Sitting of 20 October 1999

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

Grammar Schools
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.34 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I am delighted to have secured this debate on an important topic for the education of children in many parts of England. The question of the future of the grammar schools, which is sometimes dismissed by some hon. Members as a sideshow or an irrelevance, is deeply important not only for the schools concerned, which are doing an excellent job, but because of what it tells us about the nature of education and how education systems can be run most effectively for the benefit of all our children.
It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that during the Wirral, South by-election—I see the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) in his place—the Prime Minister, who was at the time the Leader of the Opposition, told the electorate:
"A Labour Government would not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee. I am not interested in closing good schools."
That may have given heart to parents in Wirral, South and other constituencies, but I am not sure that it is entirely consonant with events since the new Government came to power.
More recently, we have seen the Prime Minister declare to the Labour party conference that the class war is over. In that context, I thought that it might be useful to draw the attention of the House to some comments that have been made by Andrew Adonis, who is now an adviser to the Prime Minister on educational matters. In "A Class Act: the Myth of Britain's Classless Society"—published by Penguin Books in 1998—which Andrew Adonis co-authored with Stephen Pollard, a former research director of the Fabian Society, they state:
"The comprehensive revolution has not removed the link between education and class, but strengthened it."
They continue:
"In 1965, the Labour-controlled House of Commons resolved that moving to a comprehensive system would preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children. Few would maintain that this has in fact been the case."
Later in the book the authors state:
"The comprehensive revolution tragically destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class
362
comprehensives. Far from bringing the classes together, England's schools—private and state—are now a force for rigorous segregation."
That is what the Prime Minister's adviser thinks of the policy of further comprehensivisation of England's education system. However, one of the earliest steps taken by the new Government, in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee—was to introduce measures that placed the remaining grammar schools in peril.
The Government implemented a one-way ratchet that allows the removal of grammar schools, but not the introduction of grammar schools. Labour Members claim that the issue is one of parental choice, but that is not true. Parents are free to choose not to have a grammar school, but they are not free to choose to have a grammar school. The ballot question is loaded, because it does not even refer to grammar schools or the intention to abolish them.
The balloting and petitioning system leaves many disfranchised voters. Parents with pre-school children or children at private schools are disfranchised for the purposes of the petition, although they can go to the trouble of registering for the purposes of the ballot. In the borough of Trafford, some 400 children attend St. Bede's college, which is a private Catholic grammar school, but they are funded as state grammar school pupils by the borough. The parents of those children are also disfranchised.
The petition provides for no mechanism to check whether signatures are genuine. The signatures will simply be checked against the list of eligible voters. The Government have not contracted the Electoral Reform Society to engage in any proper check or scrutiny of whether those people who appear to have signed a petition have in fact done so.
Two and a half years into the Labour Government's term, several grammar schools are threatened, including 33 in Kent, seven in Trafford, eight in Birmingham, three in Barnet and one in Ripon. Margaret Tulloch of the Campaign for State Education—CASE—has identified the five grammar schools in Sutton and Surrey as probable targets for this year. Why? In my view, the attacks are entirely prompted by mindless, outdated ideology. The whole debate on the Government's side has been dominated, tragically, by the ideas of an education system that Labour Members saw or experienced in the 1950s, not the reality of selective education as it is today.
In that context, I draw the House's attention to some press comment on the subject, especially from my own area. For example, the Manchester Evening News, although not noted for its right-wing sympathies, on 17 November 1998, in an editorial entitled "Caning the Able", stated:
"One may imagine that, with failing schools all over the country, the government would not want to waste any effort tinkering with those which are the most successful. You may think that an education system so popular that parents move home to take advantage of it would be safe from interference.
Yet the consistently high achieving grammar schools of Trafford are among selective schools which could be forced to go comprehensive as a result of a Commons vote today which will allow ballots among parents and feeder primary schools."
The article got the details of the School Standards and Framework Bill slightly wrong. It went on:
"It has been a long-held Labour philosophy that selective education is unfair. Latterly, it had seemed that the pragmatism of New Labour might allow them to turn a blind eye to those remaining pockets of non-comprehensive schooling.

363
Plainly, we were wrong to think that.
For the sake of their principles, the Government may be about to compromise the educational opportunities of generations to come."
I am also pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is in the Chamber, as I should like to quote an excellent article that he wrote in the Sunday People:
"Grammar schools are the outstanding success of public education in this country. They act as beacons shining out so that all can see what can be achieved in the State system."
I entirely concur with those sentiments. I am especially pleased that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is here today, as it demonstrates that this issue is not confined to one political party.
Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell the House that the theme of my article was that both main political parties in this country have found it terribly difficult to get secondary education right. My article also stated that we should try to spread around the successes that are achieved, and that we should want all schools to succeed in their different ways, whether it be in technology, arts or languages. If that is to be our strategy, it would be as wrong to discriminate against schools because they are academically good as it would be to discriminate against others because they excel in some other aspect of education.
Mr. Brady: Absolutely: I am delighted to confirm that that is the theme of the right hon. Gentleman's article. In this, as in many other areas of policy, the right hon. Gentleman's thinking is some way ahead of that of the Government and of many commentators. Later in my speech, I shall argue that the borough of Trafford, if it has not achieved the ideal that the right hon. Gentleman described, has at least approached it quite closely, as is shown by the overall standards and levels of achievement of its schools.
The success of grammar schools is well known and easy to identify. This year, half the top 200 places in the A-level league table were occupied by grammar schools, as were nearly half the top 300 GCSE league table places. In 1998, the 12 local education authorities at the top of the GCSE achievement tables all offered some elements of selection.
Labour Members may say that such results are surely inevitable, given that the most academically able children have been selected to go to those schools. However, I invite them to look at the overall achievements of the LEAs, as that evidence lays to rest the myth about the selective system. Of the 149 LEAs in England, 29 have a significant element of selection. In 1998, all the top five places in terms of performance were occupied by selective LEAs. Trafford came first, followed by Bournemouth, Sutton, Southend and Buckinghamshire. Twenty-three of the 29 fully or partially selective LEAs achieved above the LEA average for the country as a whole.
The evidence in my constituency fully supports those findings. Schools such as the Blessed Thomas Holford Catholic high school, Green Lanes high school, New Wellington school, and the Ashton-on-Mersey school all achieved outstanding results. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself declared the Ashton-on-Mersey school to be a beacon school—one whose achievements are so excellent that it shows the way for other schools in the surrounding area.
364
Strikingly, the success of selective LEAs becomes even more marked when like-for-like comparisons of areas' socio-economic profiles are made. A comparison between 22 LEAs that offer similar numbers of free school meals shows that selective LEA areas come top in 16 instances.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I have a question that I hope the hon. Gentleman will clarify. In 1971, under a Conservative Government, a Conservative council in my county of Suffolk abolished grammar schools and introduced a comprehensive education system. Today, that system enjoys the confidence of the people of Suffolk. It achieves good standards according to the league tables, and no school opted out of it to go grant maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that the system in Suffolk is less good than that obtaining in the area that he represents, or does he wish to introduce a grammar school to every town in Suffolk?
Mr. Brady: It is not really a question of what I say or think. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that the figures show that the system in the borough of Trafford achieves better results than the one operating in Suffolk. That is not a matter for us to quibble over: I have stated a simple matter of fact.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does not my hon. Friend agree that what we consider to be the appropriate system in Suffolk is not the important point, but that what parents in Suffolk choose is? Did not my hon. Friend make the point earlier in his excellent speech that the Government have deprived parents of choice? Although parents can choose to allow grammar schools to become comprehensives, the Government have decided—disingenuously and in a manner that lacks balance—that it is not possible for parents to decide that comprehensive schools can become grammar schools. Is not that what is so unfair?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. The one-way ratchet enshrined in the legislation is entirely wrong. I can tell the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) that I do not think that there should be a grammar school in every town unless parents want that. However, parents and schools should have the freedom to decide the arrangements that suit them. It should not be left to Government diktat.
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Why not give them a choice?
Mr. Brady: That is a remarkable question, given that the right hon. Lady was the Minister who, in the Standing Committee considering what became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, opposed my amendment to give parents in all schools precisely that choice. So my record on the matter is entirely clean; the Minister should look to her own record before casting aspersions on mine.
Mr. John Bercow: Like me, my hon. Friend belongs to the growing tradition of Conservatives who pay mortgages and buy their own furniture. Does he not agree that it is especially unfortunate, as he develops his arguments, that he should be chuckled at by the

365
hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who represents the wing of her party that has inherited wealth and privilege?
Mr. Brady: I need hardly comment. As ever, my hon. Friend has made a fascinating contribution to the debate that will enlighten hon. Members on both sides.
Fiona Mactaggart: Pathetic.
Mr. Brady: I hope that the hon. Lady can contain herself, as I should like to return to the evidence of the achievements of selective systems of education. I was seeking to destroy the myth that selective systems perform better only when they are in wealthier areas.
That that is palpably untrue is borne out by the facts in Trafford, which is not the wealthiest part of the country. It has some wealthy areas, and some with considerable deprivation. In Trafford, 18.9 per cent. of children receive free school meals. That is higher than the national average, yet the LEA is arguably first, second or third in terms of academic performance. So Trafford demolishes the myth. I compare that with Kirklees, an LEA which has a slightly smaller 18.8 per cent. figure for free school meals. While Trafford was third in the 1998 GCSE results, Kirklees was 89th.
If we lose our grammer schools, selection by ability and merit will be replaced by selection by mortgage or postcode. Altrincham boys grammar school—my old school—and Altrincham girls grammar school are located in perhaps the most prosperous parts of Trafford. Under a comprehensive system, they would draw their pupils from some of the most expensive housing in the north of England. In the wards of Hale and Bowdon, new three-bedroom apartments have recently gone on the market at £500,000. That would not open up the best schools in the country to all pupils regardless of ability. It would do precisely the opposite, depriving access to the best schools to pupils who have the ability but whose parents do not have the wealth to secure that education.
The situation is similar in Barnet, where the Henrietta Barnett school would draw its catchment from Hampstead Garden Suburb, which has some of the most expensive housing in London. Destroying selection and the grammar schools would achieve precisely the opposite of what so many of the enemies of the grammar schools seek. Professor John Musgrove, former professor of education at Manchester university, said:
"You might have expected the Labour Party to abolish the public schools … It really was an astonishing historical irony that they should have abolished grammar schools instead. It was idiocy of the highest order and a disaster for academically gifted working and lower middle class children."
That case is further illustrated by the results achieved in 1998 by Altrincham girls grammar school. It is an exceptionally good school and 99 per cent. of the girls achieved five or more A starred to C passes at GCSE. By comparison, Eton college achieved 97 per cent., Harrow 92 per cent., and Cheltenham ladies college 89 per cent. That is the reality of an education system that provides
366
the best possible schooling for children, regardless of their parents' ability to pay. Those public schools are selective, but extremely expensive to enter.
Mr. Phil Willis: May I take the hon. Gentleman to another flagship area of his party's policy—the private sector? How many public schools are selective?
Mr. Brady: I chose the future of grammar schools for today's debate. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am no great champion of private schools. I believe that people should be free to choose private education if they wish, but I champion grammar schools precisely because I believe that they open up to all, regardless of ability to pay, an education for the children of parents who might otherwise have to pay. If the hon. Gentleman wants to enlighten the House by giving the statistics that he seeks from me, I shall be happy to give way again, but they would not add anything to the debate.
Mr. Fabricant: I cannot help with those statistics, but others are revealing. Since the abolition of grammar schools, the popularity of private schools among parents has gone up.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who will be hurt by the Government's measures—if they proceed—will be those who cannot pay for an alternative. As happened when grammar schools were abolished, those who have the parental wealth to go elsewhere will do so. The polarisation of our education system and of opportunity for our children will thus increase, not diminish.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It may be worth noting that many successful independent schools resulted directly from the move to the independent sector of direct-grant grammar schools when the Labour party last chose to mount an assault on the education system.
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Many of those schools were also able to preserve a tradition of free places through the assisted places scheme, another measure that the Government removed in order to diminish opportunity for ordinary children.
The Government's proposals diminish opportunity for those from working class or lower middle class families who do not have the ability to pay. However, they will also affect other groups, particularly ethnic minorities. A perfect example of the detrimental effect of the Government's policy is the Queen Elizabeth grammar school in Barnet, which draws 41 per cent. of its pupils from other cultural groups, according to the categorisation of the Department for Education and Employment. Most of those pupils are Asian people who got into the school on ability, not because of where they live or their ability to pay. The wards that would comprise the feeder area for the school under a comprehensive system have an ethnic minority population of 7.5 per cent. Members of ethnic minority groups are benefiting from the massive opportunity of fantastic education standards, and it would be snatched away from them by an unthinking and outdated policy.
A further effect of change would be a need for reorganisation in many education authority areas. Again, we face wasted opportunities for ordinary children and

367
wasted money in LEAs that seek to amalgamate or close schools or rationalise school estates. In Kent, education officers estimate that that would cost £150 million. Replicate that sum across all the areas that have grammar schools and the cost would be £0.5 billion—money wasted on destroying good education rather than trying to improve bad education.
Old socialists and new Fabians—there may even be one or two of them on the Labour Benches today—frequently have more sense than to support the policies that the Government are pursuing. Stephen Pollard, former research director of the Fabian Society, has made his views clear:
"you don't overcome failure by destroying a success—grammar schools. Indeed, so true is this that the real motivation of the educational establishment is all too clearly revealed: to preserve its current power."
Sydney Webb, one of the founders of the Fabians, argued:
"What we have learned gradually and slowly is that nothing worthy of the name of a national education system can be built up of schools of a single undifferentiated type."
What he learned gradually and slowly seems to have been unlearned rather quickly by Labour between the Wirral, South by-election and today.
In 1999, the Select Committee on Education and Employment reported on highly able children, noting:
"Overall, the evidence showed that different types of schools, selective and non-selective, suit different kinds of pupils."
We have been left with a poor set of regulations that will influence the future of the grammar schools. They were criticised by the House of Lords in May 1998 when concern was expressed at how the proposals had been put in place through regulations rather than primary legislation. We are stuck with a flawed procedure, loaded against the remaining grammar schools.
At the very least, parents around the country have a right to expect that those regulations will be observed and policed by Ministers. The Minister will be well aware that one of the regulations requires a prohibition on the use of public funds. Let me enlighten the House by drawing attention to some past exchanges between the Minister and me during the School Standards and Framework Bill's Committee stage. She said:
"The Bill prevents them from using public money … Local authorities cannot use public money to campaign. Therefore it is right for that restriction to apply to schools and governing bodies."
I returned with the question:
"Will the Minister clarify whether a governing body could campaign corporately, provided it did not use public money?"
The Minister answered:
"No … The governing body as a legal entity would not be able to campaign."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 February 1998; c. 678-9.]
It is not only the use of public resources that is banned under the regulations; there is a prohibition on the entry into the debate of legal public bodies, such as schools, governing bodies and local education authorities. They are not permitted to incur expenditure to assist anyone else to publish such material or to influence or assist anyone else in influencing the outcome of a petition or ballot.
Regardless of the use of public money, schools and LEAs are barred from involvement as corporate bodies. That is why I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education
368
and Employment a little over a week ago to ask him to look into the situation in the borough of Trafford where evidence has come to light of a school across the boundary in Manchester writing to parents who are Trafford residents and using school letterheaded paper, school facilities and the school roll, thereby incurring public expense. In writing formally on letterheaded paper, signed by the headmaster of the school, it has not only used public funds but engaged as a corporate body in the campaign against the Trafford grammar schools.
Given that several hundred parents have received this one-sided propaganda campaigning material from the Stop the 11-plus campaign, I have asked that the Secretary of State use his powers to declare the process void for this academic year in the borough of Trafford. I seek nothing more than fairness and an evenhanded approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, which may come today or, as she suggests, a little later.
I hope that Ministers will enforce the regulations on all schools and on both sides of the debate and take this caution to heart. If they do not, they will not merely be refusing to implement the regulations in this instance, but setting a precedent for all schools, LEAs and interested parties that will define the point to which the regulations will be enforced or ignored. That threatens a free-for-all in the areas where we face campaigns for the abolition of the grammar schools.
That instance was not the first contravention of the rules. In January 1998, I had cause to report Trafford borough council itself, which had sent misleading advice to parent teacher associations, warning that they would lose their charitable status if they sent information to parents relating to the ballot and the future of selection. I took advice from the Charity Commissioners and found that the council's advice had been totally unfounded and that only party political campaigning would have contravened charitable status. That showed not a school but the LEA, through the borough council, engaging in the debate and trying to influence the future of selection in contravention of the regulations set out by the Government. I reported it to the Secretary of State but, perhaps unsurprisingly, no action was taken.
There have been reports of other abuses around the country. It has been reported that anti-grammar school campaigners have booked council chambers as if for union meetings and so not paid for the facilities. There have been reports of children signing the petitions. If they signed in the name of their parents, the situation would not be covered because the Government have made no provision for verifying whether signatures are genuine. There are reports of trade union funding of the anti-grammar campaign, which results in an unfair imbalance of resources. There are also reports of names being transferred to petitions directly from the list of electors en bloc, which again could not be discovered because the Government did not take the trouble to contract the Electoral Reform Society to check whether people have really expressed their wishes in the petition process.
What now? It is time for the Government to admit the truth: selection works. It works for pupils in grammar schools but also for those in high schools, who achieve better results under a selective system than they would under a comprehensive one. It works for low and middle-income families who cannot afford to go

369
elsewhere for their education. It works for the ethnic minorities, who have a route out of poverty and a chance to achieve according to their abilities.
It is time for Ministers to get a grip of the situation and either enforce the regulations by declaring the process in Trafford void and setting a precedent to show that the regulations will be enforced properly around the country, or by recognising that the regulations are not tight enough and repealing them because they do not properly protect the process and ensure fair, balanced, and open debate. They do not provide for a fair question to be asked or for a proper decision to be reached.
We cannot proceed with an unfair campaign, in breach of the rules, that could destroy the very best education in the country. That would harm the interests not of a few children in grammar schools today but of millions of children all over the country for many years to come
10.6 am
Mr. Ben Chapman: I am grateful for having been called in this debate secured by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Like him, I am the product of a grammar school. My school offered an excellent education. It is true that I did not take advantage of that, but that was my fault rather than the school's.
When I fought the Wirral, South by-election, one of the main themes was that grammar schools would be safe in Labour's hands. There are only 163 grammar schools left in Britain and we took the view that if they provided good education—as I am sure that most, if not all, do—they should go on providing it. Where they were better than other schools, the other schools should be advanced to the same standard. In the Wirral, while, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often said, grammar schools are beacons of excellence, they sit alongside other schools that perform to very high standards.
for example, I recently visited Plessington high school and technology college and South Wirral high school, both of which, like other schools, achieve excellent results in every sense. High standards and co-existence are perfectly possible, but what we are about is improving education for all of the people—for the many, not the few. We are about standards rather than structures. With 26,000 schools in the United Kingdom, there is no point in tilting at the windmill of grammar schools when they are so few and, in any event, doing a good job. We are not like Margaret Thatcher, who, as Secretary of State for Education, set the world record for the closure of grammar schools. We are about educational standards rather than dogma.
It is against that background that we established the grammar school ballot regulations, providing for parental—and no one else's—control of the future of schools. That took decisions out of the hands of politicians and put them firmly into the hands of the parents concerned. That is as it should be.
As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, politicians, whether local or national, are specifically excluded from taking part in the ballot process on a party political basis. Councillors need to be careful to state that they are expressing personal views, as the local education
370
authority is bound to provide only factual information, a fair and reasonable assessment of the consequences of the ballot and a statement of its intentions.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's comment that it would be for parents to make up their own minds. In Buckinghamshire, where selective education continues, the first meeting initiated to try to get rid of grammar schools was chaired not by a parent but by an individual who came from outside the county, and whom I understand to be a member of the Labour party. How can the hon. Gentleman say that it is being left to the parents when it is an orchestrated campaign that seems to come from his party?
Mr. Chapman: I do not know of those particular circumstances; certainly, any voting in a ballot is for the parents and nobody else. Ultimately, the decision lies with the parents. It is right that they should make decisions on the future of their children's education.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Does he agree that, if parents are to make a genuine decision in a genuine ballot, the wording on the ballot paper should itself be genuine? Is he satisfied that the wording is genuine? If so, can he explain why—as I understand it—the words "grammar schools" do not appear anywhere in any wording proposed for any ballot?
Mr. Chapman: I have not studied the wording of the voting terms, but—
Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Wirral, our parents are so intelligent that they would not need to have grammar schools put on the ballot paper to know which schools we were speaking about? Similarly, if any agitators from outside Wirral came in to try to initiate meetings, the local Members of Parliament would give them a pretty good run for their money.
Mr. Chapman: In my part of the world, parents continue—as they should—to have high aspirations for their offspring. As a result, many put forward their children for the 11-plus, in the hope that they will pass the examination. I visit the grammar schools, as I visit other schools in my constituency, and talk to the heads and teachers, and to the pupils, whom I receive regularly at the Palace of Westminster. I give the grammar schools, and other schools, whatever support and help I can; I hope that today is no exception.
In Wirral, to the best of my knowledge, there is no groundswell of opinion against grammar schools. I hope, therefore, that they can be left alone to establish a sense of security and to continue performing to high standards. That is not to say that there are not current issues in respect of children who sat the 11-plus and failed, and then went to secondary modern schools. By the nature of their being "secondary", children might have been seen to be branded as failures from day one at their senior schools.
Wirral council has tried to address that by establishing all-ability schools to sit alongside the grammar schools. As I have pointed out, that is perfectly possible with standards of excellence. I have much sympathy with the concept, but there are difficulties in translating it

