and beyond have not yet been taken.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99474]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) sets out Departmental and Agency targets. The PSA includes two targets which are shared with HM Treasury and two shared with the Foreign Office. These apart, none of the targets have been agreed between the Department and (i) Local Authorities, or (ii) other bodies apart from the Department's own agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's current investment in the Ilisu Dam, Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [100056]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have provided no support for the Ilisu dam project. We have not yet made a decision on the application for export credit support from Balfour Beatty.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings his Department has held with Balfour Beatty plc about the Ilisu Dam Project since 1 January 1998. [100170]

  Mr. Caborn
  Balfour Beatty has attended meetings with ECGD on:

  23 June 1998

  9 October 1998

  9 April 1999

  30 June 1999

  9 July 1999

  8 September 1999

  30 September 1999

  Balfour Beatty and ECGD have been present at meetings of the Export Credit Agencies and contractors on:

  24 July 1998

  18 December 1998

  28 April 1999

  Balfour Beatty was also present at meetings in Turkey on 12–13 May which the Minister for Trade held with Turkish officials, when Ilisu was discussed.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantitative assessment the Government have made of the benefits and costs to the United Kingdom of a comprehensive multilateral trade 24W
  round involving far-reaching liberalisation of trade in (a) agriculture, (b) manufacturing and (c) services. [99873]

  Mr. Caborn
  A number of studies have been published estimating substantial income gains to the world and the European Union from further trade liberalisation. Two recent ones are by the European Commission and the OECD. The Commission study covers agriculture, industrial tariffs and services; the OECD study does not include services. These studies do not provide separate estimates of the impact on the UK. However, on the assumption that the UK gains in line with its share of Community output and external trade, it is possible to provide a broad indication of the likely effects on the UK economy. On this basis, the European Commission and the OECD studies suggest that further trade liberalisation could bring income gains for the UK of between $8 billion and $19 billion (£5 billion and £11 billion) per year in terms of 1998 prices and incomes. This is equivalent to an income increase of between £210 and £480 per year for the average UK household. All such estimates are sensitive to assumptions made, particularly about the form, scope and scale of further liberalisation. I shall also be writing to the hon. Member with further information.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what formal representations have been made by(a) Ministers and (b) officials to the European Commission regarding the negotiating objectives for the forthcoming World Trade Organisation talks. [100277]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Ministers have played a key role in shaping the EU's approach to the Seattle meeting where we hope that a new comprehensive round of trade negotiations will be launched. The EU's position was agreed by the Council of Ministers in formal Conclusions on 26 October. Trade Commissioner Lamy and Commission officials have been negotiating on behalf of the EU in Geneva on the basis of these formal Conclusions.

  ECGD
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the environmental and ethical considerations that he has announced will apply to the ECGD. [100477]

  Mr. Caborn
  There has been no announcement about ethical or environmental considerations that will apply to ECGD. This is being addressed in the current review of ECGD's Mission and Status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the introduction of a screening process to facilitate the identification of environmentally sensitive cases.

  Mr. Onliwyn Glyndwr Williams
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Mr. Onliwyn Glyndwr Williams, a constituent of the hon. Member for Hereford, has not yet undergone spirometry testing for the purposes of his compensation claim against British Coal; and if he will make a statement. [99855]
  25W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Appointments for spirometry testing are being made on a regional basis according to an agreed order of priority which reflects age of claimant, age of claim and other relevant information. I understand that Mr. Williams will be receiving an appointment at his home in the course of next week.

  Approximately 95 per cent. of the 43,000 living claimants identified as at May this year should now have been contacted to arrange an appointment, and nearly 30,000 tests have been conducted.

  Corporate Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the value of land and property in (i) Scotland, (ii) the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) total within the responsibility of the(a) Bio-technology and Biological Sciences Research Council, (b) Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Council, (c) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, (d) Economic and Social Research Council, (e) Medical Research Council, (f) Natural Environment Research Council and (g) Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. [99816]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Details of the total assets of the seven science Research Councils are published in their Annual Accounts and the latest DTI Annual Expenditure Plans Report (Cm4211). As expenditure from the Science Budget is deemed to be for the benefit of the UK as a whole, data are not collected in the form requested.

  Video Recorders
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the Government's policy on the continuation of the EU import tariff on video recorders; and what representations on this it has received in the last 12 months. [100278]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's broad policy objective is to maximise the liberalisation of industrial tariffs world-wide including those of the EU. The consumer electronics industry has indicated, in response to a DTI consultative document on future tariff liberalisation published in May and on other occasions, that in exchange for greatly improved access to third-country markets it would welcome tariff reductions world-wide, including by the EU, on video recorders and all other consumer electronics.

  Tweeddale Press Group
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the proposed acquisition of the Tweeddale Press Group by Johnston Press has been referred to the Competition Commission. [100080]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: I have issued a Press Notice inviting comments on the proposed transfer, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  EU Structural Funding
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he proposes 26W
  to make to cover the anticipated time lag between the ending of the existing European structural funding on 31 December and the beginning of the transitional payments under the reformed system; and if he will make a statement. [100343]

  Mr. Caborn
  Projects approved within current Structural funds programmes by the end of this year can be co-financed until the end of 2001.

  For projects approved within programmes that cover the new period 2000–2006, the Regulations provide for these to be co-financed from 1 January 2000, provided that the draft programmes have been lodged with the Commission by 31 April 2000.

  These arrangements will ensure continuity of funding between the programming periods.

  Private Recruitment Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment his Department has made concerning(a) the potential impact of proposals for the regulation of the private recruitment industry on job seekers over the age of 50 years and (b) the potential effects of restrictions of the charging by recruitment agencies of fees; and if he will make a statement; [99667]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of his proposals on the regulation of the private recruitment industry on the ability of hirers to fill vacancies in a timely fashion; [99668]

  (3) what plans his Department has to establish a code of practice for the private recruitment industry as an alternative to regulation. [99669]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Except in respect of a few provisions specifically to protect those under 18 the proposals seek to protect the interests of those using bureaux equally, regardless of age. The effect of the proposals to restrict fee charging to hirers in certain circumstances are assessed in the Regulatory Impact Assessment in the consultation document. Changes to the controls on fee charging to workseekers are set out in Annex 1 of the document. The proposals seek to ensure both that bureaux are able to respond to hirers' requirements promptly and that neither hirers, workers nor third parties are put at risk as a consequence of bureaux not doing necessary checks to establish the suitability of those they are supplying. Careful consideration is being given to all the representations received. I have no plans to establish a code of practice. The reasons why this approach is not considered practicable are set out in chapter 4 of the consultation document.

  Environmental Impact Assessment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the environmental assessment questionnaire which companies seeking cover from the ECGD will have to complete from 4 January 2000. [100415]

  Mr. Caborn
  A copy of ECGD's "Environmental Questionnaire" is being placed in the Library of the House.
  27W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the announcement on 23 November imposing a requirement upon companies applying for credit insurance to the ECGD that they must provide an environmental impact assessment of projects in respect of which they seek cover, was not made to the House. [100411]

  Mr. Caborn
  The intention to introduce an enhanced environmental screening process was covered in the summer edition of ECGD News and was also mentioned in presentations at successive customer seminars. It is not customary to announce such procedural changes to the House.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will judge and against what criteria whether an environmental impact assessment questionnaire completed by an applicant for ECGD cover meets the Government's requirements. [100416]

  Mr. Caborn
  The "Questionnaire" is simply designed to help ECGD Underwriters identify whether a case may be environmentally sensitive, and consider appropriate action.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the regulatory impact assessment which has been carried out in respect of the new requirement upon companies applying for credit insurance to the ECGD that they must provide an environmental impact assessment of projects in respect of which they seek cover. [100413]

  Mr. Caborn
  A regulatory impact assessment is not appropriate in this case since the introduction of the enhanced environmental screening process does not involve Parliamentary legislation.

  The environmental screening process being introduced is designed to facilitate the identification of environmentally sensitive cases. Companies will not have to provide an environmental impact assessment in all cases.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations were carried out with British industry and exporters prior to his announcement that applicants for credit guarantees to the Export Credits Guarantee Department will have to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment of the projects in respect of which they seek cover. [100412]

  Mr. Caborn
  A number of customers were consulted by ECGD about the form of a draft 'Environmental Questionnaire'. Environmental Impact Assessments will not be required in all cases.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what will be the(a) maximum and (b) minimum fee received by lawyers for work on any individual claim for compensation for (i) vibration white finger injuries and (ii) chronic bronchitis/emphysema. [100213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Solicitor's costs and the precise circumstances in which those costs are met are detailed in the Handling Agreements for both diseases.

  28W
  The agreed costs for most successful vibration white finger claims will be in the range of £600 plus VAT and reasonable disbursements, although in some cases the costs are dealt with on the merits of each case. For respiratory disease the agreed costs per successful claim range from £500 to £1,750 plus VAT and reasonable disbursements.

  In addition to these costs the agreements also provide for the payment of costs for claims in particular instances, for example where the disputes procedures have been invoked or where complex special damages are being claimed.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the provision he has made for the British Coal health liabilities in respect of compensation claims for(a) vibration white finger injuries and (b) chronic bronchitis and emphysema he estimates will be paid to lawyers in fees agreed under the scheme. [100212]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Solicitors costs are based on agreed tariffs set out in the Handling Agreements. It is not possible at this stage to forecast accurately the provision to cover these costs. The actual amounts paid will depend on the number of successful claims, the particular characteristics of these claims (for example, whether they have been settled by expedited payments) and the disbursements involved.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what fees lawyers will receive under the scheme agreed for compensation for former miners suffering from(a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic bronchitis/emphysema in respect of claims which are unsuccessful. [100206]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the terms of the Handling Agreements negotiated for compensating former miners for these injuries, the Government meets the costs and reasonable disbursements of solicitors in successful claims. No such costs are reimbursed where the claim is unsuccessful. However, in the case of chronic bronchitis and emphysema in addition to the costs agreed for successful claims the Department has also agreed to make payments in respect of all claims on the Register (some 62,000) held by the Department's claim handlers as at 14 June 1999, whether the claimant is successful or not. These costs range from £25 to £100 per claim depending on the date of claim and number of claims held by the solicitor and are in recognition of client care work carried out after the Judgment and before the signing of the Agreement.

  Insurance Industry
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the UK insurance industry about promoting plain English in insurance policies. [99594]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Policy terms and conditions, and the way they are presented, are ultimately matters for individual insurers. However, the use of Plain English is to be encouraged, not least because of the commercial benefits that accrue from customer satisfaction.
  29W
  The Association of British Insurers, whose members provide 96 per cent. of insurance in the United Kingdom, has promoted better practice. In this area, its Statement of General Insurance Practice notes that insurers will continue to develop more explicit proposal forms and policy documents, while bearing in mind the legal nature of insurance contracts.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the insurance industry to provide more information to customers about its practice of premium-loading after claims. [99593]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. It is for insurance companies themselves to determine the terms and conditions of their policies and the premiums that they charge in the light of their assessment of the perceived risk and the need to remain competitive.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Corps (Non-payment of Rates)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of the diplomatic missions and international organisations which have outstanding balances of over £10,000 as at 31 March in respect of national non-domestic rates. [99443]

  Mr. Battle
  Most missions and international organisations meet their obligations. However, at 31 March 1999, the following missions owed over £10,000 for national non-domestic rates:

  Country

  Amount outstanding up to 31 March 1999 (£)

  Algeria

  34,545.78

  Bulgaria

  149,468.19

  Cameroon

  22,323.83

  Ghana

  17,783.05

  Iran

  79,123.25

  Jordan

  27,601.57

  Mozambique

  28,554.63

  Nigeria

  314,714.57

  Portugal

  43,692.28

  Senegal

  10,927.33

  Sierra Leone

  49,576.00

  Uganda

  17,649.17

  Yemen

  27,561.83

  Yugoslavia

  43,734.21

  Family Visit Appeals
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the cost to UK embassies and high commissions of the appeal system for family visits in each of the last five years. [99897]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Right of Appeal against the refusal of visas for visits was withdrawn in 1993. There has therefore been no extra cost to UK Embassies and High Commissions over the past five years in this respect. An appeal system for family visits is to be introduced within the next 12 months.
  30W
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent estimate he has made, in respect of each of the five posts overseas that deal with the greatest number of visitor applications, of the need for further entry clearance officers to deal with family visit appeals. [99898]

  Mr. Vaz
  All visa issuing posts have been asked to estimate the likely staffing implications arising from the new right of appeal for family visits, which is due to be introduced within the next twelve months. We are assessing the responses but no final decisions on additional staff will be taken until the implementation procedures are agreed.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made about ensuring the safety of Ahmadiyya followers in Pakistan in the last two months. [99849]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to raise our concerns about the position of Pakistan's Ahmadiyya community with the Pakistani authorities. We have noted General Musharraf's promise to Pakistan's minorities that their rights would be respected and that they would be treated as equal citizens. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad has underlined to General Musharraf and other members of his administration the need for the military authorities in Pakistan to maintain respect for human rights.

  Falklands
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on opening negotiations with Argentina regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. [R] [100017]

  Mr. Battle
  There is no doubt about British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, confirmed in international law. This is not negotiable. We are committed to defend the Islanders' right to determine their own future.

  In consultation with the Falkland Islands Government, we continue to discuss with Argentina issues of common interest in the South Atlantic, for example the conservation of fish stocks, in order to improve the way we manage our differences with Argentina that arise from our respective positions on sovereignty. The British-Argentine Joint Statement of 14 July was a significant milestone in this process.

  BBC World Television
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the contribution of BBC World Television to the promotion of British interests internationally; and if he will make a statement. [99997]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received no such representations. In July, a senior producer from BBC World wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about future funding of BBC World. In his reply, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear that, as BBC World was established as a commercial venture, he could see no possibility of Government taking on responsibility for its financing.
  31W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to provide grant in aid from his Department's budget for BBC World Television; and if he will make a statement. [99996]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans to provide grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget for BBC World. BBC World is a commercial operation funded by subscription and/or advertising. It is part of the BBC's commercial arm and is quite separate from the BBC World Service which is funded by parliamentary grant in aid.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal advice he has obtained since the Kosovo campaign on the legality of the NATO intervention in Kosovo. [100089]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Throughout the Kosovo crisis, the Government took legal advice in accordance with standing procedures. They continue to do so as necessary. During the NATO air campaign, a series of cases was brought by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the UK and other NATO Allies before the International Court of Justice. The UK's defence in these proceedings has been handled by the Attorney-General in person, assisted by a legal team composed of officials and outside counsel. If the FRY persists in its case against the UK, we shall contest it vigorously.

  Danube
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from(a) Bulgaria, (b) Hungary and (c) Romania on the clearing of the Danube. [100088]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: We are aware of, and share, the concerns of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania about the blockages in the Danube caused by downed bridges at Novi Sad. The matter is currently under discussion within the Danube Commission at technical level, and within the EU. The last meeting of the General Affairs Council on 15 November confirmed the EU's willingness to provide the Danube states and the Danube Commission with active support in their efforts to devise and implement a solution, and that it was prepared to examine an EU contribution to the clearance on the Danube on the basis of proposals to be put forward by the Danube Commission.

  The General Affairs Council also recalled however, that, under international law, the main responsibility for clearing the Danube lies with the FRY. It requested the Yugoslav authorities immediately and unconditionally to perform or allow the necessary clearance operations.

  Stability Pact
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the UK contribution to the Stability Pact between its inception and 30 October. [100081]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: We anticipate that the UK's contribution to cover the costs of the inaugural Summit meeting of the Stability Pact, and
  32W
  the costs incurred in supporting the EU' s Special Representative for the Stability Pact until 31 December 1999, will be approximately £225,000.

  The Stability Pact is not intended to be a grant-giving organisation but we will continue to support the implementing agencies (EU, OSCE, IFIs etc.) through our regular contributions and on a case-by-case basis.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the deaths of Iranian law enforcement personnel in a clash with drug traffickers on 3 November. [100337]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary greatly regrets these tragic deaths and sent a message of condolence to the Iranian Foreign Minister. They are another very distressing reflection of the efforts and commitment that Iran has made to combat the narcotics trade.

  Hon. Members will recall that, in March this year, the UK donated £300,000 to the United Nations International Drugs Control Programme to provide Iranian frontier personnel with 1,020 bullet proof vests. I should like to announce that, following discussions with the Iranian authorities in Tehran over the weekend, the Government are donating a further £1 million to UNDCP for projects in Iran and separately giving £150,000 of bilateral drugs assistance. The UNDCP programme covers training and equipment primarily to strengthen counter-narcotics work at Iran's borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our proposed bilateral assistance covers training and equipment for the border with Turkey and airport controls, areas not covered by the UNDCP programme. Our overall assistance package will improve the capacity of Iranian drugs control agencies to combat the traffickers and to stop drugs entering and leaving Iran.

  No suppliers have yet been nominated for the goods covered by this assistance package. The export from the UK of some of the goods concerned may be subject to control and an export licence might need to be granted if they are sourced from the UK. If such a licence were granted, this could constitute an exception to our arms embargo on Iran and would be announced.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Iranian Government, and with what response, over the arrest and detention of those who took part in pro-democracy demonstrations in July. [100471]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about these detentions with Foreign Minister Kharrazi during their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 September. He was told that should charges be brought against those detained, then they would receive a fair trial, and that any sentences would be subject to appeal.

  A Resolution on the Human Rights situation in Iran was adopted on 18 November at the United Nations General Assembly. This resolution, tabled in conjunction with our EU partners, also underlined continuing international concern over these arrests.

  Surveying Agreement
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the working of the agreement relating to co-operation in mapping, charting and geodesy signed at Feltham and Washington on 4 and 18 July 1985. [100344]

  Mr. Battle
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Member.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) officials in his Department, (b) officials in other Departments and (c) others are currently working on the bill to restore British citizenship to the people of British Dependent Territories. [100312]

  Mr. Battle
  A joint Steering Group of Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office officials has been established to work on the British citizenship offer to be contained in the Overseas Territories Bill. The Steering Group membership comprises a core of some 10 people of whom six are FCO officials and the rest from the Home Office. They are supported by other members of the Overseas Territories Department of the FCO who are involved in the implementation of the White Paper. Consultations are being held with Overseas Territory Governments.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what written record was kept of the(a) proceedings and (b) conclusions reached at meetings between the Metropolitan Police and his Department's officials in relation to the Chinese President's State Visit. [100420]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4 November 1999,Official Report, columns 271–72W.

  "Your Britain Your Europe" Campaign
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the costs of the "Your Britain Your Europe" campaign and the tour of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), of the UK are being met from public funds. [100319]

  Mr. Vaz
  The costs of the "Your Britain Your Europe" Roadshow are estimated at £60,000, plus travel and accommodation.

  It is Government policy to set out the benefits of the UK's membership of the EU. One of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's publicly declared performance targets is:
  "a step change in the UK's relations with the rest of Europe, with increasing public support for EU activities".
  The Roadshow is excellent value for money, with 23 events in 11 cities in five days. We are working with a number of business, educational and other organisations which are providing their time and resources free of charge.

  Sri Lanka
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the killings in Madhu Church, Manar, Sri Lanka. [100134]

  Mr. Hain
  None. I deeply regret the loss of civilian life in this incident. I urge all parties to this tragic conflict to do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties.

  Export Licences (Bahrain)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the six ML1 SIELS and one ML1 open individual export licences for exports to Bahrain this year. [100135]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave on 24 November 1999,Official Report, columns 148–49W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  David Cocks and Jonathan Goldberg
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Solicitor-General what were the total sums received from public funds by David Cocks and Jonathan Goldberg in the period from the beginning of 1994 to the latest date for which he has figures. [99331]

  The Solicitor-General
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the decision on Part 2 of the second stage consultation on options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow Airport's runways at night. [99218]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government announced their decision on 23 November 1999,Official Report, columns 62–65W.

  Homelessness (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the primary reasons were for families becoming homeless within Merseyside in each year since 1993; [98601]

  (2) what the primary reasons were for homelessness on Merseyside in the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by gender. [98598]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data are reported to the Department each quarter by local authorities on their activity under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing
  35W
  Acts. These identify the main reasons for loss of last settled home of homeless households accepted by local authorities as in priority need. Further classification by

  Homeless households in Merseyside authorities: reasons for loss of last settled home

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Relatives/Friends no longer able or willing to accommodate

  Parents

  1,285

  895

  621

  483

  336

  347

  Friends

  284

  440

  293

  228

  195

  173

  Breakdown of relationship

  Violent

  476

  786

  482

  410

  390

  395

  Non-violent

  166

  170

  171

  158

  120

  86

  Arrears of

  Mortgage

  203

  198

  189

  177

  127

  141

  Rent

  37

  28

  43

  27

  26

  57

  End of assured shorthold tenancy

  204

  246

  320

  289

  253

  230

  Loss of other rented/tied housing

  187

  233

  242

  184

  339

  286

  Institution or care

  160

  174

  130

  143

  95

  83

  Other reasons

  589

  435

  435

  484

  212

  197

  Total households accepted

  3,591

  3,305

  2,926

  2,583

  2,093

  1,995

  Note:

  Prior to 1997, reported figures include a small number of households not in priority need.

  Homelessness (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children formed part of families made homeless in Sefton in each year since 1996. [98600]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data are reported to the Department each quarter by local authorities on their activity under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts. Information is not collected on the numbers of children in homeless families. The following table provides for Sefton the available data on the numbers of households with dependent children accepted as homeless.

  Households accepted by the authority as unintentionally homeless and in priority need

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total

  166

  106

  109

  Number with dependent children

  109

  75

  78

  Of which:

  1 child

  —

  25

  29

  2 children

  —

  27

  28

  3 children

  —

  22

  21

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the voluntary agreement on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops between his Department and SCIMAC, which he announced on 5 November. [99543]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes. The details of the voluntary agreement on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops between my Department and SCIMAC are publicly available and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  36W
  gender, or household type, is not collected. The following table summarises information provided by authorities in Merseyside since 1993:

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list research contracts controlled by his Department for work associated with the genetically modified crop farm-scale trials. [99536]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department currently has three contracts in place covering farm scale trials of genetically modified crops and farmland wildlife, worth £3.3 million. The contracts are as follows:

  Contract

  Lead contractor

  Start date

  Completion date

  Winter oilseed rape

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  9 April 1999

  31 December 2003

  Spring oilseed rape

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  9 April 1999

  31 December 2002

  Maize

  NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  9 April 1999

  31 December 2002

  GM Farm-scale Trials
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the payments made to farmers hosting the genetically modified farm-scale trials; and whether the payments include(a) a fee for managing the farm-scale trial crop, (b) compensation for loss of income from the land growing the farm-scale crop and (c) a fee for taking part in the farm scale trial. [99541]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has no involvement in any payments made to farmers for taking part in the farm-scale evaluations of GM crops, nor is it party to any such arrangements. All fields and crops are provided by the industry group SCIMAC (supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops)
  37W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the method and date of destruction and disposal used for the harvested crops from the 1999 genetically modified farm-scale trial of fodder maize at Little Park Farm, Beech Hill Road, Mortimer, Berkshire. [99540]

  Mr. Meacher
  The genetically modified farm-scale trial of fodder maize at Little Park Farm, Beech Hill Road, Mortimer, Berkshire was harvested in early October 1999. The harvested crop was then mechanically chopped and ploughed back into the ground.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria used by the Farm-Scale Trials Scientific Steering Committee for the selection of farms to take part in the farm-scale trials. [99542]

  Mr. Meacher
  The criteria for selecting farms to take part in the farm-scale evaluations are still under discussion by the research contractors and the Scientific Steering Committee. The issue was discussed at the first and second meetings of the Scientific Steering Committee and the Committee's opinions are recorded in the minutes which have been published.

  The intention is to compare the GM crops with the non-GM equivalent crops grown and managed using a range of current agricultural practices and distributed throughout the normal geographic range for that particular crop.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a list of the crop varieties, including the respective companies which developed them, so far proposed by SCIMAC for the inclusion in the genetically modified crop farm-scale trials. [99538]

  Mr. Meacher
  The crops provided by SCIMAC for the farm-scale evaluations are fodder maize and oil seed rape, which are genetically modified to be tolerant to glufosinate ammonium. AgrEvo UK Limited have developed these crops.

  The trait has been bred into varieties of maize and oil seed rape (both spring-sown and autumn-sown) suitable for growing in the UK. The intention is that only one variety of fodder maize, and one variety each of spring-sown and autumn-sown oil seed rape, will be used in the farm-scale evaluations as the results will be generic in nature.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a copy of the protocols for the management of the GM farm-scale trials for each crop and each variety planted. [99544]

  Mr. Meacher
  All GM crops in the farm-scale evaluations will be grown in accordance with the SCIMAC (supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops) guidelines, the industry code for good practice. These guidelines have been published. A copy has been placed in the House Library.

  The approval for the herbicide sets out the protocol for its use. This has been seen and approved by the scientific steering committee, but is not fully published yet. It is intended that this information be published as soon as possible.
  38W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which dates the crops in the 1999 genetically modified crop farm-scale trials were sown and harvested involving fodder maize at Walnut Tree Farm, Lyng, Norfolk, crops at(a) Home Farm, Spittle-in-the-Street, Glentham, Lincolnshire, (b) Little Park Farm, Beech Hill Road, Mortimer, Reading, Berkshire, and (c) Rothampsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, and spring oilseed rape at Advanta Seed, Booth Graffoe, Lincoln, and Model Farm, Shirburn, Watlington, Oxfordshire. [99539]

  Mr. Meacher
  The fodder maize crop at Walnut Tree Farm, Lyng, Norfolk was sown on 7 May 1999 and harvested in early October. The fodder maize crop at Home Farm, Spittle-in-the-Street, Glentham, Lincolnshire was sown on 18 May 1999 and harvested in early October. The fodder maize crop at Little Park Farm, Beech Hill Road, Mortimer, Reading, Berkshire was sown on 10 May 1999 and harvested in early October. The fodder maize crop at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire was sown on 12 May 1999 and harvested on 22 September.

  The spring oil seed rape crop at Advanta Seed, Boothby Graffoe, Lincoln was sown on 28 April 1999 and harvested on 1 September 1999. The spring oil seed rape crop at Model Farm, Shirburn, Watlington, Oxfordshire was sown on 29 April 1999 and harvested on 2 September 1999.

  Central Railways
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new proposals have been submitted to his Department by the company seeking to develop the Central Railways project; and if he will make a statement.[99630]

  Mr. Hill
  We are aware that Central Railway plc has been consulting about its proposal for a freight and passenger railway between Liverpool and Lille, via London. Ministers have received copies of the company's consultation documents but have not taken a view on the scheme.