371
into reality. For example, there are no resources to help the process forward. Some parents feel that they may be hindered from sending their children to the school of their choice, or that all-ability schools will not offer the full range of the curriculum. They have made their views on the subject clearly known to me, and I have passed those views to the local education authority. Their concerns are sincere and need to be addressed.
I have said before that if the 11-plus did not exist, I would not seek to invent it. However, in some areas it does exist, and its consequences are grammar schools. What grammar schools need is stability. The perpetual threat of balloting is corrosive of the sense of security of the school, its staff and pupils. The opportunities for ballots, while rightly existing, should be less frequent. The absence of a ballot, like a failed ballot, should make for a moratorium on balloting for a reasonable period. Only in that way can schools plan ahead.
I shall not delay the Chamber for a moment longer. This is a plea, once again, for standards rather than structures.
Mr. Brady: I am most encouraged by the sensible contribution made by the hon. Gentleman. In order to be clear, if he had a vote as a parent in the Wirral, would he vote to retain or to get rid of the grammar schools?
Mr. Chapman: Given that I stood for election on the basis that grammar schools were safe in Labour's hands, I would vote for the retention of grammar schools.
If our grammar schools are doing a good job, and in my patch they certainly are, let us leave well alone—"If they ain't broke, they don't need fixing."
10.15 am
Mr. Phil Willis: The more I come into the Chamber, the more I realise that the whole world seems to have changed around. To hear the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) arguing for the retention of grammar schools is quite an interesting development.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate. In many ways, it clearly demonstrates that the Tory party has reached its new common-sense revolution—back to the R. A. Butler Education Act 1944 and division by ability. That is what is being argued for. A mere 72 days before the end of the millennium, when many are striving to create a more inclusive society, where inequalities are minimised and opportunities maximised, the hon. Gentleman and his party want to retain—
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I have just started and, as the hon. Gentleman had 32 minutes in which to speak, I shall carry on.
372
The hon. Gentleman's party wants to create, re-create, retain or enhance a system of education that, across the world, has largely been abandoned—a system that is as divisive as it is archaic. Yes, I did go to Burnley grammar school from 1953 to 1960.
Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is in self-denial.
Mr. Willis: Yes, I received an excellent education—to respond to the comments made by the hon. Member from a sedentary position. Yes, I was privileged to be taught by a largely well-qualified and dedicated group of teachers. However, if the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West went into Harrogate grammar school in my constituency today, and spoke to pupils or parents, the majority would make exactly the same comments about their education as I made about my education between 1953 and 1960.
The essential difference is that Harrogate grammar school is now a fully fledged comprehensive school. Furthermore, the other five secondary schools in my constituency are also comprehensive schools. Each one is different in character and ethos. Each offers parents choice and diversity. Each one produces results that are above the national norms in every case. Statemented children are not barred at the gate of St. John Fisher high school; every child in Knaresborough automatically has a place at King James's school; and Down's syndrome children can sing in the choir at St. Aidan's high school. However, all three schools regularly feature in the annual league tables among the country's most successful schools—this year, one of them was among the top 25 comprehensive schools.
All have flourishing musical, artistic and sporting traditions. No student is made to feel a failure at the age of 11, as my brother was when he failed his 11-plus and was sent to the secondary modern school in Burnley. No parent has to make excuses for their child's lack of success. No teacher has an excuse for a student's lack of achievement. That is an important issue which must be constantly addressed. For far too long, the 11-plus was regarded as an excuse for children's failure. Of course, the hon. Member for Wirral, South is right; there are some superb secondary modern schools—if I may use that term—throughout the country. They are doing a marvellous job and good luck to them. We should congratulate and celebrate them.
However, in reality, the 11-plus was an excuse for failure and far too many students, such as my brother, not only suffered at the time as a result of that failure, but suffered for the rest of their lives. So attractive are the schools in my constituency that about 300 pupils from Ripon—where selection is retained, and the grammar school and the secondary modern school are across the road from one another within the same community—regularly opt to come into Harrogate and Knaresborough's comprehensive system. A large number of them pass the 11-plus, but their parents decide on an inclusive, comprehensive education for their children.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned LEAs. North Yorkshire, which has only three grammar schools—two in Skipton and one in Ripon—is consistently among the 10 highest achieving LEAs every year. In North Yorkshire, comprehensive education is not only alive and well, but is succeeding throughout.

373
I accept that not all children have access to schools of the quality found in my constituency. I have worked in areas where failing schools were all too common and were all too commonly excused because of various socio-economic factors.
If, as I hope, part of this debate is about raising standards and increasing opportunities for all our children, let us not start by preserving the drawbridge mentality of yesteryear. Surely, it is indefensible for Kent's 33 grammar schools to admit only 29 children who are statemented as having special educational needs, while its 72 other schools—the secondary moderns and comprehensives—welcome 1,979 such children. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West did not refer once to special needs children and their access to grammar schools; that is because, by and large, such children are denied access to grammar schools.
Mr. Brady: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has finally given way, because several of the points he has made so far are entirely inaccurate or red herrings of some sort, and his point about special educational needs is utterly erroneous. Of course I did not mention special educational needs in the context of access to grammar schools: I spoke of a selective system of education achieving the best results for all children and it is highly improbable that most SEN children would find their best place in a grammar school that caters especially for the academically most able children.
Mr. Willis: There we have it. If a justification for the debate was needed, it can be found in the hon. Gentleman's statement, which sums up Tory policy on division. If that is the Tory party's common-sense view of special educational needs as we move into the next millennium, God help us if it ever gets back into power. We have fought tooth and nail for an inclusive system for all our children, yet the Tories say that, because a child has a statement, that child is automatically excluded. The presumption that special needs children do not have innate ability is anathema to me and contrary to the principles for which I have fought.
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
The Tories had 18 years to reverse the comprehensive system. That they did not do so was because the majority of parents recognise only too well that a system that creates grammar schools also creates secondary modern schools. I have yet to hear any hon. Member propose the extension or, indeed, the retention of secondary moderns. Noticeable by its absence from the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was any argument in favour of the retention of secondary modern schools in his constituency.
Mr. Grieve: May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman by telling him that, in my constituency, the success of the grammar schools is entirely dependent on the high standards in the secondary modern schools that remain? Their standards are well above the national average and I am quite sure that it is because of satisfaction with those schools that there is no desire to change the current selective education system.
Mr. Willis: I have no knowledge of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. If he wanted to put that statement on the record, he has succeeded.
374
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister who is now airbrushed out of Tory political history, wanted a grammar school in every town, but where are those schools? Only Solihull took up the challenge, but that ended in dismal failure. When she was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) tried to divide our school communities by offering bribes to schools to opt out and become grant maintained, but fewer than a thousand schools took those bribes. The message from parents was clear: the vast majority do not want division.
I have mentioned Harrogate grammar school. Under the Conservative Government, appalling attempts were made to divide the six brilliant comprehensive schools within my constituency. The then Secretary of State was to announce the result of the ballot at the Tory party central council meeting in Harrogate; sadly, 80 per cent. voted against going grant maintained, so she never turned up.
Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spoken of our experience in our county of Buckinghamshire. The hon. Gentleman is leaving hon. Members and spectators outside the House with the impression that grammar schools are bad for the non-selective schools in the area, but that is quite false. I carried out a study of Salisbury and south Birmingham, where grammar schools and non-selective schools co-exist. In both areas, the proportion of pupils in the non-selective schools who achieved GCSE grades A to C rose significantly faster than the national average. That proves that grammar schools are good for us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now correct the false impression that he has given.
Mr. Willis: I shall make my position absolutely clear: I do not accept the premise that having grammar schools is good for non-selective schools in the area. I defy the hon. Lady to go to Kent and ask parents of children at most of Kent's secondary modern schools whether they believe that grammar schools are doing their children a service.
When the new common-sense policy on education was launched by the Tories in Blackpool, no mention was made of a return to grammar schools. Only their stealth policy was announced: to hold ballots to close failing schools—and then, presumably, to recreate them as grammar schools, as those are the excellent schools. Of course I agree that the current farce surrounding ballots should be exposed as a sham, but it is no more of a sham than allowing only parents of children at a so-called failing school to vote in the ballot on its closure. Each ballot is a sham in its own way.
During the passage of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I consistently opposed the proposal to ballot parents on the closure of grammar schools, because ballots are such an imprecise tool in that context. The whole community, not only parents of potentially affected children, should have a stake in local schools. Like the creation of a grant-maintained school, the closure—or, indeed, the opening—of a grammar school is like throwing a stone into a pond, with the effect felt much

375
more widely than merely at the point of impact. That is why we have consistently opposed any further selection in schools, be it based on aptitude or ability.
Dr. Julian Lewis: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman state, once and for all, whether it is Liberal Democrat policy to close all grammar schools without ballots?
Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has, once again, come in on cue to enable me to explain Liberal Democrat policy in all its clarity. He is such a diligent researcher that I am sure that he has read through the Hansard record of the debates on the School Standards and Framework Act and has discovered that Liberal Democrat Members consistently opposed the extension of selection, whether based on aptitude or ability.
We have also made it clear that the local education authority should decide the admissions policy within its area. Elected representatives should make such decisions, because they have been elected to consider the broader aspects of education in the local authority area. They remain when parents have moved on, so it is they who can plan for the future, rather than for the moment. Although I realise that it is a difficult concept for Conservative Members to understand, it would be quite presumptuous of me to impose a solution on local elected representatives.
Dr. Lewis: No ballots?
Mr. Willis: I have made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to ballots on that matter. The decision should be made by the local education authority, not through a potentially rigged ballot. At least the hon. Gentleman and I agree on the subject of ballots.
The current proposals, whereby 72 grammar schools will be covered by feeder school ballots rather than area ballots, are as illogical as they are controversial. It is nonsense that, in feeder ballots, parents of children at key stage 1 in a primary school will get a vote, but parents of children at key stage 1 in an infants school that feeds a junior school that might feed a grammar school will not.
How cowardly the question on the ballot paper will be. The hon. Member for New Forest, East was right to raise that issue, because the question will be:
"Are you in favour of all the schools listed introducing admission arrangements which admit children of all abilities?"
What would any reasonable parent answer to that? Surely the only straightforward honest question would be: "Do you want to see the 11-plus, or 13-plus, examination scrapped?"
I know how passionately the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West feels about the grammar schools in his area, and I do not wish to denigrate in any way the quality of the education provided there. That would be wrong. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for the current ballot farce; the blame lies firmly with the Government, who, as a result of feedback from their focus groups, have bottled out of making a principled decision about the future of grammar schools. Indeed, we have seen some of those focus groups in action this morning.
376
The Secretary of State made it clear before the election that selection by ability would be abolished. There was no ambiguity about it. He said:
"Watch my lips—no selection, by examination or interview".
That means exactly what it says; it means "We are getting rid of it." Even as late as 13 November 1998, Lord Hunt said in another place:
"We do not support selection by ability at age 11; and we do not wish to see it extended".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 926.]
Yet the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 extended selection to enable schools to select 10 per cent. of pupils for aptitude—and we have never been told whether aptitude and ability mean the same thing. The whole issue was fudged.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: I shall bring my remarks to a close now, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have given way to him once already.
For too long, the threat to abolish or create grammar schools has been kicked about like a football. The hon. Member for Wirral, South was right to say that that is not fair on the people in those school. Either the Government should have the courage of their pre-election convictions and legislate to remove grammar schools or they should leave the decision to local authorities. At least local councillors can be booted out of office, as we can. I suspect that the parents who vote in the ballot may be less interested once their children have left the system.
10.32 am
Fiona Mactaggart: I hesitate to speak in the debate because every time I speak on education we hear the constant refrain of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the school that I attended. However, I had no more influence on my education than the hon. Gentleman had on his lack of stature—and they have probably had an equal influence on us.
I wish to contribute to the debate because I represent the constituency which I believe has the largest proportion of pupils in grammar schools; 37 per cent. of secondary school pupils in the town of Slough are in grammar schools. That has a dramatic effect on education in my town. Our experience is different from that in North Yorkshire, where only a handful of children go into the grammar schools, because in Slough, two out of three children feel like failures at 11. That is the real experience of children, because their parents put so much energy into helping and supporting their children pass the 11-plus. It has a devastating effect on the year 7 curriculum in our secondary schools, on the self-esteem of a large group of children, and on the quality of education in the town that I represent.
Do not get me wrong; I believe that the schools in Slough are trying hard to do a good job—and some of them do an excellent job. However, I am concerned about the impact of the disproportionate number of grammar schools. About 16 or 17 per cent. of our year 7 pupils come into the grammar schools in Slough from outside, so many of the grammar school places are taken up by pupils coming in from outside a town that is already highly congested.

377
Many pupils are refugees from the system. I vividly remember that, last year, I advised the parents of twins, one of whom had just passed the 11-plus while the other had failed. That experience within a family shows us the truth about the divisions caused by the 11-plus. The family did what many parents of pupils who have just missed passing the 11-plus in my town do; they escaped from educational apartheid into the comprehensive schools of Windsor.
I have no objection to testing. I was a teacher, and I know how important testing is in developing the curriculum for children and in finding out what their skills and attainments are. However, I am worried about a system that creates inflexibility between the secondary modern and grammar schools, and does not allow for different speeds of development. It does not have the flexibility to match the curriculum to each child's growing and changing needs and abilities.
It should be up to the parents of Slough and nobody else to decide the future of their schools. There is some hocus-pocus going on among the Conservatives, and I have been the victim of what I can only call a smear campaign. One of the Conservative councillors in a nearby county has been suggesting, first, that I am leading a campaign to abolish the grammar schools in Slough.
That is not true; the only campaign that I have led in that context was for the grammar schools, the secondary modern schools and the local education authority to be united in making representations to Ministers about getting fair rules for ballots, and that neither side could use public money. The system would not then descend to include abuse of the sort that we faced in our town when we changed the age of entry into secondary education and abolished middle schools. I am pleased to say that many of the representations that we made were incorporated into the regulations.
The second suggestion that has been made is that the question on the ballot paper is misleading. The question on the ballot paper in Slough will mention the words "grammar school" three times, but it will focus on the real question, which concerns the admission policies of the schools in question.
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, the name of a school does not necessarily describe its character. Harrogate grammar school is a comprehensive school, and in Slough, seven so-called comprehensive schools have intakes that we would normally associate with secondary modern schools. The right question to ask is about the admission policies of the named schools.
The third lie being peddled is that parents will not be able to vote in the ballots. Let us be clear: every parent in Slough with children under school leaving age will have the right to vote in the ballot.
Finally, it has been said—we have heard it today—that the governing bodies have been banned from speaking out. Any governor can make his or her views heard, but, rightly, nobody should use public money to influence the ballot. Parents should make up their own minds. That is what I expect and want to happen in Slough.
In the meantime, I am focusing on the real issue, which is not whether we have an 11-plus or not. We should be asking, "What are you doing to make the schools in your constituency better?" The education action zone in Slough
378
is now being launched, and I have put a huge amount of effort into persuading the Department for Education and Employment that we need that scheme.
For example, our secondary schools have real problems in recruiting and retaining excellent teachers. We need a structure for better collaboration across the 11-plus divide, so that every child in Slough can have an excellent education. The education action zone represents one step in that direction.
However, we should not get hung up on structures, on the names of schools, or on who is allowed into them. Our duty as politicians and as people who care about children's learning is to ensure that every school, whatever its entry policy, is excellent, and that all children get the best education, as they deserve. I promise the people of Slough and Members of the House that I am running that campaign and no other.
10.40 am
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing this debate and on his highly effective advocacy of the case for retaining grammar schools. At the risk of embarrassing the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and doing grave injury to his future political prospects, I congratulate him too on his powerful, honourable and brave speech, which was applauded by Conservative Members.
Nowhere is the chasm between the Labour party's pre-election rhetoric and its post-election reality more eloquently illustrated than by its policy on grammar schools. On 7 February 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), referring to grammar schools, declared that a Labour Government would pose
"no threat to their continuance or to their ethos or to their quality."
Following that lead, on 3 April 1997, the then Leader of the Opposition said of the existing 160 grammar schools, "Let them remain".
"What matters is what works",
he said. "Standards, not structures", he said.
"A Labour Government will not destroy your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee",
he said.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There has been and always will be serious debate about the principle of selection in the education system, and if all schools in the country were of a standard of which we could be proud, there might be some point in focusing on that debate. However, schools in many areas are of such a low standard that the Secretary of State himself is deeply anxious, and to attack schools that are acknowledged to be successful is a disgraceful diversion from the proper focus of our debate.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that we will not improve the rest of our schools if we destroy the best of our schools. Why did shadow Education Ministers and the then Leader of the Opposition give those reassurances about grammar schools? They knew that grammar schools were

379
successful beacons of excellence in our education system and they sought to assuage the concerns of those who supported those schools.
Grammar schools are renowned for their academic results, sporting prowess and cultural achievements. They have a long tradition of sending people into business, the professions, the media and public service. There are many grammar schools of outstanding calibre across the country. I shall mention only one, which is in my constituency. The Royal Latin grammar school, whose head teacher, Cecilia Galloway, provides inspirational leadership, has outstanding governors, supportive parents and motivated pupils.
The Government sought, when they were in opposition, to reassure us. What is the post-election reality? As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West pointed out, it is different from what the Government promised. First, the Government have created in the petition process a potential charter for cheats. My predecessor on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and I have had two letters from Electoral Reform Ballot Services Ltd, dated 15 June and 28 September. Neither of those letters was remotely successful in reassuring us that there was no possibility of fraud. There is clearly a likelihood of fraud because there is no requirement for signatures to be validated.
Secondly, the electorate in stand-alone ballots and group ballots is perversely chosen. It is monstrous that parents of grammar school pupils, who have a direct interest in the outcome of the ballot and in their children's educational life chances, will not be entitled to vote.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West rightly pointed out and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) failed to recognise, the question is loaded against grammar schools principally because it does not make it clear that votes against grammar school status would sound the death knell of the schools and result in the abolition of grammar schools throughout the country. Fourthly, the Government have provided a one-way ratchet that facilitates the destruction of grammar schools, but does not permit their creation.
What are the likely effects of grammar schools being abolished? There are two effects of which the House should beware. The first is damage to education: lower standards, reduced choice and guaranteed disruption during the transition period. The second effect is financial cost due to the impracticality of converting schools. It is estimated that if grammar schools in Kent were scrapped, we would be faced with a £150 million bill simply for bricks and mortar, and a conservative estimate of the nationwide cost is £500 million.
Labour Members too often display a breathtaking naivety about the prospects of conversion. The director of education in Buckinghamshire has pointed out that the size and configuration of grammar schools do not readily lend them to conversion into comprehensive schools. They are full to bursting; they are built on the green belt, where there is no scope or desire for additional development, and the capital costs of reorganisation would be prohibitive. In those circumstances, it is absolute nonsense for the Government, who have
380
emphasised the importance of standards, not structures, to interfere with the structure of some of the finest schools in the country. That is a disgrace.
The disgrace seems even greater when we reflect on another fact of which I know my right hon. and hon. Friends will take note: the campaign against grammar schools throughout the country is not spontaneous and is not conducted by well-meaning, independent-minded individuals acting alone, of their free will, against the best schools in the land. As The Sunday Times reported on 27 June, it is
"a carefully planned assault on grammar schools"
which is being aided and abetted by dozens of Labour party activists the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. As the report said, it is a centrally co-ordinated campaign by egalitarian hooligans and educational vandals. They want to destroy what exists and, as the then Leader of the Opposition said, what works, in favour of an untried and untested method that conforms to the egalitarian prejudices of Labour party members, who think that children should be used for social engineering. We believe that children have innate rights and should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
Does it not stick in the gullet of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as it does in mine, that the Prime Minister—who is himself the product of privilege—is standing idly by with a grinning countenance, allowing to go to the wall prized institutions that, for generations, have provided a ladder up which bright children of modest means can climb? That is the disgrace of the Prime Minister's position. He is more interested in the internecine politics of the Labour party and in deal-making, brokering and keeping the peace than in the prospects of this country's children.
Members of the Labour party and, I regret to say, the parliamentary Labour party think that their children are a class apart and that what is all right for them is unacceptable for everybody else. I give fair warning to the Labour Members concerned—they know who they are—that they can, if they wish, lurk in the darker corners and more secluded recesses of the Palace of Westminster, but lurk, and not for very long, is all that they can do. They can run, but they cannot hide because there will be no hiding place for Labour Members who speak with forked tongue, who practise double standards, and who say one thing and do another.
Those standards might be acceptable to the Labour party, but they are unacceptable to the Conservative party and to the hundreds of thousands of parents of all political affiliations who support the grammar schools. They support them not because they are politically motivated, but because they are concerned about education, and rightly so.
Tawney, the great egalitarian socialist philosopher, said that it was important that there should be the maximum diversity of type among secondary schools. How right he was. Tony Crosland it was who declared, in unprintable language, his determination to destroy every last grammar school in England and Wales. How wrong he was, and how fortunate that he failed.
However, I say to the Minister, whose local newspaper has accused her of doing an incredible disservice to Birmingham's grammar schools, that Tawney's and Crosland's statements had one thing in common: they were honest positions. This Government's position is not.