  If Central Railway plc is to proceed with the scheme it will have to apply for an Order under the Transport and Works Acts 1992. We understand that the company hopes to submit an application next year. The company's previous application in 1996 was rejected by Parliament. As was the case last time, the company will be obliged to consult on any applications and affected parties will have the right to put forward their views.

  John Harrison
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received a report on the Louth District Coroners Court hearing into the death of coastguard John Harrison; and what action he has undertaken. [99621]

  Mr. Hill
  No report into the death of Coastguard John Harrison from Louth District Coroners Court has been received by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Louth District Coroners Court office has confirmed that no report has been issued.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the Maritime and Coastguard Agency achieved its Charter Mark. [99612]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has not applied for a Charter Mark yet, in view of the changes the agency has undergone since its formation. The MCA is committed to a high level of customer service and has 15 Service Standards which cover the business activities of the whole agency.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in the last 12 months the automatic data retrieval system has failed to function at(a) Oban, (b) Shetland and (c) Pentland Coastguard stations. [99615]

  Mr. Hill
  The Action Data System (ADAS) has failed twice in the last 12 months at these stations—once at Pentland and once at Oban. At Oban the failure was caused by an engineer shutting off the power, followed by a temporary failure of the auxiliary electricity supply. On both occasions, the system was restarted within an hour.

  Other minor problems have been experienced which have affected printers or individual terminals, but none of these has resulted in a failure of the whole system.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instigate an inquiry into charges of bullying and intimidation of coastguard officers by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency Management. [99613]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a well established grievance procedure for handling complaints from its staff. Both cases of bullying and intimidation reported under the procedure during 1999 have been investigated using this procedure which has been agreed with Trade Unions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what experiments have been carried out to establish the response times necessary to respond physically to emergency calls at present covered by Oban Coastguard. [99617]

  Mr. Hill
  No experiments have been carried out to establish Coastguard response times as these are covered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) Service Standards. The target response time for a Coastguard presence at the reported scene of an incident in the area covered by the Oban Coastguard District is 30 minutes. This is a national target response time which is reported to the MCA Headquarters monthly, and reviewed locally by Coastguard management, through regular operational readiness inspections. The expectation is that this target will be met 95 per cent. of the time, since some remote locations can cause teams to take up to an hour to arrive.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the digital computer system for the new Maritime and Coastguard Agency communications system is operational. [99614]
  40W
  Mr. Hill
  The Action Data System, as modified for compliance for the year 2000 (ADAS 2000), is used to record data about incidents dealt with by HMCG. This system was operational at all Coastguard Stations by September 1999. The new Integrated Coastguard Communication System (ICCS) will replace the existing equipment which is nearing the end of its life. Operational roll out will start in May 2000, and finish three years later.

  Proprietorial Schools
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has with the Department for Education and Employment concerning the impact on proprietorial schools of his decision not to issue permits to such schools under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985; [99760]

  (2) how many proprietorial schools have registered as public service operators following a decision not to grant them permits to operate a minibus under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985. [99761]

  Mr. Hill
  It has always been the case that only vehicles that are not being used with a view to profit may be operated under a permit issued under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985. Decisions on whether particular applicants are eligible under the terms of Section 19 are for the Traffic Commissioners not my Department. I understand that there have been a small number of recent cases where proprietorial schools have applied for a public service vehicle operator's licence after having been ruled ineligible for a Section 19 permit by the Traffic Commissioner.

  There have been no discussions between my Department and the Department for Education and Employment on this particular issue.

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Laboratory intends to publish its Annual report and Accounts for 1998–99. [100474]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Laboratory has today published the 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cement
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the use of alternative fuels for the production of cement. [100023]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The use of alternative fuels for the production of cement has raised a significant amount of public interest. The Department has received a number of representations from local communities where cement kilns are situated, environmental pressure groups, as well as representations from the cement industry itself.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is
  41W
  taking to ensure that regional development agencies are responsible for promoting a sustainable energy policy within their region. [100455]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The new UK Sustainable Development Strategy, published in May this year, said that the Government wished to see high level sustainable development frameworks for each English region by the end of 2000. These frameworks will set out a regional vision for sustainable development. They will need to have the support of a wide range of stakeholders and should be agreed by Regional Chambers. Although they will not be in the lead, RDAs will be one of the key partners in the preparation of frameworks.

  One of the tasks identified for these frameworks will be to build consensus on how the national policy and target on renewable energy will be taken forward in each region. Government Offices are initiating work to produce regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision based on regional resource studies. The Government hope that frameworks will draw upon this work and elaborate a regional approach to renewable energy delivery, including regional targets.

  The frameworks should take account of issues raised by the RDA strategies for sustainable development and, in turn, will inform future revisions of the RDA strategies.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are employed by each of the regional development agencies; and what have been their administration costs since their establishment. [100464]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of full-time equivalent staff in the Regional Development Agencies, as at 1 April 1999 (the most recent figures available); the administration costs for the period December 1998 to April 1999, when the Agencies were being set up; and administration budgets for the current financial year.

  £000

  Regional Development Agency

  Staff

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  One North East

  203

  2,395

  9,771

  North West

  1182

  327

  12,131

  Yorkshire Forward

  174.5

  403

  8,036

  East Midlands

  107

  406

  7,155

  Advantage West Midlands

  118.5

  384

  7,678

  East of England

  38

  350

  4,803

  South East

  60

  411

  5,225

  South West

  143

  461

  7,488

  Total

  1,026

  5,137

  62,287

  1 Total staff, not full-time equivalents. No separate figure for part-time staff available.

  Signals (Millennium Compliance)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all(a) road traffic signals systems and (b) rail signals systems are millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [100078]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The millennium readiness of road traffic signals systems and national railways signals systems has been assessed under
  42W
  Action 2000's Independent Assessment Programme. These assessments concluded that all safety critical and business continuity systems within the local and national road sectors in England, and the national railways sector in Great Britain, were 100 per cent. blue—indicating that the assessments have identified no risk of material disruption. Full details are available on Action 2000's website (www.bug2000.co.uk).

  Public Transport (Millennium Holiday)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about public transport arrangements for new year's eve and new year's day. [100077]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The details of transport provision over the Millennium period are primarily a matter for decisions and announcement by individual transport operators taking account of local needs and in consultation with local authorities and other relevant bodies. Many bus and rail transport providers will operate special timetables to enable members of the public to get to and from Millennium celebrations. In developing such timetables, operators have maintained close contact with police and emergency services.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the operation of the disabled facilities grant to ensure that it provides prompt and sympathetic treatment for those with degenerative conditions. [99063]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department keeps the operation of disabled facilities grants under regular review, to ensure that they continue to provide prompt and sympathetic treatment for all disabled people who need adaptations to their homes. The allowances in the test of resources are reviewed and uprated annually, to ensure that they reflect changes in living costs. Last year, we announced that we would increase the resources available for the grant by a quarter over the following three years, and this should enable local authorities to deal with applications more promptly. Local authorities are required by law to deal with applications as quickly as possible, and we advise them in guidance to ensure that applicants with the most pressing needs are dealt with first.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of EU transport ministers. [100499]

  Mr. Hill
  The proposed agenda for the 9–10 December Transport Council comprises the following items.

  1. Adoption of the agenda.

  2. Approval of "A" points.

  Maritime Transport
  3. Commission Communications on short sea shipping.
  Horizontal Issues

  4. Commission Communication on intermodality and intermodal freight transport;

  5. Galileo satellite navigation project.

  43W
  Land Transport

  6. New developments for European railways (including rail infrastructure, rail interoperability and alleviation of bottlenecks);

  7. Working time in road transport;

  Air Transport

  8. Short and long term perspectives on aviation noise;

  9. Establishment of a European Aviation Safety Authority

  10. Air Transport negotiations with Central and Eastern European countries;

  11. Commission Communication on air traffic management

  12. Other business

  Inverness Airport
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights there were(a) into and (b) out of Inverness airport, in each of the last three years. [100307]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data on aircraft movements are collected by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA data does not distinguish between a take-off and a landing referring only to aircraft movements which can be either a take-off or a landing. The last three years for which there is a full year's data are 1996, 1997 and 1998.In 1996 there were 26,776 aircraft movements at Inverness airport.
  In 1997 there were 22,475 aircraft movements.
  In 1998 there were 26,875 aircraft movements.

  Disused Railway Lines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many disused railway lines have been re-opened since 1969; and what was the cost to public funds in each case. [100580]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not readily available.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to synchronize secured and assured tenancy regulations in connection with the large-scale voluntary transfer scheme of council houses; and if he will make a statement. [100095]

  Mr. Mullin
  I am aware of the discussion paper published by the Chartered Institute of Housing on a single form of tenancy for social housing. It is an interesting proposal which the Department will bear in mind in developing the contents of any forthcoming Housing Green Paper.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Woking 44W
  concerning the law on abandoned vehicles, dated 17 September, forwarded to him by the Home Office in October. [100419]

  Mr. Hill
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to the hon. Member on 26 November.

  Green Ministers Committee
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actions taken by the Green Ministers Committee since its formation. [99927]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Green Ministers Committee has made good progress since May 1997 and has met seven times. I refer the hon. Member to the replies I have given previously announcing the actions taken at each meeting.
  To my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 22 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in November 1999.
  To my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 16 July 1999, Official Report, column 341W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in July 1999.
  To the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 24 March 1999, Official Report, column 248W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in March 1999.
  To my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on 25 November 1998, Official Report, column 5W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in November 1998.
  To the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 29 June 1998, Official Report, column 90W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in June 1998.
  To the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 17 March 1998, Official Report, column 546W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in December 1997.
  To my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 31 July 1997, Official Report, column 542W, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's meeting in July 1997.

  The Committee published its first annual report on its activities, "Greening Government: the first annual report of Green Ministers 1998/99" in July 1999. It sets out achievements and a future work programme across a wide range of activities.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places with registered forms of child care there have been for each quarter of 1999 in England. [98664]

  Ms Hodge
  Information, which is collected annually, is not available in the precise form requested. The available information is shown in the following table.
  45W

  Children's day care provision in England as at 31 March 1999 (provisional)

  Providers

  Child care places

  Day Nurseries

  7,000

  247,700

  Playgroups

  15,000

  347,200

  Child minders

  82,200

  336,600

  Out of School Clubs

  3,800

  113,800

  Holiday Schemes

  10,200

  435,300

  Note:

  Data compiled from information provided by local authorities. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. Provision may be made by local authorities, voluntary or private organisations register under Part X of the Children Act 1989 or exempt from registration. Where complete information was not available, some estimates have been made. Holiday schemes are counted once for each holiday period in which they operate.

  Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) performance indicators and (b) output measures are used to measure the (i) absolute and (ii) relative performance of Merseyside TEC. [98569]

  Mr. Wicks
  The indicators used to measure performance of all Training and Enterprise Councils (including Chambers of Commerce, Training and Enterprise) are:

  Work based training for young people:

  NVQs per 100 leavers

  NVQ2s per 100 leavers

  NVQ3+s per 100 leavers

  Cost per point

  Percentage other training trainees who found training very/fairly useful

  Percentage ethnic minority leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage non ethnic minority leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage disabled leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage non disabled leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Work based training for adults:

  Jobs per 100 leavers

  NVQs per 100 leavers

  Cost per point

  Percentage ethnic minority leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage non ethnic minority leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage disabled leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Percentage non disabled leavers gaining at least one whole NVQ

  Investors in People:

  Percentage medium/large companies recognised as an Investor in People

  Percentage large (200+) companies recognised as an Investor in People.

  Performance information for all TECs is collated and published annually. A copy of the publication "TEC/CCTE Performance Indicators 1998–99" has been placed in the Library. The publication shows the absolute performance of Merseyside TEC against a range of indicators and makes relative comparison with TECs within the North West and in England as a whole.

  Equal Opportunities Legislation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department will give its considered response to the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposal for reform of equal opportunities legislation. [98680]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 194W.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of funding was received by each TEC in the north-west and north-east in the last financial year. [98515]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information relating to the funding of Training and Enterprise Councils (including Chambers of Commerce, Training and Enterprise) can be found in the individual or group TEC/CCTE Statutory Accounts for 1998–99 filed in the Library.

  The following table shows the income reported in the 1998–99 Statutory Accounts:

  Reported income 1998–99 statutory accounts

  £

  North-East

  County Durham

  17,193,770

  Northumberland

  18,404,012

  Tees Valley

  31,403,000

  Tyneside

  32,321,000

  Sunderland City

  13,609,590

  North-West

  Bolton Bury

  14,013,044

  Manchester

  45,721,464

  Wigan

  12,648,226

  Oldham

  7,159,008

  Rochdale

  8,920,382

  South and East Cheshire

  14,322,311

  Stockport and High Peak

  11,709,431

  Cumbria

  19,931,255

  Eltec (East Lancs)

  19,519,119

  Lawtec (Lancashire Area West)

  25,792,672

  North and Mid Cheshire

  14,549,521

  Cewtec (Cheshire, Ellesmere Port and Wirral)

  18,499,595

  Merseyside

  42,390,021

  St. Helens

  10,236,787

  Early Years Education
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice since May 1997 he has given to local education authorities on funding early years provision(a) at school and (b) at pre-school nurseries. [100008]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have provided policy and funding guidance to Local Education Authorities and early years settings through the "Requirements of Nursery Education Grant" document as well as our "Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Planning Guidance", both of which are distributed annually. The guidance makes clear that early years provision must be
  47W
  provided across all sectors, be appropriate to the age of the children and that new places for three year olds must not be in reception classes.

  Child Counselling
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that a child counselling service is available for all schools in England and Wales. [100187]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are already supporting a range of counselling services for pupils in schools. We are proposing to develop these further, for example, through our funding of a national mentoring network. The planned youth support service, to be introduced in 2001, will ensure that young people aged 13 to 19 have access to the specialist support they need. Provision in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  School Transport
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities provide school transport(a) free of charge to all school pupils travelling a distance of over (i) three miles, for secondary pupils, and (ii) two miles, for primary pupils, and (b) free of charge as in (a) to pupils below the age of 16 years, but charge pupils when they become 16 years; and what savings on such travel costs those local education authorities that charge post-16 year olds to travel make. [100005]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each education action zone the total amount of private sector resource included in the original bids broken down by(a) cash support, (b) equipment, (c) consultancy and (d) other. [100066]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The original bids did not contain the requested degree of detail. Figures for the private sector contributions to the 25 round 1 Education Action Zones will be available as part of the annual audited accounts. The National Audit Office will lay the 25 sets of accounts before Parliament. The NAO expects to lay the first of these in December.

  Swimming
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given to local authorities regarding the provision of time for swimming within the national curriculum. [100229]

  Jacqui Smith
  The amount of time to be spent on swimming is not prescribed, but primary schools must ensure that, by age 11, pupils have been taught:to swim unaided, competently and safely, for at least 25 metres;
  to develop confidence in water, and how to rest, float and adopt support positions;
  a variety of means of propulsion using either arms or legs or both, and how to develop effective and efficient swimming strokes on the front and the back;
  the principles and skills of water safety and survival.
  48W
  Swimming has remained a compulsory element of the primary curriculum between September 1998 and September 2000 (while the full programmes of study for the non core subjects have been relaxed to allow the literacy and numeracy strategies to be given priority) and will continue to be compulsory in the new National Curriculum for September 2000.

  School Funding
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of school funding by local education authorities came through the(a) standard spending assessment and (b) the Standards Fund for (i) 1997–98, and (ii) 1998–99; and what are the projected figures for (A) 1999–2000, and (B) 2000–01. [100092]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the proportions of Education Total Standard Spending provided through central government grant to the Standards Fund, LEA contributions to the Standards Fund, and through SSAs (minus LEAs' matching contributions). Over this period grant from the DfEE will increase from £211 million to £1,077 million. Funding devolved to schools from the Standards Fund was £563 million in 1999–2000.

  Percentage

  Year

  Standards Fund grant

  LEA contribution

  SSA minus LEA contributions

  1997–98

  1.2

  0.6

  98.2

  1998–99

  1.7

  1.1

  97.2

  1999–2000

  2.7

  1.9

  95.4

  2000–01 (estimate)

  4.8

  2.8

  92.4

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the proposed disability rights commission will have power to review the performance of social security appeals tribunals. [99091]

  Ms Hodge
  The functions of social security appeal tribunals will be transferred to the new unified appeal tribunals from 29 November 1999. The Disability Rights Commission will have the power to review the performance of these appeal tribunals in so far as it is carrying out its functions and duties under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, in particular, its duty to take such steps as it considers appropriate to encourage good practice in the treatment of disabled persons. For example, the Commission may, for a purpose connected with the performance of its functions, carry out research or provide advice or information, or make proposals or give other advice to any Government agency or other public authority as to the practical application of any law. The Commission may also decide to conduct a general formal investigation into the activities of the appeal tribunals for any purpose connected with the performance of its duties.

  Pop Music (School Performances)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he takes to ensure children in primary schools are not subject to commercial pressure by pop music bands performing in those schools. [100346]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for individual schools to decide.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Savings)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will review the limits on savings relating to benefits administered by his Department. [99079]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Pensions Green Paper outlined our commitment to looking at ways to better reward savers. We will bring forward our proposals later in this Parliament.

  Earnings Allowances
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Reduced Earnings Allowance cases are currently in the appeal system. [99081]

  Angela Eagle
  The Appeals Service currently hold 2,410 appeals relating to Reduced Earnings Allowance. Of these appeals 1,609 cases are held pending a decision of the European Court of Justice on lead cases.

  CSA (Inland Revenue)
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he intends to take to allow information about income presently in the possession of the Inland Revenue to be shared with the Child Support Agency. [99082]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not right that some self-employed non-resident parents avoid their obligations to their children by refusing to provide details of their income to the Child Support Agency. That is why the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 gives the Child Support Agency access to information held by the Inland Revenue about the earnings of self-employed non-resident parents.

  Means-tested Benefits (Pensioners)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reducing the numbers of pensioners reliant on means-tested benefits. [99083]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are pressing on with our pensions reforms. Reforming the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme through the introduction of the State Second Pension is the final stage of our pensions strategy, following stakeholder pension schemes and the Minimum Income Guarantee. This will give more help in retirement to low and moderate earners, carers and some long-term disabled people with broken work records. By 2038, everyone who has a working life of employment or caring will retire with a State Pension above the means-tested threshold.
  50W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the results available from the pilot schemes to increase the rate of take-up of means-tested benefits for those past state retirement age. [99087]

  Mr. Rooker
  The evaluation of the pilot initiatives will be published later this year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform housing benefit. [99084]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to publish a Housing Green Paper in due course. This will present proposals for Housing Benefit within the overall strategy for Housing.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce scope for error and fraud in the housing benefit system; and if he will make a statement. [99635]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking tough action to combat Housing Benefit fraud. We have:reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure that they are rewarded for detecting cases of fraud;
  made an additional £100 million available over the next three years to encourage local authorities to adopt the Verification Framework, which, through a series of checks throughout the period of a benefit claim, will help make Housing Benefit administration more secure;
  invited all local authorities to participate in the Royal Mail "do not redirect" initiative which prevents benefit claimants from using Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to make false claims to benefit from multiple addresses. Already, over 200 local authorities are operating this scheme and many more are preparing to implement it;
  made over £4 million available to install computer terminals in local authorities which provide access to the Department's benefit systems. We are now looking to extend this initiative to include exchanging information electronically between local authorities and the Department, providing further scope to prevent fraud and error occurring.

  Carers
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Carers National Association to discuss support for carers. [R] [99086]

  Mr. Bayley
  I visited the headquarters of the Carers National Association on 29 June 1999 to discuss various issues of concern to carers. I was the keynote speaker at a CNA meeting in September and participated in an any questions panel with their Deputy Chief Executive last month. I value the Association's expertise and experience and I keep in touch with them.

  Child Support Reform
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the use of a default rate to calculate maintenance payments under the new proposals for reforming child support. [99088]
  51W
  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper published on 1 July gave details of our plans to impose a default rate of maintenance liability. It is important that maintenance starts flowing quickly and reliably to children. Where exceptionally it is clear that there is going to be a delay in assessing maintenance, we plan to impose a default rate until the CSA has enough information to calculate the true liability.

  We have not received any representations on this issue.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend section 6(1) of the Child Support Act 1991. [100103]

  Angela Eagle
  Our plans for the reform of child support were published in the White Paper "Children's Rights and Parent's Responsibilities" (Cm 4349) on 1 July 1999. Legislation announced in the Queen's Speech in November 1999 will set out the detail of the reforms.

  Section 6(1) of the 1991 Act provides that parents with care on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance can be required to apply for child support. Our plans to change this provision were set out in Chapter 4 of the White Paper. Currently, child support arrangements cannot be made unless a parent specifically applies for maintenance. While every effort is made to ensure parents with care are not put at risk by the child support process, this rule can actually increase the risk that parents face. This is because when non-resident parents receive notification that the parent with care had applied for child support, some feel that they have been 'shopped' to the Department of Social Security.

  Under the new scheme, it is planned that a separate application for maintenance will not be required for parents with care on benefit. Claiming Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance will be enough to start the child support process, unless a parent with care specifically asks us not to pursue maintenance. A parent with care who opts out will be asked to show that she has good cause for doing so. If it is clear that the child support process would cause her or her children harm or undue distress no further action will be taken. Otherwise, a benefit penalty may be imposed.

  Fraud
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he plans to take to reduce fraud in benefits. [99089]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government published "Safeguarding Social Security", its strategy for combating fraud and reducing error on 23 March. This document is available on the Department's website.

  Income Support (Pensioners)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards increasing take-up of income support by pensioners. [99090]

  Mr. Rooker
  Research on why pensioners do not take up their entitlement to Income Support was published on 15 October. We will present our plans for the national programme in due course.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the ONE service pilots. [99092]

  Angela Eagle
  The first four ONE service pilots, which were launched in June, are making good progress. We are already helping people plan ways to become independent, while ensuring that claims to benefit are dealt with promptly and accurately.

  A further eight pilots are being launched today. Four will test the advantages of using call centre technology and the other four will be delivered in partnership with private and voluntary sector providers.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the pilot scheme for the New Deal for the disabled as it affects Scarborough and Whitby. [99095]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are 12 Personal Adviser Service pilots within the New Deal for Disabled People. The North Yorkshire pilot, which includes my hon. Friend's constituency, is one of these and was the most recent to start. It has so far helped 24 disabled people into work, including 10 in the last month. Overall the New Deal for Disabled People has helped nearly 1,500 people into jobs.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effects of his reforms to the system of benefits for disabled people. [99097]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are modernising the welfare system to encourage work for those who can and provide security for those who cannot. Our reforms will help disabled people who want to work and ensure that extra support is given to those who need it most.

  Benefits Agency Medical Service
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to review the Benefits Agency Medical Service. [99073]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Contract for the provision of medical services to the Benefits Agency was awarded to Sema Group from 1 September 1998 for five years. The service is managed and monitored on a daily basis by a dedicated Benefits Agency Contract Management Team. The service provided by Sema Group has not necessitated a review to be conducted and there are no plans currently for a review to be carried out.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of imposing a threshold of £125 in relation to incapacity benefit. [99080]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that setting a threshold of £125, below which no account would be taken of pension income, would increase benefit expenditure by £10 million in the first year, £45 million in the third year and £120 million after ten years.

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98717]

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

  Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of the official vehicle provided and claim mileage allowance on the same terms as civil servants in the Department.

  Departmental motor mileage allowance rates

  All cars (irrespective of engine capacity)

  Pence per mile

  Standard Rate

  Up to 4,000 miles per annum

  40

  Over 4,000 miles per annum

  22.5

  Public Transport Rate

  22.5

  Notes:

  1. These rates were first introduced on 4 April 1997.

  2. Information is not kept in a format which provides a breakdown of the components in the Department's overall spend on transport for the last five years.

  3. Standard rate milage can only be claimed if it an be justified that the journey taken by private vehicle is in the public interest.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the accessibility to benefit recipients of(a) post offices and (b) banks; and if he will estimate the average distance from home in each case; [99270]

  (2) what investigation the Benefits Agency has conducted of the effects of its decision to pay benefits through banks by 2003 on (a) benefit recipients, (b) banks and (c) post offices, with particular reference to smaller post offices; and what the results were; [99271]

  (3) in his discussions with the banks about paying benefits through bank accounts, if the banks have agreed to (a) handle the cash necessary for all benefit recipients and (b) issue bank accounts to all benefit recipients. [99269]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assurances he has received from the banking industry that, if new accounts were opened solely for the purpose of receipt of social security benefits, no charges would be levied for the withdrawal of cash; [99577]

  (2) what assurances he has received from the banking industry that, in the event of all benefit payments being made into bank accounts from 2003, bank accounts would be available to all benefit recipients. [99570]

  Mr. Rooker
  No assessment of the accessibility of post offices or banks to benefit recipients has been made. Customers can choose to access their benefits in cash at both post offices and banks. We have no plans to change this.

  54W
  We have decided to move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. People are increasingly choosing ACT as their preferred method of payment. The Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. will be working together to build on this trend to ensure that, from 2003, ACT offers an attractive choice to benefit recipients, opening up access to a wider range of banking and other financial services, while continuing to offer access to cash at post office counters. The Performance and Innovation Unit will pay particular attention to this as part of their study into the post office network which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 October.

  The Department will be arranging discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and other matters in due course. We envisage there will be alternative arrangements for anyone who cannot open a bank account. We will ensure procedures are in place for payment of emergency payments where cash is required on day of decision.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the present system of benefits payments by requiring all recipients to receive payment by automated credit transfer. [99632]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are to move from the traditional paper based methods of payment to a more modern, secure and efficient way of paying benefits using the existing Automatic Credit Transfer (ACT) system to make benefit payments available through banks and the Post Office network. The new arrangements will begin in 2003 to be completed by 2005. Those benefit recipients who wish to collect their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent of fraud when benefits are paid(a) through bank accounts and (b) through post offices. [99268]

  Mr. Rooker
  The majority of payments through bank accounts relate to benefits such as Retirement Pension and Child Benefit. Few cases of fraud have been detected in these payments; however, the BA continues to work on identifying risks on dealing with them.

  It is estimated that fraudulent losses from benefits paid through post offices were £19.4 million in respect of girocheques and £83.3 million in respect of order books.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the results were of his trial of the use of a benefits payment card in respect of the level of benefit fraud; [99566]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent of benefit fraud when payments are made by automated credit transfer. [99568]

  Mr. Rooker
  A pilot payment card exercise started in September 1996 in 12 post offices. The full trial took place from April 1997 to May 1999 in 204 post offices in the south-west and north-east areas of England. In total, 35,000 Child Benefit customers were issued with payment cards. No cases of benefit fraud were found.
  55W
  Around 65 per cent. of all benefits are still paid to customers by order books and girocheques which are cashed at post offices. However, automated credit transfer (ACT) is becoming more prevalent and therefore, as the attendant risks increase, the Benefits Agency (BA) is working on identifying the nature of the fraud associated with this method of payment.