381
It is slippery. It is disingenuous. It is designed to cause confusion, and it is a back-door method of destroying the best schools in this country. That is wrong. We will resist it, and we will support those throughout the country—head teachers, parents and pupils—who know that their schools are successful, who resent the Government's intrusion in their affairs and who are determined to fight, fight, fight and win.
10.50 am
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) who, whether I agree with him or not, has been assiduous in representing what he sees as the interests of his constituents. In that, at least, I support him. I fear that that will be the end of my kind words in response to his comments.
I want to start where the hon. Gentleman started. In almost his opening sentence, he said that attitudes to grammar schools tell us something about the type of education service that we want. I absolutely disagree with that; that is where we differ.
Grammar schools have become fewer in recent years. They were set up when all that this country needed to survive economically, to flourish, to compete and to win was for a few people to be educated to the highest level. The grammar school system achieved that aim exceptionally well. That is why, in years gone by, we were a nation that competed so well and succeeded against many of our European competitors and those elsewhere.
However, I must tell Opposition Members that the challenge for this nation and the education service is no longer that of providing good education for the few—the top 25 per cent. It is—
Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Morris: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 32 minutes and squeezed out the comments of many others. Our challenge is to bring about a school system that raises standards for every child, and which ensures that 24,000 schools are good, and good enough for the hon. Gentleman's child and my child, for his constituents' children and my constituents' children.
I have to conclude that a party that chooses to use all its education debates and all its education energy in a fight to save the admissions arrangements of 162 selective schools in 29 local authorities, and which rarely utters words of concern about the rest—which are also, in some cases, the best—is a party that has not caught up with the needs and demands that are currently being placed on our country and on our education service.
Mr. Rowe rose—
Mr. Bercow rose—
Ms Morris: I will give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) when I have made progress.
That is what divides the parties. It is the Labour party—the Government—that has taken on the challenge, never taken on by any other Government, of not being content
382
with being able to say that our system delivers the best for a few, and which is determined to deliver the best for everyone.
Mr. Rowe rose—
Ms Morris: I shall give way when I have made this point. Anyone would suppose that there was no threat to the grammar schools—that no grammar school closed—until 2 May 1997. We know, because we have heard it often said, that Lady Thatcher was the Secretary of State for Education who closed more grammar schools than any other. In the past quarter of a century—when, for all but five years, the Conservatives were in power—the number of grammar schools fell from 809 to as few as 166. Why, in 18 years, did the Conservatives not stop the closure of those grammar schools?
Mr. Rowe rose—
Mr. Brady rose—
Ms Morris: Why, in 18 years, was no new grammar school opened? Where was the legislation to give parents the power to vote to open grammar schools? Where was the legislation to stop local authorities closing grammar schools? It was not there. The need to protect the admission arrangements of grammar schools is an idea hooked into because, quite honestly, the Opposition have nothing else to say about the education agenda.
Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady's position is fairly apparent, but may we clarify one matter beyond doubt? If she had a vote in a ballot, how would she cast it—to retain the grammar school or to abolish it? Secondly, is she prepared, on the Floor of the House today, to give an absolute and unequivocal guarantee that the stupid regulations that the Government have pushed through Parliament will not allow for widespread fraud?
Ms Morris: Of course I will give that guarantee—that the regulations passed by the House will not be subject to fraud. We based a lot of those regulations on the ballot regulations for GM schools. Interestingly, whereas the Conservative Government never made any provision to prevent the use of public money in opt-out ballots for GM schools, the Labour Government have put in a provision to prevent public money being spent in that way; and we certainly will respond to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. In the regulations that we passed on grammar school ballots, the provisions to protect public resource and to avoid fraud are far stronger than ever they were for GM ballots.
Whether we like it or not, the issue of selection has always been there and always will be. For as long as I can remember, the question whether we should select—comprehensive versus grammar—has been there. It will not go away; and if we had not passed the legislation, it would not have gone away. It has thwarted our education service for too long. It has taken our energy, our resource and our efforts, when we should have been concentrating on things that matter more. No magic wave of the wand can stop the debate.
As a Government, we had to decide. As that debate continued, whom did we want to have the say? To whom did we want to hand the reins of influence in that decision?

383
We had three choices. We could have kept those powers to close grammar schools to ourselves—as the previous Government did—and I suspect that, with our majority, we would have got the legislation through Parliament. We could have done what the Liberal Democrats want us to do—handed the power to local education authorities. We chose neither. We chose to hand the reins of power about the future of admission arrangements for 160-odd grammar schools to the parents whose children will be affected.
Mr. Rowe rose—
Ms Morris: I shall give way later.
I am prepared to defend our decision on two counts. First, that is where the power should be. Secondly—and more importantly—it frees leaders of education on the Government Benches to do what they should be doing: picking up the pieces and ensuring that the education service, which has been so badly neglected for the past 18 years, is fit for all our children for the millennium.
Mr. Rowe: The Minister has made a powerful case that grammar schools would probably have withered on the stem anyway, and that there were many more important things to do in the education system, yet one of the first pieces of educational legislation that the Government introduced was to create the mechanism for destroying something that she regards as almost an irrelevance. Why?
Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows well how legislation works. I believe that the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was the largest education Bill that had ever been passed. It set the new framework, and the new set of relationships for schools. It was out of the way in our first year, freeing us to concentrate on other things.
In the past two years, we have focused on numeracy and literacy, where standards have risen by the biggest measurable amount ever. In each of the years since standard assessment tests began, exclusions have dropped and GCSE and A-level results have improved.
I read a comment in this morning's press by the hon. Member for Buckingham, in which he attacked the Government for vandalism of education. The biggest vandals in the education world today are those who oppose the literacy hour and the numeracy hour, which have patently raised standards for children. The biggest vandals are those who oppose performance-related promotion and the reform of the teaching profession that the Government are working on.
The biggest service that the Government can do the children of this country and their parents is not to waste our time on the future admission arrangements of 160 schools. We should leave that to the parents. The biggest service that we can do the children is to ensure that every one of them gets a good nursery education, that at 11 they can all read and write, that they go to schools that are fit to learn in, that they have teachers who are well trained and well rewarded, and that society has the highest expectations of every single one of them. That is what we are delivering, and that is where our focus will remain.

Car Pricing
10.59 am
Mr. Martin O'Neill: It is appropriate that the House should debate this issue on the first day that the public are being admitted to this year's London motor show. It was trade day yesterday, when the lads from the motor trade—they are mainly lads—had first sight of the new models. Doubtless they slapped each other on the back, talked about great deals and discussed their bonuses in the run-up to Christmas.
Bonuses for those in the motor trade may be fewer and a little thinner this year than in the past. Earlier this year, it was assumed—it was not estimated because the men from the motor industry know their business very well, and when they say that something will happen, they try to make it happen—that 425,000 models would be sold in September 1999. According to Hugo Andreae of the Daily Express on Monday of last week, the official figure is now about 387,000 registrations. That figure has apparently been inflated by the registration and pushing on to the market of tens of thousands of unwanted cars, which are described in the newspapers as pre-registered cars. It is estimated that 300,000 instead of 425,000 cars have been sold.
A spokesman for Mitsubishi said:
"After a bright start to September the market stopped dead."
What has happened? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, who has recently arrived in the Department of Trade and Industry from the Treasury, will be able to tell us whether there has been an economic crisis that we have not heard about, as a result of which interest rates for motor cars have risen independently. Or have the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister at last been heeded and people have decided to stop using or acquiring motor cars?
It would seem that neither of those possibilities is of any relevance. Instead, the British public have said, "Enough is enough. We are waiting to see what will happen to prices. We have read about cheaper cars being available on the continent. We may not want to buy by post, through the internet or go abroad to purchase cars, but we shall certainly not be ripped off any longer."
Twelve months ago, almost to the day, I and my colleagues who sit on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry held a public hearing on vehicle pricing. We had all the usual suspects in the Box, including representatives from the Consumers Association, the National Franchised Dealers Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Office of Fair Trading. Committee members arrived with the usual arsenal of misinformation, prejudice and half-digested facts that comprise the main weapons of politicians. We received additional written evidence from a wide variety of other sources. It became clear before long that the British car buyer was not doing as well as his continental neighbours.
Figures provided by the Consumers Association showed sustained price differentials between the United Kingdom and certain other European states of 30, 40 and 50 per cent. European Union limits require that the differential be no higher than 18 per cent. in any one year, and no higher than 12 per cent. over a longer period. We found that the price discrepancies were due to selective and exclusive distribution arrangements, which allow

385
manufacturers to set standards and criteria and determine the territory in which dealers can operate. That can be done under the block exemption, which will have to be reconsidered in 2002.
Manufacturers can tell dealers what they may sell and at what price, and where they can source their vehicles. Dealers are not even allowed to vary invoice prices. Moreover, they are not offered discounts for large volumes of sales to individual members of the public. On the other hand, discounts are offered to fleet purchasers. They are able, through various arrangements, to put their heavily discounted vehicles back on to the market at the normal recommended resale price. Franchise dealers are in a position to offer a specialist after-sales service, which the purchaser of an expensive item would expect.
Under the block exemption, there is the sweetener that a member of the public may buy a car from a recognised dealer in the certain knowledge that he will receive a consistent maintenance service. Unfortunately, that service seems to be indifferent. At best it is not bad, but more often than not it is unsatisfactory. That is the conclusion to be drawn following research involving a wide variety of organisations, and not only campaigning groups such as the Consumers Association.
The House will be aware of a "Panorama" programme on the issue and an article in The Sunday Times. Many organisations are carefully considering the issue and arriving at the consistent conclusion that the present arrangements offer the motorist little protection. If our cars are being badly serviced, there is always the worry or anxiety that unsafe cars that are hazards to the public in general are going on to the roads.
There are other reasons why the price of cars might be higher in this country than elsewhere. Apparently we are a high-wage, strong-currency economy—although we can probably set aside the high-wage issue. Simple economics tell us that if we have a strong currency it is cheaper to import. Cars imported into the country should therefore be cheaper—although perhaps that does not apply to all cars.
For example, Saab has announced that it will cut the prices of its cars by 5 per cent. because of the slide in customer demand that I have already mentioned. If Saab can do that on the basis of one month's poor figures, perhaps others could do the same. I think of Volkswagen and BMW. After all, we have had an exchange rate of about DM2.70 to the pound, or even better, for the best part of three years. Organisations of such sophistication, size and skill could surely accommodate the minor arithmetical problems that are involved in currency exchange rates.
There is also a technical argument, which has been trumpeted over the years as being of far greater significance than other considerations. The argument is that we drive on the wrong side of the road. Of course, we all know that it is the others who drive on the wrong side. Regardless of who drives on the wrong side, we are in the minority. Perhaps it is fair, therefore, that we should be punished for being British and driving on the wrong side. However, if we are being punished, why should the Irish not be punished? I shall take the case of Fiat—which sells cars in Ireland—as an example, and use euros as a simple basis for comparison.
In 1998, according to figures produced by Directorate-General IV of the European Commission, a Punto in Eire, on the basis of an index, was 104.9 euros. In the UK,
386
it was 141.6. The Bravo was 100 euros in Eire and 149.9 in the UK. The Marea was 102.6 and 148.6 euros respectively. So much for driving on one side of the road as against the other.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend will want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that motorists in Japan, which has one of the biggest car markets and some of the biggest manufacturers, drive on the same side of the road as us, yet the price of Japanese cars here appears to be extraordinarily higher than in Japan.
Mr. O'Neill: I do not want to go around the world, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I chose the simplest example and the nearest at hand. It is a wee bit awkward taking the boat to Tokyo to buy a car, but it is not that difficult to go to Dun Laoghaire and up to Dublin to pick up a motor, or to drive down from Belfast.
If higher prices are not the result of wages, our currency and the side of the road on which we drive, taxation could be the reason. I suppose that there is an assumption that because the British pay too much tax on everything, we pay too high a tax on motor cars, too. However, it is not quite like that. If there are demons and villains in this scenario, they must be the representatives of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. They are the guys with the black hats who do not ride white horses. They might drive white cars, but, in my book, in the parlance of the old westerns, they are the bad guys.
The SMMT stated that in a low-volume market where taxes are high, manufacturers set local prices to support sales and dealer viability in the short term. The National Franchised Dealers Association put the matter somewhat less elegantly, stating that consumers in countries with high car taxes are being subsidised by those in countries with low car taxes. We pay too much in the United Kingdom because in other countries the taxes are higher, so the prices are lower and the revenues are equalised across Europe.
Car manufacturers are helping our Chancellor by maintaining high prices, which enable him to take more tax, albeit at a lower rate. We hear much about whether we should cede the power to tax to the European Union. That may be an exaggeration, but the setting of car prices strongly influences the revenue that the Chancellor gets as a consequence of the taxation regime. It is up to Parliament, not some board of directors in Detroit, to determine the level of tax revenues for motor cars in this country.
I have mentioned the Consumers Association, which has ploughed a long and often lonely furrow in the campaign to highlight the differentials in car pricing. Another body involved, which is generally agreed to be the most cautious, was the Office of Fair Trading.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle indicated assent.
Mr. O'Neill: My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) nods in agreement. He was perhaps a trifle severe on that organisation, but that eventually had the desired effect.
John Bridgeman, the director general of the OFT, said that he did not think that there was active collusion between car companies; that there was not a world

387
conspiracy whereby the guys in the SMMT got together in some international forum where they set prices. However, he did say that there was the possibility of a complex monopoly. Put simply, that occurs when a company acts in a monopolistic fashion in its dealings with its retailers in controlling pricing and supply. It does not require the perpetrator to work in concert with others, but simply to act in a particular way with regard to its own outlets and customers.
The early thinking of John Bridgeman was confirmed in March when the OFT referred the new car market to what is now called the Competition Commission, following evidence that practices employed by manufacturers' dealers were distorting competition. In announcing the inquiry, Mr. Bridgeman endorsed many of the Select Committee's conclusions: the market was not working, manufacturers had too much power, the 1992 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report recommendations had failed, and second-hand car prices did not represent the value of the car. Evidence suggests that recommended resale price fixing enables even the most inefficient car dealers to make adequate returns. The OFT backed us on volume discounts, and questioned bonuses as a way of recompensing dealers and discouraging parallel importing.
Having referred the matter to the Competition Commission, the OFT took on Volvo. With a robustness not usually associated with regulatory organisations, it accused Volvo of being involved in disgraceful practices and of fixing prices and penalising distributors who would not toe the line. The impression was that the OFT would have liked to go the distance with Volvo, but was unable to do so because of legal limitations on immediate action. All that it did, which was in some ways disappointing, although understandable, was to tell Volvo that it had been caught. Volvo said that it was sorry and would not do the same thing again.
By 1 March 2000, the OFT will have the power to levy penalties of up to 10 per cent. of turnover on any company caught doing what Volvo had done. Moreover, a company could be liable to prosecution if it tried to interfere with the inquiry.
The Competition Commission for its part will report in December, but, in an almost ground-breaking approach towards establishing a broader view, it has already indicated its first thoughts and sought opinions on various matters that coincide with the recommendations made by my colleagues and myself, which were broadly agreed with the OFT.
The Competition Commission is considering forcing manufacturers to supply cars to virtually any dealer, ending territorial allocations, abolishing recommended retail prices and other controls, allowing dealers to choose whether they wish to repair, abolishing preferential fleet discounts, and reducing manufacturers' power to end dealerships arbitrarily, within a redefined block exemption. That seems to be its thinking. We have not yet had its final report, but we have had a clear indication of the direction that it will probably take.
In response, the SMMT stated that the separation of sales and servicing is not in the customer's interest and probably will not reduce costs, and that the block exemption is not responsible for price variations in the
388
UK and throughout Europe. The SMMT did not go through the usual litany—tax, wrong side of the road, and the other aspects that have been mentioned this morning—but it suggested that the Competition Commission had not thought the matter through properly or understood the industry. Perhaps the truth is that the Competition Commission has understood it too well, and that the SMMT is running out of places to hide.
Ford, one of the leading members, responded by inviting people to buy its cars and promising to reimburse them if it later decided to cut prices. In effect, Ford was saying that it would have to cut prices, but did not propose to do so immediately and certainly would not get involved in a price war. Vauxhall, on the other hand, recognised that it is now possible to make purchases via the internet. The car companies are not slow. The erstwhile Mandelson message about e-commerce obviously got through to Luton. Vauxhall has offered a £1,000 price cut on a new car purchased through the net.
What about the dealers—the men who provided specialist advice and help, who allowed prospective customers to sit in the leather-upholstered car, even if they wanted only the one with felt-covered seats, and who were solicitous to a fault about customers' requirements? They will still be responsible for handing customers the keys. In the motor trade, dealers are akin to the nurse in the maternity ward handing the child in swaddling clothes to the mother. That link with the past will remain. The truth, however, is that Vauxhall could not give a toss about its dealers if it is obliged to cut prices, especially if the cheapest way of doing so is through the net, ignoring the dealers.
Suffice it to say that, by and large, the dealers are not impressed, and they are beginning to break ranks with the motor trade. They recognise that the manufacturers' stranglehold is almost a thing of the past. Dealers have been unanimous in their opposition to the Consumers Association for having the audacity to propose setting up a not-for-profit internet service that will enable people to obtain advice and assistance in purchasing cars from abroad.
That is a fairly modest attempt by the Consumers Association, but it is a logical step, providing a recognised means, using the net and taking advantage of the opportunities of e-commerce to allow the public to get in on the act. It is a helpful start, which will be followed by other purchasers and organisations. It is clear that few industries have responded to criticism with such characteristic arrogance and disdain.
For once, however, consumers are fighting back. They resent having to pay £12,870 for a British-built Rover 214 in Britain when in France, according to European Commission figures, the road price is £8,217. It costs £4,650 more to buy a British car in Britain than to buy one in France. We, the British public, resent having to pay more for 62 of the 74 main types of car. We resent the poor service and the shoddy maintenance, which the block exemption protects and sustains. Our car industry employs many thousands of honest and dedicated people. Their products stand comparison with any in the world, but they are depressed and embarrassed when the industry to which most of them have devoted their lives is selling their fellow citizens short.
The Competition Commission is to report soon; its warning shots have already been fired. The Government know the arguments; I know that my hon. Friend the

389
Minister has been listening. The Select Committee was unanimous and there was a clear view that rip-off Britain must stop. Let us start with the car industry: a car is the biggest single purchase that members of the public make, apart from taking out a mortgage to buy their home. People usually live in their home for a long time, but the pain, anxiety and suffering of buying a car is repeated every three or four years when they buy another.
The Government have said that they are prepared to take action on mortgages and to protect the home buyer. Let us see them show the same commitment and support for the consumer that they have shown in that area, and let us stop rip-off Britain in car showrooms and car factories.
11.22 am
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the presentation made by the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It is almost impossible to disagree with much of what he said and I hope that that suggests that there will be unanimity across the House as we try to deal with what is a genuine problem.
Rip-off Britain must indeed stop. Let me make it clear that the Liberal Democrats fully support that concept. We believe that it is in the interests of society as a whole for the consumer to be looked after. That is done by achieving diversity of supply and ending artificial and inappropriate distortions in the marketplace. We want a fairer market and if we achieve that we will have proper competition, which will be to the benefit of all. The present pseudo-cartel arrangements benefit no one apart from those who operate them.
Having been reshuffled across from the environment brief, I should say that environmental benefits would flow from the course of action that the hon. Member for Ochil described. It cannot be good for the environment if people have to disappear abroad to buy cars and then drive them back again—extra transport movements that would otherwise not be required. It could be argued that discounting or bringing car prices back down to a realistic level in the European Union would artificially encourage people to buy cars. However, new cars are far less polluting than older vehicles and high car prices in this country act as a disincentive to people to buy cars, which will disbenefit both the economy and the environment because people will be encouraged to use more polluting cars for longer. The pollution caused by a 20-year-old car is of huge compared with that caused by a new car, so the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to make that case.
The Consumers Association investigation found that Britons pay the highest price for 60 of the 74 best-selling cars in the EU. As the hon. Gentleman said, the estimates suggest that the average excess amount is more than £3,000. Overall, UK motorists are being overcharged by £6 billion a year. That huge sum, which is being kept by those in the motor trade, would not be available to them were the artificial cartel arrangements removed. The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to particular examples. My example is a Rover 414 built in Birmingham, which costs about £3,000 or £4,000 more here than in Portugal. The hon. Gentleman referred to France, but the same situation applies to other countries in the EU.
The whole basis of the EU is the securing of level playing fields across Europe—it has always been committed to free trade—and I cannot understand how on
390
earth that body, and the European Commission in particular, could grant the motor vehicle industry a block exemption from article 85(1) of the treaty of Rome and then extend it in 1995. How could it possibly conclude that that was in the interests of the consumer? It seems to be contrary to the very essence of the EU. I hope that that exemption, which is currently being reviewed, will end in 2002; in my view, it is indefensible in any terms.
The Competition Commission has condemned those arrangements, as well as appointed dealerships, which are an odd way of approaching the sale of any product. It would be very odd to go into a record shop only to be told, "This is an EMI record shop so you can buy the Beatles here, but not the Rolling Stones." I am sorry if I am not very up to date; perhaps I should have mentioned Blur and Pulp. When they send down their envelope, I expect that the Hansard reporters will want to know who Blur and Pulp are. No, they are shaking their heads.
As the hon. Member for Ochil said, the excuses have largely been dropped. The one about right-hand drive cars is nonsensical. How expensive is it to produce a right-hand drive car?
Mr. John Burnett: I have done a little personal research on this matter, which was fairly easy to do. For a UK exporter of Mercedes-Benz cars, for example, the disparity in price between a left-hand and right-hand drive is approximately £400 or £500 at the very most.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, if anything, overstates the case, though he is no doubt being generous to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Certainly the disparity is not £3,000 or £4,000, which is the disparity between UK prices and those found elsewhere in the EU.
We have also heard the nonsense about the strong pound and the impact of currency value. Presumably prices should go up and down when the value of currency goes up and down, but it does not seem to happen that way. That is a bit like supermarket prices for farm goods: we are told that supermarkets have to deal with a strong pound, which is why their prices have gone up when prices have gone down at the farm gate. That does not add up and some people are maximising their personal profits at the expense of the consumer. That is not something that any party in the House would seek to defend.
I want the arrangements to be changed. I want an end to the block exemption and an end to rip-off Britain, and I want a fair deal for those who want to buy cars or any other commodity in this country. The House must champion the consumer cause. The Liberal Democrats will certainly do so, and I hope that there will be unanimous support for the Select Committee report.
11.28 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has ensured that we can have a fair and open debate, but I am sorry that the Conservative Benches are empty because we ought to discuss properly the important subject of the great British rip-off. There are no two ways about it: we in this country are totally ripped off from start to finish and people who