  The majority of payments through bank accounts currently relate to benefits such as Retirement Pension and Child Benefit. Few cases of fraud have been detected in these payments.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the titles of official departmental reports he is preparing with a view to publication in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, stating in each case the planned date of publication. [99627]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department fully expects to publish the following documents in 1999–2000.

  Social Security Departmental Report—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01 and 2001–02

  The 2nd Poverty Audit Report

  The Chief Adjudication Officer's final report

  The War Pensions Agency Business Plan 2000–01

  The War Pensions Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000

  The War Pensioners Report 1999–2000

  The Information Technology Services Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000

  The Benefits Agency Business Plan 2000–01

  The Benefits Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2000–01

  The Child Support Agency Annual Report 1999–2000

  The Child Support Agency Business Plan 2000–01

  As yet dates for these are unconfirmed. Publication dates will be determined by the progress of work, the requirements of Parliament and the efficient management of Government. Other reports may emerge during the course of the year.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much extra cash income would need to be received by low-income households in the latest year for which figures are available in order to ensure that all children are in households with at least half average income(a) as the half average is at present and (b) as half average income would be after the extra transfers. [99395]

  Angela Eagle
  Our strategy for eradicating child poverty within 20 years involves tackling the main causes of poverty and social exclusion. This means helping parents find work, making work pay and ensuring that every child gets the best possible start in life as well as providing additional help for families through the tax and benefit system.

  Using information drawn from the 1997–98 Households Below Average Income data set, based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey; it is estimated that, on average, around £46 per week per household of additional
  56W
  income from earnings, benefit, or other source would have needed to have been received in 1997–98 to ensure that all children were in households with at least half average income before housing costs as it was before the transfers; and around £52 per week using the after housing costs measure.

  The amount of additional income needed, as half average income would be after transfers depends on the proportion of the total additional income accounted for by transfers and how those transfers are funded.

  Notes:

  1. Figures given in April 1999 prices are rounded to the nearest pound. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sets. The current series is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and is available for the years 1994–95 to 1997–98 and covers Great Britain but not Northern Ireland. The figures presented will be subject to sampling error. Figures for children are sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale.

  2. Estimates assume that each household receives exactly enough extra to reach half average income.

  3. The estimates assume no change in working patterns after the transfers have been made.

  4. Estimates based on reported current income, which is assumed to stay constant throughout the year. Estimates include some negative incomes (after tax and housing costs). Estimates exclude the self-employed. Income data at the bottom of the income distribution and for self-employed people are known to be an imperfect indicator of living standards. Estimates of the median gap, which are less affected by very low incomes at the bottom of the income distribution than the mean, are £36 per week (after housing costs) and £32 per week (before housing costs).

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government's policy of eliminating child poverty requires rates of social security benefits set above the official poverty line. [99569]

  Mr. Bayley
  We published the document "Opportunity for all" on 21 September (Cm 4445) which sets out our strategy for tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. The report includes a range of indicators against which we can monitor our progress in tackling these causes and overcoming the problems faced by people living in poverty. Further details on all the indicators in the report have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Our strategy for eradicating child poverty within 20 years involves tackling the main causes of poverty and social exclusion, providing additional help for families with children through the tax and benefit systems and ensuring that every child gets the best possible start in life.

  Capital Limits (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government's review of the capital limits for(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit will be concluded. [99445]

  Angela Eagle
  We announced in the Pensions Green Paper, "Partnership in Pensions", that we would examine ways to greater reward those who have made provision for their own retirement. Our proposals will be announced during this Parliament.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a female appellant against a disability living allowance rejection is permitted to ask for an all-female tribunal to hear her case; and if he will make a statement. [99549]

  Angela Eagle
  The allocation of members to a tribunal is a matter for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Michael Harris. He will write to the right hon. Member.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the medical examination given to claimants of industrial injuries benefits. [100257]

  Mr. Bayley
  Decisions on claims for Industrial Injuries benefits are made by decision makers, taking into account the medical evidence provided by medical advisers trained in Disability Assessment Medicine. It is for the decision maker to judge whether the medical examination report is adequate for the purpose of deciding a claim. The on-going medical quality monitoring of the medical advisers' examination reports suggests that they are maintaining the same standards as pertained when the doctors were responsible for decision making. However following the introduction of lay decision making in July this year the quality of the medical report is further enhanced by a requirement that medical advisers give clear, unambiguous and jargon-free reasons for their opinion.

  Asbestos-related Disease
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to claim from asbestos manufacturers, suppliers and their insurance companies for the cost to the public purse of asbestos-related illness. [99575]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Industrial Injuries scheme provides benefits for employed earners disabled by asbestos-related illness arising out of and in the course of their employment. This benefit compensates people for a loss of faculty which results in disablement; it is not based on issues of 'fault'.

  Under the provisions of the compensation recovery scheme, benefits paid as a result of asbestos-related illness can be recovered if the person suffering from the illness is awarded third party compensation. Benefits are recovered from the compensator from the date of claim to benefit in respect of the disease, subject to a five year maximum. The compensator may reduce the compensation payment to take account of this liability, but only where compensation and benefits are paid for the same need. Compensation for pain and suffering cannot be reduced.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been made to 58W
  him about the adequacy of the diagnosis procedures for asbestos-related diseases for qualifying for social security benefits; and if he will make a statement. [99572]

  Mr. Bayley
  Representations have been received about individual claimants, which are of course confidential. We are not aware of any representations specifically about the adequacy of diagnostic procedures for these diseases.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training is undergone by doctors serving his Department to enable them to distinguish between diseases having their origin in smoking and those having their origin in asbestos. [99574]

  Mr. Bayley
  Medical Services doctors receive a five day training course instructing them how to apply their medical knowledge to the legislative criteria. It includes considering the raw materials, radiological and pathological findings and clinical presentation. Each doctor is then assigned to a more experienced colleague who acts as a supervisory mentor until he or she is assessed as capable of working alone. Work is then audited regularly with quality assured processes to assess any need for further training, and the training is kept under constant review. Forms used to record medical assessments for respiratory prescribed diseases require the doctor to record details of the claimant's smoking habits.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy that all those claiming a social security benefit on the grounds of suffering from an asbestos-related disease should have undergone a CT scan to improve diagnosis. [99573]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is not our policy that such Social Security benefit claimants should have undergone a CT scan.

  CT scans involve considerable exposure to ionising radiation. It would be incompatible with EU and UK legislation on reducing radiation exposure to set any such requirement when it is possible to award benefit on the basis of other evidence of an acceptable nature, such as ordinary chest radiographs. It is important to note that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (which advises the Secretary of State on this benefit) recommended in 1996 that awards for bilateral diffuse pleural thickening should be based upon the chest radiograph rather than a CT scan.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions Ministers or his officials have held with the Ministry of Defence in respect of war pensions for widows; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement. [100314]

  Mr. Bayley
  Officials of both Departments have been fully involved in the joint review of compensation for members of the Armed Forces who are disabled because of or whose death is due to service. Ministers and officials of both Departments also discussed the issues raised by the recent debates on war widows' pensions during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act.

  Widow's Benefit
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the removal of widow's benefit will have on the widow's eligibility for the basic state pension. [99075]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have ensured that, when the new Bereavement Benefits scheme is introduced, a widow on reaching pension age, who has not remarried, will receive Retirement Pension as if she had been receiving Widow's Pension up to pension age under the current scheme. This provision will, of course, like the Bereavement Benefits themselves be available equally to widows and widowers.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the payment of the winter fuel allowance. [99098]

  Mr. Rooker
  For the third winter running, Winter Fuel Payments are being made to eligible pensioners. For the first time, payments this year will be made before Christmas. The issue of payments began on 8 November and should be completed by 3 December.

  The payment has been increased to f100 for eligible pensioner households from this winter. Also, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that the payments will be made every year from now on.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of pensioners entitled to receive the minimum income guarantee(a) in the current year and (b) in each of the next five years, assuming it is uprated by earnings each year. [99398]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimates of the average number of pensioners entitled to receive the minimum income guarantee in each year, 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Thousand

  Income Support cases aged over 60

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Pensioner cases (excluding RA/RCNH)

  1,390

  1,380

  1,350

  Pensioner cases plus partners (excluding RA/RCNH)

  1,640

  1,620

  1,580

  Residential Allowance cases

  170

  180

  180

  RC/NH cases

  50

  40

  30

  Notes:

  1. The partners of pensioner cases (excluding Residential Allowance (RA) and Residential Care and Nursing Home (RCNH) cases) may be under 60, but the majority will be over 60.

  2. The figures are consistent with expenditure estimates published in the November 1999 Pre Budget Report for the years 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  3. There are no published estimates for later years.
  60W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are entitled to means-tested benefit in 1999; and how many will be so entitled after the implementation of the increases in the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee for pensions announced in his up-rating statement, when broken down between the different benefits. [99448]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at May 1998, the latest date for which information on all means-tested benefits is available, the estimated number of pensioners (aged 60 or over) who were entitled to means-tested benefit was 3.08 million. We estimate that a further 25,000 pensioners will become entitled to the minimum income guarantee from next April because of its link with earnings growth. 6,000 pensioners will become entitled to Housing Benefit and 9,000 will become entitled to Council Tax Benefit for the same reason.

  Notes:

  1. In this analysis, pensioners are defined as where the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over.

  2. Means-tested benefits include Disability Working Allowance, Family Credit, Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Council Tax Benefit and Housing.

  3. Numbers refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  4. Figures do not include second adult rebates.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (5 per cent. sample), May 1998 and May 1999.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (5 per cent. sample), May 1998 and May 1999.

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Disability Working Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (100 per cent. sample), May 1998 and May 1999.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System (1 per cent. sample), May 1998.

WALES

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of special advisers working for the Secretary of State for Wales in each year from 1992–93. [100097]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures are not available for the financial year 1992–93. From that year they are as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1993–94

  1

  1994–95

  1

  1995–96

  1

  1996–97

  1

  1997–98

  2

  1998–99

  1

  1999

  1 April to 30 June

  3

  1 July to 29 November

  1

  From the start of December this year I will employ two special advisers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office) (Amendment) Bill
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had since 27 March 1998 concerning the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office) (Amendment) Bill [Lords] 1998; if he will make a statement on the statutory provisions concerning disbarment from holding the position of Lord Chancellor as it affects (i) Jews, (ii) Muslims, (iii) Buddhists and (iv) members of other non-Christian religions; and what steps he proposes to ensure there is no religious requirement in (a) holding the office of Lord Chancellor and (b) carrying out the functions of Lord Chancellor.[99810]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The Lord Chancellor and his officials have held preliminary discussions with the promoter of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office) (Amendment) Bill, the noble Lord Alderdice, and his advisers. The purpose of the discussions is to consider how legislation could provide for alternative arrangements to be made in the event of a Lord Chancellor considering that it was not proper for him or her personally to exercise ecclesiastical functions attached to the office of Lord Chancellor. The discussion follows proposals made during the debates on the Bill which Lord Alderdice introduced last year.

  £

  April 19961

  January 1997

  January 1998

  January 1999

  Outside London

  Franchisees

  Preparation

  46.00

  47.29

  48.85

  50.02

  Advocacy

  57.75

  59.37

  61.33

  62.80

  Attendance at Court

  31.50

  32.38

  33.45

  34.25

  Travelling and waiting

  25.50

  26.21

  27.08

  27.73

  Routine letters and telephone calls

  3.55

  3.65

  3.77

  3.86

  Non-Franchisees

  Preparation

  44.75

  46.00

  47.52

  48.66

  Advocacy

  56.50

  58.08

  60.00

  61.44

  Attendance at Court

  30.50

  31.35

  32.39

  33.17

  Travelling and waiting

  24.75

  25.44

  26.28

  26.91

  Routine letters and telephone calls

  3.45

  3.55

  3.66

  3.75

  London area

  Franchisees

  Preparation

  48.50

  49.86

  51.50

  52.74

  Advocacy

  57.75

  59.37

  61.33

  62.80

  Attendance at Court

  31.50

  32.38

  33.45

  34.25

  Travelling and waiting

  25.50

  26.21

  27.08

  27.73

  Routine letters and telephone calls

  3.70

  3.80

  3.93

  4.02

  Non-franchisees

  Preparation

  47.25

  48.57

  50.18

  51.38

  Advocacy

  56.50

  58.08

  60.00

  61.44

  Attendance at Court

  30.50

  31.35

  32.39

  33.17

  Travelling and waiting

  24.75

  25.44

  26.28

  26.91

  Routine letters and telephone calls

  3.60

  3.70

  3.82

  3.91

  1 Hourly rates for legal aid work in the Magistrates Courts were last raised in April 1996 and these are therefore the existing rates.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department of the judicial vacancies filled since May 1997 in the(a) House of Lords, (b) Court of Appeal, (c) High Court and (d) Circuit Bench, how many were filled by (i) women, (ii) people from ethnic minorities and (iii) solicitors. [100417]
  62W
  I am not aware of any extant statutory provisions which would disbar any person from holding the office of Lord Chancellor on the ground of his or her religious persuasion.

  The Government do not propose to take any steps to change any existing law which governs the holding of the office of Lord Chancellor, or the carrying out of the functions of that office. Traditionally, it has not been regarded as appropriate for the Government to introduce legislation intended to facilitate the holding or performance of such office by individuals of particular religious persuasions.

  Magistrates Courts (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what would have been the hourly rate for legal aid work in magistrates courts had fees been raised annually in line with inflation, detailed by each year, in each of the last five years. [100470]

  Mr. Lock
  The majority of magistrates court criminal cases are paid for by a standard fee. Hourly rates are paid on non standard cases. Of cases receiving criminal legal aid, 9 per cent. are currently paid by non standard fees and account for 35 per cent. of expenditure. Although hourly rates have not increased during the period in question, the average amount paid in a case has increased from £1,554 to £1,649. Had the hourly rates increased in line with inflation, the rates would be as detailed.

  Mr. Lock
  The available information is as follows:

  The figures for the number of appointments made since May 1997 and the further breakdown by gender, ethnic background and professional background are detailed in the table.

  63W

  Full-time appointments made since May 1997, classified by gender, ethnic and professional background

  Post

  Appointments made

  Number of females

  Number of ethnic minority background

  Solicitors

  House of Lords

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Court of Appeal

  11

  1

  0

  0

  High Court

  19

  2

  0

  0

  Circuit Bench

  71

  12

  1

  4

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many vacancies for judicial appointments there were in the(a) House of Lords, (b) Court of Appeal and (c) High Court in each of the last three years. [100418]

  Mr. Lock
  From the information available the number of vacancies for judicial appointments in the House of Lords, Court of Appeal and the High Court for the past three years is as follows:

  House of Lords

  Court of Appeal

  High Court

  1996

  2

  2(3)

  9

  1997

  2

  5

  7

  1998

  2

  2

  5(2)

  1999

  1

  4

  5(1)

  Note:

  The figures in brackets represent additional appointments. In 1996 there were three additional appointments to the Court of Appeal. In 1998 there were two additional appointments to the High Court and in 1999 there was one additional appointment to the High Court. These appointments were additional in that they did not arise from vacancies caused by promotion or retirement.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Sir Leonard Peach was commissioned to conduct his inquiry into the procedures for appointing judges and QCs; by what date he was asked to report; and when the Lord Chancellor expects to receive the report. [100446]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor announced on 27 July 1999 that he had appointed Sir Leonard Peach to provide a report on the operation of the appointments procedures. At that time Sir Leonard expected to report during the last quarter of the year. The Lord Chancellor expects to receive the report soon and for it to be published before Christmas.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to advertise for candidates for the eight new vacancies on the High Court Bench approved on 23 November. [100414]

  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor does not advertise vacancies on the High Court Bench on an individual basis. However, the Lord Chancellor has placed advertisements indicating that he welcomes applications from practitioners who wish to put themselves forward for appointment to the High Court Bench and continues to welcome such applications.

  64W
  In the light of the statutory instrument passed in the House of Commons on 23 November, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering if it is appropriate to place further advertisements in order to encourage suitably qualified and experienced Barristers and Solicitors to put themselves forward for appointment to the High Court.

  "Paths to Justice"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the research report, "Paths to Justice", published by the Nuffield Foundation, in respect of public confidence in the judiciary. [100445]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor and I are both very grateful to Professor Genn for undertaking the research in "Paths to Justice". The report reveals that the perception of judges is inconsistent with the true facts, as evidenced by the high level of satisfaction with judges which most court users report—a level of satisfaction which is remarkable, considering that in every court case there has to be a winner and a loser, and therefore a disappointed party. It is important that deserved public confidence in the judiciary is maintained.

  Magistrates Courts (Costs)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost per day of a trial in a Magistrates Court(a) at which a stipendiary magistrate presides and (b) before lay justices. [100315]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not yet available. The Government have commissioned research to assess the relative costs, effectiveness and other benefits/disadvantages of Stipendiary and lay magistrates, taking into account all related costs including those of other agencies.

HEALTH

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98696]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the Department the current motor mileage allowance rates for Ministers and civil servants who use their own vehicles are 40 pence per mile for the first 4,000 miles in a financial year and 22.5 pence per mile for mileage in excess of 4,000 miles.

  Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants in the Department.
  65W
  The cost of motor mileage allowance payments available for each of the last three years only:

  1996–97: £824,000

  1997–98: £877,000

  1998–99: £816,000

  of which the following was paid to Ministers:

  1996–97: £69

  1997–98: £189

  1998–99: £0

  Alder Hey Children's Hospital
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate claims that children's organs were removed following their deaths without informed parental consent, and retained by medical staff at Alder Hey Children's Hospital on Merseyside. [99402]

  Mr. Denham
  In October the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) announced he would be launching an investigation into the retention of organs, following inquiries by Alder Hey Hospital which had revealed that in a number of cases, other organs as well as hearts were retained from children who underwent post mortems. He asked the Chief Medical Officer to conduct an investigation to look into what happened not just at Alder Hey Hospital, but in the country generally and its implications for the National Health Service as a whole. This investigation is under way.

  Nutrition
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility the Food Standards Agency will have for the health aspects of nutrition. [99282]

  Yvette Cooper
  The division of responsibilities for nutrition between the Food Standards Agency and Hearth departments is set out in chapter 5 of the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The White paper states:

  The Government propose that the agency will:
  be responsible for monitoring and surveillance of the nutrient content of food and the nutrient content of the diet,
  provide authoritative factual information about the nutrient content of individual foods and advice on the diet as a whole,
  secure expert scientific advice on the relationship between diet, nutritional status and health to support the definition of a healthy diet and to inform policy from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA)1,
  provide the definition of a balanced diet, based on COMA'S1 scientific advice, for subsequent use in health education material produced by other bodies,
  where appropriate, propose legislation relating to nutritional aspects of food, including labelling and claims, dietary supplements sold as food, fortified foods and functional foods,
  provide practical guidance in relation to nutritional aspects of the food chain, including production and catering,
  commission food and diet research appropriate to the functions of the agency,
  represent the United Kingdom in international negotiations on issues relating to nutritional aspects of food,
  formulate policy and provide advice to Ministers on these issues.
  66W
  The agency will share with Health departments responsibility for:
  providing the joint secretariat to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA)1. (COMA1 will advise Health departments and the agency),
  surveillance of the nutritional status of people,
  defining the health education message on nutritional issues, taking account of both food and wider health issues,
  policy formulation and advice to Ministers on these issues, for example in relation to Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, and public health aspects of food fortification.

  Health departments will retain responsibility for:
  wider public health policy issues including conditions (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis or obesity) where nutritional status is one of a number of risk factors,
  consideration of vulnerable groups and inequalities issues,
  health education on wider behavioural issues which may include but go beyond nutrition (such as smoking, drinking, physical activity),
  all links with the NHS and health professionals, breastfeeding promotion in the NHS, clinical nutrition and dietetics including hospital catering and nutritional therapy,
  dietary supplements which are controlled by the Medicines Act (through the Medicines Control Agency),
  health surveillance of the population,
  and international negotiations on health matters.

  1The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) will be succeeding the current advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA).

  Mental Incapacity Bill
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in the proposed Mental Incapacity Bill for England and Wales, nutrition and hydration by artificial means will be defined as medication. [99267]

  Yvette Cooper
  As outlined in my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's Policy Statement: "Making Decisions—The Government's proposals for making decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults", we have no plans to enshrine such a definition in statute law.

  ME/CFS
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on the treatment of ME/CFS in young people and the principle of parental consent to their removal from their home for such treatment; [99453]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of specific treatment centres for ME/CFS and on the system of inspection for the centres. [99452]

  Mr. Denham
  The causes of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis are not fully understood, nor is there a generally agreed method of treatment. Treatment to relieve the wide variety of symptoms which patients can experience is, therefore, a matter for individual doctors to decide in consultation with their patients.

  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which people suffering from CFS/ME have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialities. The CFS/ME Working Group will produce guidance aimed at improving the quality of this care and treatment.
  67W
  The Children's Group of the CFS/ME Working Group, which has been established to review management and practice in the field of CFS/ME with the aim of providing best practice guidance for professionals, patients and carers to improve the quality of care and treatment for people with CFS/ME, will, as the name suggests, focus on issues specific to children. This will include educational and social services issues as well as child specific research. It is also considering reviewing practice in paediatric clinics.

  Consent of a young person who has reached the age of 16 to their own medical or surgical treatment is sufficient unless they are not competent to give valid consent, where the consent of a person with parental responsibility should be sought. Such power only extends until the person is 18. The refusal of treatment by a young person competent to give consent may be overridden by consent from a person with parental responsibility or the Courts, provided the treatment is in the young person's best interest. Where the young person is not competent to give consent and a person with parental responsibility refuses consent, the Courts can over-rule that refusal if to do so would be in the child's best interest.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what experiments are taking place on young patients suffering from ME/CFS; and if he will make a statement. [99450]

  Mr. Denham
  We are not aware of any experiments taking place on young patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is(a) undertaking and (b) funding into the causes of ME/CFS; and what assessment he has made of the prospects for the success of such research. [99449]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways:

  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  The MRC has provided support for a Small Project Grant in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, undertaken by Dr. R. K. Morriss at the University of Manchester, entitled "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis on the chronic fatigue syndrome". The total amount awarded was £37,241 and the study was concluded this year.

  The NHS research and development programme is supporting the following projects:
  Chronic fatigue syndrome after acute Q fever: a follow-up study of the 1989 outbreak cohort—Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Birmingham
  68W
  Should general practitioners manage chronic fatigue syndrome?—University of Hull
  Family focused cognitive behavioural therapy for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome—King's College School of Medicine, London

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS R&D levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR).

  Chelation Therapy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities that finance the use of chelation therapy for patients. [99232]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information is not held centrally on the funding of this therapy by health authorities. Chelation therapy may be used in the treatment of a variety of diseases and is available in various forms.

  Embryos (Disposal)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for disposing of embryos. [99265]

  Yvette Cooper
  Section 17 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Act 1990 provides that the person responsible in a licensed clinic must ensure that proper arrangements are made for the disposal of gametes or embryos that have been allowed to perish.

  In its Code of Practice the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority provides that, where an embryo is no longer to be kept for treatment the centre should decide how it is allowed to perish and what is to happen to the perished material. The authority requires the procedure to be sensitively devised and described, and that it should be communicated to the people for whom the embryo was being stored if they so wish.

  Carisolv Gel
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make Carisolv gel available to NHS dental patients; and if he will make a statement. [99389]

  Mr. Denham
  Carisolv gel is available for use by dentists throughout the European Union and this includes its availability to National Health Service dental patients.

  Pertussis Whole Cell Vaccine
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the large scale vaccine trials of the pertussis whole cell vaccine were carried out in Sweden and Germany; and if he will place a copy of the report of the trials in the Library. [99447]

  Yvette Cooper
  Large-scale clinical trials of acellular pertussis vaccines that include whole cell pertussis vaccines as a comparison group were conducted in Sweden between 1992 and 1996 and in Germany between 1991 and 1995. Findings from these clinical trials were published and the following references have been placed in the Library:Gustafsson L et al. A controlled trial of two-component acellular, a five-component acellular and a whole cell pertussis vaccine. N. Engl J. Med 1996; 334:349–55.

  69W
  Olin P et al. Randomised controlled trial of a two-component, three-component, and five-component acellular pertussis vaccines compared with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Lancet 1997; 350: 1569–77.
  Schmitt H-J et al. Efficacy of acellular pertussis vaccine in early childhood after household exposure. JAMA 1996; 275: 37–41.
  Liese J.G. et al. Efficacy of a two-component acellular pertussis vaccine in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997; 16: 1038–44.
  Heininger U. et al. Comparative efficacy of the Ledele/Takeda acellular pertussis component DTP vaccine and Lederle whole-cell component DTP vaccine in German children after household exposure. Pediatrics 1998; 102: 546–553.

  Cervical Screening
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will implement the recommendations of the NHS Health Technology report entitled "A Systematic Review of the Role of HPV Testing in the Cervical Screening Programme". [99750]

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the NHS Health Technology report, "A Systematic Review of the Role of HPV Testing in the Cervical Screening Programme". [99720]

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce testing for the human papilloma virus for the triage of borderline smears, as recommended by the NHS Health Technology report entitled "A Systematic Review of the Role of HPV Testing in the Cervical Screening Programme". [100185]

  Yvette Cooper
  An outline proposal on pilot studies using human papilloma viruses testing as triage for mild and borderline cervical smears, as recommended in the National Health Service Health Technology Assessment report, will be discussed at the National Screening Committee's meeting in Belfast on 8 December. The National Screening Committee will advise Ministers in light of these discussions.