391
buy a new car are paying way over the odds. We are subsidising the rest of Europe and the rest of the world market.
The Ford Mondeo is supposed to be the car of the world—built to be bought anywhere throughout the world. What do we find? It is up to 53 per cent. cheaper in Spain than in the UK. The Mondeo does not seem to be the car of the world, after all. The Great British customer is subsidising the rest of the world and those car products so that Ford, Nissan or whoever may achieve a percentage market share throughout the world. That is what we are paying for, and it has to end: it is not acceptable and we should not put up with it.
I agree with the examples given by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). The car that we buy may have a compact disc player, and in some cases we pay twice as much for CDs. Spare parts are another example. People think that they will derive some benefit somewhere because they pay so much more for their car, then end up paying 30 or 40 per cent. more for spares as well. The car and everything on it are expensive commodities. A new car is probably the second most expensive purchase that people make—after the purchase of a property. It should therefore be pointed out that, if people buy new cars, it is better for the environment if they have lean-burn engines so that there is less pollution. The price of new cars should be brought down and the standard of MOTs lifted so that we get rid of polluting vehicles and everyone has the ability to upgrade to a better car. That would be more in keeping with our environmental aims.
There are many gains to be made from selling cars more cheaply. I cannot understand manufacturers' reluctance to reduce the price of cars. They seem to feel that it is all right for people in other European countries to have cheap cars, but not for people in this country. Although, if cars were cheaper, our factories would not make as much money per vehicle, they would sell many more vehicles, which would ensure that profits did not fall and more people were employed in the manufacture of cars in this country because the turnover would be greater. We should consider those benefits. It is naive to believe that simple gains can be made by inflating prices; that is not the way forward. It is not good for British business or jobs.
The time has come to put British workers first. We should create more jobs through better pricing. The price of cars is just one good example of the British rip-off—the price of CDs is another. I could list many products in respect of which people are ripped off, and the time has come to end it. Yet another example is the price of motorcycles—part of the motor industry. This country used to manufacture great motorcycles. Now, however, motorcycles—even a Triumph built in this country—can be exported to America, taken out of the crate, taken round the circuit a couple of times, put back in the crate, shipped back to this country, and it is still cheaper than buying it through an official dealer. A Nissan built in Sunderland and sent all the way to Japan, then shipped back, is still cheaper than if bought direct from the Nissan dealership in the UK. That just proves that a cartel is operating. The cartel must end—there are no two ways about it.
392
As the pound got stronger, did we see Volkswagens coming in more cheaply? No, the price actually went up. We cannot and should not tolerate that. We are always told about the benefits of Europe. Instead of always taking the disadvantages from Europe, it is time to take the benefits, one of which is better pricing across all products.
It is no use fining companies. Volkswagen did not mind paying £50 million when it was found to be in breach of EU law. Instead, we should impose mandatory prison sentences. Company directors might then think twice and realise that they cannot rip the British public off in that way. When the good consumers of Chorley go to their dealer, he cannot offer a higher discount because he will lose his franchise, so I do not blame the dealers. Dealerships could improve, but ultimately they operate in a straitjacket: if they do not accept the manufacturer's rules, they lose their dealership. Thus consumers in Chorley do not get a fair price for the product.
The only alternative is to buy in Europe and ship the car back to the UK, or buy on the internet. Vauxhall accepts the fact that people can save £1,000 by using the internet. Why do not Vauxhall, Ford and other manufacturers act as honest brokers by slashing prices tomorrow and ensuring that consumers in Chorley and the rest of the country can benefit from cheap prices, as consumers do in Europe?
11.34 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I shall say just a few words because the point has already been powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). He covered all the necessary ground and I would find it hard to believe that anyone in the Chamber today would disagree with what he said.
One way to measure the degree of the rip-off in car pricing in this country is to look at the price of cars as a percentage of annual income. The price of a new car is more than the annual income of many people. If one wants to buy a new car—or even a nearly new car—one must devote a huge percentage of one's annual income to it. It is a much higher percentage than in Europe or north America.
In their efforts to persuade people to use their cars less, the Government have drawn analogies with Germany, where there is greater ownership but where people use their cars less. It is difficult to convince people in this country that they should not use their car to capacity when they have invested such a huge proportion of their annual income, or their income over many years, in buying it in the first place. The Government's transport policy would benefit from getting car pricing right.
My experience of one-make car dealers is that they are not wonderful salesmen. Most salespeople for different products target people and follow-through. When I have wandered around forecourts looking at cars—I have never bought a new car, but I go round to see what is on offer—I have found that there is very little follow-through. It strikes me that many dealers are happy to make their money each week or month by selling just a few cars rather than charging less to see whether they can sell more. A friend of mine sells in the secondhand car market and I have watched his progress over the years. By knocking down the prices, he can sell more cars and make a living as well as anybody else, and customers benefit. Most new car dealers sit in their showroom all week and make their money by selling just one vehicle.

393
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the cost of spare parts, particularly parts of the bodywork and trim of a car. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil said that the nightmare of buying a new car recurs every four or five years. Those of us who have never bought a new car do not go through that, but we experience a nightmare every time someone knocks into our car. I wonder how many other hon. Members have parked their car in a station car park, only to find on their return at the end of the week that the piece of plastic that covers the rear light has been smashed. One then goes to the dealer to see how much such a tiny item costs. Usually the price is colossal, outrageous and unfair.
Mr. Baker: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Another example of a rip-off is when the consumer has to buy a huge replacement part such as a sealed unit or computer-operated unit. Whereas previously one could have bought a bulb, one now has to buy a sealed headlight and the cost is far higher. It is also much more wasteful in environmental terms.
Mr. Blizzard: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Until a few years ago, I tried to carry out some repairs by myself, but the invention of all kinds of weird clips and specialist tools now prevents me from performing a simple repair. Various ways have been devised to continue to rip off the motorist.
Once when my car engine malfunctioned, I was told that it was caused by the leads—my car had leads, plugs and other conventional things. I took the car to my friend, whom I trust and who has a good garage—I shall not mention his name—who told me, "I have some leads for you, Bob, although the ones for your car would have cost £120. These are the same leads as those for the Vectra and they are half the price." The manufacturers obviously think that people with a slightly larger car will pay more. That kind of practice needs looking into. Will the Minister therefore say whether an investigation into the pricing of spare parts is part of the Competition Commission's remit? If it is not, could it be something else for the commission to consider? Plainly, not merely a new car but motoring itself has become far too expensive.
The cost is completely out of kilter with the rest of Europe and the world. We are being ripped off. It would be an important victory for the British consumer if, at the Government's instigation, the inquiry brought some justice and fairness into the prices of new cars.
11.40 am
Mr. Nick Gibb: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) on securing this important debate and I welcome the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry to her new position. It is nice to be opposite her once again so soon after leaving the shadow Treasury team.
Real concern exists about the higher prices paid for cars in this country compared with the rest of Europe and the Opposition share that concern. The European Commission's latest six-monthly price survey shows that the United Kingdom is the most expensive market for 61 of the 72 best-selling models in the European Union, followed closely by Ireland, which was referred to in the debate. Price differentials in excess of 20 per cent. have
394
been found for all manufacturers throughout the European Union and for 16 out of 72 models there are variances of about 40 per cent. in price.
The Opposition's approach is that the Government should deal firmly with any cartel or restrictive practice, if that is the conclusion of the Competition Commission. However, it is important for hon. Members to understand the reasons for the discrepancies before jumping in with remedies and regulations. Those reasons are many and varied.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which the hon. Member for Ochil chairs, states in paragraph 38 of its report:
"A number of factors account for the high prices paid by the UK consumer for new cars. Exchange rates and taxation levels influence the validity of comparisons and affect manufacturers' pricing strategies. The unique elements of the UK market—particularly the power of the fleet operators and the size of the second-hand car market—account for some of the differentials from EU prices".
It goes on to conclude something different, but I wanted to quote that section initially.
Mr. Burnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that disparities due to taxation are grossly exaggerated. For example, compare a car that is manufactured and sold in Germany with the same car in the United Kingdom—the value added tax disparity is 1.5 per cent.
Mr. Gibb: My point is that the reasons for the price discrepancies are many and varied and I listed some. There are others and I will come to those.
The 1992 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, which was also referred to in the debate, cited those factors as the principal causes of the price differentials. The Select Committee went on to conclude, differently from the 1992 MMC report, that the dealer network—the selective and exclusive distribution arrangement—was the "key factor" behind higher UK prices. That led the Committee to conclude that it
"can see no justification for retention of the block exemption and recommend that it be not renewed."
That same conclusion is reflected in the remedies letter that was issued by Competition Commission a couple of weeks ago, which states:
"The Commission has not reached final conclusions on any aspect of the inquiry. Its present view is that the selective and exclusive distribution system in its existing form has a number of disadvantages and that, as a result, prices of new cars in the UK are higher than they would be in a less restrictive environment."
Interestingly, that letter goes on to state:
"the SED system may be contributing to a lack of arbitrage which is enabling the continuation of significant price differences between the UK and other EU member states."
We need to ask ourselves why that arbitrage takes place in the European Union, but not between the continent of Europe and the UK, given that the block exemption applies throughout the EU and SEDs exist in Europe as well as the UK. The initial response of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to that remedies letter makes that very point. It states:
"It is disappointing to note that while the Competition Commission clearly fully understands that Block Exemption is an EU policy matter, it fails to grasp that Block Exemption cannot therefore itself be held responsible for price variations … across Europe and at work in the UK."

395
That is a valid point. Surely, as the exemption applies to the whole of Europe, it cannot be the only factor that has led to the differential in prices.
On a cautionary note to the Government, when the Competition Commission reports in December, will they respond rapidly? There is much uncertainty in the industry and a rapid response would be helpful to put an end to it.
The answer to the dilemma of why the block exemption is causing price differentials in the UK but not in Europe might lie somewhere between the opposing views of the SMMT and the Select Committee. It revolves around arbitrage, which was highlighted in the letter from the Competition Commission. SED might have delivered higher prices in the UK but not in Europe simply because of the practical difficulties that a UK consumer faces in buying a car from a European supplier. It is difficult to shop around when that means crossing the channel rather than driving across a nearby border. The fact that the UK consumer needs a right-hand drive car, is not the overall reason, but it is a factor making it slightly more difficult for that consumer to go to a dealer in Belgium or France. Our company car fleets have an effect by raising expectations for higher specifications in cars.
As a result of the impact of all those factors on the ability of the UK consumer to shop across EU borders, there is a blockage in the arbitrage that should take place with such glaring price differentials. We are now seeing some arbitrage with the Consumers Association's moves to provide it.
It is worth noting that Britain has such a large company car fleet because company cars were used to avoid the strictures on pay rises during the 1970s—the era of prices and incomes policies. The company car was a way to deliver a pay rise without appearing to do so. It was a response to Government interference in the free market. In turn, it has had a lasting effect on the free market in new car sales, which ought to provide a salutary lesson to Ministers that when they respond to all the reports and investigations into this serious problem, they should not simply make matters worse for the consumer by adding further distortions to the market that will damage consumer interests in the long term. Competition and the free market are the consumers' friend. Ministers who reach for the statute book add to costs and generate unforeseen consequences, which invariably result in the consumer receiving a worse deal.
The Government need to look to themselves to find out whether and by how much they contribute to higher prices in the UK, not merely in the motor industry but in other areas, for example through higher taxes. The Minister is a great supporter of the climate change levy. What effect is it having and will it have on the manufacture of cars in this country? There are more and more regulations. The proposed new directive on end of vehicle life in its current retrospective form would add hugely to the costs of UK car manufacturers and thus to UK car prices.
Clearly, if the Competition Commission finds a cartel or restrictive practices, the Government must take firm action, but I counsel caution about precipitate regulatory measures, which would in the long term add costs and restrict and distort the market further, thus further damaging the interests of the consumer.
11.49 am
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): First, I apologise to you Mr. Deputy Speaker and, through you, to the House for being fractionally late for this important and interesting debate. I join my hon. Friends and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) on securing this important debate and on doing so so early in our resumed Session.
Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also thank not only my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil, but other members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for the inquiry into an issue that has caused great public consternation and is a matter of such important public interest. We heard a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech from my hon. Friend, as we would expect, in which he considered each of the arguments advanced to explain or justify the higher car prices in the United Kingdom. In fact, we almost had a round-the-world tour, as my hon. Friend admitted. He comprehensively demolished each one of them.
We also heard a thoughtful and interesting speech from the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), a forceful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who rightly drew attention to the importance of the Government's policy of promoting the ownership of cars, especially smaller and cleaner cars, while helping car owners to use their cars more sensitively and in a way that does less environmental damage. I am also rather pleased to say that he shares with me a deep and extensive technical knowledge of motor car maintenance.
We then heard a thoughtful speech, as ever, from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I thought that I had left the hon. Gentleman safely in the confines of the Standing Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but it is a pleasure to see him here on the Opposition Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) called for action to protect consumers. The Government are already acting to protect consumers. We want to make sure that, for cars as for all other services and goods, consumers get a fair deal within open and competitive markets. That is why we have already introduced and secured the passage of the new Competition Act 1998. That is why we have created the new Competition Commission, with much tougher powers to fine companies for anti-competitive behaviour. I have to observe that, although the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton spoke, as one might expect, of his devotion to free markets, it was the Labour Government not the last Conservative Government, who introduced the Competition Act and have created the Competition Commission with the powers that it needs to do the job on behalf of the consumer.
There are other forces making for greater competition within the marketplace. I want to touch on one that was mentioned in passing. We are seeing the beginnings of electronic commerce and shopping for cars on the internet. I have a role as the new Minister for Competitiveness, Business and E-Commerce. As we see—already in the United Kingdom—more consumers shopping on the internet, so we will see a powerful competitive force bearing down on retailers and

397
manufacturers alike. The more transparent information consumers have, the easier it becomes for them to access car purchases in other parts of the European Union and the more manufacturers will have to respond. I welcome the fact that one or two have already seen the writing on the wall and are making their models available to internet shoppers.
Mr. O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that within government there seems to be a varying response to the attractiveness of the internet? The internet does not seem to have reached Swansea yet. A firm in my constituency about which I am in correspondence with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is having considerable difficulty getting a rapid response from Swansea once it has obtained the car from abroad after purchasing it on the internet on behalf of a British customer. It seems that things get clogged up in Swansea. Will she look into whether Swansea is on line or, if not, on the ball? It does not seem to be at present.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely important point. The Prime Minister is determined that we should drive the benefits of digitilisation and electronic access right through government. He has set stretching targets for access to electronic government services, and that certainly includes Swansea. I know from my previous role in the Treasury that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is already engaged in an extensive upgrading of its information technology in order that it can—this is important to the point that my hon. Friend makes—achieve on-line, real-time connections with car manufacturers, dealers and importers and deal with the very blockage that he specifies. I certainly undertake to follow up the specific point that he raises, if he will let me have further details.
In addition, last May we announced plans to lift restrictions on the import of cars from outside the European marketplace. That, too, will result in increased competition and a better deal for consumers. As a result of that decision, many cars will cost thousands of pounds less than they do at the moment. Some 55,000 cut-price cars will be allowed into the United Kingdom between March and the end of next year. From January 2001, the limit on non-EU imports will be completely removed.
We welcome the expiry at the end of this year of the voluntary restrictions on imports of new Japanese vehicles that was provided for in the 1992 agreement between the EU and Japan. Once again, the transition to a truly free market in Japanese cars will give customers increased choice and competition. It will also encourage Japanese companies to expand their activities here and in other countries within the EU.
As has already been said, in March this year the Director General of Fair Trading, after an extensive inquiry, referred the supply of new motor cars in the United Kingdom by manufacturers and wholesalers to the Competition Commission. He expressed his view forcefully that the market was not working properly and in particular that there was an imbalance of power between manufacturers and dealers that was distorting and impeding competition. In July, the Director General of Fair Trading also concluded that some Volvo dealers, to which hon. Members have referred, had not been offering discounts beyond set levels. An agreement and an
398
admission was reached with Volvo which made it clear that such restrictive cartels would not be permitted in the future.
We now have the Competition Commission investigation. Earlier in October, it issued its remedies statement. It is a discussion document and the commission has invited comments from the industry, consumers and other stakeholders, but it has suggested a number of possible remedies, some of which have implications for the European regulations on the block exemption. I shall come back to that issue in a moment.
The Competition Commission has also suggested that, for instance, suppliers should be prohibited from recommending retail prices; that they should be required to offer franchised dealers who wish to buy cars on firm sale terms no less favourable than those offered to fleet customers—something that would make a real difference to the prices made available to individual consumers. It has suggested that suppliers should be prohibited from discriminating in the terms offered to contract hire companies and that dealers should be able to opt for an equivalent reduction in the wholesale price in place of the bundled financial and other benefits often offered by suppliers with their cars.
The report from the Competition Commission will be delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December and he will decide what action, if any, is appropriate if the commission makes adverse findings. We will publish the report as soon as we possibly can. I certainly take account of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and other hon. Members about the need for action following the report, depending what it says, as rapidly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney asked whether the Competition Commission inquiry specifically covered spare parts or after-sales service. The investigation is into the supply of new cars so it does not, I understand, cover the issue that he raises. But the commission is certainly aware that the supply of parts is an important part of the dealer's business and so has some bearing on its investigation.
The Government's general approach was set out in our response to the Select Committee's report. As I have already said, the answer to the difficulties lies in the development of an effective, transparent, competitive market. We need distribution arrangements that promote competition. As I have already explained, the Competition Commission is specifically examining the selective and exclusive distribution system that is used by car manufacturers. Its findings will help to inform the Government's response and contribution to the European Commission's evaluation of the block exemption regulation which must be completed by the end of next year.
It is essential to have open and effective markets throughout Europe. We seek to ensure that any infringements of European Commission competition law that restrict imports into the United Kingdom are vigorously pursued by the Commission. It is also important that we have within this and other markets demanding and informed consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil was right to stress that, increasingly, we have demanding and informed consumers. Whatever the short-term pain to the manufacturers, demanding and well-informed consumers are an important part of ensuring that we have healthily competitive markets.

399
It is also essential that we have an efficient and innovative car manufacturing and distribution sector. My Department has worked for many years with the motor industry to improve efficiency and innovation in the supply chain, but also to consider how the distribution system can be modernised and improved.
As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the block exemption applies throughout Europe; it does not bear down solely upon British consumers. The European Commission is required to draw up a report evaluating that exemption by the end of next year, taking particular account of price differentials between member states and the quality of service to final consumers. The Commission has recently circulated a series of questionnaires to interested parties throughout the EU, seeking information and views on the workings of the system.
My officials recently met the Commission team undertaking the review and we have impressed upon it the importance that we in the United Kingdom attach to the issue. I want to ensure that the review is undertaken in as transparent a way as possible and gives the fullest possible opportunity for all interested parties in the United Kingdom to make their voices heard. I hope that the Commission, if it has not already done so, pays close attention to the Select Committee's report as well as to the Government's response. The Competition Commission's inquiry's findings will provide invaluable material for that review.
But we should recognise that restrictive practices are not confined to the United Kingdom. In January 1998, the European Commission fined Volkswagen 102 million euro for breaking rules on cross-border trade in motor vehicles. The matter allegedly involved the company trying to obstruct sales of its cars in Italy to non-Italian purchasers, mainly from Austria and Germany, who wanted to take advantage of lower pre-tax prices there. That ruling is subject to appeal. But similar cases have been brought against DaimlerChrysler and Opel's Dutch subsidiary by the Commission, again involving alleged improper restrictions on cross-border car sales. More recently, the Commission has begun investigations into Renault and Peugeot.
I assure the House that the Government are committed to a policy under which British car consumers will get good value for a good product. We have strengthened competition authorities which are already taking the necessary action to deal with any evidence of restrictive or anti-competitive behaviour. The Government are committed to strong competition and powerful, well-informed consumers. The European Commission is already taking action where restrictive practices are seen to operate in the EU, and we now have the review of the block exemption to which we and I hope other hon. Members will also contribute.
All that, as well as the technological changes to which I have already referred, means that we shall see an increasingly competitive car market not just within the United Kingdom but throughout the EU. That will be to the benefit of British consumers, but it will also be to the benefit of British and European car manufacturers alike.
12.6 pm
Sitting suspended.

Royal Hospital Haslar
12.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of overwhelming importance to my constituency and to everyone in the armed forces. I congratulate the Minister of State on his promotion, and look forward to seeing him in Gosport when he visits Haslar hospital on 2 November. He will find that loyalty to the armed forces—Army, Navy and Air Force—is second to none in Gosport. He will be greatly impressed by the fervour with which local residents wish the hospital to be retained.
Although I welcome the Minister, it would have been appropriate if he had been accompanied by a colleague from the Department of Health. This matter has two aspects—defence, and health and the local civilian population. We can agree on two points. First, we can agree on the importance of defence medical services. Medicine is an integral part of defence. Every ship carries medically trained staff and every four-man Army stick going out on patrol—wherever it may be—has one man who is trained in medicine. The medical background involves proper training somewhere, and there must be a centre of medical excellence.
That centre is Haslar hospital and the accompanying Blockhouse, which contains the Royal College of Defence Medicine. Between them, they provide background basic training for everyone in the armed forces. Specialist staff are also trained in other hospitals, but the centre is Haslar.
The second point on which we can agree is that defence medical services have been through an exceptionally difficult period. The Government's document "Defence Medical Services: A Strategy for the Future" points out that the armed forces are manned by only 50 per cent. of the doctors required and only 75 per cent. of the nurses. That is a serious situation. With the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war, it was possible and appropriate to reduce our armed forces. Across the board, the forces have been reduced by about 25 to 30 per cent., but the reduction in medical services has been greater, at around 40 per cent.
The number of hospitals in the armed services has gone from seven, to five, to three, to one in a surprisingly short time. In 1994, the Government, knowing all the facts and having investigated the subject with extreme care, produced "Defence Cost Study 15", which suggested that there should be a single tri-service hospital. After a great deal of further discussion, it was decided that that hospital should be Haslar, then renamed the Royal Hospital Haslar. It was proposed that the hospital should be increased from 200 beds to 375. The fact that that was never done is the root cause of our present difficulties.
The Select Committee on Defence, of which I was a member, has been much quoted after saying in February 1997:
"We can only report to the House our fine view that the state of morale at all levels of the Defence Medical Services is lower than we have ever encountered in the armed forces."