  ChildLine
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make additional funding available to ChildLine; and if he will make a statement. [99581]

  Health authorities

  A Weighted capitation target (£000)

  B Allocation (£000)

  C Distance from target (£000)

  D Distance from target (%)

  Avon

  589,434

  582,510

  -6,924

  -1.17

  Barking and Havering

  258,434

  256,500

  -1,934

  -0.75

  Barnet

  204,463

  209,057

  4,594

  2.25

  Barnsley

  160,844

  156,058

  -4,786

  -2.98

  Bedfordshire

  324,996

  312,569

  -12,427

  -3.82

  Berkshire

  446,620

  431,001

  -15,619

  -3.50

  Bexley and Greenwich

  274,466

  289,039

  14,573

  5.31

  Birmingham

  679,290

  681,946

  2,656

  0.39

  Bradford

  317,304

  311,762

  -5,542

  -1.75

  Brent and Harrow

  301,083

  310,379

  9,296

  3.09

  Bromley

  184,106

  183,609

  -498

  -0.27

  Buckinghamshire

  377,426

  368,084

  -9,343

  -2.48

  Bury and Rochdale

  251,674

  248,434

  -3,241

  -1.29

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  367,445

  369,064

  1,619

  0.44

  70W
  Mr. Hutton
  We greatly value the service that ChildLine provides to children in trouble and in danger. We have committed substantial support to the core operation of ChildLine through a grant under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, totalling £542,500 over the three financial years 1999/2000–2001/02. ChildLine have also been awarded a Section 64 Grant of £150,000 over the three financial years 1999/2000–2001/02 for their special helpline for children in care.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average expenditure is per patient on the treatment of epilepsy. [99764]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, information is available on the cost of epilepsy drugs.

  The number of prescription items and the net ingredient cost for drugs used for the treatment of epilepsy and dispensed in the community in England in 1998 (the latest date that this information is available) was 6.1 million and £74.9 million respectively. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities in England, showing in each case(a) the amount of money to which they would be entitled in 1999–2000 if every health authority were paid at capitation, (b) the actual amount allocated in 1999–2000, (c) the amount of money by which each authority is either above or below capitation, and (d) the percentage of each health authority's allocation which that capitation underpayment or overpayment represents, ranked by the percentage figures in (d). [99803]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows, for 1999–2000, for each health authority: in column A, the amount to which they would be entitled if every health authority were paid at capitation, ie their weighted capitation target; in column B, the actual amount allocated; in column C, the amount by which each authority is above or below capitation, ie their distance from target; and in column D, the percentage distance from target.
  71W

  Health authorities

  A Weighted capitation target (£000)

  B Allocation (£000)

  C Distance from target (£000)

  D Distance from target (%)

  Cambridge and Huntingdon1

  236,369

  233.706

  -2,663

  -1.13

  Camden and Islington

  313,103

  320,052

  6,949

  2.22

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  309,707

  316,160

  6,454

  2.08

  County Durham

  420,738

  411,001

  -9,737

  -2.31

  Coventry

  208,065

  200,882

  -7,182

  -3.45

  Croydon

  205,238

  202,682

  -2,556

  -1.25

  Doncaster

  198,087

  197,811

  -276

  -0.14

  Dorset

  436,860

  446,631

  9,771

  2.24

  Dudley

  184,858

  183,018

  -1,840

  -1.00

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  478,734

  475,900

  -2,835

  -0.59

  East and North Hertfordshire

  292,156

  290,037

  -2,118

  -0.73

  East Kent

  388,808

  395,915

  7,108

  1.83

  East Lancashire

  352,280

  349,892

  -2,389

  -0.68

  East London and The City

  514,149

  490,031

  -24,117

  -4.69

  East Norfolk1

  376,838

  380,037

  3,198

  0.85

  East Riding

  361,453

  359,056

  -2,397

  -0.66

  East Surrey

  239,039

  244,052

  5,013

  2.10

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  494,731

  505,366

  10,634

  2.15

  Enfield and Haringey

  321,764

  323,495

  1,731

  0.54

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  256,652

  254,698

  -1,954

  -0.76

  Gloucestershire

  322,184

  334,591

  12,408

  3.85

  Herefordshire

  98,652

  98,713

  61

  0.06

  Hillingdon

  153,696

  154,353

  658

  0.43

  Isle of Wight

  86,064

  92,390

  6,326

  7.35

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  314,256

  286,339

  -27.917

  -8.88

  Kingston and Richmond

  203,787

  208,380

  4,593

  2.25

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  574,882

  571,315

  -3,567

  -0.62

  Leeds

  466,585

  467,788

  1,203

  0.26

  Leicestershire

  530,776

  517,310

  -13,466

  -2.54

  Lincolnshire

  392,462

  394,990

  2,528

  0.64

  Liverpool

  341,971

  349,120

  7,149

  2.09

  Manchester

  340,940

  348,698

  7,758

  2.28

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  413,443

  422,995

  9,553

  2.31

  Morecambe Bay

  197,059

  205,730

  8,671

  4.40

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  330,977

  332,729

  1,752

  0.53

  North and East Devon

  295,287

  300,720

  5,434

  1.84

  North and Mid Hampshire

  288,021

  291,934

  3,913

  1.36

  North Cheshire

  198,024

  201,585

  3,561

  1.80

  North Cumbria

  198,179

  198,290

  111

  0.06

  North Derbyshire

  228,939

  228,364

  -575

  -0.25

  North Essex

  507,041

  503,561

  -3,480

  -0.69

  North Nottinghamshire

  239,324

  236,475

  -2,849

  -1.19

  North Staffordshire

  311,809

  303,653

  -8,156

  -2.62

  North West Anglia1

  255,274

  250,526

  -4,748

  -1.86

  North West Lancashire

  322,992

  321,635

  -1,356

  -0.42

  North Yorkshire

  436,615

  434,879

  -1,736

  -0.40

  Northamptonshire

  321,398

  326,245

  4,847

  1.51

  Northumberland

  196,339

  196,014

  -325

  -0.17

  Nottingham

  400,526

  390,375

  -10,151

  -2.53

  Oxfordshire

  337,381

  327,812

  -9,569

  -2.84

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  331,271

  330,353

  -917

  -0.28

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  283,560

  296,944

  13,384

  4.72

  Rotherham

  160,241

  159,162

  -1,079

  -0.67

  Salford and Trafford

  302,725

  309,165

  6,440

  2.13

  Sandwell

  207,949

  205,153

  -2,795

  -1.34

  Sefton

  190,041

  192,028

  1,987

  1.05

  Sheffield

  360,678

  366,097

  5,419

  1.50

  Shropshire

  248,555

  247,650

  -905

  -0.36

  Solihull

  121,100

  122,698

  1,598

  1.32

  Somerset

  287,231

  290,097

  2,866

  1.00

  South and West Devon

  376,078

  383,067

  6,989

  1.86

  South Cheshire

  403,528

  405,696

  2,168

  0.54

  South Derbyshire

  347,813

  340,745

  -7,068

  -2.03

  South Essex

  432,611

  417,802

  -14,809

  -3.42

  South Humber

  192,513

  199,138

  6,625

  3.44

  South Lancashire

  181,469

  185,797

  4,328

  2.38

  South Staffordshire

  320,147

  322,868

  2,721

  0.85

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  327,461

  327,774

  312

  0.10

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  237,420

  236,408

  -1,013

  -0.43

  Stockport

  175,572

  176,374

  802

  0.46

  Suffolk

  391,148

  397,601

  6,452

  1.65

  72W 73W

  Health authorities

  A Weighted capitation target (£000)

  B Allocation (£000)

  C Distance from target (£000)

  D Distance from target (%)

  Sunderland

  202,063

  200,533

  -1,530

  -0.76

  Tees

  372,959

  369,278

  -3,681

  -0.99

  Wakefield

  210,413

  211,183

  771

  0.37

  Walsall

  165,336

  163,243

  -2,093

  -1.27

  Warwickshire

  285,805

  293,422

  7,616

  2.66

  West Hertfordshire

  312,558

  317,538

  4,980

  1.59

  West Kent

  559,299

  562,935

  3,636

  0.65

  West Pennine

  302,185

  297,286

  -4,898

  -1.62

  West Surrey

  362,469

  371,000

  8,531

  2.35

  West Sussex

  470,645

  467,090

  -3,555

  -0.76

  Wigan and Bolton

  385,390

  373,322

  -12,069

  -3.13

  Wiltshire

  339,986

  345,684

  5,699

  1.68

  Wirral

  221,847

  226,212

  4,365

  1.97

  Wolverhampton

  162,577

  160,226

  -2,351

  -1.45

  Worcestershire

  298,177

  303,405

  5,228

  1.75

  1 Since the announcement of allocations for 1999–2000, North West Anglia Health Authority, East Norfolk Health Authority and Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority have merged into two new health authorities, Norfolk Health Authority and Cambridgeshire Health Authority. It is not possible to provide data on a comparable basis for the new health authorities.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to respond to the recommendations contained in the Royal Commission report on long-term care for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [99723]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are carefully considering the Royal Commission's proposals, the divergences of view within the Royal Commission and the comments that have been made by various organisations and individuals. We will make an announcement in due course.

  Mental Health Services
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total spending on mental health services in(a) 1999 and (b) 1997 for each health authority area. [99887]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over £2,648 million in 1996–97 and over £2,925 million in 1998–99 was spent purchasing secondary healthcare on mental illness in England.

  The table shows the breakdown for each health authority area.

  Purchase of secondary healthcare—mental illness—England

  £000

  HA code/Health authority

  1996–97

  1998–99

  QD8 Avon

  45,732

  49,507

  QAP Barking and Havering

  20,782

  27,310

  QAQ Barnet

  18,332

  20,922

  QCG Barnsley

  9,868

  11,671

  QA6 Bedfordshire

  17,142

  24,266

  QA7 Berkshire

  31,180

  38,284

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich

  18,837

  30,939

  QD9 Birmingham

  55,899

  63,980

  QDD Bradford

  25,348

  25,535

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  34,074

  40,714

  QAC Bromley

  15,424

  17,927

  QA8 Buckinghamshire

  29,543

  29,755

  QCT Bury and Rochdale

  14,105

  15,672

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees

  26,317

  26,578

  QA9 Cambridge and Huntingdon

  22,678

  24,975

  QAT Camden and Islington

  47,735

  59,732

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  25,894

  27,260

  74W

  Purchase of secondary healthcare—mental illness—England

  £000

  HA code/Health authority

  1996–97

  1998–99

  QDE County Durham

  36,169

  33,968

  QEA Coventry

  16,216

  16,571

  QAD Croydon

  17,322

  21,682

  QCK Doncaster

  14,561

  14,050

  QDW Dorset

  29,859

  31,160

  QEC Dudley

  13,855

  16,419

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  57,339

  63,938

  QEP East and North Hertfordshire

  23,426

  26,630

  QAE East Kent

  25,211

  35,293

  QCX East Lancashire

  25,363

  28,416

  QAW East London and The City

  60,430

  60,879

  QCA East Norfolk

  32,286

  32,591

  QDF East Riding

  29,141

  22,877

  QAK East Surrey

  32,755

  32,396

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  37,961

  41,986

  QA4 Enfield and Haringey

  41,147

  36,452

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside

  26,064

  27,537

  QDY Gloucestershire

  23,874

  25,628

  QED Herefordshire

  4,766

  7,074

  QA2 Hillingdon

  11,132

  10,672

  QD4 Isle of Wight

  7,541

  6,898

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  52,059

  57,703

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  20,793

  20,917

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  79,400

  106,945

  QDH Leeds

  42,230

  41,662

  QCL Leicestershire

  48,737

  54,561

  QCM Lincolnshire

  28,662

  22,145

  QC2 Liverpool

  29,857

  38,934

  QC3 Manchester

  37,596

  39,867

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  47,578

  51,405

  QC4 Morecambe Bay

  21,666

  23,041

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside

  21,980

  28,601

  QDX North and East Devon

  22,837

  24,606

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  23,290

  26,116

  QVC North Cheshire

  22,507

  25,305

  QDK North Cumbria

  17,797

  19,202

  QCH North Derbyshire

  17,295

  18,549

  QAX North Essex

  43,602

  46,622

  QCN North Nottinghamshire

  29,508

  14,302

  QEH North Staffordshire

  25,534

  23,084

  QCD North West Anglia

  19,502

  22,253

  QCY North West Lancashire

  26,560

  29,419

  QDR North Yorkshire

  32,818

  39,955

  QCC Northamptonshire

  26,562

  33,001

  QDM Northumberland

  16,304

  17,983

  QCP Nottingham

  38,028

  43,942

  QCE Oxfordshire

  28,061

  30,713

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  28,771

  32,186

  75W

  Purchase of secondary healthcare—mental illness—England

  £000

  HA code/Health authority

  1996–97

  1998–99

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  34,854

  39,271

  QCQ Rotherham

  10,517

  11,039

  QC6 Salford and Trafford

  27,653

  27,580

  QEE Sandwell

  12,563

  14,748

  QC7 Sefton

  11,499

  12,977

  QCR Sheffield

  32,545

  33,983

  QEF Shropshire

  16,983

  19,672

  QEG Solihull

  6,735

  6,285

  QD5 Somerset

  22,452

  25,431

  QD6 South and West Devon

  22,747

  32,439

  QCW South Cheshire

  35,732

  40,602

  QCJ South Derbyshire

  26,608

  27,959

  QAY South Essex

  36,511

  42,633

  QDL South Humber

  1,894

  11,495

  QC1 South Lancashire

  8,325

  12,918

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  22,563

  24,191

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  29,516

  31,486

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley

  16,287

  19,684

  QC8 Stockport

  11,021

  12,777

  QCF Suffolk

  33,877

  37,625

  QDN Sunderland

  24,536

  20,375

  QDP Tees

  28,075

  29,525

  QDQ Wakefield

  17,333

  17,951

  QEK Walsall

  10,556

  11,237

  QEL Warwickshire

  22,585

  23,341

  QEQ West Hertfordshire

  22,889

  26,836

  QAF West Kent

  37,857

  46,498

  QC9 West Pennine

  22,807

  26,867

  QAL West Surrey

  33,964

  36,035

  QAN West Sussex

  40,767

  42,875

  QDA Wigan and Bolton

  27,734

  28,205

  QD7 Wiltshire

  27,888

  29,471

  QDC Wirral

  11,480

  13,161

  QEM Wolverhampton

  8,928

  11,215

  QEN Worcestershire

  15,068

  16,384

  Total (England)

  2,648,191

  2,925,934

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1998–99 is provisional

  2. These figures do not include primary care nor personal social services

  Source:

  Health Authority Annual Accounts 1996–97 and 1998–99

  Primary Care
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made on the setting up of(a) Primary Care Groups and (b) primary care trusts. [99869]

  Mr. Denham
  481 Primary Care Groups have been successfully established. 83 per cent. have opted to take on a substantial commissioning role and are operating at level 2. PCGs have taken responsibility for £11 billion.

  Hospital Bed Use
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the inquiry into the use of hospital beds to report. [99992]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Beds Inquiry is nearing completion. Its findings will be published in due course.

  Bicester Community Hospital
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Bicester Community Hospital. [100283]
  76W
  Mr. Denham
  As part of the modernisation of community services across Oxfordshire, a brand new 30 bed community hospital is to be built at Bicester. The new hospital will replace the current hospital with a much needed facility, with an additional 18 beds to meet the health care needs of the local community.

  Waiting Times (West Sussex)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for 12 weeks or more for a first appointment with a consultant in the West Sussex Health Authority Area on(a) 1 April and (b) 1 October. [100480]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of people waiting for 13 weeks or more for outpatient appointments in the West Sussex Health Authority area is contained in the table.

  Patients waiting for 13 weeks or more for first outpatient appointment

  Date

  Number

  31 March 1999

  6,915

  30 September 1999

  8,350

  Age Concern
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to prevent ageism in the NHS, with particular reference to the recent representations made by Age Concern. [100198]

  Mr. Hutton
  We welcome the recent Age Concern report which highlights this important issue.

  Discrimination of any kind, whether it is on the basis of age, race or gender, is completely unacceptable in the National Health Service. Treatment should rest entirely on clinical need. We are determined to provide older people with care that meets their needs-fast, efficient and sensitive. The provision of first class care on the NHS is a priority for this Government. That is why we are developing the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People. This, for the first time, will set national standards for the care of older people, driving up the quality and reducing the variations of that care. The NSF will be published next year. The development of the NSF has involved many groups, including the patients and carers themselves. However, until the NSF is in place, we will continue to improve and modernise the services we provide. Thus last year we extended the annual immunisation programme for influenza to ensure that everyone aged 75 and over can have the 'flu vaccine free of charge. Over the next three years we will be expanding cataract services to increase the number of cataract operations from 170,000 a year currently to 250,000 a year-this will benefit thousands of older people. From 1 April this year all people aged 60 and over are entitled to free eye tests regardless of income or health status.

  Child Protection
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring into force each of the provisions in the Protection of Children Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [100300]
  77W
  Mr. Hutton
  As I confirmed during the passage of this Act, it is the Government's firm intention to implement the provisions of the Protection of Children Act as soon as possible.

  We will be consulting widely on draft regulations in the new year, and will clarify the dates for implementation at that stage.

  Postnatal Depression
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all antenatal clinics have in place a procedure for identifying mothers at risk of postnatal depression. [100098]

  Yvette Cooper
  "The Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom 1994–1996" recommended that the early identification of women at risk of postnatal mental illness or self harm should become part of routine practice. At the maternity booking stage, brief details should be taken about the presence or history of maternal psychiatric disorder, alcohol or substance abuse, severe social problems and previous self harm. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure effective psychiatric liaison as well as to provide appropriate support. The report's recommendations were widely circulated to health professionals in the National Health Service in November 1998.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, by region, the number of psychiatric beds available in mother and baby units for the treatment of women suffering from postnatal depression; [100099]

  (2) how many women were admitted to psychiatric hospitals and units as a result of postnatal depression by region, for each of the past five years: what proportion of those women were treated in (a) mother and baby units and (b) in general psychiatric wards. [100100]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, there were an estimated 613 finished consultant episodes recorded with a primary diagnoses of puerperium (post natal depression occurring within six weeks of delivery) during 1996–97, the latest year for which information is available. A patient may, of course, have more than one episode of treatment during a year.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to improve the well-being of children in care. [99064]

  Mr. Hutton
  A major programme of action to improve services for children in the public care has been set out in the Government's Response to the Children's Safeguards Review: the launch of the three-year "Quality Protects" programme; and in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services". The "Quality Protects" programme set new national objectives to transform the management and delivery of children's social services. A special grant of £375 million over three years has been made available to support the changes.

  The Government also believe that many young people living in and leaving care have not been getting a fair deal. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill, introduced in the
  78W
  House of Lords on 18 November, will change the system to give these young people the support they need and deserve in preparing for and leaving care.

TREASURY

  South Korea
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent IMF support for South Korea being used to subsidise South Korean shipyards; and if he will make a statement. [99844]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my predecessor as Economic Secretary gave him on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 807W. There is no evidence that IMF support has been used to subsidise the South Korean shipbuilding industry, and this year South Korea has made net repayments to the IMF.

  The UK Government strongly support Korea's IMF programme, the benefits of which are now being felt as that country recovers from financial crisis. However, the Government fully acknowledge the necessity to monitor that the terms and conditions of the programme continue to be fully respected. This point was underlined by the Industry Council on 9 November in the context of a discussion of the European Commission's first monitoring report on the situation in the world shipbuilding market.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the national minimum wage on inflation. [99633]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Monetary Policy Committee is charged with setting interest rates to ensure the Government's inflation target of 2.5 per cent. is met, and hence the introduction of a National Minimum Wage is not expected to have any material effect on inflation.

  Duty Free Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of duty free sales within the countries of the European Union on employment in the UK. [99607]

  Mr. Timms
  In introducing the legislative framework for the duty free successor regime, the Government promised a post-implementation review after six months. Early next year we will carry out a properly structured evaluation exercise to assess the impact on UK industry.

  Income Drawdown and Annuities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Inland Revenue to conclude its examination of income drawdown and annuities. [100022]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Inland Revenue has been conducting a review of the operation of income drawdown in personal pension schemes and an announcement will be made in due course if it is decided that any changes are required.

  Incomes (North Staffordshire)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average gross weekly income was in(a) the North Staffordshire travel-to-work area and (b) Stoke-on-Trent for the last year for which data are available. [99878]

  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. George Stevenson, dated 29 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on average gross weekly income for the North Staffordshire travel-to-work area (TTWA) and Stoke-on-Trent.
  Estimates of average gross income data for North Staffordshire TTWA and for Stoke-on-Trent, as discrete areas, are not available. The lowest regional breakdown of household income data published by the ONS is for annual gross household income per head by county. The latest published figures are for 1995 and were published in Table 9 of the article Regional Accounts 1995: part 2 in Economic Trends no. 535, June 1998. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library. Sub-regional estimates of household income in the future will be based on different geographies, owing largely to the reorganisation of local government throughout Great Britain. The first estimates on this basis will be published in the first half of 2000, and will include data for more recent years.
  The county figures available relate to the income of the household sector, as defined for the purposes of national and regional accounts. In addition to private households, this includes charities, voluntary and other non-profit organisations, and quasi-corporations.
  The published figures are normally presented in terms of total annual household income per head of population. The 1995 average household income per head estimate for the county of Staffordshire, converted to a weekly average, was £186.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the payment of national insurance contributions within the student grant system. [100038]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no liability for National Insurance contributions in respect of student grants. I am not aware that any representations have been received on this issue.

  Transport (Revenue)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the fuel duty increases in table B9 of the Pre-Budget report make provision for hypothecated revenue for transport. [100498]

  Mr. Timms
  No. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph B17 of the Pre-Budget Report which explains the assumptions behind table B9.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of exempting the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from air passenger duty. [100305]

  Mr. Timms
  Customs' preliminary estimate of the cost of an exemption for flights from airports in the Scottish Highlands and Islands is under 5 million, but the precise figure would depend on the exact scope of any exemption. Customs are consulting on this and a final decision will be announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of exempting Inverness from air passenger duty. [100306]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to break down a figure for Inverness with any assurance at this stage. Fuller data will be compiled as part of the consultation announced in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on exempting the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from air passenger duty; [100309]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on exempting the Highlands and Islands of Scotland from air passenger duty. [100308]

  Mr. Timms
  The European Commission has been informed that the Government are consulting on introducing an exemption for flights from the Scottish Highlands and Islands, as part of a package of measures to amend air passenger duty announced in the Pre-Budget Report.

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

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein
Hector Uisdean MacKenzie Esquire, having been created Baron MacKenzie of Culkein, of Assynt in Highland, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the Lord Sawyer.

House of Lords: Powers
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they acknowledge the right of this House to amend, or to reject, secondary legislation.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, at present neither House has power to amend delegated legislation unless the parent Act provides for that. Few Acts do so. In relation to the rejection of secondary legislation, the Government consider that the House has powers, but since 1968 has chosen by convention not to exercise them. However, as the Companion to the Standing Orders makes clear,
"Lords can table amendments or motions expressing criticism of delegated legislation, whether an affirmative or a negative instrument, without challenging it directly".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for dealing with the Question. As regards amendment, would the Government favour a divisible Motion to request another place to re-lay a statutory instrument in amended form where, for reasons which were given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a critical amendment or Motion, referred to in the Companion at pages 187 and 188, which has no practical effect whatever, is not appropriate? Do the Government acknowledge that the entitlement to reject has not been abrogated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with regard to the ability to amend, whether or not one can amend depends on what the primary legislation states. That is a matter for each House to decide in relation to a piece of primary legislation. With regard to the noble Lord's proposal, there are adequate methods at the moment, as set out in the Companion, which would give the House the power to indicate its position in relation to delegated legislation without such a Motion being effective in the sense of either causing a rejection or an amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether, in the case of a conflict
656
of some emotion, the Government would regard it as wrong for this House to refuse to accept delegated legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the right course is that a convention should be followed; namely, that this House should not reject delegated legislation. The underlying reason for that is that if the House rejects delegated legislation, unlike primary legislation, there is no procedure by which the other place can insist, as it can under the Parliament Act, on its will prevailing.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the last Parliament we voted, under secondary legislation, on the Government's privatisation measure for the Port of Ispwich? No one told the House that it could not do that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall the specific provision referred to by the noble Lord, in part because I was not here on that occasion. I am told that the last time this House rejected secondary legislation was for the Rhodesia sanctions order in 1968. There have since been occasions when Motions to revoke have been passed in relation to negative instruments, but in fact those Motions to revoke do not have the effect of preventing the passing of secondary legislation.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord answered the final part of the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Does he consider that this House has abrogated its power to reject secondary legislation, even though it has not used that power for some time?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thought that there was a constitutional convention that the House would not use the power.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in one sense the reply he has given is not entirely satisfactory and that the matter should receive further consideration in this House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one matter under consideration by the Wakeham Royal Commission is the attitude of this House towards delegated legislation. It would seem sensible to await the report of the Royal Commission.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that to amend statutory instruments would cause total and utter chaos and confusion, simply because all pieces of legislation under the constitutional arrangements currently in place in this country—whether that legislation is primary or secondary—must be mutually agreed between the two Houses? For that reason, if one House seeks to amend a statutory instrument while the other House chooses not to, the statutory instrument would

657
become null and void. That cannot be a satisfactory arrangement. On the other hand, does the Minister agree that, if a statutory instrument was to be voted down in one House or the other, there is absolutely nothing to stop it being laid, with amendment or indeed as it is, the following day?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I appreciate the force of the point that the noble Lord has made in the first part of his question. Indeed, I suspect that that is reflected in the fact that 99.99 per cent of primary legislation does not permit amendment by secondary legislation. With great respect, the second matter raised by the noble Lord does not deal with the fundamental point I put a few moments ago; namely, where there is a nominated House and an elected House, is it right that the nominated House should have the power to reject without recourse to the views of the elected House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is quite an important question. Does my noble and learned friend agree that it is always open to Peers to pray against secondary legislation? That is a way in which such matters have from time to time been dealt with in this House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that important point. I repeat that, although there are various means by which this House may—rightly—express its views on secondary legislation, as a matter of convention it has not passed measures effectively to stop a piece of secondary legislation against the wishes of the other House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in answering a supplementary question, the noble and learned Lord indicated that the practice of not voting down secondary legislation was a matter of constitutional convention. Would he care to correct that phraseology slightly? My understanding is that there is nothing constitutional about it; it is merely a result of an agreement between the parties. To that extent, it is merely a convention to which this House has adhered over many years, but is not enshrined in the constitution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no written constitution in this country. Constitutional conventions, as I understand them, relate to broad consensus as to what should and should not be done. I believe that there is a broad consensus that secondary legislation should not be voted down in an effective manner by this House.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of the great change that has occurred in the nature of the constitution, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consider greater curbs on the Executive by this House, even as a nominated House, if the Wakeham Commission supports that approach? I suggest that the Minister is looking to the past. The situation is different now. We may want to exert curbs on the
658
Executive, even as a nominated House. Will the Minister allow that the Government might consider that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the questions that I have been asked so far have been directed to describing the current position. As I have indicated, the Royal Commission is examining, inter alia, questions of delegated legislation. I shall say nothing more until the Royal Commission reports.

General Pinochet: Lord Chancellor's Actions
2.51 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
In which aspects of the case of General Pinochet the Lord Chancellor has been involved.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for the detail necessary to answer this Question properly. I have not sat judicially in any of the Pinochet proceedings. When the first substantive decision of the Law Lords in these proceedings was set aside, I took the initiative, with the senior Law Lord, to put in place procedures to prevent these circumstances ever recurring. Ministerial responsibility for extradition lies with the Home Secretary, not the Lord Chancellor. I have, however, answered on behalf of the Attorney-General written parliamentary Questions from the noble Lord about the decision to arrest Senator Pinochet and to commence extradition proceedings against him. That was because both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were in the other place and had no Minister in this House. Any questions on these matters should now be put to my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Attorney-General, who took office, as we were all delighted to note, on 29th July.
There is, however, an inquiry now being held into whether the judgments of the Law Lords in the second substantive hearing were leaked to the media prior to their delivery. I shall be making a statement on the outcome of that inquiry very soon.
Finally, my department has met Senator Pinochet's costs of the first substantive hearing and of the hearing which resulted in that judgment being set aside through central funds in compliance with an order to that effect by the Law Lords on 8th July.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that full reply. Bearing in mind the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities for the impartiality of justice, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it was utterly unacceptable, and utterly wrong, for the Prime Minister to offer his personal views on the former president of Chile at the Labour Party conference? How can anyone believe that the Home Secretary will exercise his responsibilities

659
impartially when the Prime Minister who appoints him, and to whom he owes his continued existence, has expressed his views so fully in public? Has the noble and learned Lord issued a rebuke to the Prime Minister? Does his responsibility as one of Tony's cronies take precedence over his responsibility as a Law Officer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Lord has more than a passing interest in this subject. I should not like to count the number of Written Questions that he has tabled. No, I am not in the business of issuing rebukes to the Prime Minister; and I have complete confidence in the impartiality of the Home Secretary.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is it not the case that my noble and learned friend's sole involvement in the Pinochet affair has been, first, to take steps to ensure that the first appeal hearing débâcle is not repeated, and, secondly, to be accountable to Parliament in relation to the leak inquiry, which was not even set up by him in the first instance?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords, that is the limit of my responsibility.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, was the United States in league with Pinochet against Allende in 1973 and therefore implicated in human rights abuses?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not aware that that bears in any way upon my involvement or responsibility.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, at the Labour Party conference the Prime Minister described General Pinochet as "unspeakable". Would the noble and learned Lord care to say whether the Prime Minister was speaking as the leader of his party, or indeed as Prime Minister, or both? Are such comments helpful to justice in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are many things that are unspeakable—but that might draw me into the hunting issue.

Part-time Judiciary: Appointments
2.55 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make changes to the system of appointment of assistant recorders and deputy judges in England and Wales in the light of the decision of the High Court of Justiciary in Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am currently considering the implications which the recent judgment of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland
660
may have for the part-time judiciary in England and Wales. I shall make a statement to the House when that consideration is complete. I am therefore considering all part-time appointments in England and Wales, their terms and conditions, and tenure with a view to considering whether any changes need to be made. That is part of a government-wide audit of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. I assure the House that that consideration is being carried forward with all deliberate speed.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. It establishes that the matter is being taken with appropriate seriousness by the Government. Will the noble and learned Lord accept that this is another, and very strong, argument for the establishment of a judicial appointments commission to take judicial appointments out of the hands of the executive?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. However, I want to make plain, as I have done previously, that I certainly do not exclude the possibility of a judicial appointments commission. However, I await the report of Sir Leonard Peach, the former commissioner on public appointments, who is auditing the whole system of appointments, both of Queen's Counsel and to the Bench in England and Wales. That report will be published, and I have no doubt that it will inform our considerations well.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the matter has been well handled in Scotland where the legal system has been entirely in the hands of the Scots for many centuries? Does he further agree that any knock-on effect on English law can only benefit from the considerable experience that Scotland has had in dealing with matters of this kind?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I yield to no one, including the noble Lord, in my admiration for the genius of the Scottish nation. However, judicial independence is part of the constitutional culture of Great Britain. I do not believe that, any assistant recorder or deputy judge either feels that he is not independent or, in practice, acts other than independently and impartially. A full and proper consideration of the issue in England and Wales will consider the need for independence and impartiality against the background of our long-standing constitutional and professional culture and standards.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that many of us would view with considerable concern the removal of judicial appointments from the traditional system of appointment by the Lord Chancellor? While I am addressing the House, will the noble and learned Lord further accept that he is not a Law Officer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already indicated that I maintain an entirely open mind on the

661
subject of the judicial appointments commission. I have said that many times and I repeat that we will all profit from shortly reading—I hope before Christmas is upon us—Sir Len Peach's exhaustive report into the whole subject.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in considering changes in the structure of law and justice in this country, have the Government identified any deeply entrenched forces of conservatism in the law? We note that there has been a vigorous attack on the other two liberal professions of medicine and teaching. Do the Government acknowledge that there are similar forces in the legal profession, particularly the Bar? Could the Government by any chance be treating lawyers and judges more gently than doctors and teachers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my experience of lawyers—which is considerable—is that they are tough and robust and that they speak out for clients and vigorously for themselves—and good luck to them.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the wide-ranging review to which he referred will proceed on the basis that the case of Starrs v. Procurator Fiscal, Linlithgow was correctly decided?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate so decides—and for all I know he has come to a decision at this moment—it may be subject to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which would then have the last word.
As regards the precedent value in England, it is of some but not great value. The considerations that most influenced the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland were that temporary sheriffs were appointed for a year and might have their appointments revoked—"recalled" is the statutory language—by the Secretary of State without assigning any reason. The whole English and Welsh context will have to be examined for what it is.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor state whether the case has any implications for United Kingdom tribunals? Those may be employment tribunals, social security tribunals or VAT tribunals which are frequently chaired by lawyers in private practice who serve as tribunal chairmen on short-term appointments with no security of tenure. We understand that many seek and would be happy to accept full-time employment whether as judges or on tribunals. Further, how many tribunals would be affected?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in principle it is possible that part-time judicial appointments to tribunals are affected. That is part of the consideration which we are undertaking at present. However, I am sure that most people would think it entirely
662
reasonable for suitably qualified and experienced professional lawyers to be appointed as part-time judges, both to avoid delays in the administration of justice and to demonstrate their capacity for permanent appointment. If there are tenure problems associated with the European convention surrounding those sensible arrangements, then plainly we must consider them.

Tobacco Consumption and Health
3.3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in discouraging the promotion of tobacco products, and in protecting non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, as part of our comprehensive programme against tobacco, the Government will ban tobacco advertising in line with Directive 98/43/EC as soon as practicable. We have supported the hospitality industry's Public Places Charter and the Health and Safety Commission's proposal to introduce an approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive reply. As he takes these matters forward, will he bear in mind the work of the World Bank on the subject? It has carried out research into the effects of a complete ban on tobacco promotion and advertising which shows that it is the one measure that would have a real effect. It is estimated that it would lead to a fall in consumption of 7 per cent.
As my noble friend continues his discussions with the hospitality industry, will he draw its attention to the positive commercial benefits that can be gained from offering customers a choice between smoking and smoke-free areas in pubs and restaurants? I draw his attention to the outcome of the research carried out in Staffordshire. It showed that pub landlords can expect an increase in takings of 7 per cent if they are able to offer that choice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. If we can reduce the amount of tobacco consumption in the country, we can improve the health of the people of the nation. I have no doubt that the banning of advertising has an important role to play, albeit alongside other preventive measures. The study to which my noble friend referred is interesting. There is increasing evidence to show that improving facilities for non-smokers increases the takings of businesses. That reinforces our aim to work in partnership, particularly

663
with the hospitality industry, to ensure that there is greater provision for non-smokers in hotels, pubs and restaurants.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the Government are being honest about wishing to discourage the promotion of tobacco, can the Minister tell the House why they continue to support the European Union's tobacco regime? It gives £8,000 million annually to people to grow tobacco in the European Union, most of which is of such poor quality that it has to be dumped on developing nations, no doubt to their detriment. Can the noble Lord tell the House when this abuse—almost incredible, even by the standards of the European Union—is to end?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this Government have consistently argued that the EU policy on tobacco growing is out of step with other efforts in Europe in relation to the discouragement of tobacco consumption. In June 1998, under the UK presidency, a number of changes were agreed to the tobacco regime. Since then there has been a further change in the funding available for research. It includes alternative ways for tobacco farmers to make a living.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, as someone who has recently given up cigarettes, my view remains that so long as smoking is legal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer harnesses great funds from taxation of tobacco, smokers should have equal rights with non-smokers. The real issue at stake was raised by my noble friend Lord Faulkner—proper choice and the rights of smokers and non-smokers to be given due regard in all such matters.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am on my 25th attempt to give up smoking, so I understand the noble Lord's point. Of course, it is right that we should give choice. But we must also pay attention to non-smokers who, in many cases, are forced to inhale the smoke of others. The whole purpose of the Government's efforts is to enable there to be non-smoking areas in a s many facilities as possible in order that non-smokers should not have to inhale the smoke of others.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one group in the population smoking heavily is young girls? Does he also agree that it appears that it is a sophisticated cultural activity? Does the Minister consider that the measures on advertising being proposed will help to lessen that, as no other kind of education seems to have had any effect on that group of the population?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The latest figures I have for 1996 show that 15 per cent of girls in the 11 to 15 age range smoke. That is clearly a worrying figure and we need
664
to do everything we can to reduce it. A ban on advertising would be helpful because the brands to which teenagers are attracted seem also to be those that advertise the most. There are other initiatives that we can take, including health education and advertising campaigns that encourage young people not to smoke. I believe that we need to tackle more vigorously than in the past the question of the sale of tobacco products to under age young people in retail outlets.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the House of Lords should have a more restrictive policy on smoking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a matter for the House authorities. I encourage my noble friend to raise the matter with the appropriate authorities.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, since noble Lords appear to be declaring their interests today I shall declare mine. I am a non-smoker and have never smoked. I am also a convinced European. Is the Minister able to say when consideration will be given to alternative crops? The countries within the European Union which grow tobacco have been members for a great number of years. One would have thought that such studies had already been conducted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am unable to give a definitive date because discussions continue. I can tell the noble Baroness that the Government are determined to do all that they can in discussions within Europe to effect a change in policy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Monson: My Lords, we have not had a turn.
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we seem to have quite a lot of time left for this Question. As the Cross-Benches have not contributed yet perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can put her question after the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that scientific survey after scientific survey has failed to prove that passive smoking causes cancer or any other fatal disease, however uncomfortable and irritating smoke undoubtedly is to non-smokers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that studies have been made which link passive smoking to heart disease, serious respiratory illness and asthmatic attacks, particularly in infants and young children. I understand that a non-

665
smoker living or working in a very smoky environment over a prolonged period is 20 or 30 per cent more likely to get cancer than is a non-smoker who does not.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that both the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the charming-looking noble Baroness sitting almost next to him, whose name I do not know, look terribly well, as do most people in this House, but when they have been here a little longer they will discover that they are able to go miles away from those who pollute their atmosphere? Will the noble Lord excuse this old girl if she leaves as soon as he finishes his response in order to have a fag?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness certainly looks well on it. I return to my original point. It is important that there should be choice for both smokers and non-smokers but we must give non-smokers consideration in situations where they are forced to inhale other people's smoke.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Legislation
3.13 p.m.
Baroness J ay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that this order has been laid today and should be taken as first business tomorrow. In order to achieve this it is necessary to suspend Standing Order 72, which prevents the House considering an affirmative instrument until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on it. The second limb of the Motion will allow the House to consider the order even though the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has had no time to report.
I can assure the House that this power will be used only in relation to a Northern Ireland devolution order. Now that the order has been laid, the first part of the Motion is not strictly necessary. It was tabled as a precautionary measure in case the order was not laid in this House until tomorrow. I can assure the House that the power will not now be used and that the Northern Ireland devolution order will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper in the usual way. Perhaps it is additionally helpful if I tell the House that this Motion has the full consent of the usual channels.
Moved, That, in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House this week, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved forthwith; and that Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The gracious Speech has as the governing principles of our legislative programme the themes of enterprise and fairness and the creation of a modern Britain. Most of the legislative proposals that we are bringing forward fit into that framework, and I believe that the Bill we are considering today does so too.
Our Armed Forces certainly need to be enterprising and innovative in the face of a fast-changing world. We need to be fair in the way that we deal with our Armed Forces and in the way that they deal with themselves. We need to ensure that our Armed Forces operate in the most modern way possible to meet the challenge of change that is in front of them. I believe that this Bill will help them to achieve those objectives.
As many of your Lordships remarked in our debate on the gracious Speech, Britain is rightly proud of its Armed Forces. We have every reason to be so. We like to see our Armed Forces among the best in the world, if not the best in the world. But I believe that that is not just a view of our forces from a UK perspective, but that the standard, quality and effectiveness of Britain's Armed Forces are seen around the world as among the best in the world, and we can take pride in that judgment.
I also believe that we can take particular pride in our Armed Forces because of the way that they have been tested recently and have not been found wanting. They have come through successfully and have proved that the pride, respect and the faith that we have in them are not misplaced. In Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and over many years in Northern Ireland, our Armed Forces have been beacons for fairness and decency, liberty and democracy. They have not shirked from what we have asked of them in the name of those values. They have delivered in difficulty and in tension, in war zones and in peace-keeping. We have not sought the conflicts in which they have been engaged but we have been determined to obtain the best possible outcome from those conflicts. Our Armed Forces have been the means by which we have done so.
That performance—that status as being among the best in the world—depends on a range of different factors, but certainly among them is the way in which our Armed Forces are organised and operate. Central to that is their command structure and discipline. Discipline is not the populist image of a barked order on a parade ground; discipline goes far deeper than that. It is about co-operation and command. Co-operation—working together—is the key to how our Armed Forces do what they do. They must have trust in one another and a belief in mutual support. They have to trust that everyone around them will do what they are there to do to secure the objective that has been set, and in turn they must meet the trust that everyone else around them places in them. To tackle successfully the difficult situations that they face, every

667
member of our Armed Forces must trust implicitly and without limit every other member. They must know that they can depend on them.
That trust, dependence and faith are the basis of discipline in the Armed Forces. That is what discipline is for, and indeed that is what it is. It is a codification of that trust and dependence. Therefore, discipline provides the vital operational structure that our Armed Forces need; it also provides the legal structure.
But discipline in the Armed Forces is not static; it is not a rigid framework fixed for ever and set in a particular way. The Ministry of Defence keeps Armed Forces discipline under constant review. As society changes, so must discipline. It is not altered or modified to make it fit fashionable notions of laxity on the one hand or toughness on the other, but to make sure that it fits with the changing framework from which and in which we recruit people to the Armed Forces, and to make sure that it fits the legal framework—the system of aggregated assent which at heart gives our Armed Forces the legitimacy they must have if they are to act properly as Britain's first-line national security.
The balance to be struck, as ever, is between keeping in step with wider society, of which the Armed Forces are of course a part, and preserving those distinctive features of service life that are key to their operational effectiveness.
The process of reviewing the discipline system normally engages the interest of Parliament most actively when we come to consider each five-yearly Armed Forces Bill. As your Lordships know, we require a Bill on this regular basis in order to continue the existence of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. This procedure is in turn subject to the annual continuation orders.
These Acts, known collectively as the service discipline Acts, provide the statutory framework for discipline in the Armed Forces. I am happy to note that there has traditionally been a consensual recognition in Parliament of the importance of this legislation and its purpose. The five-yearly Armed Forces Bills also provide the main opportunity to update the service discipline Acts.
The last Armed Forces Act, in 1996, contained major reforms that we in Opposition were pleased to support. A theme of these changes was the transfer from the service chain of command of authority to take certain decisions concerning the trial of offences under the service discipline Acts. This was in recognition of the need to remove the impression, however mistaken, that the chain of command could have an undue influence over court martial proceedings.
Because Armed Forces Bills come along with a certain regularity, it is no secret that your Lordships are likely to be invited to consider another such Bill in the next Session; otherwise the service discipline Acts would expire at the end of 2001 along with the legislative authority for maintaining discipline in our Armed Forces. However, the need to modernise
668
service legislation cannot always be conveniently ordered into neat five-yearly intervals. The present Bill is about making some important changes that we do not believe should wait until the next Session.
The Human Rights Act 1998 provides the framework within which we now intend to build on the reforms contained in the 1996 Armed Forces Act. The main provisions of the Human Rights Act will come into force in October 2000. The proposals in this Bill are intended to address concerns about compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights before that date.
The Government consider that the proposals now before your Lordships are intrinsically beneficial. They reinforce the fairness that the services believe is at the heart of their discipline system. As with the 1996 changes, the reforms proposed now are concerned with establishing checks and balances on the chain of command—this time in two areas not fully addressed in 1996. The first of these relates to the arrangements for the pre-trial custody of those being investigated or awaiting trial for alleged offences under the service discipline Acts. The second concerns summary disciplinary proceedings; that is to say, cases that are heard by the accused's commanding officer.
The substance of the Bill is in four parts, the first of which deals with pre-trial custody and the other three with summary proceedings.
Clauses 1 to 10 contain our proposals relating to pre-trial custody. At present, the commanding officer has the main responsibility for deciding whether a suspect or an accused should be held in custody pending charge or trial. There are safeguards to ensure that this responsibility is exercised appropriately and that no one is held in custody unnecessarily. However, these safeguards are all internal, involving the chain of command within the services.
In the Bill, we are proposing to strengthen these internal checks and to formalise them in primary legislation. The legislation will require the commanding officer to review the need for continuing custody no later than 12 and 36 hours after the time of arrest. The commanding officer will apply Police and Criminal Evidence Act criteria. I shall describe those in a moment.
We believe it right that there should also be external and independent checks on decisions that affect an individual's liberty. We therefore intend to introduce a requirement for a judicial officer to approve continuing custody in excess of 48 hours.
The judicial officer will decide whether continued custody is justified while investigations continue, applying criteria similar to those used by magistrates in the civil courts. These Police and Criminal Evidence Act criteria relate to the need to demonstrate both that inquiries are being conducted diligently and expeditiously and that more time is required to obtain and preserve evidence. If the judicial officer is not satisfied that those conditions are fulfilled, the individual must be released. In any event, the judicial officer may not approve custody beyond 96 hours. If by that point the individual has not been charged, he

669
or she must be released. I can assure the House that neither the 48 nor 96-hour periods will be regarded as norms. The aim will remain either to charge or to release the individual as soon as possible.
If an individual is charged, the question of the need for continued custody pending trial must be assessed anew. Again the commanding officer will take the initial view on this, this time applying similar criteria to those laid down in the Bail Act 1976. These include issues such as an assessment of the likelihood of an offence being committed or of witnesses being interfered with if the individual is not held in custody.
If the commanding officer considers that there is a case for continued custody, the issue must be referred promptly to the judicial officer who will also apply criteria laid down in the Bail Act 1976. If the judicial officer decides that the accused should be held in custody, he may only order custody for a maximum of eight days or for 28 days if the accused has consented to this longer period. The question must thereafter be readdressed by a judicial officer at intervals of no more than eight or 28 days as appropriate.
Clearly, the judicial officer is a key player in all the procedures I have just described. Clause 7 describes who may be appointed as a judicial officer for this purpose; normally, it will be a judge advocate or a naval judge advocate—in other words, one of the figures who exercise independent judicial functions at courts martial. Judge advocates also have a role in other aspects of the proposals in the Bill.
The rest of the Bill concerns the changes we wish to make to the procedures for summary discipline. For most purposes, as I have said, this is where an individual's commanding officer deals with the alleged offence. There are certain procedural differences between the Army and the Royal Air Force on the one hand and the Royal Navy on the other. I think that it will simplify our debate today if I refer mainly to the Army's procedures. I shall mention the slightly different position in the Royal Navy where that is relevant.
Summary discipline is an effective means of dealing with minor problems quickly and the vast majority of cases are heard in this way. The Government fully endorse the assessment of the three services: that they need to continue to be able to deal summarily with day-to-day disciplinary issues.
At present, those facing summary proceedings in the Army and Royal Air Force have the invariable right to elect to be tried instead by court martial. This right is slightly qualified in the Royal Navy because of the need to be able to deal with minor disciplinary problems at sea and the problem of quickly convening a court martial on board ship. The increased right to choose to be tried by court martial was introduced in the Armed Forces Act 1996 because of concerns that summary proceedings on their own may not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In the Army and Royal Air Force, the right of an accused to choose to be tried by a court that
670
complies with the convention can be exercised only after the commanding officer has found the charge proved.
If the case is heard summarily, the accused today has no right of appeal to a higher court; instead he may ask for the matter to be reviewed by a higher service authority than his commanding officer. But I believe that it is fair to say that this is not a fully judicial process.
We believe that these procedures should now be changed in two main ways. In the Government's view, it is important that there should be a right of appeal from summary hearings. This seems to us to be intrinsically fairer. Furthermore, we are looking to provide an assured right of access to a court that complies with the convention.
The Bill therefore proposes the establishment of a new summary appeal court for this purpose. This is covered in Clauses 14 to 25. This new court will consist of a judge advocate and two independent officers, generally from the appellant's service, but from outside his or her chain of command. There will, of course, be safeguards to ensure that no one hearing the appeal will have been involved in the case previously.
The procedure at appeal hearings in the summary appeal court will, as far as possible, mirror that of the Crown Court hearing an appeal from a magistrates' court. The hearings will be open to the public. The summary appeal court will not be able to award a sentence more severe than that imposed by the commanding officer.
We wish to avoid any confusion that may arise from the introduction of this right of appeal. As I explained earlier, at present an accused in the Army, being dealt with summarily, is given the option of trial by court martial after his commanding officer has determined that the charge has been proved, but before sentence is passed.
This procedure has certain of the characteristics of an appeal, in that the accused has some idea of what his fate may be when he decides whether or not to involve a higher court. We consider it more sensible to alter the arrangements so that an accused will make the choice between being dealt with summarily or by court martial before the summary hearing. Indeed, this is already the position in the Royal Navy.
This change is covered in Clauses 11 and 12. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having departed from the sequence of the Bill, but these particular proposals are more readily understood in the context of the introduction of a right of appeal.
Should the accused decide to be tried by court martial, the sentencing powers of the court will be limited to the maximum that the commanding officer could have awarded had he dealt with the case. This is to ensure that there is no disadvantage, real or perceived, for the accused in choosing to be tried by a court that is independent of the commanding officer and the chain of command.
I want to emphasise that this safeguard does not mean that the accused will be getting off with an inappropriately light sentence. If the commanding

671
officer is of the view that the offence is a serious one, he would still be able to recommend court martial trial in the first place.
However, the decision on whether a case should be tried by court martial rests not with the commanding officer, but with each service's prosecuting authority, which broadly fulfils functions akin to those of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Clause 13 and Schedule 2 make the necessary procedural adjustments to cover the powers of the prosecuting authority under the new arrangements for electing trial by court martial. Typical of these is where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority as the result of a defendant choosing to be tried by court martial, and the authority then takes the view that the original charge is inappropriate. We are proposing that the prosecuting authority may not in normal circumstances alter the charge without the defendant's consent.
This Bill delivers significant improvements to the arrangements for administering discipline in the Armed Forces. It strikes the right balance between preserving the foundations of the system and increasing its fairness. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister is as concerned as I am that she should have to introduce and I should have to respond to the Bill in the face of such a galaxy of five-stars. One of the noble and gallant Lords who is to speak told me today, "We know what we are talking about". I do not know what he and other noble and gallant Lords intend to say, but I hope that the Government listen.
Discussions with regard to the Bill have been directed, irrespective of the desirability of the contents, towards the question of whether it is necessary at all. Might not the contents be enacted by means of a statutory instrument? The Bill, or something like it, has been maturing in a departmental pigeon-hole for a considerable time, long before the Human Rights Act, and it would seem hardly worthy of the pre-eminence it has been given as the first Bill to be debated in your Lordships' House this Session.
I shall not waste your Lordships' time by arguing that primary legislation is not required, but the position is at least arguable. I draw the Minister's attention to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, under No Day Named, stating that the prolixity of the statute book ought to be diminished. Presumably, the Government's argument is that primary legislation is necessary because the Bill demands changes to the Army Act. I should be grateful for the Minister's opinion on that.
During the long series of debates on what is now the Human Rights Act, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway moved an amendment which suggested that the Armed Forces ought to be deleted from the classes of person covered by the Bill. His proposals were not
672
carried through into the Bill, but the suggestion has been made that this Bill is necessary to comply with the terms of that Act.
When the ECHR was originally signed in 1951—I am not sure whether that was under the Conservative government or that of my noble friend's grandfather—France signed only under reserve, excluding the Armed Forces from its application. We recognise that previous events might have forced the Government to legislate somewhat along these lines, but how much better it would have been to enter a caveat 48 years ago.
Our problem is that the Armed Forces, which will be affected by the Bill if enacted, work over a wide and differing field. What may be acceptable in the garrison towns of Colchester and Aldershot may not be practicable or in the least possible at the sharp end in East Timor or Kosovo. Under the terms of the Bill, detention must be authorised by a judicial officer. It is a nice thought to imagine a civilian judicial officer wading through the jungles of East Timor to authorise the commanding officer to put into close arrest a Gurkha who has run amok.
In the debates on what became the Human Rights Act, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised the problems facing the Armed Forces. He said that the Government would consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on ECHR grounds by Armed Forces personnel against the command of the Armed Forces. He said:
"Special considerations will certainly have to apply".
Article 15 of the convention states that in time of war or other public emergency a state may take measures derogating from its obligation. The problem is what constitutes "other public emergency". If we can agree on that, will the same apply to this Bill?
The Bill would seem to have two main objects. One is to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s of complying with the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are bound by previous legislation. In preparing the Bill, the Government have no doubt asked themselves whether court martial procedure under the Army Act is in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.
This is a tiresome Bill and we shall have strong things to say about it in Committee. But I hope that it will wipe the slate clean and that there will be no further changes necessary under the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. Do the Government believe that they are now doing enough and that this is the minimum they can get away with?
The judicial officer, who plays such a large part in the Bill, will take away much of the control and authority that a commanding officer has over his unit. The amended Section 75C of the Army Act proposed by the Bill would state:
"If, on an application by the commanding officer of a person arrested … a judicial officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the continued keeping of that person in military custody is justified",
he may authorise it. I presume the commanding officer has no say in the matter at all and the periods for which