401
Some other criticism has been similarly quoted, but a sentence that I helped to write, at paragraph 71 of that report, has been less quoted:
"In view of the fundamental changes which have been made over the last five years, nothing would be achieved by imposing on the Defence Medical Services any further structural changes."
We were adamant that that was the case. It would be quite wrong to deal with defence medical services by trying to change them dramatically, yet that is exactly what the Government did with their astounding decision in December 1998 to close Haslar.
Broad reasons have been given for the closure. First, the Ministry of Defence hospital units at Peterborough, Derriford and Frimley have proved a good means of training and retaining medical staff. The Ministry has said that MDHUs work well. They may work satisfactorily when it comes to providing medicine, and it may be that they are adequate for training staff. However, they do not give armed forces personnel what they joined the forces for. I talk to many people who say that the MDHUs are all very well, but—they always use the same words—they are not what they joined for. If the Government rely too much on MDHUs, they will lose even more staff.
The Ministry's second reason for closing Haslar is that there has been a change of strategy by the local NHS trust, which is in a period of some movement. Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham, which has 600 beds, is in the process of taking over the acute function of St. Mary's hospital, Portsmouth, which has 550. That will provide turmoil enough for one period. It is not thought that the new construction, backed by the private finance initiative, will be commissioned until 2005. We face five years of intense movement involving Portsmouth hospitals. The PFI bid does not include a military element. The Minister will find, if he is accurately advised by those in the locality, that the Portsmouth area is most uncertain about accepting an MDHU at Cosham. Nor has the Ministry yet got round to specifying what the unit might be.
The third reason given for the closure of Haslar is that the running costs are quite high. In a letter to me, placed in the Library following a parliamentary question about the costs of building new military hospital facilities to replace Royal Hospital Haslar, the Minister wrote:
"As far as building costs are concerned, these will fall to the private sector partner … The Ministry of Defence will not pay direct running costs since Portsmouth Hospitals Trust will recover these costs through its treatment charges".
I think that the Minister was saying that the costs of replacing Haslar would be nil. That does not bear proper financial scrutiny.
The tide is turning as regards ideas about the size of hospitals. Recently, it has been believed that larger hospitals are more efficient. However, I refer the Minister to an authoritative article in last week's British Medical Journal, which noted:
"The literature shows quite conclusively that there can be no general presumption that larger units produce better outcomes for patients."
The summary of the article says:
"Service planners would do well to give more prominence to the importance of ensuring that hospital services are local and easily accessible."
The consequences of closure will be dramatic for defence. Already, there is overstretch in the armed forces, as the Minister well knows. The overstretch in defence
402
medical services, which have requirements to man areas including Bosnia, Cyprus, the Falklands, Northern Ireland and others, is dramatic. Only one figure is required as an example: the establishment for orthopaedic surgeons at Haslar is eight; the hospital had six, but five have resigned.
What the Government plan for defence medical services might work. But it will not work next year, or in three or five years' time. I submit that it will take 25 years to rebuild the defence medical services and the consultancy skills of those leaving them. That serious national problem has an immediate local focus for Gosport and the surrounding area. Haslar is effectively the district general hospital for Gosport, and it has superb facilities. In the past 10 years, £35 million has been spent there, and it has excellent MRI and CT scanners, a hyperbaric unit and a much needed accident and emergency unit in an area where road access to the next closest hospital can be slow.
Mr. David Chidgey: I have long and close family associations with the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I should like to put it on the record that I know how valuable the emergency services at Haslar are. A member of my family owes her life to the fact that after a serious road accident she was able to go to Haslar for excellent long-term treatment which restored her to health. In the absence of those services, the road link to the Queen Alexandria hospital in Portsmouth is totally inadequate for getting people in emergencies to hospital in time.
Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has been staunch in his support of Haslar, as have colleagues from all parties. I am grateful to him for his support today. He knows, because he was there, that the reaction to the closure of Haslar in the Gosport area was instinctive and dramatic. When I announced a rally and march, I thought that we might get a few hundred people, but 22,000 turned out. The Library cannot find a record of a rally or march of that size anywhere about the closure of a hospital. Petitions were signed by 250,000 people. I presented a parliamentary petition signed by 45,000. We had "Save Haslar" in lights and we have received thousands of letters. The reaction has been overwhelming.
The more people locally look at the issue, the worse they find it. Travel from Gosport to Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham is either by bus, boat and then two more buses, one of which goes once an hour, or by the other way, which is longer, by bus and similarly inconvenient. Car parking at that hospital is notoriously difficult and a taxi costs £11. My constituents who might have to travel there as patients or to see friends or family would find it incredibly inconvenient.
The area is calculated to need 13 intensive care beds. There were 10 such beds at Queen Alexandra hospital and four at Haslar. The Haslar beds have closed, so we now have 10 of the estimated 13 required. On accident and emergency cover, almost 20,000 people are seen each year at Haslar. Of those, on the health authority's own figures, it is estimated that 5,000 will need to go each year to Queen Alexandra hospital by ambulance. That is 13 visits a day and a dedicated ambulance will be required simply to run A and E cases to Cosham.
I asked the local ambulance trust if I could do a practice run. I thought of simulating rushing a heart attack case to Cosham at 7.30 am. The word "rush" is misleading,

403
because the notorious Gosport bottleneck, with only two main roads to take people in and out of the peninsula, would probably mean a journey of 45 minutes. There is no doubt that lives will be lost on the roads between Gosport and Queen Alexandra hospital if Haslar is to close.
There has been a local consultation procedure about the alternative to an accident and emergency unit at Haslar. The health authority suggested a nurse-led casualty unit somewhere in the Gosport area. The response to that was vehement and unanimous: thousands of people said no. The health authority has now advertised for a nurse for an exciting new venture: a nurse-led casualty unit in the Gosport peninsula. The Minister looks surprised. It may be that he is unsighted, as civil servants say, on the issue. It would have been helpful to have one of his colleagues here to advise him on the point.
Ministers have given every kind of assurance. The document in my hand shows their happy smiling faces promising that Haslar's services will be saved. All the assurances that I have here are worthless because there is no doubt that health services on the Gosport peninsula will deteriorate if Haslar hospital is closed. What a mess. My constituents want me to express that not in sorrow but in anger and frustration that Ministers do not appear to be listening to local views and the health authority appears not to be taking account of the representations that have been made. There is no doubt that if this hospital closes, lives will be lost.
I know that the Minister has his brief, prepared for him by his officials. He may well believe, on the advice that he has been given, that he is doing the right thing. I have been a Minister, too, and, unlike every current defence Minister, I have served in the armed forces. I know the special loyalty and deference paid to Ministers and senior officers. Not for nothing was the television series called "Yes, Minister". When a general or admiral asks a man or woman in the armed services, "Everything all right?", he only ever gets one answer: "Yes, Sir." That is how the armed forces work. I know from talking to a wide range of people in the defence medical services—majors, colonels, many of them my friends—that they are deeply upset. Many of them are leaving and more will leave.
I have a solution. In November 1997, the Government announced the closure of the coastguard station in my constituency, and, just as today, I got an Adjournment debate. As today, I said that I thought that the decision was wrong. The Minister said that the Government would go ahead. We lost the battle, but in politics the important thing is to win the war. Someone with more wisdom than the Minister showed in turning my advice down suggested that Lord Donaldson, a man of wide experience, should investigate the coastguard service and advise the Government whether their decisions were right. He looked carefully at the facts and decided that the decision to close the Lee-on-the-Solent station was "not appropriate". The result was this headline: "Rescue Station Escapes Closure".
As the closure of Haslar involves local issues of defence and health, the Government should set someone with sufficient authority and wisdom to study the subject and decide whether the closure is the right course for both
404
defence and civilian interests. If the closure goes ahead, the costs in terms of money, suffering and even lives will be incalculable.
12.46 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has raised important issues. I am fully aware of his longstanding interest in the Royal Hospital Haslar and in the defence medical services generally, which he demonstrated in his speech. I am also pleased that other hon. Members with an interest in the hospital are here, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
I recognise the concerns of people in the Gosport area about our plans for the Royal Hospital Haslar and about the recent changes in the hospital's paediatric and intensive care services. It is appropriate to remind hon. Members of the problems faced by Haslar and the reason we decided that it should close. The intention to close it is part of the future strategy for the defence medical services announced by noble Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence in December 1998. I assure hon. Members that that decision was taken only after very careful consideration and that closure will happen only when suitable alternative arrangements are in place.
As hon. Members know, Haslar was originally selected by the previous Administration to be the tri-service core hospital following the notorious defence costs study 15 in 1994, to which the hon. Member for Gosport alluded. It was expected to provide the number and variety of cases to enable our medical personnel to develop and maintain their skills and professional accreditation so that they could support operational deployments and provide a high standard of health care. In the event, there has been a considerable shift since then in conventional wisdom in the national health service towards much larger acute hospitals that can sustain a high degree of sub-specialisation. That does not apply only in this case; it is a much broader national debate.
Unfortunately, Haslar does not have a sufficient population fully to support modern specialised services or to maintain training accreditation for our medical personnel. In addition, it is fair to say that our working experiences of closer co-operation with the NHS at the three Ministry of Defence hospitals units in NHS district hospitals at Plymouth, Frimley Park and Peterborough have shown that there are many benefits to be had from such arrangements in this sort of organisation. At the same time, it has become clear that Haslar's running costs are significantly higher than possible alternatives. That matter has been carefully examined.
Our plans for defence secondary care in the Portsmouth area are, therefore, now based on the establishment of a new Ministry of Defence hospital unit in a local NHS trust hospital—the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham—swhich is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North. The Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust plans to redevelop that hospital under a private finance initiative. Hon. Members may be aware that the trust's proposals were approved earlier this year. The Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority is leading the process in planning the shape of new services in the Gosport area, and our Defence Secondary Care Agency is a full partner in that process, together with local NHS provider units and primary care groups.

405
I should like to take the opportunity to make it clear once again that we are committed to retaining Haslar until our new MOD hospital unit is in place at the Queen Alexandra hospital. Any rumours that we have plans to close the hospital before that time are unfounded. I very much welcome the opportunity to reaffirm that. However, that is not to say that there will be no changes in the way services are delivered, as Haslar and the Portsmouth Hospitals trust work increasingly closely together. We have not said that exactly the same services would be provided on the Haslar site right through until its final closure. Hon. Members will, therefore, understand that the timing of Haslar's eventual closure will depend on the establishment of that new hospital unit. That, in turn, will obviously depend on progress on the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra hospital by the Portsmouth Hospitals trust. As the hon. Member for Gosport will understand, we cannot say categorically how long Haslar will remain open. However, through discussions, we are aware that the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra hospital is expected to take several years, and, once again, I can confirm that Haslar will remain open during that time.
The former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said that the people of Gosport are entitled to top-quality health care. That is why we are working closely with the Department of Health to ensure that the standard of health care is maintained throughout the transition to new arrangements. As hon. Members will be aware, a partnership board has been established to ensure effective management of local health care during that period. As hon. Members would expect, that board includes representatives from our Defence Secondary Care Agency, from the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority and the Portsmouth Hospitals trust—as the main providers in that area.
We had realised that the partnership board might identify services that could sensibly be re-configured before Haslar's closure. That has proved to be the case in respect of paediatrics and intensive care services. The decision to close in-patient paediatric services was made as a result of low activity levels and child patient occupancy, and—an important point that carries weight in all these matters—the impact of those factors on the accreditation of paediatric staff by their professional organisations. On average, only two of the 12 paediatric beds were occupied. Children's acute in-patient and day-case services were thus transferred to the Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary's hospitals on 31 July this year.
I realise that that change caused understandable concern among local people. However, we are assured that the alternative care arrangements put in place will ensure that a high standard of care is maintained locally. Furthermore, out-patient clinics continue to be held at Haslar. The accident and emergency department there continues to treat children who are not seriously unwell, nor suffering from major trauma.
The transfer of intensive care services also became necessary as a result of low patient throughput, which additionally caused problems with the new requirements
406
for training accreditation in intensive care. That is a subject over which we have little control, because the matter is decided by the professional associations which provide accreditation. Furthermore, there were problems as to the availability of service personnel. The transfer of services to the Queen Alexandra hospital took place on 31 August this year. However, Haslar retains a high dependency unit, and there has been no reduction in the overall volume of intensive care services in the Portsmouth area.
Further re-configuration of services may be necessary. The hon. Member for Gosport has rightly drawn attention to local speculation and concerns about the future of the accident and emergency department at Haslar. He will be aware that the MOD, the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, Gosport borough council and the save Haslar task force are participating in a workshop on 22 October to review models of accident and emergency care. The workshop will explore alternative ways of providing services with the help of experts in accident and emergency care and emergency medical transport. When a decision is made on future arrangements, it will then be the subject of statutory public consultation.
The priority in any such changes is to ensure that high quality services continue to be available to residents of the Gosport area. The Defence Secondary Care Agency is working with the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority and the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS trust to achieve that. I can assure the House that my Department will continue to work closely with the Department of Health on future health care in the Portsmouth area. The importance of joint management during the transition programme leading up to the closure of Haslar is fully appreciated by all concerned.
Under the local partnership board, a joint implementation management team and a clinical integration board have been set up to plan and manage the transition—including the move of services between sites where that is necessary in order to sustain training and patient care. There is also close co-operation at senior level between my Department and the Department of Health. That co-operation will be not only at official level. Shortly, I shall be meeting my noble Friend, Lord Hunt, the Under-Secretary of State for Health to discuss health care arrangements in the Portsmouth area and other related matters. As the hon. Member for Gosport kindly mentioned, I also look forward to visiting the Royal Hospital at Haslar on 2 November and discussing those issues with task force representatives.
I fully appreciate that the future of Haslar is of deep concern to hon. Members and their constituents. I can assure them that the Government recognise that concern. That is why my Department will continue to work closely with the Department of Health to ensure that effective health care arrangements are maintained both for the service and the civilian populations in the Gosport area—not only during the period up to the closure of Haslar, but beyond that time, as our new developments begin to bed in and the new services start to take effect.

Pensioners
1 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: On occasions, we rightly debate what we sometimes describe as minority issues. However, this debate concerns not only the plight of 10 million pensioners, but the problems that face all of us—problems facing Members of Parliament, but, more important, those facing people outside Parliament who have not been as fortunate in the wages and pensions that they receive and will receive.
Next spring, if the Government insist on linking pension increases to prices, a single pensioner will receive an additional 75p a week, bringing his pension up to £67.50, while a couple's pension will increase by £1.20 to £107.90 a week.
If we as a Government allow that to happen, we shall be in the obscene position of having Cabinet Ministers who earn in excess of £94,000 a year lecturing senior citizens on why a 75p rise is adequate, why £67.50 or £67.70 a week is an adequate sum on which to live. I do not know whether that is the third way, but I do know that it is wrong. I suspect that few Labour Members would be willing to defend it and I am sure that pensioners will be outraged. I do not believe that the Government would act like that and I am confident that the settlement will be more generous, but the question is how generous? The Government will have to build on the positive initiatives of the past couple of years, including the reduction in VAT on fuel and the additional winter fuel allowance.
Today's debate is about beginning to rectify a wrong, that wrong being pensioner poverty. One of my predecessors, Nye Bevan, was fond of reminding us that
"Socialism is the language of priorities".
I believe that there are still some Cabinet Ministers who remain proud of their socialism; that being so, they have a duty and an obligation to prioritise the attack on pensioner poverty. Nye was also fond of the quote:
"This is my truth, now tell me yours."
The truth of pensioner poverty is that, from April this year, means-tested income support for pensioners rose to £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple; for a couple with a non-means-tested pension, the figure is £106.70, while a single pensioner receives £66.75 a week.
The Government claim that, by raising income support, they are helping the poorest pensioners, but that is not so, because although the poorest pensioners live below the level set for income support and are entitled to income support, for a variety of reasons they fail to claim it. It has been estimated that as many as 860,000 pensioners are in that position. That is not all: as many as 600,000 pensioners below income support level cannot claim, because their savings are taken into account, with the result that the guaranteed minimum does not apply to them.
Another truth is that the value of the basic pension has fallen dramatically as a proportion of average earnings. If pensions had continued to be linked to earnings, as they were until that link was broken in 1980, a single pensioner would now receive £95.05 a week. In addition, the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" shows that the combined value of the basic
408
state pension and the proposed second pension will reach only about 21 to 26 per cent. of the average male wage by the middle of the next century.
When the Labour Government introduced their pensions reforms in 1975, they included a compulsory second tier, the state earnings-related pension scheme, and guaranteed that pensions would rise in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the higher. The two pensions combined were to be equal to almost half the average earnings. That is far better than the proposals in the current pensions Green Paper, which shows that the Government are determined to privatise much of our pension provision, despite the scandal of private pension mis-selling in the 1980s. If anyone doubts that, they should take note of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said:
"if people stay in the state system, they will lose money".—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 771.]
That might be an honest statement of intent, but it signals disaster in terms of providing for future pension needs.
It is possible that the Minister who winds up this debate will express sympathy with the demands of pensioner organisations and myself, but he will quickly follow that by saying that the money to meet those demands is not available—indeed, he might challenge me to state where the money is to be found and who is to pay. Anticipating such a challenge, I shall suggest how the bill for increased pensions can be paid.
I remind the House that immediately after world war two this country faced bankruptcy, yet we still managed to finance the transfer of millions of workers from military to civilian production; to introduce a massive housebuilding programme; to create the finest piece of socialist legislation this century—the jewel in our crown—which established the national health service; and to legislate for a major welfare reform programme. All that and much more was achieved by a country which faced bankruptcy. Now, 50 years later, we are one of the richest countries in the world, so our potential achievements are far greater.
The National Pensioners Convention, Age Concern and Help the Aged campaigned for a 1999 increase to £75 per week for all single pensioners and £116.60 for pensioner couples. That, they emphasised, would be the first step. I am sure that they will agree that those sums are still a pittance, well below the 50 per cent. of male average earnings which, it is normally argued, represents the poverty line.
The Government obviously support means-testing and would probably argue that it is wrong for the richer pensioners to receive as much from the state as poorer pensioners. In my opinion, the answer is not means-testing, but a progressive tax system that taxes at a higher rate those on high earnings when they are in employment. That is the way we should tackle inequality. I shall make some suggestions in that respect later in my speech. For now, I shall simply state my belief that the principle of universality in pension provision is just as important as in other public services.
The £75 non-means-tested pension, with proportionate increases for married couples, demanded for 1999 would have been a step forward, but only a single step. The other demand made by the National Pensioners Convention is that the Government should recognise the need to restore the link between wages and pensions—which, as we all

409
know, was broken by the Tories in 1980—and begin to move toward setting pensions at the levels they would have been in 1999 had the link not been broken. That is obviously fair, given that national insurance contributions are linked to earnings.
The cost of meeting the £75 and £116.60 non-means-tested pension would be £4 billion—a tiny sum compared with the savings that have been made and the moneys now available. I shall suggest a few areas in which the money could be found to ensure that pensioners receive the income and the justice they deserve. Many of the figures I shall use were provided by the House of Commons Library statisticians. They emphasise that we can meet our manifesto commitment to ensure that pensioners share the benefits of increasing national prosperity. We have rightly placed considerable emphasis on fulfilling our manifesto commitments and I am sure that we do not want to break that one.
First, the Government Actuary estimates that there will be a surplus in the national insurance fund of approximately £5.9 billion in 1999–2000. Secondly, the breaking of the link between pensions and wages has resulted in massive savings. Answering a question in the other place in February 1998, Baroness Hollis said that those savings now totalled £10.1 billion a year. Since 1980, when the link was first broken, savings of about £85 billion have been made—at the expense of senior citizens.
Thirdly, about £4 billion is spent—and therefore wasted—each year on the administration of means-tested benefits. Fourthly, many people, including up to 860,000 pensioners, do not claim the benefits due to them. The Government recently announced that for the year 1997–98 the savings amounted to between £1.6 billion and £4.1 billion.
Fifthly, budget forecasts show that there is now a budget surplus of about £12 billion. That is almost certainly a conservative estimate, because we know that the economy has expanded far more rapidly since the forecasts were made, and the budget surplus for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is likely to be about £20 billion.
Sixthly, if we linked our defence expenditure to the average expenditure of other western European countries we could save about £4 billion.
Finally, the money could be found by changing tax rates. For example, if we taxed incomes over £100,000 at 50 per cent. we would raise an additional £2 billion, and increasing that rate to 60 per cent. would raise an additional £4 billion. It is important to apply the fine socialist principle of the redistribution of wealth by taxing the highest earners at a higher rate.
Redistribution is necessary because under the previous Government—unfortunately, this has continued under the present Government—the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, with the poorest 20 per cent. experiencing no change, or even a decrease, in their real income. Again, pensioners are a significant number within that group; again, they are losing out.
Those are just a few suggestions about where the money could come from to meet pensioners' demands. I emphasise that fact, because I am sure that other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends—and, who knows, perhaps even the Minister when he responds to the debate—may have other suggestions about how the money can be raised. I do not suggest that all the savings
410
that I have mentioned should go to pensioners, although much of the money thus raised should go to them. We are no longer facing bankruptcy, as we were in 1945. We are an extremely rich country, awash with money that could meet the pensioners' demands.
Of course other issues, too, affect pensioners, and the Government must address those as well, including the costs involved when pensioners enter nursing homes. The Royal College of Nursing has called for nursing care to be free under the NHS to all who are assessed as needing it, wherever it is provided.
Finally, as I switch on my television every night I am confronted with news of the plight of the farming community, yet hardly any mention is ever made of the plight of the pensioners. There are far more pensioners than farmers—10 million of them. All of us, not only politicians but people in the media, too, should concentrate a little more time and effort on highlighting the plight of the pensioners.
I also saw on television that Prince Charles had come to the assistance of the pensioners. May I, through this debate, invite him to my constituency of Blaenau Gwent? Perhaps he could chat with some of the senior citizens organisations; I am sure that he would learn a lot about the plight of those 10 million pensioners.
Pensioners demand not the third way but justice. That is why we, the Labour Government, were rightly elected a while ago. For me, it is as simple as that, and I look forward to sitting on the Government Benches and sharing the joy as the Chancellor announces policies to ensure that justice is done for our pensioners.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) secured this debate, and I congratulate him on raising the issue so early after the recess. I am also glad about what he said in his last sentence, because I, too, will be on the Government Benches when the Chancellor makes his Budget statement in due course, and many of the issues that my hon. Friend has mentioned are for my right hon. Friend to decide. Clearly, my hon. Friend will not expect me to make a Budget statement today. However, I will do my best to deal with some of the issues that he has raised.
I make no apology for taking as my theme one of the first points that my hon. Friend made. He was, I believe, paraphrasing Nye Bevan when he said that we should prioritise our attack on pensioner poverty. That is what the Government intend to do. We cannot have more than one priority. If we are to prioritise our attack on pensioner poverty, pensioners who are not in poverty will not be the priority. That is self-evident, but it has to be said.
My hon. Friend made some fair comparisons when he talked about the way in which things have developed in the past 20 years. Those are fair and appropriate points. Since 1979, pensioners' average incomes have grown, but the fact remains that inequality among pensioners has also grown. A significant number of people have been left outside the improvements in general living standards. It is because we are not prepared to leave things like that that we intend to prioritise the issue.
I shall try not to use too many statistics, because sometimes they get in the way of the argument. However, the incomes of the least-well-off 20 per cent. of single