673
custody may be used are very short. Again, that may be all right in Catterick or Colchester but not in the front line or in a submarine under the polar ice cap.
Sadly, the Bill is an invitation to the barrack-room lawyer. It must be contrary to good order and military discipline to allow such a person an increased forum in our courts. Whatever is agreed, the Bill must not bypass military discipline. The convolutions of the Bill as they stand must encourage the suspect to frustrate the summary disciplinary procedure when he can elect trial by court martial on the most frivolous grounds. The current disciplinary procedure has been shown on countless occasions to demonstrate that only by exercising quick and firm justice can the morale of a unit be maintained. Not only does the procedure laid down in the Bill remove part of the control of a commanding officer but the timing must lead to delay in getting a problem dealt with and finished. It is suggested that real-time video links can be used. That will be a big help in the wilds of East Timor. Furthermore, it must be dangerous to create a process which allows soldiers to complain about their commanding officers and to reduce their authority.
The other main purpose of the Bill would seem to be to consolidate the service discipline Acts. It undoubtedly goes some way towards that, but the Government appear to have shied at the thought of taking it to its logical conclusion. They have not even been able to resolve the dilemma that the Navy's judge advocates are serving officers in uniform while in the Army and RAF they are civilians. One of the reasons given for the introduction of the Bill arises from the decision—which I consider insulting—in the case before the ECHR of Hood v the United Kingdom where it was decided that a commanding officer could not be considered impartial in authorising pre-trial detention. I presume that a naval judge advocate, sitting in uniform and looking like any other officer, is impartial.
Will those "impartial" judicial officers protect or interfere with the commanding officer who has little or no judicial experience? No doubt it will depend largely on the individual but interference with the military ethos is inevitable. Under the terms of the Bill there will be substantial costs and increases in manpower. The Government's own estimates are for 95 additional military personnel, including 53 non-commissioned officers in the Military Police and 37 additional civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence.
The Government seem to have a blind faith that they can conjure men out of thin air. Although recruitment is going comparatively well at present, the chances of achieving a net increase to the projected numbers throughout the services of trained men is negligible. The Government talk of 850 to 900 appeals to the summary appeal court in a year. The mind boggles at the thought. In the classic words of the regimental quartermaster sergeant, "Who's tae pay?" Implementation of the Bill is likely to cost £9 million a year from a budget which is already stretched beyond comprehension. The Lord Chancellor's Department
674
and the Home Office, the guardians of the Human Rights Act, will not pay. Yet again the defence budget will have to carry the cost.
Above all, my noble friends and, I am sure, the noble and gallant Lords will require assurances about the maintenance of service discipline as we know it and must have. This is not merely a technical Bill to conform with the requirements of European and other legislation. It is part of the ongoing steady process of wearing away discipline in services where discipline is essential. The noble Baroness has laid down what discipline is, for which I am grateful. I am not sure, however, that she has the implementation of it correct. I shall advise my noble friends to give the Bill a Second Reading, but I do so with some reluctance and with the assurance that we shall have much to say in Committee and on Report.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we all agree on the importance of discipline and order to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces in peacetime, and, above all, in conflict. We all recognise the quality of the British Armed Forces, their professionalism and their cohesion. We all understand also that command and discipline are matters both of the negative dimension of punishment for those who do not accept orders, and of the positive dimension of the leadership qualities and the morale of those who find themselves part of any unit.
The discipline system of the British armed services has changed considerably over time. The harsh regime thought necessary 200 years ago to maintain order among troops who were largely illiterate and uneducated was of course different from that considered appropriate for a highly skilled, well trained professional force today. Having read a little of the history of the subject, I must say that a certain conservatism within the Armed Forces has resisted changes in the discipline system at each stage that reform has been introduced. That is characteristic of almost any professional service.
The proposals before us represent a further change. The question which we, as a legislative Chamber, must consider is whether they strike an appropriate balance under new circumstances or whether they tip the balance too far against the necessary elements of punitive discipline in favour of the democratic principles of representation and respect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving me in advance an indication, in an informal conversation last week, of the tenor of what he was going to say today. I therefore spoke over the weekend to a number of contacts who had held senior positions of command in Her Majesty's armed services. I was relieved and pleased by their response, which I shall do my best to summarise.
The first point of which I was reminded was that the role of the Armed Forces in a post-Cold War world is, of course, evolving. We do not for the foreseeable future face the prospect of catastrophic all-out war.

675
We are certainly no longer likely to have forces which are out of touch with the home country for extended periods of time. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to the problems of maintaining that sort of order in East Timor. Many of us have been reading a great deal about the revolution in military affairs over the past few years, including instant communications on a global basis. Even military forces in the jungles of East Timor are not out of touch with the Ministry of Defence or with UK strike command.
The world has changed and moved on and the structure of discipline certainly needs to reflect that. Expeditionary forces today remain in constant communication with headquarters and with the MoD. We are not sending forces to the north-west frontier for months at a time, or to spend weeks sailing around the Pacific, as the "Bounty" did, totally out of touch with any other force.
The second point which various people made to me is that the role of our volunteer and professional forces is to defend democratic values. I was told that we should therefore take care to ensure that they represent democratic values as far as is practicable and compatible with their functions.
Thirdly, I was told that we want our Armed Forces to reflect what is best in our own society. We should note that, among the tasks that we are calling on our armed services to fulfil, we expect them to represent Britain and British values.
In the Queen's Speech debate I spoke about the growth of defence diplomacy and the immensely valuable work that British officers and teams are carrying out across eastern Europe in a number of states of the former Soviet Union, and in Africa where they are training military forces to accept the principle of civil control of the military and the principle of the military as servants of the state rather than of those who wish to take over the state. If we want our services to fulfil and to represent those important tasks, we must ensure that the values within their discipline system are those of which we can be proud.
Can the Minister tell us whether this Bill is likely to be the last one on military discipline to come before the House in this Session? Of course, she will be aware that the matter of gay rights in the military is on the agenda. It has been put on the agenda by the European Court of Human Rights. That is a further issue of civil rights and of the representation of democratic values within the military. Can we be assured that a separate Bill on that will follow shortly?
I have already referred to resistance to change. It is necessary that anyone who is proud of the service within which he or she operates accepts change. However, I believe that warnings of disaster would over-stress the threat of change. The most robust comment that was made to me by my friends over the weekend was that resisting changes in the discipline system is the kind of approach that led the British Army to shoot a number of soldiers who were suffering from shock during World War I. We no longer do such things, but we need to recognise that further reforms must not undermine the changing Armed Forces and
676
that they must represent a basis for more highly trained, professional, democratic but nevertheless still effective Armed Forces. I welcome the Bill.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, when the Human Rights Act 1998 was debated in your Lordships' House many noble Lords with personal experience of dispensing military discipline and, I hope and believe, justice, warned that if the Act were applied in precisely the same degree to those under military discipline with particular responsibilities in terms of obedience and duty as it were to those in civilian life with no such responsibility, discipline would be adversely affected when most needed and seriously undermine the authority of the all-important commanding officer. Therefore, there was a strong case for some sort of derogation from the Act for the Armed Forces, as I believe the French have wisely achieved for theirs.
At the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has said, assurance was given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it was not intended or anticipated that the Armed Forces should be so affected and if that appeared likely, special legislation may have to be introduced to correct that.
However, that has not happened. There has been no blanket or partial derogation for the forces. The Human Rights Act is soon to incorporate into our national law those parts of the European Convention that concern the rights and civil liberties of all individuals. The Ministry of Defence has accepted the advice of counsel that to be precisely compatible with the articles of the convention and, therefore, with our national law, the Armed Forces Discipline Bill must now go further than the very sensible 1996 reforms and make major changes in respect of current arrest and summary dealing procedures. Despite the Minister's fine words about the Armed Forces which will be much appreciated, that "re-raises" all the fears originally expressed.
Perhaps I may quickly tell noble Lords who are less experienced than my noble and gallant friends, or the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, what will happen on the ground. At the moment when a serviceman or servicewoman is brought before the commanding officer on suspicion of having committed an offence, the commanding officer alone decides whether, in accordance with criteria similar to the Bail Act 1976, he or she should be placed in custody pending investigation and trial. If the matter is capable of being dealt with summarily by the commanding officer, it is entirely his decision whether to do that. The accused must then attend the hearing, although if he or she still wishes his or her case to be heard by an independent tribunal before the commanding officer passes sentence, he or she is given the right not to accept the award but to be tried by court martial, which of course can award a greater punishment. In a disciplined society, I believe that that ensures that justice is done.
Under the new Act, let us take the case of, say, two soldiers accused of a disciplinary offence likely to deserve a custodial sentence. If the commanding

677
officer considers that the suspects should be held in close arrest prior to charge, within 48 hours he must bring their case before a judicial officer to confirm the period of custody which cannot, without referring back to him again, be more than eight days at any one time.
Before the commanding officer can even start to deal with them, the accused have to be asked whether they are prepared to be tried by him at all, or whether from the outset they want a court martial, which cannot now give a greater sentence than that which the commanding officer can give. Suppose one of the accused says that yes, he is prepared for that, but the other is not, the one who has elected for a court martial will then have to be held, with periodical references to the judicial officer, until the court martial is applied for and convened. The one who is brought up in front of his commanding officer and receives a sentence has a second bite at the cherry and has to be given 21 days in which to appeal against his commanding officer's punishment on grounds of finding or sentence or both.
That appeal will have to go to an entirely new summary appeal court, consisting of a judge advocate and two military officers drawn from outside the accused's chain of command. The accused is allowed to be legally represented and if the commanding officer has awarded a custodial sentence—detention—that sentence would have to be suspended for that 21-day period, although what one would do with the man in the interval is not at all clear.
Try transposing all that to the remotest theatre of operations where judicial officers are in short supply, if they exist at all, and where commanding officers and adjutants have as their first priority operational matters; then try to assess the extra time-consuming administrative burden that will be thrust upon the unit, to say nothing of the slowing up of justice which is not necessarily in the interest of the accused, let alone in the interest of the regiment or unit. Consider the general uncertainty about discipline that will prevail and, above all, the undermining of the commanding officer's standing and authority at a time when his leadership and the confidence that he engenders are all important to the unit's professional performance. The mind boggles. What a licence that would give to what I may describe as the barrack-room lawyers and to the unofficial punishments behind the gym which we have done so much over the years to stamp out—completely, I hope.
I have no doubt, particularly hearing what the Minister has said, that this Bill will provide copper-bottom protection to the Armed Forces' disciplinary procedures against legal challenges in courts and tribunals in this country. For that reason, the Armed Forces may have to learn to live with it, albeit reluctantly. But let us be quite clear: it is doing the Armed Forces no service at all. It will be making their job, particularly the exacting and key one of commanding officer, infinitely more difficult.
First, punctilious compliance will undoubtedly prove—I say this without fear of contradiction—to be grossly expensive both in manpower and financial
678
resources. The extra manpower required to administer the summary appeal system, the number of legal staff, judge advocates and the military police that will be needed do not exist and will have to be specially recruited. That may prove difficult. Moreover, to that extra personnel cost must be added the cost of training all concerned in this complicated procedure, the travel involved and the amendment and reprinting of all the existing publications, manuals and regulations. That will amount to tens of millions of pounds and be ongoing, just at a time, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out, when an overstretched budget is being arbitrarily cut by 3 per cent compound interest per annum. That will have repercussions throughout the defence programme.
Secondly, it will greatly add to the administrative burden of units, both in barracks and operational situations, and it will slow up the course of justice.
Thirdly, as I said, it is likely seriously to undermine the authority and esteem in which the commanding officer is held—and he, as we all know, is the key figure in the morale and motivation of a unit on which professional effectiveness depends.
What can be done? A great mistake was made in not lodging a reservation or "opt-out clause" as our more pragmatic French comrades-in-arms did. I believe that it should still be possible to win some exceptions to compliance, provided the Government are prepared to mount a vigorous justification. The two areas I have in mind are, first, the appeal to the summary award and, secondly (as a fallback), a waiver to allow a custodial sentence to be served within the 21-day appeal period.
For example, if the soldier can, at the outset, elect not to be tried by his commanding officer but have direct access to a European Convention on Human Rights-compliant court, surely the right of appeal against the summary sentence—the second bite of the cherry—becomes largely superfluous and a strong justification could be made to dispense with it altogether. That would remove a lot of the objections and uncertainty over discipline as well as significantly cutting down the cost.
If the first fails, the second is that if an accused has no intention of questioning his commanding officer's summary award, he should then be able to sign a waiver allowing any custodial sentence to be served at once without waiting for the 21-day period to elapse. That would certainly speed up justice.
Finally, whatever the outcome—I hope that the Government will seriously consider the points raised in this debate because there is a great deal of experience in this Chamber on these matters—the Ministry of Defence must insist that it be provided with the extra financial resources required to implement any reforms. I gather that the Lord Chancellor, in whose department come all the judge advocates, has firmly said that any extra expenditure on judge advocates must be borne by the Ministry of Defence and not by his department. I hope that the Ministry of Defence, backed by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, will be equally robust with the Treasury over this entirely non-military requirement; otherwise,

679
apart from any other damage the Act may do, it will have a knock-on effect throughout the defence programme and achieve what, in the vernacular, one might call a "double whammy".
4.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I recall during the debates on the Human Rights Act 1998 drawing your Lordships' attention to two specific features of the legislation which concerned me and other noble Lords. One was to do with the way in which human rights cases brought by service personnel would be heard by our national courts under the new legislation. The second was my concern about the progressive upheavals at the very heart of service discipline. On top of the impact of the new human rights' legislation on the Armed Forces Acts, service courts martial and other legal arrangements had had to be changed. There was a climate of uncertainty about the provisions of the Armed Forces Acts.
Responding to those points, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to allay the concerns which I and other noble Lords expressed. He indicated his willingness to,
"consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by Armed Forces personnel".
The Lord Chancellor appeared to accept that there could be problems for the Armed Forces if local civilian courts were to take a variety of views about similar cases brought before them. However, he went on to say,
"I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces.".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.)
I was heartened by what the noble and learned Lord said. Those assurances did much to allay my concerns. But not for long. We did not get the single military court for which I pressed then and subsequently, nor the use of military courts which was hinted at by the Lord Chancellor. In spite of the concerns expressed, we were steamrollered, and civilian courts will be used. Yet another derogation in the authority of the Armed Forces Acts was imposed upon the Armed Forces. So much for the assurances of the Lord Chancellor that there would be no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It proved an empty promise.
Now we are considering a Bill which, far from appearing to treat the convention as a flexible instrument, goes to extraordinary lengths to dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the treatment of the convention within the Armed Forces Acts. The detail is mind numbing and the scope for misunderstanding and error seems to be almost infinite. I make no criticism of the drafters of this Bill, but the result of their efforts to apply the convention rules is not a good example of military precision and unambiguous detail. Is that what the Lord Chancellor meant by "flexibility"?
All of us sham the high regard which our Armed Forces so rightly enjoy in this country and throughout the world. The Minister expressed that point strongly in her opening remarks. That outstanding reputation
680
rests on four pillars. The first is the quality and commitment of the individual as a volunteer. The second is the ethos of his or her service and all that that means in terms of corporate commitment, pride and loyalty to service. The third pillar is the professionalism achieved by the most rigorous and applied training for the operational roles which may be faced. The fourth pillar—I do not put them in any ascending or descending order of priority any more than one could claim that any one of the four legs of a chair was more important than any of the others; all are of equal importance—is discipline, both individual self-discipline and service discipline. If we erode one or more of those pillars, then we start to undermine the stability and professionalism which are the much-admired hallmarks of the British Armed Forces.
I fear that there may be too many in government and advising government without enough experience of the forces who consider that the services must accept, regardless of any impact upon them, all this revision of the tried and tested methods of managing their discipline. But service discipline is an operational as well as a legal matter. I wish that Ministers would heed closely some of the well-founded advice that they have been getting from those who have spent a lifetime in the services.
As I, with others, stressed during the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, I was concerned that we were,
"in danger of allowing it"—
that is, the Bill—
"to undermine the essential ethos, military discipline and responsibility of commanding officers within our Armed Forces".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 762.]
I accept that there is a legal requirement to bring the Armed Forces Acts into harmony with the requirements of human rights legislation, but the Bill seems bent on implementing every jot of the requirements without in any way exploiting in the interests of our professional forces the flexibility of the convention that the Lord Chancellor stressed and prayed in aid to gain your Lordships' acceptance of the human rights legislation as it affected the armed services.
We should be bending over backwards to protect the Armed Forces from any derogation of their strength and quality rather than be bending over backwards, as the Bill seems to do, to knock the Armed Forces into line with every detail of the convention at any cost.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble and gallant Lord agree that Clause 12, which provides that a court martial shall not impose a more severe sentence than the commanding officer could impose in the case of election for trial by court martial, goes quite beyond and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Crown Courts can of course impose higher sentences than magistrates. That is not something required by the convention on human rights and is itself likely to encourage elections for trial by court

681
martial rather than by commanding officers—which surely must be deleterious. Does the noble and gallant Lord agree, or is that a false point?
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's intervention. He is of course more learned in the law than I am and I take very much on board the point he has made so effectively.
To add to my unease, the timetable that is expected of the Ministry of Defence to put in place the requirements of the Bill by 2nd October 2000 is ridiculous. There is so much detail to master, resource and recruiting implications, regulations to prepare and promulgate, training and preparation of those engaged in the command chain, and so forth. The bureaucracy of the enterprise is massive. We do not yet know when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. If there are difficulties in the early months, it will not be the Lord Chancellor's Department, which set the timetable, that takes the rap but those in the Armed Forces. They will, as always, do their very best to achieve any task set them by the Government—once again demonstrating the professional commitment we are in danger of accepting without question and which I fear we are seeing eroded as well.
The services are expected to take on board and master a whole new disciplinary regime at a time when there are many operational and other pressures upon them up and down the command chain. If the Bill goes forward in its present guise, surely it is sensible to take it at a less frenetic pace. After all, it is much more than a solely legal, technical issue. Due to the difficulties of getting the civil courts and the appropriate authorities ready, it was necessary to delay commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998 until October next year. Let us make use of the flexibility that the Lord Chancellor drew to our attention. Let us choose a more realistic and later date for the implementation of the new legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will indicate that there is flexibility about the start date and in the way that the convention is to be incorporated into the Armed Forces Acts.
The Lord Chancellor has said explicitly that the human rights convention was a flexible instrument. The Government must surely be willing to draw on that flexibility and do all that is necessary to safeguard, not undermine, the authority and status of a commanding officer and the universally admired quality and professionalism of our Armed Forces.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this is without doubt a most important Bill. In the Third Reading of the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the last defence debate, I alluded to the fact that the consequence of that Act would affect the services discipline Acts unless the Armed Forces could claim some derogation or exemption from some of its provisions. I have always considered that the Human Rights Act 1998 should apply to the services. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister will tell the House why the
682
Government are unable to support the case for exemption from Articles 5 and 6 of the convention, which have caused the Bill to come before your Lordships today.
I have consistently reminded the House of the essential need for military ethos in the Armed Forces of the Crown. One of the many parts of that military ethos stems from its own form of discipline—which the nation has always recognised as being necessary for our sailors, soldiers and airmen. If that military ethos is diminished in any way by the Bill, the Armed Forces will suffer. It is vital that your Lordships ensure that this House does everything within its power not only to make the Bill workable but to ensure that it is the very best deal that we can obtain for the services and that all their concerns have been addressed.
It is difficult for anyone who has not been in the services to understand why it is so essential that disciplinary matters are dealt with fairly, at speed and in as short a time as possible. Some may think that the Bill is a mere technicality. It is far from that. The morale and efficiency of a regiment depends very much on good discipline and in the way that disciplinary matters are handled. In that respect, your Lordships should ensure that the powers of a commanding officer are not undermined in any way by the Bill and that all the proposed procedures are workable. Although the Bill attempts to do that, are your Lordships completely satisfied that its proposals will not in any way undermine those powers? If not, we must by amendment in Committee improve the Bill to ensure that it does not.
I have read through the Bill and the Explanatory Notes but I have not yet scrutinised the Bill in any great depth. It introduces a provision for a judicial authority to determine whether a suspect or accused person should be held in custody. The Bill also gives the accused an earlier opportunity to elect to be tried by court martial and it establishes an appeals procedure for those whose cases have been dealt with summarily.
Without going into fine detail, I draw your Lordships' attention to the general aspects of custody and matters relating to elections for trial by court martial and summary appeal courts. Currently, a commanding officer has a right—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said—to detain a person in close arrest subject to various regulations. The new regulations in the Bill would still empower a commanding officer to detain an individual in close arrest but they are different and somewhat cumbersome—as has been made necessary by the recent provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
In future, if a commanding officer wishes to keep a suspect in custody in excess of 48 hours, he must apply to a judicial officer—who will have the authority to grant this—for the suspect's continued detention. Judicial officers will be found from the Judge Advocate General's Department but it is not clear how the judicial officer will grant a period of continued custody. Will it be possible for him to use signal communications? How will he hear the application for

683
extended custody? Mention is made of the possibility of using real-time video links wherever possible, but will that be acceptable in any court of law and work anywhere in the world?
Currently, in all cases, an accused may elect for trial by court martial instead of being tried summarily. The Bill will allow the accused to be offered the right of trial by court martial prior to his commanding officer starting any summary dealings and hearing evidence related to the charge. In my experience, no accused elected for trial by court martial during my period of command, but it may have been that under the existing regulations an accused may be awarded a greater sentence by a court martial than a commanding officer can give. The new rules now state that a court martial may not award a greater sentence than a commanding officer can give. Why has this new regulation, which might encourage an accused to apply for trial by court martial, especially as he may receive legal aid, been included?
It has been pointed out that summary appeal courts will be established in the future to offer to those who have been dealt with summarily by their commanding officer an appeal procedure against finding and sentence. It is not clear why the president of this court has to be a judicial officer. Perhaps the Minister could explain why officers from the Directorate of Army Legal Services, and the equivalent departments in the other two services, could not carry out this responsibility. For that matter, why is it not possible for a senior officer and two other officers from outside the chain of command, but from the same service, to do the same?
It is right to bring to your Lordships' attention, as other noble Lords have done, the heavy costs involved in these changes to current military law. The Explanatory Notes reveal that there may be 850 to 900 appeals to the summary appeal court every year. The estimated costs of implementing the Bill will be in the order of £6.5 million per year, with estimated start-up costs of about £1.75 million. There will be 95 additional personnel, together with an estimated requirement for 37 additional civilians to be employed by the Ministry of Defence. The largest single element of these figures is for an additional 53 non-commissioned officers from the Royal Military Police. Can they be recruited as an overall increase?
In conclusion, the system has become more cumbersome and bureaucratic. The House must ensure that these changes do not lead to delay. To go from one military discipline system, which is expeditious, to a slow and tortuous system would not be in the best interests of any servicemen nor the Armed Forces themselves. It is an expensive change to a system that works well, but it is understood why these changes have to be made. However, any lack of resources will bring a delay, and delays will bring about a serious loss of morale. A serviceman likes to see disciplinary offences dealt with speedily and fairly.
I have one final point to make. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the additional money required for this new system will not come out of the
684
defence budget but from the Treasury, in view of the already known difficulties of the 3 per cent savings in the defence budget? Can the noble Baroness also confirm that it will be possible—as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—to implement this new system by the required date in October next year?
4.22 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank the Minister for having the courtesy to write to me outlining some of the changes proposed in the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I agree with much of what has been said, especially the remarks made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Therefore, I believe I can be brief. However, I should like to highlight and reinforce some of the points that have been made.
I understand why some changes are necessary and why it is necessary to be more compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I must have been talking to different people from those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke. The view that I have had quite clearly expressed to me from those in the Armed Forces—be they on the Left or on the Right of the service—is that this is the best deal that they felt they could negotiate.
Perhaps I may just touch on some of the points that have been raised. I turn, first, to the authority of the commanding officer. I cannot stress strongly enough, as has already been said, the critical importance of the commanding officer, both in peacetime and in war; indeed, you cannot separate the importance of the commanding officer in peacetime from that of the commanding officer on operations. Anything that undermines his authority must mean that the great majority of people in his command will suffer. I am quite clear that the proposed changes, especially as regards the summary appeal court, will affect—and have a bad effect on—the authority of the commanding officer.
Secondly, military discipline needs to be responsive; that is, responsive both in the investigation of the offence with which the person is charged and then, after the investigation, in terms of the case being heard and dealt with quickly. There have already been complaints that we are not responsive enough in the military as regards investigating some charges or offences quickly enough. I believe that this proposal will undoubtedly further delay the process of dealing with offences. That will be particularly so on operations. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, "Surely you can talk to people and communicate with them, whether you are in the jungles of East Timor or in Kosovo". Of course you can; but that is a misunderstanding of what the military is trying to concentrate on at a time when on operational service. We should not separate the two situations.
I should particularly like to talk about the summary appeal court, so as to ensure that the changes really make it responsive to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. When you discuss this

685
with the people who are trying to bring in this legislation, they will tell you that, if need be, they will have to hire on an "as needed" basis additional judge advocates to deal with these cases. The idea of people with no experience of military ethos, operations or the military code having to chair such meetings and then bringing in two officers from outside the chain of command to hear their report, will, I believe, not only undermine and create tensions but also mean that the soldiers, sailors and airmen will suffer. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that they will be in danger of being taken behind the barrack block, and I have a worry that commanders will not in fact hear such cases. It will become too complicated, so they will not bother. The effects on military discipline will, I think, be very considerable.
Thirdly, as has been mentioned, the costs as regards the additional barristers, lawyers, military men, and so on, who will be required to implement these changes will be considerable—and this at a time when the £9 million needed could be so much better used elsewhere in the defence budget. Like other speakers, I very much hope that the money to fund this will be found outside the defence budget. It would be ironical to bring in such changes and charge them to the defence budget when we know that some of the personnel proposals made under the Strategic Defence Review cannot be funded at present.
Finally, in addition to reinforcing what has been said, I express the hope that the Minister will reconsider some of these changes to see whether they can be improved. It is worth bearing in mind that the Armed Forces are having to deal not only with a very considerably increased operational load at the moment, but also, for very good reasons, they are having to deal with changes—for example, how they handle ethnic minorities, which I totally endorse—and new legislation on homosexuals. Now, in addition, they will have this further task of dealing with the changes under the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. As one regimental sergeant major said to me, "You know, Sir, we're spending more time actually worrying about minorities than we are about most of the people for whom we are responsible".
4.28 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the Bill. Like my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, I thank her also for the courtesy of the letter which she wrote on 17th November to members of what I would call "the noble and gallant brigade" to ensure that we were not taken by surprise and could therefore make our plans of attack.
I fully appreciate why the Government had to act quickly to ensure that the service discipline Acts comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Failure to do so would open the floodgates for barrack-room lawyers, supported by those unscrupulous members of the legal profession who are out to exploit any form of protest from which they can profit, probably on a no-win no-fee basis. They would
686
be able to sue not just the Ministry of Defence, but also probably individual commanding officers, for wrongful arrest or custody.
The Government are therefore quite right to act quickly. However, there is no denying that what the Bill proposes tends seriously to undermine the authority of, and trust in, the commanding officer as the fount of both justice and discipline in a military unit. Maintenance of that authority and trust is a vital element in the morale and the efficiency of a unit, especially a combat one. On the battlefield, not only must orders be obeyed, but negligence and idleness cannot be tolerated. It is not just that disobedience or negligence may prejudice completion of the task, but that such acts put the lives of comrades at risk. Of course, a good unit does not depend on the military legal system for its morale, discipline and efficiency. The legal system exists to deal with the less good or with those who, while good soldiers, sailors, airmen or women, go astray from time to time. If it is not clear and easily applied, it opens the door—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested—for unofficial ways of trying to enforce discipline, and that is most undesirable. As several noble Lords have said, it is unfortunate that when the government of the time ratified the convention, they did not—as the French did—recognise this and enter a reservation as to its application to the legal system of their own Armed Forces.
I was not present—as other noble Lords were—when what became the Human Rights Act was debated. I understand that after the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was rejected at the Committee stage, he received an assurance that his point was taken and that a special appeal court for the Armed Forces to consider action taken under the Human Rights Act would be established. I hope that the noble Baroness can say what has happened to that assurance; I certainly see no sign of it in this Bill. Incidentally I am delighted to note that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is to speak because as far as I know he is the only Member of this House who is presently the commanding officer of a military unit. He will be able to speak with authority on the problems that the Bill will pose for him and other commanding officers.
I accept that any measure to make the service discipline Acts comply with the convention is liable to weaken in some way the authority of the commanding officer. However, I must express my concern about two aspects of the Bill. The first is the question of whether the procedures can actually be made to work. I refer to the constant toing and froing between the unit orderly room and the judge advocate's department almost every other day over every case, the former constantly having to provide justification for keeping the individual in custody and the latter, no doubt, querying aspects of it, or even just delaying a reply. I understand that the service authorities, with the help of modern information technology, hope to be able to make the system work. That may be possible in peacetime conditions, or even in peacekeeping or peace enforcing operations, but I have the gravest doubts about whether or not it could be made to work

687
in operations of higher intensity. Would it have been workable in the Gulf or in the Falklands? As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, mentioned, could it be applied today in East Timor? I certainly cannot see how its application would have been possible when I was a commanding officer in North Africa, Italy and Normandy in the Second World War.
My first appeal to the noble Baroness is for her to send the Bill back to the legal and military experts to see whether a simpler system can be devised dealing with the whole problem of custody before trial which will be workable in operations of high intensity, or whether there can be a different procedure when a unit is declared to be on active service. As far as I recall, the old Army Act had different procedures for a unit on active service. Certainly, all the soldiers' charges began with the letters, "WOAS"—when on active service.
I am even more concerned at the proposal to establish summary appeal courts. That seems to me the greatest potential threat to the authority of the commanding officer. The accused man or woman will already have had the choice of deciding whether to be tried by his commanding officer or by court martial, and will have chosen the former. To allow him then to say that he does not like the commanding officer's decision and to refer either finding or sentence, or both, to a separate court not only fundamentally undermines the commanding officer's authority, but, as several noble Lords have said, will take time and will involve considerable effort and expense.
I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 41 of the explanatory notes on the Bill, provided by the Ministry of Defence, which states:
"The Bill will introduce a right of appeal to a summary appeal court established under each of the three SDAs"—
that is to say, the service discipline Acts—
"This supplements the right to elect trial by court-martial described in the previous section of these notes, by offering to those who have bees dealt with summarily a second avenue to a court that is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights".
I emphasise the words "supplements" and "second avenue". I suggest that there is no need to supplement or to provide a second avenue in order to comply with the convention. Al that is needed is to leave the rule about election of trial by court martial in summary proceedings as it is today under the 1966 army and air force Act; that is to say, that the accused can elect trial by court martial once the commanding officer has found the charge proved. That provides the accused with an avenue of appeal—that is, to a court martial—against finding and sentence. It is only the unnecessary change proposed in Clause 11 to the right of election before summary proceedings which might—although I doubt it—justify the establishment of summary appeal courts.
I therefore urge the noble Baroness to take the Bill back to the Ministry and get the legal experts to remove Clauses 11 and 14 to 25. If they have doubts about whether or not a second avenue is needed, let it be tested in the courts after the Bill without those clauses has been passed, when a case is brought, if it is, on the grounds that the absence of art avenue of appeal
688
from a commanding officer's summary award is in breach of the convention. That is, I believe, the most practical and best way forward to get rid of the undesirable establishment of summary appeal courts.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is perhaps not surprising that at this time of day when so many noble and noble and gallant Lords have spoken, there is not much left to say. However, I recall someone saying during the passage of the House of Lords Bill that everything that needed to be said on that subject had already been said, but that not everyone had yet said it. I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I add a few comments to those points which have already been made by noble and noble and gallant Lords.
Before I do, I shall point out something which may be of interest to political historians. I mention this more mischievously than maliciously. Throughout the debate the number of Chiefs of Defence Staff in the House has outnumbered the population on the government Benches. I ask noble Lords to draw no especial conclusion from that; I mention it as a point of historical interest.
I begin by picking up something that the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks about the need to bring the Armed Forces within the general ambit of this kind of convention and this kind of legislation. I hope that the Minister and the Government will bear in mind that the Armed Forces are not like the rest of society. Officers and soldiers in the Armed Forces are not like lawyers, politicians or shopkeepers; they have a different culture and a different ethos which need to be fully respected. The ethos comes from one simple fact: soldiers, sailors and airmen have an unlimited liability; they put their lives on the line in the performance of their daily duties. For that reason, the ethos and culture of the Armed Forces should be taken very seriously. It is not self-evident that the principles of human rights and justice which apply to the rest of society necessarily should apply to the Armed Forces.
In that context, perhaps I may mention something which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on the Human Rights Bill in 1998. This has not yet been mentioned. He said:
"The Secretary of State for Defence takes the view that the Bill raises no issues which are special to the Armed Forces".
It was possibly on this advice that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to say that the Human Rights Bill,
"poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces".—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
I suggest that that is at least a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the Bill poses a considerable threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
I underline what has been said already about Clauses 11 and 12 and Clauses 14 to 25 of the Bill. As far as concerns Clauses 11 and 12, your Lordships have been told that it used to be the case that when a soldier, sailor or airman was brought up on a charge in front of his or her commanding officer, the

689
commanding officer heard all the evidence and arrived at his conclusion as to guilt or innocence and then said to the accused "Will you take my award, will you take my punishment, or would you rather the matter went to a court martial?" Now, under the new dispensation, the accused will have the right to elect for trial by court martial before the commanding officer has heard the evidence and reached his conclusion. This would seem to mark the beginning of the erosion and the status of the commanding officer.
That is further undermined in Clauses 14 to 25 by the setting up of the summary appeal courts. As your Lordships will know from the Bill, the summary appeal courts will consist of a judge advocate and two officers not connected with the chain of command. In choosing whether to take a summary process of trial by the commanding officer, the accused now has 21 days in which to decide whether he or she will go to the summary appeal court.
The first point I should like to make about that is that the delay will undermine the justice process in the Armed Forces. One of the great things about the administration of justice and discipline in the Armed Forces—in the Army in my context—has been that justice is done quickly and is seen to be done quickly. Any delay is bound to be bad for morale and bad for the perception which a soldier, sailor or airman has of the efficiency and discipline of the unit in which he or she is serving.
There is no need for me to go further because the points against the Bill have been forcefully made already. It has been pointed out that we are now administering a new layer of bureaucracy across the top of the whole of the proceedings of Armed Forces discipline. That is self-evident from the provisions of the Bill. With that, obviously, goes delay. It is inevitable that justice in the Armed Forces will not be quick, will not be summary and will not be seen to be fair and expeditious. There will be delays, and these will have their effect on morale.
Finally, there is the matter of cost, a point which has been made very forcefully by a number of noble and gallant Lords. The summary appeal courts are to have not only extra officers assigned to them, but a judge advocate also. As noble Lords will see from the Bill, these judge advocates must have had at least five years experience as qualified lawyers. Such animals do not come cheaply; one cannot get qualified lawyers of five years' experience to come into the Armed Forces without paying them, and paying them very highly.
It may not be a matter for the Ministry of Defence to decide, but, in that context, I should like to know what the Ministry of Defence understands about the defraying of the obviously very considerable extra costs which will come about as a result of the Bill. Are these costs to be borne by the defence vote? If so, as noble and gallant Lords have already said, an already overstretched budget, which caters for already overstretched forces, will become further overstretched, to the great detriment of the Armed Forces and the effectiveness of our services.
690
Having said what I think about the Bill, I conclude by saying that the Ministry of Defence has made the very best of a bad job. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said, it has acted quickly and it has produced something which, within the constraints of the requirements of the Bill, is comprehensive and clear.
There may be those who, like me, believe that not all of us—and certainly not all of the Armed Forces—should automatically be subject to the provisions of conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, or even the Human Rights Act 1998. However, at the moment, it is not profitable or productive to start talking about derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights or from the Human Rights Act. It is now fairly clear that the Armed Forces have to be brought within those constraints. As I said, the Ministry of Defence has gone about this in a constructive way. It is a duty it would perhaps not have chosen had this been a matter entirely for the Ministry of Defence. But it has approached the matter in a constructive way and we should now concentrate on some of the bad, weak points which have been underlined, such as the 21-day period in the course of an appeal to the summary court of appeal, and the circumstances in which an accused soldier, sailor or airman may elect for trial by court martial rather than for trial by his or her commanding officer.
I suggest that we should now move forward with the Second Reading and—if it is not too much of a military analogy—hold our fire until the Committee stage of the Bill.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in the gap—not from the point of view of considerable military experience but as someone with considerable admiration for our Armed Forces today and with an interest in military history.
Not long ago I was reading about a debate in your Lordships' House in which a large number of very senior officers, perhaps five-star, took part. It was a debate on the retention in the Armed Forces of the death penalty for desertion. A substantial number of them spoke and, in a modern context, their words were not attractive. In those days, the services may have relied on discipline and fierce regulation—inculcating perhaps a greater fear of the superior than of the enemy—but that has changed. It has changed because of the development of man-management and a greater sensitivity in the Armed Forces. People serving today do not have the fear of punishment, of superiors and of court martial that may have once been the case. Without wishing to embarrass the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, the Green Howards were not run so much by fear as by their respect for the noble and gallant Lord when he was their commander. I know that to be the case because at that time a number of my constituents served in his regiment. Nevertheless, I believe that one point that has been made needs to be considered by my noble friends; that is, the provision in Clause 12. As noble Lords have already said, respect

691
for the commanding officer must be maintained; he occupies perhaps the most important position at any given time, and certainly when active service is being pursued.
I believe that my noble friend might also receive with sympathy the argument that the cost should certainly not be met from the defence budget. When I served in the Commons and my constituents asked me whether they should pursue a matter in the law, I would always tell them that if they could avoid that course they should do so, unless, of course, they were very wealthy. The services are not very wealthy at present and I trust that my noble friend will take due note of that particular request from noble Lords.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be present at the start of the debate owing to family reasons. However, I believe I should mention that I am one of the few people still living who attended the European Council when the European Convention on Human Rights was being considered. Indeed, I was closeted with M. Rolin, the Belgian lawyer who represented Dr Mossadek at The Hague in order to agree with him—and eventually it was agreed by all concerned—the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.
I feel obliged to mention that at that time—it was just a few years after the war—I do not believe that members of any party in this country gave a moment's thought to the effect of the convention on military discipline. But now we must consider it. I believe that the Government must review the convention and our acceptance of it in order to ensure that military discipline is maintained. Speaking as a lawyer, naturally on occasion there has been—I remember it well during the war in which I served—a conflict or an apparent conflict between discipline and justice. That is very difficult to avoid. But I believe that especially in time of war—and we should be thinking in terms of the application of this Act in time of war—discipline must if necessary prevail over justice.
4.52 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before I speak to the Bill, I remind the House that I have an interest as I am a serving TA officer and I have delegated powers of summary jurisdiction. Noble Lords should be aware that I would make the same speech on whatever Bench I happened to be sitting. I apologise in advance if I test your Lordships' patience. I should like to join with the Minister in her fulsome praise of our Armed Forces. From my very modest experience, I can agree with every word that she said about their activities.
The Minister has marketed the Bill as being technical and one which we have no choice but to implement. However, it is anything but technical or intrinsically beneficial, as she put it. It forms part of the process of salami-slicing our military capability in a variety of ways, each little stage appearing to be perfectly reasonable. I am sure that the Minister understands her brief on the Bill, and in detail. But
692
when she introduced the Bill I was not sure whether she understood the nature of our military ethos and the need for robust service discipline arrangements. However, she did cover her points in her usual highly effective manner.
Moreover, the public has little understanding or experience of military matters, and that is reflected in the composition of another place. The public knows that we have the Challenger 2 main battle tank, RAF Tornadoes, HMS "Invincible" with her Harriers and the Special Air Service, and it believes that this combination will defeat any opposition. All noble Lords who have spoken know that that is not the case and that military operations can go horribly wrong. The worst case scenario is that civilians will be called up for compulsory service, as happened quite properly during the last war.
Although we have a galaxy of talent and expertise, it is unfortunate, to say the least, that no one outside the "military club" has put their name down to speak to the debate. I am sure that the debate would have been less one-sided and better informed if some noble Lords with interests in human rights had been able to speak to support the Minister. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as he has provided some comfort to the Minister. No doubt the Minister and others outside who listen to our debate will feel that this was the officer class—and at a stratospheric level at that—defending its position at the expense of junior ranks.
In my case, I spent 18 years as a junior rank in the TA. In fact, the highest rank I achieved was corporal. I enjoyed myself enormously, worked closely with regular soldiers and saw no need to seek an early commission. My military role models were regular NCOs. As soldiers, we certainly talked about the disciplinary arrangements and we all agreed that one could not "beat the system", despite the advice of the barrack room lawyers; and we were content with that situation. But, to put it bluntly, the Army is a hard taskmaster. Indeed, I found myself on the receiving end of summary jurisdiction. Once I lost my camp bed and later on I lost my ID card. I was also a prosecution witness in one minor case. It was interesting to note that afterwards, when it was all over, we all shook hands and adjourned to the bar after final parade. The whole matter was over and finished within seven days. The new arrangements inevitably will introduce considerable delays and that will always be undesirable.
I am now the OC (the officer commanding)—a humble field officer—and I have to administer summary jurisdiction on behalf of my commanding officer, most recently last Tuesday. It is not a pleasant duty as it is more of a disciplinary procedure than a perfectly developed system of justice. One is punishing one's own people. Sometimes it is even necessary to discipline first-rate soldiers, especially for what I would call technical offences such as loss of ID cards. However, if I were either to abuse my powers and act unjustly, or if I did not have the moral courage to exercise them when required, I should soon lose the

693
trust and confidence of the men under my command and morale would suffer badly. The same would apply to any officer, regular or TA, in a command position.
The Bill impinges on two aspects of military law. As implied by the Minister and others, the court-martial system is reserved for the more serious offences that could attract substantial periods of detention, prison, heavy fines or other significant penalties. We know also that a solider can elect to go for court martial rather than accept summary jurisdiction. I believe firmly that the court-martial system should be as well developed a system of justice as possible, while at the same time being militarily effective.
I have served as a member of a few courts martial and it is a very dry and clinical business. Even so, I was struck by the way in which the accused, who is still innocent, is marched in without belt or head gear and under escort. It appeared to me to be degrading and I could not see how it improved the administration of justice. The Bill might not be an ideal vehicle but we shall look at that point during its passage and at the time of the quinquennial review.
During the winter of 1997–98, I had the honour to serve with the Regular Army in Bosnia. However, it was not what I would call a "hot" operation, so I have never experienced the challenges that other noble Lords have faced. Morale in camp was nearly always high, but we suffered one incident of misconduct which had the potential to be very serious indeed. It would not be helpful to describe exactly what went wrong but the full power of the commanding officer was required to deal with the matter and to apply an appropriate sentence.
On the day on which the commanding officer dealt with the charges, the mood in camp was understandably sombre. The soldiers each received a very heavy fine, but I have to say that no one else was going to make the same mistake. The essential point to note is that the next day morale had almost completely recovered and the whole affair had lasted less than seven days—from start to finish. Thus both discipline and morale were maintained at the same time. It is the current system that made that possible. It is important to remember that in a service unit the witnesses will meet the accused, his friends and colleagues on a daily basis. Contrast the service system with how long it would take to deal with a drink-drive offence at home.
Turning to the Bill itself, Clauses 1 to 8 are relevant only to very serious cases and the new arrangements are welcome apart from the fact that they are unworkable for operations. From my experience, they would be very challenging for our relatively stable peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. What would happen if the operation or even the campaign was not going very well? A unit may be trapped behind enemy lines or just very isolated. What would happen about a small detachment on South Georgia in winter? The Explanatory Notes pray in aid video links. The Minister's faith in our G6 communications capability at unit level is touching. It would be nice if for operations we had a secure and efficient means of electronically transmitting reports and returns data
694
from sub-units up the chain of command. We shall be tabling suitable amendments to relax the new arrangements for operations in order to avoid the risk of servicemen having to be detained without legal authority.
Clauses 14 to 25 are, to an extent, consequential on later clauses giving the right of appeal from summary jurisdiction. As explained by the Minister, they give an earlier right of election for court martial, but I do not think that is helpful. For instance, the commanding officer may want to deal with the matter summarily and hear the evidence, possibly because of a local legal requirement, but he may be minded to dismiss the charges. That often happens with road traffic accidents, especially serious ones and ones overseas. Of course, the new arrangements fly in the face of government policy regarding restrictions on the civilian's right to elect for full trial in cases which are triable either way. Under the new arrangements, the soldier could elect for court martial before the commanding officer had an opportunity formally to dismiss the charges even though he was minded to do so in the first place.
Currently, a serviceman can be more severely dealt with by court martial if he elects for it. Under the Bill, he can receive no greater punishment than the commanding officer can give so there is no disincentive to elect court martial; and of course that is the Government's intention, as the Minister explained. If a soldier absolutely insisted on election for court martial for a minor offence, such as loss of ID card, it is unlikely that it would ever happen due to the backlog of more serious cases.
Clauses 14 to 25 are the most objectionable in the Bill as they dilute the authority of the commanding officer and his sub-unit commanders, as noted by many noble Lords. In theory, they confer greater rights on the serviceman; but in practice they will disadvantage him. Take, for example, the Balkans situation that I have illustrated. The commanding officer had to maintain discipline and morale or else risk compromising the success of the operation. If, after being disciplined, one of the soldiers decided not to take it on the chin and spent the next three weeks telling the whole world that it did not matter as he would appeal the sentence, the commanding officer would have failed in his mission. I submit that in the future the commanding officer in that situation would simply remand the soldier for court martial and have the soldier posted back to depot in the UK. The case in question would be easy to prove in a cold, stark court martial centre in the UK and the soldier could expect two months' detention in the military correction centre at Colchester and with no pay. Furthermore, the soldier's career would be ruined or at least held back for two years. Put in that context, the actual outcome seems quite lenient.
I have another worry—I put it no stronger than that. The worry is this: if NCOs find out that their commanding officer or officer commanding cannot effectively operate a disciplinary system, they will inevitably resort to illegal alternatives. There will not

695
be the court martial option for them. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, and others have touched on that point.
Clause 9 would allow a deserter to obtain bail after he was apprehended. Noble Lords will easily be able to imagine the circumstances where that could be deeply damaging to the morale of the unit preparing for operations. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House in what circumstances she thinks it would be appropriate or necessary for the magistrate to grant bail.
The fighting power of Her Majesty's Armed Forces is composed of three parts. First, there is the physical component; that is, the quantity and quality of the hardware, for which of course the Minister is responsible. I am sure that she works tirelessly to obtain the best solution. Secondly, there is the conceptual component; that is, the strategy, tactics and planning that are developed in order to fight smart, as it were. Finally, and most importantly, there is the moral component; that is, the military ethos, of which so much has been said today. The military ethos cannot be rapidly changed for "hot" operations. The ethos of today is what one has to go to war with, a point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. History is littered with examples of armies that were both physically and conceptually superior to their opponents, but were nevertheless defeated by opponents that attached greater importance to the moral component of fighting power.
In conclusion, soldiers are not merely civilians in uniform. They form a distinctive group within our society that needs a completely different ethos and legal system if it is to succeed. No other group of our society is required to be prepared to kill and destroy others, in wider circumstances than immediate self-defence, and knowing that they may well take a significant proportion of casualties themselves in doing so. If UK governments are not prepared to sustain the moral component of fighting power and recognise the need for servicemen to operate under a more robust legal system, they must prepare themselves to lose battles and have unsuccessful military campaigns. I do not share the rosy view so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. If my worst fears were realised, I do not believe that the British public, in hindsight—that perfectly developed art—would accept that the European Convention on Human Rights should ever have been interpreted in a way that damaged our military capability.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had a useful and constructive Second Reading debate on the Bill. We have had many useful insights into some of the issues that are likely to be debated in Committee. I had anticipated that the quality of attention brought to the matter by noble Lords would more than make Lip for any shortfall in the number of those contributing to the debate. I am pleased to say that that has indeed been the case and I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for bringing their wisdom
696
and experience to bear on our discussions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I am impressed by the array of not only noble, but noble and gallant colleagues who have given us the benefit of their thoughts. Your Lordships may be assured that I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put today.
I disagreed quite fundamentally with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on one point in his contribution. The noble Earl commented that the British public believes that the effectiveness of our Armed Forces somehow relies on their tanks, aircraft and ships. I really do not think that the British public is that naive. It is well understood that the question of discipline in the Armed Forces is absolutely crucial to the effectiveness of those forces. Perhaps I may say that the argument put with such characteristic succinctness by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he said that the heart of this debate is the balance between justice and discipline, is the key issue here. We shall seek to strike the right balance between what on the one hand is right for individuals, and on the other hand does not compromise the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Furthermore, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for having so clearly brought that most important point to our attention.
First, I shall address some of the detailed points that have been raised by noble Lords before returning, towards the end of my remarks, to what I believe is the essential point on the role of commanding officers and others. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, opened by asking whether we really need the legislation before us. I have to say to the noble Lord that we do need it to amend the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Primary legislation is required because no powers for secondary legislation are provided in those measures.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether we should again examine the possibility of derogations from that convention. That point was also addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. Noble Lords will be aware that the United Kingdom ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 without derogations from the convention itself. We do not believe that any derogations are necessary. It is important to remember that derogations would require renegotiation of the convention and that would need the agreement of all parties to the convention. The Government do not believe that there is a case for that. We believe that members of the Armed Forces are as entitled as all other United Kingdom citizens to the protection of their fundamental human rights through the law. However, that does not, of course, mean that those rights should be allowed to jeopardise the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces, or indeed that they would so jeopardise their operational effectiveness.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. In the discussions on the Human Rights Act, the noble and learned Lord the

697
Lord Chancellor broadly hinted that such derogations might be possible. Can the noble Baroness comment on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if we take into account what we are trying to achieve in the Bill before us, we do not believe that that will be necessary. I should like to develop the point a little. The noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether this would be the end of what we must do in terms of Armed Forces discipline in order to comply with the ECHR. I believe that there is still a question to be answered here. We have identified the main areas for concern, but we are continuing to examine our legislation and procedures. Should we need further legislation, it is hoped that remedial action will be taken in the next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, due to be introduced in the next Session. However, for the moment we do not believe that any derogations are necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, also drew the attention of the House to the difficulties raised in terms of military discipline over issues of time and distance. Under the new legislation the commanding officer will remain closely involved with the pre-trial custody arrangements. Furthermore, he will need to be personally satisfied that the loss of liberty is justified following strict and limited criteria. Thereafter, the commanding officer will be required to take every reasonable measure to ensure that the suspect is seen by a judicial officer at the earliest possible opportunity. Obviously that will be subject to the exigencies of the service, but it should take place within prescribed time limits. For that reason, circumstances such as location, operational deployment and accessibility will determine how the suspect is brought before the judicial officer. Each case will be considered separately.
For example, if the case commences in barracks in the United Kingdom it should be relatively straightforward to arrange a personal hearing with a judicial officer, but if it takes place on operations in the Balkans, it may be—as it says in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill—that a video link is the only practical solution. We shall be looking at the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the specific issue of homosexuality and the Armed Forces. The noble Lord may know that an urgent review is being undertaken by the MoD of our policy on homosexuality in the services and I understand that recommendations will be put to Ministers as soon as possible. However, the key point here is that if there is to be any change in policy, that will not require any change in the law. The issue is therefore not relevant either to this legislation or to any other possible legislation.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and in particular the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, raised questions about costs arising from the Bill. I should say that
698
I was rather expecting those words from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who has written a detailed letter to me, to which he referred in his contribution to the debate. I hope to give him a little comfort in an exchange of correspondence shortly.
The estimated annual cost of implementing the changes proposed in the Bill will be about £6.5 million. As noble Lords have rightly suggested, those costs will arise from the establishment of a summary appeal court and the other new arrangements. The majority of the costs will arise from the need for additional lawyers, investigators and other staff to administer the new procedures. These will also include travel and subsistence costs, fees, witnesses' expenses and so forth. Obviously, the costs will absorb an appreciable part of the Armed Forces' legal aid scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked specifically how these costs would be met. I am sure that the noble Lord will be sad to hear that the costs will fall to the MoD. However, they will be absorbed across a wide range of budgetary areas, each of which will manage their costs in terms of their overall priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, also asked whether the measures in the Bill could be introduced by 1st October 2000. I can assure the House that it is proposed that the new system will be put in place by that date. It is important to point out to noble Lords that the Government believe that the measures outlined here are improvements to the current system. We would like to see them put in place sooner rather than later.
Any system of discipline that is to command the respect of the people to whom it applies must be capable of evolution. The changes that we propose to introduce here will ensure that the disciplinary system will remain in step with the recognition of individuals' rights and freedoms. Of course costs are important, but we must ask ourselves questions about the cost of upholding a serviceman or service woman's civil rights. I believe that that is an important point. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said it was a pity that there were not more noble Lords present to make that point. I strongly agree. It has been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself, but there is a strong argument which, perhaps for natural reasons, has not been fully addressed in today's debate.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, concentrated his remarks on the summary appeal courts. I was asked why the Government have decided that offering the right to elect for trial by court martial is not sufficient to meet our needs in ECHR terms. The new system that we propose provides a further check which will enable an accused person to make a free choice as to the mode of trial, knowing that he will always be able to face an ECHR-compliant tribunal.
It is arguable that the present arrangements, which were drawn up with the convention in mind, rely too heavily on the individual creating a situation that is compatible with the convention. It depends on his or her choice as to whether he or she is tried by a compliant court. I understand that that was thought sufficient when the Armed Forces Act 1996 was being