411
pensioners have risen by only 28 per cent. since 1979, whereas there has been an increase of 80 per cent. for the richest 20 per cent. of pensioners. One can see that there has been a widening gap.
In the poverty report that we published three weeks ago, entitled "Opportunity for all—tackling poverty and social exclusion", we said that there had been a widening gap of inequality in society. That includes the gap between the poorer and the better-off pensioners, and the main reasons for that gap are the tremendous increase—162 per cent.—in the real value of occupational pensions and the rise of more than 100 per cent. in investment incomes.
As a result, the proportion of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits fell from 57 per cent. in 1979 to 40 per cent. in 1996–97. I shall return to the issue of take-up later because, as my hon. Friend said, it is crucial.
At the moment, 28 per cent. of recently retired pensioners are means-tested in the widest sense, in that they are on state benefits. Talk of certain types of welfare reform and help with savings is much too late for those people. We need two separate policy initiatives, one for today's pensioners and one for tomorrow's pensioners. Many of the issues that my hon. Friend raised relate to today's pensioners, who need help now to enjoy a decent retirement. The Government have taken action in many areas, and will continue to do so.
I claim no special rights in this respect, but I was a Member of Parliament between 1974 and 1979, and I know that the link with earnings rather than prices lasted for only four years; it was a very short period. Indeed, when I was first elected, pensions were not even uprated annually. I believe that there was one period of two or three years in which pensions did not change.
We made it clear in our manifesto commitments that the basic pension would remain, would not be means-tested and would be raised in conformity with the rise in prices. I am not picking and choosing among our manifesto commitments, but I cannot pre-empt what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say in his statement about social security benefits next year, because that statement has not yet been prepared. However, my right hon. Friend is required to take into account a range of factors, including recent changes in the retail prices index.
Mr. Smith: Pensions may be linked to prices in future. Is the Minister saying that the 75p increase for a single pensioner next spring will be adequate, taking into account the possible price rises by that time?
Mr. Rooker: No; I am saying that there is press speculation, and everyone knows the level of the retail prices index. A statement will be made in due course, as normal. We are not required to make a statement until the second or third week of November. I do not know when that statement will be made, but it will be made at the appropriate time and in good time. At this time, I shall not debate whether that increase should be one figure or another.
There are now just under 11 million pensioners. Over the next 30 years, that figure will increase to almost 15 million, and there will be fewer people of working age. We must consider those long-term issues. We must also provide a help package to today's poorest pensioners.
412
My hon. Friend referred to the minimum income guarantee. No pensioner in any hon. Member's constituency, whether or not he or she is listening to this debate, should have a total weekly income of less than £75 a week, provided that they have no more than £3,000 in savings. However, we know from estimates that there are several hundred thousand pensioners who receive less than £75 a week, and we can correct that situation.
There are difficulties in the take-up of benefits. We have done more to solve those problems than previous Governments and have recently published research on that subject so that we can introduce a specific Government-led campaign to reach those pensioners. Ministers cannot simply say that the minimum income guarantee exists so no pensioner should be receiving less than £75 a week, without introducing an active, positive campaign to seek out every one of those poor pensioners, and that is what we intend to do. The basic figure for the minimum income guarantee is £75 a week, and the figure will be higher for older pensioners and those who are disabled. About 1.5 million pensioners have already benefited. Single pensioners have gained £160 a year in real terms.
The Chancellor has made it clear that the guarantee will be increased in line with earnings. That is important for today's pensioners, but it has consequences for our plans for stakeholder pensions and the state second pension, which we must tackle in due course. We are prioritising our attack on the poverty of today's pensioners. The guarantee means that pensioners over 80 will be more than £400 a year better off after two years of increases. No one can argue that we are not taking action.
We have just published a large programme of research into why some pensioners do not claim benefits. I regret, as do the Government, that we cannot run the campaign this autumn. It must take place early next year. It is not possible for the Benefits Agency to carry out that work before Christmas. We are preparing for that campaign and we shall ensure that it is effective. We must focus on building links with partner organisations, including those in the voluntary sector and local authorities. Pensioners who are identified as being potentially entitled to benefit will be issued with a specifically tailored leaflet that will provide information. There is no leaflet and no application form relating to the minimum income guarantee. The relevant application form is that for income support, which is 40 pages long.
It is not necessary for pensioners to visit a benefits office to claim the minimum income guarantee. If they do not want to go to the office, the information can be taken over the telephone or during a home visit. I encourage hon. Members to make that abundantly clear to pensioners in their constituency who argue that they do not want to go to the social. We shall explore ways to work on a permanent basis with our partners in local government to offer pensioners services relating to benefit entitlement.
My hon. Friend referred to the capital limits for the guarantee as a disincentive for saving, including saving for long-term care. We recognise that those limits can appear to be—and are—unfair to those who have saved. The present capital limits, which have been frozen for a considerable time, have been a disincentive and send the wrong message to the people who will be the next generation of pensioners. The message is that it does not pay to save, which is the exact opposite of the message that the Government seek to send out. We are therefore

413
considering the rules on capital. They are not straightforward because there are different rules for different benefits. We shall make an announcement on that as soon as possible. I regret that I cannot give a date for that.
Our package for pensioners is not only for those who are the least well off. As my hon. Friend acknowledged in an earlier meeting, the £100 winter fuel payment will go to all pensioner households and is not means-tested. People do not need to apply for that payment, which will be paid to 10 million pensioners in 7 million households before Christmas. That is a substantial increase on last year's payment. Pensioners are not a homogenous group and one cannot treat them as such, but, by and large, that payment should mean that people should not be afraid to keep warm this winter.
My hon. Friend mentioned SERPS. Many people retiring today, who have been fortunate enough to have 20 years' work, will receive SERPS. SERPS is not to be sniffed at, despite the previous Government's attack on the system in 1986. The average male retiring today will receive £49.44 a week from SERPS, and women will receive between £22 and £24. That is a tribute to the planning of the previous Labour Government. Unfortunately, it is not possible to turn back the clock and reverse what happened in 1986. We are grappling with the major problem of the mis-selling of pensions and the changes to SERPS for widows, which the previous Government deliberately hid for over a decade. We must get to grips with that within the next three weeks because of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which is being considered in the other place. That legislation may entail the expenditure of billions of pounds.
We have made progress on the tax guarantee for pensioners. Under the guarantee announced by the Chancellor, two thirds of pensioners will not pay tax, and this year 200,000 fewer pensioners are paying tax than last year. My hon. Friend was generous enough to mention VAT on fuel. People tend to forget that 5 per cent. is the lowest that we can set VAT on fuel. We have reintroduced free eye tests for pensioners.
We are conducting a listening process across the country. Ministers are listening not to organisations but to ordinary people. I have participated in two such events. The first was in Liverpool last week, and the second was in Southampton on Monday. We are listening to people so that we can construct policies that are effective for today's pensioners and tomorrow's pensioners. We need to make two specific policy efforts because if we introduce our measures for tomorrow's pensioners using the normal methods of the House, they will not help today's pensioners. We are prioritising today's pensioners in our attack on pensioner poverty. That means that we have to target our resources and we make no apology for that. We shall be judged on what we have done for the poorest in our society, and we shall be judged at the next election, not halfway through the next century when our new pension programmes will have come on-stream.

Victims of Crime
1.28 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Today, although I am usually on the Front Bench, I take my place on the Back Benches to represent a constituent. I shall describe a shocking constituency case that I believe highlights a failure in the criminal justice system, and I hope that once hon. Members have heard that case, they will agree with me. The case is not isolated; it is one more example of a system that is no longer trusted by large numbers of the public.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that I tabled this debate before the House rose for the recess some months ago, so I did not know that in the past seven days other cases would come to public notice which reinforce what I am about to say.
Over the weekend, an award was announced in the Silcott case. When a person who is doing time as a murderer finds himself better off to the tune of £50,000 or £60,000, it sets the public wondering. They say that something seems to be wrong. In the past few days, the case of Dr. Joan Richardson was concluded. It appears that, were it not for the fact that the family were in a financial position to bring a civil prosecution, that would have been yet another case of injustice, and Dr. Richardson's killer would have gone free.
Last night, in an Adjournment debate on rural crime instigated my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—my colleague and friend—she drew attention to a case in her constituency. In doing so, she again highlighted what has gone wrong with the system.
I hope that those three incidents give some idea of what I consider to be wrong. However, today I shall focus on one case in my constituency, about which I am concerned, and draw some conclusions. In December 1998, I was contacted by Mrs. Hockley, who had just written to the Home Secretary—he or his office took more than six months to reply—and to the Prime Minister. On reading her letter, I was reminded of an article in my local newspaper entitled "Rough Justice?", which was about the murder of Mrs. Hockley's son, Matthew Hockley, and the subsequent trial. She had written movingly about the failure to convict two men for her son's murder.
However, it was the last sentence in Mrs. Hockley's letter to me which set me on the course of action that has culminated today. She wrote:
"I am at my wits' end knowing that the two murderers are free and living while my beloved son is dead. Please help me."
I am afraid that an examination of this case illustrates so much of what is wrong, and shows how urgently action is needed. I hope that the Minister will respond.
On 11 October 1997, in the evening, at the Fox and Hounds pub in Chingford, Matthew Hockley was stabbed to death—not one stabbing but multiple stabbings, in a brutal assault. The police charged two brothers with the offence, and with the joint offence of wounding with intent in respect of a different victim. Before the case came to court, the accused absconded but were eventually brought back into custody. The case commenced on 3 August 1998 at the central criminal court at the Old Bailey.

415
Before the case began, the Crown Prosecution Service was so certain that the evidence and the witness statements stacked up that it informed my constituent, Mrs. Hockley, that, in its opinion, the case was 99.5 per cent. sure to result in a conviction, and that the perpetrators would serve at least 15 to 20 years for what they had done. Yet before August had finished, the accused were acquitted and Mr. and Mrs. Hockley—and their family, Matthew's brothers and sisters, and nieces and nephews—are left surveying the ruins of their lives, with the desperate and constant reminder not only that their son was murdered, but most particularly that those whom the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and witnesses believed to have committed the murder are now free.
When I took up the case, I tried hard to understand how such an injustice could have come about in a system that I had grown up to believe was one of the best in the world. On 9 December 1998, I wrote to the Home Secretary, and that letter was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. When I read his reply, I felt that, while he was outlining the CPS version of events and how it had arrived at its conclusions, he was already starting to distance the CPS from the whole process, and especially from the failure. Intriguingly, the director said that the senior Crown prosecutor who had said that the CPS believed that the case was 99.5 per cent. certain of success could not recall ever saying that.
Once one has read to the end of the letter, one is left with the strong impression that the CPS never thought that the case could possibly have arrived at a successful conclusion. That strikes me as strange, because I cannot conceive of why the CPS would have gone about prosecuting the case if it genuinely did not believe that it would be successful. That is not the impression that the CPS gave to the police or to my constituents.
Some other very serious issues required some answers, which were not given. For example, the Queen's counsel who had started the case with the CPS found that he was unable to take the case to court because he had other commitments. That is fair enough; it does happen. Some cases go on longer than expected. A week before trial, a new prosecutor—a new QC—was given the case. That prosecutor had less than seven days in which to understand the intricacies of the case and prosecute it, but, despite, that there was no discussion by the CPS about postponing the trial or finding another way round the problem.
How can a prosecutor come to such an important case with just seven days preparation, and how can the CPS gamble that such an individual can master that brief and prosecute successfully? Surely it would have been better to go for some form of postponement, but that suggestion was refused.
When I inquired into the circumstances of what happened during the case, it became apparent to me, from discussions with the police, that several times during the case it was quite clear that the command or knowledge of what happened during the investigation was simply not there, and that elements were left unprosecuted.
For example, Mrs. Hockley maintains that the accused absconded for three weeks, which seems to be the recollection of the police, but during the case the
416
prosecutor simply allowed that to be referred to as a matter of a few days. When the accused stated that when they left the pub, the victim was still sitting happily on a chair smoking, that apparently was not challenged although, according to all the witness statements, at that stage Matthew Hockley was already dead, or very seriously wounded, and the individuals were throwing bottles and chairs at him.
I do not intend to describe all the problems. I mention a few to highlight the mess that the case got into. Surely a week is not enough time in which to master such an important case. More important, when I then received a letter from the Attorney-General, whom I have known for a long time, about the case—to his credit, he was genuinely sympathetic—he seemed to be saying that the problem was simply the witnesses' failure to back up their witness statements. He said:
"It is important to remember that the decisions of police and CPS were based on the statements that were taken from the witnesses not the evidence that they gave in court which departed from their statements."
One is left wondering why that was not ascertained before trial. How can one go to trial in such a case and not try to discover whether the witnesses will back up their statements or are likely to agree with what they said at the time when they were interviewed?
I hope that the Minister takes some account of the fact that, on this occasion, the police, to whom I spoke at great length, said that that was not the whole story. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of an organisation called Victims Voice. I was in contact with it some years ago about another case in my constituency. The organisation represents people like Mrs. Hockley. It has tried to contact the Government to get a response from them since they came to power. It maintains that it has done so without any success. I remember taking representatives of Victims Voice to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was the Home Secretary and having discussions with him. However, Victims Voice is saying clearly that it receives no response from the Home Office or the Home Secretary, or even the Prime Minister, to whom it has written. That is not good and I am sad that that is the position.
Victims Voice has said that when Labour was in opposition, it had the clear understanding that a different view would be taken by a Labour Government. It is worried that the position is changing since the Opposition became the Government. I shall not draw conclusions about that; I simply say that an examination is needed. If what I have said is correct, I suspect that the Government need to have a rethink about their attitude.
I understand that Victims Voice organised a launch and that a letter to the Home Secretary last October, in which it asked him to attend, went unanswered. A fax to the Prime Minister received a rather bland reply two weeks later. Victims Voice has a serious issue to raise. It represents people like Mrs. Hockley who have suffered, and it has a right to be heard.
The Lawrence case is a recent example. I know that there are huge debates about other issues surrounding that case, but we should not lose sight of one simple fact arising from it—the parents have no redress, so their son's murder goes without answer. Like Mrs. Hockley, they are ultimately the victims of a system that seems to have failed them.

417
I have said that the Hockley case is not an isolated example, and from that I want to draw another conclusion. Over the past 24 hours, Victims Voice responded to my request for some other examples. There was the Crown v. Skeets and the Crown v. Skeets again in 1999. That was where the dismissed individual went on to commit another murder. There was the Crown v. Terrance Maul and Craig Maul. There was the Crown v. Donald Forbes followed by the Crown v. Donald Forbes again. That was a second homicide. There was the Crown v. Wayne Scotland. There was the Crown v. Scotland again. That represented a failure.
There was the Crown v. Anthony Diedick, the Crown v. Freddie Foreman, the Crown v. Jennings, Parker and Parker, the Crown v. Duffy, the Crown v. Colin Stagg, the Crown v. David Fields, the Crown v. Dunlop, the Crown v. McCluskey, Khan and Hunter, the Crown v. Stephen Plank and the Crown v. Keith Nicholas Whitehouse. I could go on, but I shall not do so. I simply say to the Minister that this pattern cannot be allowed to continue, otherwise people will lose faith in the system.
I ask for some redress for those who are now the victims, who are the families. It is clear that some cases will fail and we need to have a mechanism whereby, in a criminal sense, it is possible to have a rethink about certain cases and allow the families of those who have been murdered some form of redress. At present, if someone is sufficiently wealthy or manages to secure enough money, he can pursue some action through the civil court. However, in my constituency case—I discussed the matter at length with Mrs. Hockley—that is not an option because she does not have the money. Therefore, she is left staring at the ruin that is now her life.
The families of these victims do not want to create a victim culture. They would not call for that. They are not chasing for more money because they know that that will not bring back those who have been murdered. However, they do not want to see criminals benefit financially from any of their previous activities. Most of all, they want to be able to see justice done if the process fails in the first instance. It is the inability to deal with a failure, such as the one that I have outlined, that creates a terrible sense of injustice, and which can lead to problems in future.
I know that there will be problems. I am the first to accept that there are always problems with prosecutions because there is no absolute certainty. We all know that sometimes prosecutors do not get it right. However, when they do not get it right—not because of the innocence of the accused but because the prosecution has failed—the question that needs to be answered is how we deal with that failure. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. My worry is that if the Hockley case and other cases become known as the norm outside the House, and if newspapers represent them as real failures, ordinary men and women will think seriously about taking the law into their own hands. None of us in this place wants that. Any Government need to face that situation and find some way to deal with the anger and concern.
I quickly examined the number of cases tried in the Crown courts where there were no guilty pleas and the cases were contested. There were about 22,229 during 1998–99, with 11,561 convictions. Therefore, there was a failure to secure convictions in 8,668 cases, about
418
43 per cent. of those brought to trial. There were 8,668 Mrs. Hockleys; 8,668 cases that make people wonder on whose side the system is.
It is probably a conservative estimate that about £3.5 million is spent on failure. That should wake us up to the real failure that the system represents. No Government can possibly allow that situation to continue if they have any belief in the criminal justice system, as I do. I believe that we still have a great criminal justice system. It is still a system where justice can be found. However, I am afraid that ordinary men and women will find themselves so worried about the outcomes of serious cases that they may end up trying to take the law into their own hands. Now is the time for the Government to face that. Surely now is the time for them to make clear observations and statements of policy and deal with the matter.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing a debate on the operation of the criminal justice system in respect of victims of crime. I have great sympathy with him on the specific cases that he raised and thank him for the way in which he put his case, which raised profound issues about the opacity and lack of clarity in the way in which the criminal justice system operates in many cases. I, too, have had constituents who have felt extremely frustrated, to put it mildly, about the way in which the system operates. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will have had a similar experience.
I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am not in a position, any more than he is, to put myself as judge and jury in particular cases, nor to comment on the range of cases that he has mentioned. I simply say that the cases that he mentioned at the beginning of his speech—those of Silcott and Joan Richardson, the Emneth murder very near my constituency and the case of Matthew Hockley—are very different in character and raise different issues that need to be addressed. I am grateful to have the opportunity to tell the House what the Government are doing and will do to help victims of crime, and also deal with a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
First, I place on record that we acknowledge that the previous Government took some steps in the second half of their period of office to move forward in this matter, and we have sought to move further. We believe, as we have heard today in respect of Matthew Hockley's case and the other cases that the hon. Gentleman raised, that first and foremost victims want offenders caught, charged and convicted. However, as he acknowledged, sometimes there is simply insufficient evidence to bring charges. Sometimes a jury will decide that guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. As I have said, I cannot comment on specific cases, although I have sympathy with the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it is our duty—not only the Government's duty, but that of the system—to establish a criminal justice system that is responsive to the wider needs of victims. Evidence suggests that, first, the victims want from the criminal

419
justice system a simpler, clearer and less opaque process so that they can understand exactly what is happening, and a system that deals with cases much more speedily and effectively. Secondly, they want to be treated with dignity and respect, and in far too many cases that does not happen. Thirdly, they want to get proper information about their cases from the various agencies that are involved in the process, and the hon. Gentleman named some of them. Fourthly, they want their views taken into account in the process that goes forward. Fifthly, they want protection from intimidation and repeat victimisation, which is too often a feature of the cases that we are discussing. Finally, they want compensation for the injuries or loss sustained. I shall deal with each of those factors.
As for simpler, clearer and faster justice, we have taken steps, following the Narey and Glidewell reforms, to try to expedite the process. One of the most frustrating features for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and for mine is the very long time that is often taken as the various agencies within the criminal justice system interrelate before being able to resolve a case in the most effective way.
We are actively considering how we can create a simpler and clearer system. As I know the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, there are important issues of human rights and the rights of victims, as well as the rights of those who are prosecuted. We must secure a balance between the various agencies operating in the field. The present situation is too complex and too opaque and needs to be changed.
Secondly, with regard to victims' dignity and respect for victims, since May 1997 we have increased by 50 per cent. the grant to Victim Support, an important organisation in this field—a grant that had effectively been frozen by the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Victims Voice. As it happens, I had a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference which dealt with many of the issues that have been raised today. Representatives of Victims Voice attended that meeting and made a powerful series of interventions. I spoke directly to them about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised and about more general issues, and I committed myself to studying their material, of which they gave me a substantial quantity, and from some of which the hon. Gentleman may have drawn. I also undertook to speak further with Victims Voice, and I can confirm to the House that that is my intention. My previous meeting with the group was not arranged in advance, but, as I said, I met representatives at the Labour party conference, where we discussed some of the issues.
Our increased grant to Victim Support has enabled that organisation to use the new money to establish a new national telephone helpline for victims, which has made a major difference, and, more importantly, to start introducing a support service for victims and witnesses in magistrates courts. The support service for witnesses that has been developed is an important element in securing convictions. As the hon. Gentleman would no doubt acknowledge—although I do not make the point in any way about Matthew Hockley—in many cases securing a conviction depends on the preparedness of witnesses to stand up, even though they may feel intimidated by the criminals. That is why we have given support to Victim
420
Support, which, in turn, has been able to enhance the support that it provides to victims in its local community-based schemes, and for witnesses in its Crown court support service. We are looking to extend the scheme in that area.
In addition, for the first time, this year we have provided a grant of £100,000 to an organisation called Support after Murder and Manslaughter, all of whose members have suffered bereavement as a result of homicide. We seek to give concrete support in specific ways. I hear the hon. Gentleman's point about Victims Voice, one of the organisations involved, and will deal with that specifically.
The third aspect is information about developments in a case. That was one of the most powerful points made by the hon. Gentleman. We have taken forward the pilot project introduced by the victims charter to establish ways of providing more timely and better quality information about a case to the victims, from the time that a crime is committed to the eventual possible release of the offender—right through the process.
It is our intention shortly to issue national guidance on the matter, as we acknowledge that the organisations concerned need better quality advice. In particular, we have asked the Crown Prosecution Service, which featured several times in the hon. Gentleman's speech, to take responsibility for conveying information to victims about the decisions taken by the CPS. I can tell the House that it is actively working to put in place an effective system for that. It is intended that that should be in place by April 2001, and, to that end, a series of pilots is being run in various parts of the country. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would concede, there are serious difficulties surrounding how to give information, at what stage, and with what authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the steps that we are taking.
The fourth important aspect is to take victims' views into account. Of course, those views are already taken into account informally in respect of some decisions, but I place no substantive weight on that because an informal mechanism is not a good way of proceeding. We are considering the introduction of a system enabling victims in all but the most relatively minor cases to have the opportunity to explain the effect that crime has had on them—physically, emotionally, financially or in any other respect.
It is important for victims to give as well as to receive information, as a way of bringing them closer to the heart of the criminal justice process, and ensuring that, in reaching decisions, the system takes greater account of the experience of the victims of crime. It is not an easy matter, but we are actively considering it and believe that it will be an important development.
The fifth aspect relates to intimidation and repeat victimisation. I do not suggest that that is an issue in the Hockley case, but in many other cases it is significant. Provisions in our Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 fulfil our commitment to provide greater assistance to rape complainants, children and other vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, who for obvious reasons may find it particularly difficult to give evidence in court.
The 1999 Act gives authority to the courts to provide a range of special practical measures to help witnesses to give their best evidence in court. The measures include

421
screening the witness, allowing evidence to be given through a live link rather than in the courtroom, and banning defendants from personally cross-examining their alleged victims in sexual offence cases. As I mentioned in relation to Victim Support, I highlight that aspect because it was one of the weaknesses in the system identified by the hon. Gentleman when he referred to the proportion of convictions in the cases that go to the Crown court. We must do everything possible to strengthen witnesses who might feel anxious about going to court, and enable them to give evidence truthfully and straightforwardly.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the Government give serious consideration to redress in cases that have fallen not because the evidence was dismissed, but because of ineptitude and incompetence in the process of prosecution? Is there any way that the Government could deal with that through the criminal system?
Mr. Clarke: As I said at the outset, we are examining the entire way in which the criminal justice system operates, to ensure fairness. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and it is one of the aspects that we shall consider.
On reparation and compensation, the United Kingdom currently has the most generous system of state compensation in Europe. In 1998–99, the criminal injuries compensation scheme paid out almost £200 million to more than 46,000 successful applicants. Nevertheless, we did not think that that was adequate in all respects, and the Government earlier this year issued a public consultation paper on the scheme, inviting suggestions for
422
possible changes to the rules of the scheme and for eligibility for payment—a relevant point in this discussion.
We had a large number of responses to the consultation paper, which are being analysed. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as we can. I can guarantee the hon. Gentleman that his comments this afternoon will be taken into account in that process. Compensation is also provided to victims through compensation orders made by the courts. It is estimated that about three quarters of all compensation orders are in paid in full within 18 months.
My conclusion relates to the hon. Gentleman's final point—the Lawrence case. Sir William Macpherson's inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence made recommendations about the treatment of victims and witnesses, which we are taking forward together with the other measures that I have outlined. We want to build on the start that we have made. We want to provide greater protection, better information and more opportunities for victims to have their say. Above all, we want to restore victims to the heart of the criminal justice system and maintain this country's growing reputation as a European front-runner in victim care.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BAXI PARTNERSHIP LIMITED TRUSTS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What progress has been made through the Decommissioning Authority on the proposals for the purchase of decommissioned weaponry. [92968]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Decommissioning schemes were published in June 1998 after extensive consultation. They make no provision for the purchase of paramilitary weaponry as that option was not supported by any of the parties. The people of Northern Ireland need to know that paramilitary weapons have gone for good and I believe that they would not find the concept of giving money to terrorists acceptable.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but the purchase of decommissioned weaponry has played a part in internal conflict resolution in various parts of the world. Would not it be wrong to rule it out even at this stage?
    Mr. Ingram: I note what my hon. Friend says. Although that is a matter not only for the Government, but for all the parties, I think that I have made our view clear.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Minister recognise that there is no democracy in western Europe where terrorists or insurgents in possession of weapons or associated with those who are in possession of weapons enter government? Will he reassure us, as Parliament reassembles, that it is still Government policy that no one who is a terrorist or terrorist linked can enter government while those terrorist organisations continue to hold weapons?
    Mr. Ingram: Those matters undoubtedly are subject to the discussions currently taking place under the Mitchell review. Clearly, the principles set out in the Good Friday agreement are ones that the Government uphold entirely. I am sure that that is consistent with the views the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key question in determining whether an individual is a terrorist is attitude and commitment to peace? Without wishing to downgrade the importance of decommissioning, perhaps even more focus should be put on the commitment to ending the war.
    Mr. Ingram: This is undoubtedly a difficult process. What the Good Friday agreement has set in place, and what previous Governments and this Government have sought to achieve, is a new climate of opinion to persuade people away from the culture of violence and into the culture of democratic politics. The Good Friday agreement established a good framework for that,
    424
    which is why we ask all the parties associated with the review to proceed with all haste and good intent to bring it to a conclusion.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: On decommissioning, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that
    "Adams and McGuinness are sincere"
    and that the IRA leadership are prepared to give up violence for good when there is no evidence at all that they are prepared to give up violence? Not one ounce of Semtex or one weapon has been surrendered, although we read that the IRA is recruiting students at Belfast freshers' fair, and we know that it is torturing and intimidating people daily on the streets of Ireland. When will the Minister and the new Secretary of State take action against that serious security problem?
    Mr. Ingram: The Government take all those issues seriously, which is why we keep the status and the quality of the review under close scrutiny. To do otherwise would fail all the people of Northern Ireland and what we are trying to achieve through the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Gentleman uses emotive language, but he should apply some good common sense to it and try to look at the matter in a much more balanced and progressive way, because that is what the Good Friday agreement did.

    Devolution
    Judy Mallaber: What progress is being made towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [92970]
    Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on progress with the Belfast agreement. [92971]
    Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive. [92972]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The parties are currently engaged with Senator Mitchell in a review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The review's aim is to reach an agreed basis for establishing an inclusive Executive and securing the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by May 2000. The agreement is crucial for the future of peace and stability. I would urge the parties to use this opportunity to deliver its full benefits to the people of Northern Ireland.
    Judy Mallaber: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his first Northern Ireland questions and wish him well in his work to further the peace process? Does he agree that there is no alternative to the Good Friday agreement, which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south? Will he join me in encouraging all those taking part in Senator Mitchell's review to show the courage and flexibility to bring it to a successful conclusion?
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. May I say at the outset that, whatever I am able to achieve as Secretary of State for Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—

    425
    for Northern Ireland, I shall be doing so on the basis of a tremendous legacy, which I have inherited from my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam). Were it not for her, we would not have this ceasefire or the Good Friday agreement. Northern Ireland would be a less friendly place were it not for her contribution while she was in office.
    It is absolutely essential for the Good Friday agreement to work. There is no alternative to that agreement; there is no plan B, should it fail. If it were to fail, I have no doubt that what would follow would be a collapse of the ceasefires and renewed violent confrontation. I pay tribute to Senator Mitchell and all those from Northern Ireland parties who are currently involved in the discussions, which are taking place as we meet this afternoon. I trust that all Members of this House will acknowledge the magnitude and importance of that work, and will give those parties their unequivocal support.
    Mr. Winnick: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his position and echo exactly what he said—and rightly so—about his predecessor and her immense contribution to trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a tragedy for both communities in Northern Ireland if no progress is made in implementing the agreement? Will he give a clear pledge today that, whatever happens, there will continue to be close working co-operation between the two Governments, British and Irish, at both ministerial and senior civil service level?
    Mr. Mandelson: Yes, I can give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. I readily acknowledge the work that is done by him and his colleagues on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which makes a valuable contribution to the close working relations between ourselves and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Those will be maintained.
    I entirely echo my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. In Northern Ireland, nationalists and republicans are rightly looking to the early implementation of the power-sharing Executive. Unionists, on the other hand, are looking for unequivocal evidence that republican violence is ended for good. Each party is entitled to what it wants. They need each other to make that possible; both aims need to be fulfilled. There must, therefore, be considerable give and take, and I hope that from the talks taking place this week will emerge the necessary clarity, but also the certainty, that each side needs in order to make the progress that we want to see.
    Shona McIsaac: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the quality of life in Northern Ireland is now far better than it has been for a generation? Do we not have the best chance for a stable future that we have had for the past 30 years, with, for example, the ceasefires holding over the summer, the parades passing off without too much trouble and, importantly, 20 out of 26 councils having some form of power sharing? Will he impress on all the parties involved in Northern Ireland that they should not lose sight of those achievements in the current wranglings over the agreement and the setting up of the Executive?
    Mr. Mandelson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It really is difficult to overestimate how much progress Northern Ireland has made during the 1990s. A decade
    426
    ago, 80 to 100 people were being killed each year in Northern Ireland. Violence was a daily reality, politics were in a stalemate and there was little or no dialogue between the parties. Today, the picture is very different indeed. That is due to the enormous efforts of representatives drawn from each party, but due more than anything else to the overwhelming demand and desire for peace that is expressed by those in all communities. It behoves politicians of all parties to listen to the public in Northern Ireland and to ensure that they deliver to those people the unbreakable peace that they need for their future happiness and prosperity.
    Mr. David Trimble: I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in his new role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I assure him that my colleagues and I will do all that we can to assist him and others to bring about the full implementation of all aspects of the Belfast agreement. Does the Secretary of State recall that only last Saturday, our party conference once again committed itself to a fully inclusive Executive, so there can be no doubt of our commitment on that? However, we require at the same time clear evidence of irreversible commitment to peaceful means. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the need for clarity and certainty. We are not interested in a fudge; we are interested in what will work.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his welcome. I look forward to working closely with him and all his colleagues in the months and years ahead. It is entirely reasonable that he and members of his community should demand and receive that reassurance and certainty of intention, which it is an obligation on those in the republican movement to give him and the people he represents if we are going to make the progress in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement that we want. The key to peace is persuading republicans and other paramilitaries to engage exclusively in democratic politics and to renounce violence now and for ever. They have come a long way. They are still travelling in the right direction, but many have not yet completed their journey. We look forward with some certainty and clarity to those people setting out exactly how they are going to arrive at the end of that journey so that peace can be secured for ever.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the new Secretary of State accept that we will support him in his endeavours to implement the Belfast agreement in full, which will hopefully one day bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland? Will he further accept that, as the Opposition, we have a constitutional duty to speak out where we feel it necessary? We cannot give him a blank cheque—unlike the previous Paymaster General.
    Mr. Mandelson: As it happens, the cheque was not blank and I am glad to say that it has now been repaid with interest, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I hope that with a new Secretary of State in place, it is possible to make a fresh start and to return to the bipartisan spirit that has always characterised relations between the parties on Ireland. If that is the case, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will reciprocate. That unity of purpose between the parties is more

    427
    important than ever now, as we move into the critical phase of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, and I look forward to a constructive relationship with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    Mr. MacKay: May I move on to another aspect of the Belfast agreement and ask the Secretary of State about the Patten commission report on policing in the Province? Clearly, the overwhelming number of recommendations should be implemented very quickly and are straightforward, but he will be aware that some of them are security sensitive. Surely it would be wrong to implement those recommendations until there is an end to violence for good. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that those that are security sensitive will not be implemented until there is a lasting peace?
    Mr. Mandelson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that while I am Secretary of State, I and my colleagues will always act in the best interests of the security of Northern Ireland and on the basis of the security advice that we receive from those who are our professional advisers. The Patten report is an honest and a good report, and I very much want to hear everyone's views on it.
    I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I honour those in Northern Ireland who have taken so much and have sacrificed so much in the course of their duties to protect all the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve our gratitude and from me they will get it unstintingly. Our job is to develop a police service in Northern Ireland that builds on the best traditions of the RUC—its integrity, its courage and its discipline—but a service, too, that all communities in Northern Ireland can identify with and feel protected by. It is that goal by which I shall be guided throughout.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: I should also like to welcome the right hon. Gentleman on what turns out to be national stress-free week. I have no doubt that he will enjoy his new role every bit as much as his predecessor did. The document "The Way Forward" put together by the two Governments in July indicated that we might expect a report from General de Chastelain around September. I am just wondering whether there is any sign of that report.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not noticed that it was national stress-free week so far, but it is only Wednesday. The decommissioning report to which he refers would, of course, have flowed from the implementation of the "Way Forward" proposals, had they been accepted by the parties. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had a long and constructive discussion with General John de Chastelain and his colleagues last week. I am pleased to say that they stand ready to assist Senator Mitchell and any outcome of the review that is taking place this week. I suspect that, should those talks go well, we shall have every reason to call on their services.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Might I remind my right hon. Friend that the Equality Commission has an important role to play vis-a-vis the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, but may I point out that the commission is distressingly
    428
    under-resourced in terms of staff and office accommodation? I hope that he and his Ministers will do something about that.
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am grateful to him for referring to the immensely important role of the Equality Commission. I shall certainly be listening to the representations that they have already made about what they consider to be a shortage of resources and staff in carrying out their job. They are building up their work and operation, and they will certainly receive every encouragement from me in the months and years to come.
    Mr. Michael Mates: I am sure that all of us wish the new Secretary of State well as he sets out on his daunting task. Does he recall that the Prime Minister sold the Good Friday agreement, in the summer after it had been reached, when he went to address the people of Northern Ireland before the referendum, on the basis that he would guarantee parallel movement towards full implementation? Is he aware that there has been no parallel movement, and will he make it his first task, as he sets out on this job, to insist that there is?
    Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to stress the important dimension that the terms and conditions of the Good Friday agreement must go forward together and must be taken forward by all the parties in unison. I attach enormous importance to that. But the reason there has not been parallel movement is the reason the Good Friday agreement is not being implemented at the moment, which is what Senator Mitchell is addressing during the talks this week. I remain hopeful that a proper agreement and sequencing of those steps forward, which accommodate the goals of devolution and decommissioning, can go forward hand in hand, because I have no doubt that if they do not do so, we will not have the implementation of the agreement that we want.

    Lifelong Learning
    Gillian Merron: What proposals the Government have for lifelong learning in Northern Ireland. [92973]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): The policy statement on lifelong learning in Northern Ireland was published in early 1999, and contains a 12-point action plan and related targets for the next three years. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition to the UK-wide initiatives of university for industry, new deal and individual learning accounts, a range of local initiatives is also being implemented.
    Gillian Merron: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the trade unions which have worked closely with employers to provide learning opportunities for working people of all ages and from all walks of life? How will the university for industry work and build upon such initiatives so that we can see further educational development in Northern Ireland for all?
    Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the university for industry is taking shape in Northern

    429
    Ireland and in the next month, we shall be announcing three or four learning projects. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions in Northern Ireland is bargaining with the Training and Employment Agency for a skills initiative which will promote learning in the work force. Northern Ireland suffers from a high level of adult basic literacy and numeracy problems, and the trade unions are playing a full part in ensuring that that is corrected.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that, in apprenticeship schemes and, therefore, in lifelong learning, priority should be given to those who take the practical rather than the academic route so that they obtain the skills and qualifications to enable them to succeed in their chosen field?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned these issues to me before in the Chamber and outside. He will be pleased to know that yesterday, I was involved in the signing of a concordat on the plumbing industry, from which he comes, to ensure that those in that industry have great training and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman can relay that to his constituents and I shall be delighted to talk to him about it.

    Unemployment
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on recent figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland. [929741
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): Latest estimates from the labour force survey for the period from June to August 1999 show that approximately 58,000 persons are unemployed in Northern Ireland. That represents a decrease of 3,000 over the year and the current unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent.
    Dr. Iddon: I welcome that announcement, but will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Chancellor's statement at Bournemouth that the Government's target is full employment? Does he agree that, if that can be achieved, it will represent one of the best ways of eliminating discrimination in the workplace, including religious discrimination?
    Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Chancellor's statement at Bournemouth was a signal statement. The Chancellor made his contribution to Northern Ireland in May 1998 when he produced a £350 million package for his initiative. That covers several areas, including investment funds, skills and entrepreneurship. The fact that the new deal is turning into a permanent deal is another good sign for the young people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: We all acknowledge the fact that unemployment is still far too high in Northern Ireland and we recognise the success that Government policies have had recently in reducing unemployment and providing new jobs. Will the Minister reassure those who may lose their jobs in the Mother's Pride bakery in Londonderry and in the Larne paper mills that the
    430
    Industrial Development Board is doing everything possible to encourage new investment in such areas to give hope for the future?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Member mentions the loss of 84 jobs at British Bakeries in Londonderry, but that has been partly offset by the additional 50 jobs created in Belfast. With regard to the IDB and its involvement in new projects, he will be pleased to know that of the 21 inward investment projects in the past year, 13 have been placed in areas with high unemployment and social disadvantage.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I take this opportunity to welcome the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on behalf of my party and promise our fullest co-operation for the welfare of all our people? I also welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). I express our sincere gratitude to the outgoing Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), who will always be remembered in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland.
    The Minister has welcomed the unemployment figures, but is he aware that they will be increased in the near future when those engaged in agricultural industry—the farmers, their families and workers—become unemployed? In his capacity as Minister with responsibility for economic development, will he create a special interdepartmental task force, including the Department of Economic Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, to assess the needs of the farming community, and make drastic proposals to keep them on the farm and taking part in our rural community?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in his constituency, British Aerospace has announced a £2 million expansion and 195 new jobs in Kilkeel. The issue of farmers is being addressed in the economic development forum, involving all the social partners, that I have established in the Department of Economic Development. Yesterday, I opened a £5 million project—the Government contributed £1 million—for Linden Foods in Dungannon, to ensure that the rural and agricultural elements are maintained. That project was well received by the farmers.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware that in the past year, the number of people directly employed in the pig industry in Northern Ireland has fallen by more than 50 per cent., from 4,000 to 2,000? That number is likely to fall further. What efforts has the Minister made to support the pig industry and to alleviate the acute financial and other distress suffered by farming families involved in the pig industry?
    Mr. McFall: The Government acknowledge the serious situation of the pig industry and my noble Friend Lord Dubs is addressing it in his capacity as Minister with responsibility for agriculture. I mentioned earlier that I visited Linden Foods yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also visited that project, as has Lords Dubs himself. We are working with the industry in Europe to ensure that we get the best possible deal.