699
prepared. Our legal advice is that it is now considered that a right of appeal is also necessary to make the procedures associated with summary dealings compatible with the convention. So I am afraid that, for those who have raised the question of whether the summary appeal court is necessary, the answer is: yes, in terms of the evolving thinking on the matter since 1996, that is indeed the advice.
The overwhelming burden of your Lordships' remarks has been on the question of the impact of the proposals on the powers of the commanding officer. Questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Inge and Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. The key to this legislation has to be the maintenance of the powers of the commanding officer. Central to the commanding officer's authority is his or her ability to exercise discipline. There is no argument between us on that point. The argument relates to whether or not the Government's proposals undermine that authority.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that the changes ensure that the commanding officer will continue to be able to administer discipline summarily. The changes enacted in 1996 opened up the possibility of many more courts martial. Individuals were given a much wider right to choose the way in which they were dealt with.
I also assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that such statistics as we have indicate that in only a handful of eases do the accused elect to be tried by courts-martial. That seems to suggest that the commanding officer's powers to deal with cases summarily are still widely understood and respected, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. They are possibly even preferred by some of the accused. For both the service and the individual, it is a means of ensuring that minor matters do not become unduly protracted, as many noble Lords indicated. We are confident that a right of appeal will not undermine that, any more than the existing right of appeal from courts martial has undermined the discipline system as a whole, providing that the new right of appeal will enhance the fairness of the system in the way that the Government believe are demanded by the dictates of simple justice. Conversely, not to provide a right of appeal would be to continue with arrangements that may not be compatible with the convention. That would allow the possibility of a very real challenge to the powers of the commanding officer, one which I imagine we should all wish to avoid if possible.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley, also raised the question of whether the Bill was breaking fundamentally new ground. I do not believe that that is the case. The legislation is not being forced upon US. It is clear that significant changes to the service discipline system and the Armed Forces Act 1996 addressed concerns about compatibility with the human rights convention even at that time.
We in this House agreed to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights. We agree with Parliament's decision to incorporate the main
700
provisions of the convention in our domestic law. Therefore, I do not believe that we are having anything forced upon us. We are merely evolving the discipline Acts in order to comply with decisions that we have taken. We should do well to listen carefully to the wise words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, regarding what might happen were we not to act.
There is another enormously important point. I say this particularly to noble and gallant Lords who have spoken. The Chiefs of Staff have been fully consulted on the changes and endorse the need for them. They have been keen to see the legislation brought forward as soon as possible. I sensed an implication that this was being done in the teeth of opposition from those in the military who know better. That is not the case.
The maintenance of morale was touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Of course it is vital to the services. The Government understand that the distinctive ethos of the Armed Forces, of which the noble Earl spoke so eloquently, plays an important role. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we have consulted those who know a great deal about this matter. I fully accept that noble and gallant Lords have done the same. There has been no suggestion from within the services that either the morale or the ethos of the Armed Forces will be adversely affected by these procedural changes. The Government do not believe that either the ethos or the morale of the services is quite that fragile.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she explain the Government's thinking in relation to Clause 12 of the Bill, which provides that, in the event of election for court martial, the court martial may not impose a more severe sentence than that available to the commanding officer? If, as I believe the Minister would agree, it is desirable that an accused serviceman or woman should prefer to be tried by the commanding officer, is it not a mistake to depart from the civilian rule that the higher court can impose a higher sentence than that available to the court of summary jurisdiction?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I heard with great interest the point made by the noble and learned Lord in his earlier intervention. This issue is about the balance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his brief intervention. We believe that the clause is compatible with the ECHR; but at the same time, we wish to see it compatible in such a way that it upholds the authority of the commanding officer. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there has to be a balance throughout between, on the one hand, justice to individuals and, on the other, the discipline of the Armed Forces. The Government believe that the clause strikes that balance in a proper and adequate way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. I hope that she did not misunderstand my remarks. If she did, it is probably my fault for not expressing myself clearly enough.

701
I was not suggesting that where there is a conflict between discipline and justice, or between human rights and any other provision of law, the Bill should do anything other than maintain discipline, especially for time of war.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord was admirably clear in his remarks. He left the House in no doubt that his judgment was as he has just reaffirmed it. My point in mentioning the noble Lord's intervention was that I thought it crystallised absolutely the argument about the Bill; namely, whether we have struck the right balance between justice to individuals on the one hand and Armed Forces discipline on the other. The argument that he raised crystallised the point, although we might have rather different views as to whether or not the legislation meets the point. I believe it does. Perhaps the noble Lord will take a different view, but during the Committee stage I hope I may be able to persuade him a little more to my way of thinking.
From these Benches we appreciate that there are those who fear that any change to service discipline procedures will undermine the military ethos and discipline. I suspect that the issue arises every time there is a change to military ethos and discipline. However, I assure the House that we do not believe that that is so. Similar arguments could have been put forward in 1996 over Armed Forces discipline when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, commented on the test of the discipline system for what we must remember are volunteer Armed Forces in a free society. He said that it was to get the balance right between rights and duties. The noble Earl warned then against complacency and urged the need for a constant watch on discipline.
The noble Earl also said at the time that the absence of the right of appeal against courts martial sentences was an unnecessary limitation on the rights of servicemen and women. That is the view we take as to the need for the present changes. The view was supported by the Front Bench opposite in 1996.
I am sure that, as has been the case with previous measures of this nature, the Bill will result in detailed thought as to how we can deal with the interesting issues which have been brought up this afternoon and how much further we can improve the system of administering discipline. Yes, it is part of the Government's human rights agenda, but it is no part of the Government's human rights agenda to undermine Armed Forces discipline. The Government fully recognise that discipline is vital in the pursuance not only of our defence policy but ultimately of our foreign policy.
Yet underpinning our consideration of what needs to be done has been an overriding concern and awareness which has run like a thread throughout our debate today. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the Armed Forces are not just another job. They have a unique role, a point made passionately by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The men and women who serve in them have unique responsibilities. We expect a great
702
deal of them. Your Lordships know as well as I do how admirably they fulfil those expectations. The ability to maintain effective discipline is a vital ingredient in our Armed Forces' success. It is the accumulation of generations of hard-won experience. I can assure your Lordships that this Government will not cast that legacy aside.
I commend the Bill to the House and am confident that it will help to preserve that which all noble Lords hold dear. I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she deal with one point which was brought up during the debate? It concerns the provision in Clause 18 of the Bill not only for an accused to have recourse to appeal to the court, but to have 21 days in which to do it. Does the Minister agree that that is a long period? Three weeks with that hanging around is bound to affect the authority of the commanding officer.
Specifically, will the noble Baroness undertake to examine that closely when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I undertake to look closely at all the points raised by noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords this afternoon. The noble Lord is quite right, the clause imposes a time limit of 21 days. As I said in relation to other time limits, we do not want to run up to that limit; of course we want the matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I shall certainly look at the point.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999
5.33 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdalerose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999, laid before the House on 20th October, be annulled (S.I. 1999/2863).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in recent months, not least during the debate on the loyal Address, there have been many references to the intermediate or new House of Lords. While the theoretical constitution of the House may be different, its role remains the same—to give advice to the Government, to review the Government's actions, and, if necessary, call on them to account for those actions. It is the last function upon which today's debate concentrates.
For many years now, my family business has existed by courtesy of the Post Office, so it is hardly surprising that it is one of my major interests. When, shortly after the election, Mrs Beckett, who was then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced yet another review of its workings and its relationship with

703
government, my ears pricked up. So did the ears of others. I was asked to write an article on what I would like to see the review produce.
I shall not weary the House today with my proposals. There will be plenty of time for that during the course of the Bill, if we ever get it. The story I am about to relate makes me suspicious.
The review eventually got under way—rather slowly, I thought—in early July this year, almost two years later. It resulted in a White Paper and a Statement in both Houses. One of its surprises is found on pages 19 to 21 of the White Paper, Cmd. 4340, and concerns the statutory Post Office monopoly for letters priced at under £1. That was set as long ago as 1981 by means of the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order, SI 1981/1483, following on the last Post Office Act of the same year.
As the White Paper fairly reveals, up to now this monopoly has been defended as necessary to enable the Post Office to benefit from economies of scope and scale and, therefore, to provide a universal service at a uniform tariff without direct public subsidy. The White Paper states:
"However, there is growing evidence from studies carried out in Europe for the European Commission that, contrary to long-held assumptions, there may be considerable scope for introducing greater competition in postal services without undermining these essential services".
The White Paper goes on to explain why in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. To be fair, it gives a most convincing argument which time does not allow me to repeat, though no doubt other noble Lords may be tempted.
Having thus attacked the long-standing defence of the monopoly, pages 20 and 21 of the White Paper state:
"The Government's judgement is that a reduction of the monopoly is entirely compatible with the continuation of essential services; and that service levels will not only be maintained but enhanced by the introduction of greater competition to the postal sector. The Government has rejected the immediate abolition of the monopoly. It believes that the best results for consumers, including the protection of the Universal Service Obligation … can be achieved if the Post Office is given time to respond to changes in market conditions. Liberalisation will therefore be phased. As a first step, the Government is halving the monopoly from £1 to 50p or, expressed in weight, 150 grams. So, if an item of mail is priced above 50p or weighs over 150 grams it will not be subject to the monopoly and can be delivered by any operator. It is anticipated that this reduction will not have any significant impact on the profitable delivery of USO [Universal Service Obligation] services by the Post Of ice. An order under section 69 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 has been laid and, with Parliamentary approval, this reduction in the monopoly will take effect from 1 April 2000".
Indeed, it had. On 6th July this year, SI 1999/1933 was made; it was laid before Parliament on 8th July. Its relevant passage reads:
"The postal privilege"—
that is the letter monopoly—
"is hereby suspended until the end of the year 2006 in relation to the conveyance of a letter which either

(a) is conveyed in consideration of a payment of more than 50 pence made by or on behalf of the person for whom it is conveyed; or

(b) weighs more than 150 grams".

704
It was to come into force on 1st April 2000 and, in due course, sailed unremarked through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
All well and good. The Government had acted fast and lived up to their intentions. But—and this is the important point—those intentions in parliamentary time at least were only to last for about five minutes flat: that is, until 18th October.
Imagine my amazement when I discovered that the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999—the subject of my Prayer this evening—had been made on 19th October and was coming into force on 1st December. Noble Lords who have read it—it is about as terse as a statutory instrument can be—will see that it states baldly:
"The Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 is hereby revoked";
in other words, as the explanatory note says—incidentally, in almost twice as many words—
"This Order revokes the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 which would have suspended, with effect from 1st April 2000, the exclusive privilege of the Post Office with respect to the conveyance of letters in the case of letters costing more than 50p or weighing more than 150 grams. Consequently it preserves the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1981 (as amended by the Postal Services Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/2107)) which suspends the privilege until the end of the year 2006 for letters weighing not less than 350 grams or costing not less than £1 so permitting persons other than the Post Office to convey such letters".
In short, it ain't going to happen; it is a government U-turn. In a word, why? To the best of my knowledge, no explanation has ever been given to either House of Parliament. It cannot be that the order was technically deficient; otherwise, an amending order would have been laid. This happens all the time. I see these instruments in my work on the Joint Committee on a fairly regular basis. The only explanation is that the Secretary of State had been got at over the Summer Recess.
It is true that the DTI now has its third Secretary of State since the general election. Mr Byers may have been self-activating, but I doubt it. It is much more likely that he has caved in to someone, or perhaps some body. Was it the Post Office board, a group of Back Benchers, the Labour Party conference, or the union representing Post Office workers?
As I said when I opened, this House has a duty to call the Government to account for their actions. All the Minister has to do this evening is answer the question: who was it? Or, pace the comments of the Solicitor-General earlier today, who knows what the new House will decide to do at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999, laid before the House on 20th October, be annulled (S.I. 1999/2863).—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
5.45 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for moving this Motion. We on

705
these Benches have possibly two reasons for welcoming the introduction of this statutory instrument. The first is a matter of principle. We have regularly argued during the passage of legislation through your Lordships' House that the Government are unduly inflexible when faced with strong and compelling arguments in the opposite direction to that in which the legislation is justified. We are very pleased that in this very unusual case the Government have listened to the arguments, found them compelling and changed their mind.
We are slightly less pleased to find that the compelling arguments are put primarily by the Communication Workers Union. While we do not disagree with them, this is a case of a government bowing to pressure from outside when very often, faced with similarly compelling arguments within the House, they find it impossible to move. We hope that the flexibility that the Government have found, jolted very substantially by the Communication Workers Union, now extends more generally to the pursuit of their business and that when in future we on these Benches make compelling arguments they will be dealt with and responded to positively.
My next point has to do with the substance of the matter. Were the Government right to make the change? On balance we believe that they were. The Government have argued that there should be careful and phased liberalisation of the monopoly. Since 1981 there has been a careful and phased liberalisation by way of inflation. The extent of the monopoly in real terms has fallen by more than 50 per cent over the period. Therefore, each year little by little the monopoly has been undermined. The question is whether at this stage, given all the changes that are planned for the Post Office, it is sensible to have such a large reduction in one go.
We have studied the report of the Select Committee. We accept its argument that, just at the point when the Government are due to set up a postal services commission, it seems rather strange to pre-empt the decision of that body by taking such a major step, particularly given the potentially wider ramifications than simply the flow of revenue into the postal system.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the universal service obligation. I suspect that we shall hear much more about that in the coming months as we debate the Bill. Any change to any aspect of Post Office administration and charges or its monopoly will give rise to a key issue. It is sensible that when established the postal services commission should look at that as part of its consideration of the issue. For those two reasons we welcome the statutory instrument, albeit we slightly raise our eyebrows at the way it has been introduced.
I put just one question to the Minister. When might we expect the establishment of the postal services commission and appointments to it?
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto gave a commitment to provide greater
706
commercial freedom to the Post Office. In December 1998, the then Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, proposed the phasing out of the Post Office's monopoly over letters costing less than £1. He said:
"I am proposing to reduce significantly the Post Office's monopoly activities".
The Government took seven months to follow up Mr Mandelson's statement with a White Paper in July 1999. The White Paper proposed that the Post Office's legal monopoly over deliveries costing less than £1 would be reduced to letters costing 50p or less, and a statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendation was laid in the same month.
So far the plot is clear, but what has happened since has made it extremely murky. In October a second statutory instrument was laid, the effect of which was to revoke the first. This means that the monopoly threshold remains at £1. To explain a key possible reason for the revocation of the first statutory instrument we must look at reaction to the July White Paper. I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that one of the first people off the starting block was Derek Hodgson, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU). In a letter dated 2nd July to all MPs he wrote:
"I thought that the days of finding it necessary to write to Labour MPs about the future of the Post Office had gone when jointly with the Labour Party we defeated the Tories when they tried to privatize the Post Office".
He went on to say that he felt the Government's success at the general election had also quashed the scheme. The CWU itself said in a briefing on the White Paper:
"We believe that the Government's package is fundamentally flawed in two respects—the intention to turn the Post Office into a plc and the move to reduce the reserved area to 50p or 150 grams".
I return to Derek Hodgson's reactions to events. He commented in a letter dated 5th July to all Labour MPs:
"We cannot stand silent if the Government announces that it intends to push ahead now with … a reduced monopoly".
Thus, we can see how the union tail is wagging the Labour dog as this veiled threat obviously was enough to persuade the Government to back down on their change to the monopoly.
On the other hand, the Conservative Party believes that in principle the Post Office should be privatised so that it has full commercial freedom to compete on a level playing field with the German and Dutch post offices. The Conservative Party's policy would include minimum standards to ensure universal next-day delivery. We believe that the Government are unable to privatise the Post Office because Labour is in hock to the unions. We also argue that without full commercial freedom, including the right to borrow along commercial lines, the Post Office cannot hope to compete on a level playing field; for example, the Dutch Post Office has been privatised and has the capacity to take advantage of a global market.
Although we welcome the Government's decision to grant the Post Office plc status, we believe that it does not go nearly far enough. The Post Office will still be subject to PSBR borrowing limits.

707
In summary, the proposal to reduce the monopoly price was welcomed by all, with the exception of the Communication Workers Union. The Post Office itself was happy with the reduction to 50p but the Government are backing down on their proposal to reduce the monopoly price. This can be only as a response to pressure from the Communication Workers Union. It is the only group that has consistently opposed the reduction. We therefore find this U-turn an extraordinary turn of events.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, under the procedures of the House I am not sure whether I am allowed to speak without having given notice. However, having heard the previous contribution and with due respect to all Members of the House, I should like to draw a distinction between the Motion and the remarks of previous speakers. The debate is not about privatisation. I should declare an interest as a retired officer of the Communication Workers Union—in my day it was the Post Office Workers Union—and having spent over 50 years of my life working directly with the Post Office.
I wish to make this point clear. The situation has not been brought about just by union pressure, but because there is an opportunity for sober reflection and to consider what the reduction of the monopoly could mean to the universality of the service to the British people. The monopoly exists simply to ensure that the Post Office is able to give a service at a universal rate throughout the United Kingdom.
This Motion is not about commercial freedom. We are not talking about possible privatisation. We shall have an opportunity to discuss those issues at a later date when the post office Bill comes before this House.
It is not true that just one demon union has suggested that we should hold our fire (to use the analogy of the previous debate about military discipline). There will be a commission and a regulator to consider the effects of the monopoly on the universality of the service provided in this country. A number of people are examining whether it is possible for the Post Office to continue to provide that service with a reduction i a the monopoly, whether on the tariff or the weight limit.
I am sorry that I have intervened in a garbled manner. However, I believe that it is right that we should talk today to the Motion and not about general privatisation of commercial freedom. Some of us may have something to say about that at another time. At the moment I ask all noble Lords to bear in mind that there will be a proper examination of the effects of the postal monopoly on the universality of the service provided. I believe that that is where we should leave the matter today.
5.45 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I agree that we should stick to the issue before us today. It is important that I emphasise at the start that the overriding consideration of the Government has
708
always been to preserve the universal service obligation. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reinforced that point. The delivery of letters and parcels to any part of the United Kingdom at a uniform tariff is of enormous importance. We place great weight on the value of that obligation. We agree that any greater competition must not undermine these services. That, above all, is what consumers want.
I listened with interest to the comments made in the debate. I think that it will be helpful if I set out the facts as I see them. The monopoly was last adjusted in 1981 with the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1981, which suspended the Post Office's monopoly of postal business in respect of items costing £1 or more to post. That reduction has not affected the delivery of the universal service; and indeed many consumers have benefited from the delivery services for express parcels and letters that have developed.
On 27th July of this year, after a short period of consultation, we laid the Postal Services Regulations 1999 before Parliament. One of the provisions of those regulations was to introduce a weight element to the monopoly of 350 grammes in order to comply with the EU postal services directive. This new weight limit came into effect on 1st September 1999.
Earlier, when we published the White Paper on reform of the Post Office on 8th July, we laid the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 to reduce the monopoly to 50p in price and 150 grammes in weight from 1st April 2000. The intention was that this would be a first step in a phased reduction in a postal services monopoly and that the new Postal Services Commission which we are establishing would be responsible for future phased reductions in the monopoly, subject, I emphasise, to a duty to ensure adequate funding for the provision of the universal service at a uniform tariff.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that there is no doubt about what was said then. But I have to say also that he does not seem to have followed the events which have occurred since then.
On 14th September, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published its 12th report on the 1999 Post Office White Paper. We take seriously the advice of the Trade and Industry Committee; and I hope that noble Lords would not suggest that we do otherwise. I am grateful to members of that committee for the work they put into their report. Indeed, the Government have been appreciative of the helpful reports made by the committee during the course of the Post Office review, which have helped in the development of the Government's policy. The Government appreciate the committee's welcome to the general thrust of the reform package set out in the White Paper.
In its report, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended that the Government consider withdrawal of the order reducing the monopoly to 50p so that the Postal Services Commission can consider evidence put to it of the effect of a reduction in the monopoly threshold and recommend to the Government an appropriate monopoly threshold.

709
After careful consideration, we accepted that recommendation. We shall be remitting the issue to the Postal Services Commission as soon as possible, urging it to treat the matter as a high priority. In the meantime, we have laid the revocation order which we are debating today. This order is necessary to ensure that the outcome of the commission's review is not prejudged. Having accepted the Trade and Industry Committee's recommendation, it would clearly be wrong simultaneously to press ahead with a cut in the monopoly. However, we remain firmly of the view that greater liberalisation is both necessary and desirable.
The Government remain totally committed to greater competition in postal markets. Greater competition is an essential component in ensuring that the new Post Office is a success. Together with better regulation, and new commercial freedoms, greater competition through liberalisation is needed to ensure that the Post Office is sufficiently challenged to turn itself into a world class company; and greater competition in postal services will be a spur to efficiency which should bring benefits to consumers in terms of choice, price and quality.
The revocation of the order reducing the monopoly to 50p results directly from our acceptance that in this important area there would be benefit from the new regulator also considering the issue before final decisions are made, in particular to ensure that the universal service will not be threatened by any changes. In no way does it mean that we are no longer committed to competition.
Inevitably, acceptance of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will mean some delay in opening up the market, but we do not think that that will alter fundamentally the course of the process of liberalisation. It is 19 years since the monopoly was last reduced. A few months delay will, in the scheme of things, make little practical difference.
I am sure that the Postal Services Commission will press forward with liberalisation as fast as can safely be achieved, consistent with the preservation of the high standards of the universal service which I know consumers have come to expect in their postal services.
Things will not happen as quickly as the committee had anticipated. It reported that the regulator might be in office in the autumn. Our intentions, as set out in the Postal Services Regulations 1999, are that it should start work next spring. Clearly, there has been some difference in interpretation about the likely starting date of the commission.
Accepting the advice of the Department of Trade and Industry will mean that a decision will be delayed only for a few months and I believe that the House should not oppose that added period of consideration. It would be extraordinary if this House, which has so often urged Ministers to listen to the advice of Select Committees, sought to overturn the action of the Government when they did so. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point about considering such views flexibly and I hope he will consider that the House of Commons should be one of the bodies able to suggest such flexibility.
710
I assure the noble Lord that good progress is being made in setting up the regulator to assume its functions and duties from 1st April 2000 under the Postal Services Regulations 1999. We intend that a nucleus of people will be undertaking pump-priming work before 1st April. We are planning for the commission to comprise five people, who will be drawn from a range of backgrounds relevant to postal services. This approach will bring a range of views and expertise to bear on any questions and I hope that that will be welcomed.
We hope to make an announcement about the appointment of a chairman of the commission in January. The post was advertised in September and good progress is being made with the selection process. We are also recruiting other members of the commission and staff and expect to be advertising for these posts soon. We are therefore making good progress towards the commission being ready in good time for 1st April 2000.
We envisage that once people are on board they will begin tackling this issue. It will of course be for the commission to tell us the timescale in which it can deliver a review and I am confident that it will do a good job. An overriding duty on the commission is to promote the delivery of the universal service obligation. That is in essence what the revocation order is about.
It is vitally important that all customers, wherever they work or live in the UK, should be assured of a world-class level of postal service provided at a reasonable price. For the first time, we have enshrined the universal service obligation in law. The Government are committed to its continuation. Revoking the order while the Postal Services Commission does its work is a sensible step. I listened to the points made in the debate, but remain convinced of the need for the order. I hope that the House will support me in opposing the Motion.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It was slightly shorter than I, and possibly the usual channels, intended. But that is no reason for me to filibuster at this stage. However, it would be only right and proper for me to comment on the points that have been made.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook, reached the same conclusion in answer to my question; that it was the unions. I believe that that is a fair reflection of what they said. It was particularly interesting to hear the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, with his experience in the Post Office. I hope that he will not accuse me, in my very carefully worded speech, of straying into matters which are more proper for the Second Reading of the Bill. Indeed, I bent over backwards to avoid that particular trap—of course, not that I knew he would produce it for everyone else to fall into!
The noble Lord gave the reason why the unions have reacted in such a way. They believe that it is

711
sensible to wait for the regulator. I can tell the Minister that I was well aware of the contents of the report of the Department of Trade and Industry and the action taken by the Select Committee of another place. It agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and, essentially, with the unions. But the question remains; why on earth did not the Government consider this issue previously? Between publishing the White Paper and withdrawing the order under discussion tonight, the Postal Services Regulations 1999 were laid and, as the Minister explained at length, the Government are pressing on with acting upon them. They are setting up the commission—which means the regulator of the Post Office, although one is not allowed to call him that—presumably until we pass the Bill. The Minister and his department could well have foreseen the objections of the Select Committee, especially having taken steps to sit up the commission.
712
I was particularly interested in the Minister's comment, which is not contained in the White Paper, that the 1981 rejection did not affect the universal service obligation, which we all agree is vitally important to all receivers and senders of letters in this country. I should not disagree with any noble Lord on that issue.
On reflection, I believe that the Select Committee's point of view, the unions' point of view and now the Minister's point of view—although it was not a year or even three or four months ago—is right and we should wait for the regulator. However, I believe that the debate has been worth while. We have received a reasonable explanation from the Government and I am grateful to the Minister for giving it to us. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes past six o'clock.

  OSCE Summit, 18–19 November
  OSCE Summit, 18–19 November
  River Danube and Black Sea: Toxic Wastes
  River Danube and Black Sea: Toxic Wastes
  Turkey: Human Rights Violations
  Turkey: Human Rights Violations
  Hereditary Peers: Computer Equipment
  Hereditary Peers: Computer Equipment
  Policing in 2000–01: Objectives
  Policing in 2000–01: Objectives
  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Organophosphates: COT Report
  Organophosphates: COT Report
  Forestry Commission: Expenditure Limit
  Forestry Commission: Expenditure Limit
  France: UK Beef Imports Ban
  France: UK Beef Imports Ban
  Fisheries Council, 22 November
  Fisheries Council, 22 November
  Glufosinate Ammonium
  Glufosinate Ammonium
  Health Council, 18 November
  Health Council, 18 November
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report
  Non-domestic Rates
  Non-domestic Rates
  Military Offences
  Military Offences
  Millennium Start Date
  Millennium Start Date