    Policing
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the Patten commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. [92977]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): On 9 September, the Patten commission issued its report and the Secretary of State announced that the Government accepted its findings in principle. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House. As required by the Belfast agreement, the Government are consulting various parties. Consultation will last until the end of November and an implementation plan will then be published.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Patten report provides a blueprint for the future policing of Northern Ireland which has the potential to take the politics out of policing and to take forward the political process? Does he also agree that political progress will aid the implementation of the Patten report?
    Mr. Ingram: I think that that would have resonance in many of the key sectors in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend says, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in an earlier answer the way in which the Government are taking the matter forward. This is an important report, which will lead to better policing in Northern Ireland in the future. That is what all communities in Northern Ireland want.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Boswell: Does the Prime Minister support the right of state school governors to solicit top-up contributions from parents to maintain essential staffing levels and the core activities of their schools?
    The Prime Minister: Schools are perfectly entitled to ask for voluntary contributions from parents; they have always been entitled to do that. What must not happen is people being forced to pay such contributions.
    Mr. Giles Radice: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the common approach to asylum seekers achieved at the recent summit? However, does he agree that it would be totally against the British national interest—and entirely crazy—for a British Prime Minister to threaten to block, or indeed to block, the enlargement of
    432
    the European Union to include countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic? That is what the Leader of the Opposition proposed at his recent party conference.
    The Prime Minister: We shall certainly not take such a course. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head, but that is precisely what the Opposition have proposed. In case any doubt remains, let me make it clear that the Opposition have said that, in government, they would insist on an amendment to the treaty of Rome. If such an amendment were not granted, they have said that they would block all European Union change, including enlargement.
    If anyone wanted a clue to the real Conservative intentions, how about the following quotation, which I did not read out yesterday? The Conservative pressure group on Europe contains 13 Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen, and its vice chair, Mr. Roger Helmer, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, said:
    "The big stick is the threat of withdrawal … I don't rule out withdrawal as an option."
    Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will finally disown remarks such as that.
    Mr. William Hague: Whose fault is it that the Home Secretary was allowed to make an announcement about 5,000 more police officers that bore so little resemblance to the truth? Was it the fault of the Home Secretary, or of the Prime Minister, who allowed him to do it?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said was as follows:
    "So, over the next three years, on top of the 11,000 recruits already planned, we will be giving the police the money they need to recruit 5,000 more officers. That's 5,000 more police officers over and above the police service's recruiting plans."
    That is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. That is what he meant, and that is what he will do.
    Mr. Hague: What the Home Secretary said is what he repeated in an article on Monday, when he wrote:
    "There will be 5,000 more police officers."
    However, in a letter to the Home Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote:
    "Dear Home Secretary,
    I must stress that, as has been discussed at length … the package does not provide for 5,000 "additional" police officers … There should therefore be no references to this package being one for 5,000 additional officers … I am copying this letter to the Prime Minister".
    So the Prime Minister must have known, before the Home Secretary's speech, that the promise of 5,000 more officers was not the truth. Did the Prime Minister read the letter, and what did he do about it?
    The Prime Minister: It is exactly the truth. Perhaps the best evidence of that came from the Association of Chief Police Officers, which, when the Conservative party got this matter off the ground, said:
    "We regard Jack Straw very much as a man of his word. He has repeated his commitment … and we see this as real new money for extra recruits."

    433
    There will be 5,000 more officers. The distinction lies between those 5,000 more officers and what happened when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government. They cut police numbers by 1,500.
    Mr. Hague: When the previous Government left office there were 16,000 more police officers in this country, and 16,000 additional police officers. Under the previous Government, "more" and "additional" meant the same thing, as they usually do in the English language. Is the Prime Minister happy that the Home Secretary should write articles saying that there would be 5,000 more police officers? Was he happy for his press secretary to say on Monday that
    "there will be 5,000 more police officers as a result of what Jack announced"?
    Will the Prime Minister clear up this matter? Will he tell the whole country whether, over the next three years, there will be 5,000 more police officers than there are now?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, there will be 5,000 extra police officers. Yes, the £35 million is new money. Yes, as opposed to the plans that we inherited from the previous Government—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member—which predicted a fall in police recruits, we will have a rise in police recruits.
    Mr. Hague: Given that the number of police recruits is scheduled to be 16,000 over the next three years as opposed to 18,000 over the past three years, the Prime Minister's comment is no more truthful than those of the Home Secretary before him. Let him answer the question that I have asked. Let him cut the waffle—and cheer up about it; we have weeks of this before Christmas. Will there be 5,000 more police officers than there are now?
    The Prime Minister: I have just said that the Home Secretary said that there would be 5,000 more recruits in addition—[Interruption]—yes, in addition to the 11,000 that there are already. Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the previous Government increased the number of police officers. I have the figures, and from 1993–94 until the Conservatives left office, they cut police numbers every single year.
    Mr. Hague: The evasion by the Prime Minister of such a straight question is a truly pathetic spectacle. Is he not ashamed that, for a few cheap, misleading headlines during the Labour party conference, his Government have behaved in such a way that the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has said:
    "This is a complete betrayal of the people and the police officers of this country"?
    The Prime Minister: As I have just said, the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that this is real new money for real recruits. There will be 5,000 extra officers.
    Another point is worth making. Under its guarantee, the Conservative party is committed to cutting public spending. The Conservatives have made a commitment on tax policy that cannot be financed without that cut. Let me tell my hon. Friends and the Opposition that whenever the Conservatives raise any question on health spending,
    434
    school spending, transport spending or police spending, we know that they propose to cut Government spending, and that this Government are raising it.
    Mr. Hague: These questions are about the integrity of the Government. Is it not part of the Prime Minister's job to set standards of truthfulness and integrity for the Government? Is that not what he spectacularly fails to do? He says that waiting lists are down when they are up, that class sizes are down when they are up and that taxes are down when they are up. Now he says that police numbers are up when they are down. Is it not time that he looked around the Cabinet table and was tough on lies and tough on the causes of lies?
    The Prime Minister: First, as I have already said on police numbers—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: On tax lies, some people remember VAT before the last general election. On waiting lists, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. They are 60,000 below the level that we inherited. On class sizes, for five, six and seven-year-olds, they are now almost 300,000 below the level that we inherited. None of those things would have happened if we had taken his advice. His advice was not to cancel the assisted places scheme, so we would not have had the money to cut class sizes. [Interruption.] I was just trying to turn up this letter from him. A year ago today, he said:
    "The shadow Chancellor and I, and many independent economists, have warned that your three-year spending settlement was reckless and based on hopelessly over-optimistic growth estimates."
    The fact is that we are spending more money on schools, hospitals and the police. He opposed that extra spending, called it reckless and irresponsible and asked for us to cancel it. The one group of people who can make no complaint about anything to do with public services are those who would privatise them rather than modernise them.
    Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating all those concerned with producing the Government's imaginative proposals for objective 2 areas, especially on having the good sense to include many traditional seaside resorts? Does he agree that the benefits that objective 2 funding brings to areas such as mine are a good example of how Europe really works, and expose the anti-European rantings of the Leader of the Opposition for the jingoistic nonsense that they are?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, but it goes further than that. The Conservative party proposal, which is to have opt-outs for all countries in any area other than free trade and the free market, which is what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, includes structural funds. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition even knows that that is a consequence of his policy. We would not have a structural fund settlement under the Conservative party proposal. It is not merely that the Conservatives would be on a conveyor belt to withdrawal because that is the only way they could make their policy stick: they would be giving up literally

    435
    billions of pounds from Europe that would go to hard-pressed constituencies the length and breadth of this country.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Kennedy: That is probably as good as it gets. [Interruption.] I know that my friends will do their best to help me.
    Does the Prime Minister agree that it must be a source of political frustration to him and his colleagues that, after more than two years of Labour in office, the gap between rich and poor remains distressingly wide and deep? In particular, does he acknowledge that offering pensioners a miserly 73p basic state pension upgrade is adding insult to injury? If, as a member of a fairly poverty-stricken category, he was offered 73p extra income per week, what would he advise people to spend it on?
    The Prime Minister: The gap between rich and poor is actually narrowing as a result of this Government's policies. There are hundreds of thousands fewer children in poverty. By the end of the Parliament, there will be 2 million fewer in poverty. The working families tax credit, the new deal and the extra increases in child benefit all contribute to that and were all, of course, opposed by the Conservative party.
    Something else that is opposed by the Conservative party—and I hope when the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) is talking about pensioners he will take this into account—is the £100 that will be given to each pensioner household this November. That goes a very long way to boosting the incomes of pensioners. If we take into account all the help that this Government have given to pensioners, the average pensioner is actually getting more than if we had indexed pensions to earnings.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, as well as the income levels of pensioners, the other big issue about which everyone in the House should be concerned is the need for all of us—who, one day, will face pension provision ourselves—to have some continuity of policy?
    Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the great failings of British politics is that, since the consensus over the former state earnings-related pension scheme was broken under the previous Administration, we have not been able to re-establish all-party consensus for long-term basic state pension provision? Would he be willing, as Prime Minister, to hold talks on that matter with the leader of the Conservative party and myself to see whether we can achieve—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order. Mr. Kennedy, continue.
    Mr. Kennedy: Many people want to answer for the leader of the Conservative party. Would the Prime Minister be willing to try to re-establish a tripartite basis
    436
    on which long-term pension provision in this country could be conducted? That would make sense for all concerned.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always willing to try to move across party boundaries when it is in the national interest to do so. He is right that pensions are a very important area indeed. I would be very happy to work with him in relation to that, but I point out to him that the strategy for pensions reform, in respect of the new stakeholder pensions and of the state second pension, that we set out in the pensions Green Paper has received a widespread degree of support.
    We are well on the way to formulating the right framework for pensions in future, but I agree that this is something that will transgress all political parties and will move through Governments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Transgress?"] I was trying to think of a polite way of putting it for the Conservative party. The issue will cross political parties and also move through Governments. I am perfectly happy to look at how such a cross-party consensus could be established, but must say that, on the basis of the Conservative attitude so far, I am not very hopeful.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's air traffic control system is the safest in the world? Does he accept that there is real apprehension throughout the country about the complex part privatisation scheme that was announced by the Government just before the House rose for the summer recess? In recognising the importance of public opinion and the fact that such concerns are shared by air traffic controllers themselves as well as by airline pilots, will the Prime Minister assure us that there will be the fullest consultation with the whole aviation industry before any decision is taken to introduce legislation on that matter?
    The Prime Minister: Of course there will be a full process of consultation. As to safety, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, as a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals, safety will—for the first time—be separated out and dealt with properly in the public sector. Whatever the public-private sector partnership proposed for air traffic control, in respect of safety, we shall be improving the present situation.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I remind the Prime Minister that my question to him of 9 June showed that, during the two years to March 1999, the 13-week-plus out-patients waiting list for Mid Essex had increased from 555 people to 2,422 people? Is he aware that, since then, the number has increased by a further 862 to 3,284 people? Does the Prime Minister not understand that fiddling the in-patient lists by allowing the out-patient lists to balloon out of control is a cynical exercise that is causing patients grave distress and suffering?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that the out-patient lists have grown as a result of the in-patient waiting lists. Actually, in his area, the in-patient waiting lists have fallen, and more out-patients are being treated—not less. More are being treated than before. More than half of out-patients—

    437
    this is part of the confusion that lies at the heart of his question—never become in-patients. In fact, we are treating more out-patients and we are getting in-patient lists down.
    Finally, the only way that we can get all lists down is by extra investment and reform, and change in the health service. The hon. Gentleman and his party are against that extra investment. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. A few months ago, the Conservatives said at the Dispatch Box that extra spending of £21 billion on the health service was reckless and irresponsible. They cannot turn around now and say that they want even more spending than the £21 billion that we are putting in.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, at Prime Minister's questions a year ago, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that there was an economic crisis and demanded that the Chancellor be summoned to the House to explain the mess into which he had got the country? May I renew the demand for a statement from the Chancellor, so that he can tell us about record low inflation and interest rates, more jobs and less unemployment—policies that we would not get off the back of a lorry?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A year ago, the Tories were telling us to cancel the spending plans, saying that we had produced an economic mess and recession. In fact, as my hon. Friend says, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years, interest rates down, debt under control, employment up by 600,000 since the election, unemployment down and long-term unemployment halved. All of that would be at risk if the Conservatives' policies were pursued. They would scrap the working families tax credit, scrap the new deal and scrap Bank of England independence.
    Although they tell us that they want to cut social spending, I can tell the House that, in the past few weeks, they have tabled amendments to the social security legislation for an extra £3 billion of spending. The truth is that their policies do not add up and they are not thought through. For that reason, among many others, they will never get the chance to put them into practice.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister accept that, if he continues with the fuel price escalator for the course of this Parliament, it will be the equivalent of putting 5p on the basic rate of income tax, except that it will take the form of an unfair, back stairs form of taxation? When he was campaigning so hard during the Hamilton, South by-election, did he detect growing public opposition to fuel taxes, toll taxes and tuition fees? Is that why the Labour majority went from 16,000 to 500, or does he prefer the explanation offered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that people are so happy and contented with the new Labour party that they cannot be bothered to vote for it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is the one who fought the Scottish elections on putting up income tax. That was his very claim, and there is no point in his denying it now, let alone turning around and accusing us of putting up taxes. What is more, when we add up the spending promises of the Scottish nationalists, there is no
    438
    way 1p on income tax would be enough. The truth is that their spending pledges and tax pledges are about as coherent as the Conservatives'.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What advice will my right hon. Friend offer the Leader of the Opposition when the right hon. Gentleman visits a betting—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me hear the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Ellman: What advice will my right hon. Friend offer the Leader of the Opposition on Friday, when the right hon. Gentleman visits a betting and gaming establishment in my constituency—a constituency in which unemployment has fallen by more than 22 per cent. since the general election? Given the Tories' record of economic failure, their opposition to the new deal and the minimum wage, and their hostility to Europe, what odds does my right hon. Friend recommend the Leader of the Opposition take on a Tory return at the next general election?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policies and that Prime Minister's questions have nothing whatever to do with the Leader of the Opposition. She has had a good try, but we must now move on.
    Mr. John Butterfill: You will remember, Madam Speaker, that during yesterday's statement on the Tampere agreement, I asked the Prime Minister whether he could explain how we could have a common system of judicial authority when there was no common legal system. After some consultation with the Home Secretary, he told me that the common judicial authority would apply only to serious criminal cases where the countries concerned agreed that there was a case to answer that was applicable in either country. However, I see that paragraph 5 of the annexe to the report issued on the Tampere agreement states:
    "Judgements and decisions should be respected … while safeguarding … legal certainty … and economic operators."
    It is clear that paragraph 5 envisages that common authority applying to civil cases as well. Will the Prime Minister explain?
    The Prime Minister: I can explain it. Things such as small claims will be dealt with by co-operation between the judicial systems, and things such as extradition cases will be dealt with by the application of the court decisions of one country in another country; where serious crime is concerned. Neither of those things, however, imply any common judicial system.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the efforts made in Kent by local authorities and others to deal fairly with asylum seekers, and will he assure me that those councils will receive their fair share of funding? Is he aware that many of our problems in Dover stem from the asylum system shambles that we inherited from the Tories? Does he accept that the Immigration and Asylum Bill and the agreements secured in Finland earlier this week will go a long way towards relieving the pressure on us? As all that

    439
    hard work is being done, will he also join me in condemning those who would exploit Dover's difficulties for their own political ends? Some of them are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: As ever, the Conservatives want to deny their record in government. I gladly acknowledge the efforts made by local authorities in Kent to deal fairly with asylum seekers. They can now reclaim costs associated with supporting asylum seekers of up to £150 a week for single adults and £220 for families. My hon. Friend is right to say that the system that we inherited was a complete shambles. That is why we want to introduce fundamental reform—and the only way in which we shall achieve that is to have a simplified, far more streamlined procedure, and to deal with the cases more quickly. That is precisely what we are introducing—[Interruption.] It is no use the shadow Home Secretary shouting. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a Home Office Minister when the Conservatives introduced the shambles that we are having to clear up.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Wales trusts the Prime Minister, because he told us to. Does he remember talking about objective 1 and 2 funding on 30 April—coincidentally, that was just before the Welsh Assembly elections—and saying:
    "I won't let the people of Wales down"?
    In the spirit of that good faith, can he confirm whether he will provide new money from the Treasury for objective 1 and 2 matched funding?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I said that after the election, as well as before. On both occasions I explained that within the comprehensive spending review, all those things have to be looked at. [Interruption.] We do not intend to let the people of Wales down. I have also said throughout that the only reason why we can have this discussion is that we achieved objective 1 and 2 status for Wales. We know that we have to make it good, but that
    440
    must be decided in the proper normal way, through the comprehensive spending review. That is what we said at the election, and that is what we will hold to.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the members of the official Opposition and of the press who are anti-Europe refuse to recognise the benefits of the jobs, training, transport and community development that European funding has helped to bring to my constituency and to many other parts of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that as the United Kingdom negotiates further funding from Europe, it will speak with a stronger voice because of devolution and the partnership approach, which has already been demonstrated by the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Government towards Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in putting forward a case for funding for her area. Our proposals for objective 2 coverage in Scotland for the next seven years will target the most needy areas of the country, and we envisage significant coverage for south Fife. She is absolutely right—we obtained a very good result for this country by patient, sensible and constructive negotiation.
    As I pointed out a moment ago, Conservative party policy is to renegotiate the basic terms of the treaty of Rome and to block any change unless it is allowed to do so, and there is no support anywhere in Europe for that. [Interruption.] Let Conservative Members name a country that supports their policy. They can shout it out; they have done enough shouting. There is no country that supports them. [Interruption.] Norway? Norway is not a member of the European Union.
    The plain fact is that we can make progress with sensible engagement under a Labour Government, or we can go along with the far right Thatcherites who now control the Conservative party and who have the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) under their thumb.

Control of Hedgerows in Residential Areas
3.31 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly? They are passing in front of the hon. Member who is on his feet. [Interruption.] Order. Will hon. Members please not pass in front of the hon. Member who is on his feet? About 12 hon. Members have done so.
Mr. Cunningham: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by extending powers to environmental health officers to intervene in neighbourly disputes involving hedgerows in residential areas; and for connected purposes.
I thank Hedgeline, which has campaigned hard for a change in the law regarding nuisance hedges. The Styvechale Rate Payer Association in Coventry and constituents have written to me in support of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) for their tireless work on the issue. Their efforts demonstrate the cross-party support for the Bill.
From the outset let me say that there is no proposal in the Bill to ban leylandii or any other tree or hedge. It provides for conciliation between neighbours by environmental protection officers. If that does not work, officers will be able to make a decision about the height of trees or hedgerows which will be binding and enforceable.
We should not dismiss nuisance hedges as a trivial issue—they cause suffering to thousands of people. Over the years in which I have served as a Member of Parliament I have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about the issue. The social and emotional problems described in those letters persuaded me to try to do something about the problem. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received similar letters in their postbags and are all too aware of the distress caused by disputes involving nuisance hedges.
Problems with overgrown hedges are not new, but the advent of the leyland cypress has made those problems far more widespread. This is a new tree, which is an unlikely hybrid between two distantly related North American cypress species. It was first bred towards the end of the previous century and its phenomenal growth rate is alarming because it is not known how high the trees can eventually grow. For example, there is a tree in Kent that is over 150 ft high and still growing well. That is unusual, and no one is suggesting that the tree be cut down if it is not causing a nuisance to anyone. However, we need to take action now to prevent the situation getting far worse in the future.
An offending tree can threaten roofs, guttering, drains and, in more serious cases, even a building's structure. Furthermore, not only can they deprive unwilling sufferers of light in their homes, but they can prevent them from using their garden in the way that they choose. The law as it stands is biased almost entirely towards
442
protecting those who want to grow leylandii and other high hedges. The law offers no protection to the people affected by an intruding hedge. People can grow rows of fast growing conifers to any height, and as close to other people's properties as they like. They can even grow trees that lean over someone's roof without having any responsibility in law to maintain them.
Neighbours can, however, cut branches that overhang fences, but frequently, the continual expense and demands on time fall on the person who derives no benefits from the trees. Fast growing hedges, often untopped and lacking maintenance, can be grown by an individual, so that the burden of continual, sometimes hazardous work falls on the offended neighbour—a neighbour who does not want a high hedge and who is prevented from reducing its height by law.
The task of cutting back a high leylandii hedge to the perimeters of one property can be daunting, especially to the elderly. These trees can grow between 3 ft and 4 ft a year, and some of the many offending hedges now stand at considerable heights. As these hedges increase in size, they can play an ever more dominant role in the victim's thoughts. They can cause extreme anxiety.
Civil law has proved inadequate at dealing with hedge disputes among neighbours. Such action can drag on for years, bringing further stress to a victim's life. The legal costs can be enormous. The sums involved can threaten life savings and sometimes even one's own home.
The present legal situation forces the victim to plead with his or her neighbours to take action—in a sense, he or she is forced to rely on the good will of others. The individual has no legal recourse to demand that an offending hedge be shortened or removed.
The situation can often develop into a neighbourhood squabble, and it can escalate into something worse, with the added injustice of one party suffering as a result of weak legislation and the other secure in the knowledge that the law will protect them.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 outlines a variety of nuisances, ranging from noise pollution to the treatment of animals. My Bill would seek to include tall hedgerows as an environmental nuisance. In doing so, it would give legal recognition to the grave impact on people's lives often caused by nuisance hedges. At present, environmental health officers are reluctant to act. Unless a court has ruled in favour of action, the legal position for officers is unclear.
The Bill that I place before the House will clarify that position, allowing environmental health officers to make a judgment. That will, in turn, resolve disputes much more easily and quickly, and without half the distress and cost now caused.
We must strike the right balance between rights and responsibilities. No one wants to dictate the plants or furnishings that a person enjoys in his garden, but the right to make such choices should be accompanied by a responsibility not to intrude into other people's peaceful lives.
I hope that the House will agree that the measures in my Bill do not unnecessarily erode an individual's right to enjoy his property as he chooses, because it is equally an individual's right to be free from the tyranny of the invasive practices of another. We must take action now. I beg the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Alan Hurst, Mr. Tom Clarke, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mrs. Christine Butler.

Control of Hedgerows in Residential Areas
  CONTROL OF HEDGEROWS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by extending powers to environmental health officers to intervene in neighbourly disputes involving hedgerows in residential areas; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November, and to be printed [Bill 152].
Opposition Day
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Food and Farming
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the first Opposition motion on the Order Paper. I have selected the amendment which stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
  That this House notes with dismay the plight of British farmers whose incomes have plummeted to record lows in the last four years, as a result of higher costs and lower farm gate prices producing rapidly increasing losses, despite continually high supermarket profit margins and costs to consumers; further notes that the extra costs imposed through regulation and public health protection that fall directly on the industry should more properly come from the public health budget; deplores the failure of the Government to provide an adequate response to this national food crisis; and therefore calls on the Government to recognise that its latest financial package is insufficient to tackle the fundamental restructuring of UK and EU agriculture policy, necessary for a secure future for British farmers, consumers and the countryside.
  I notice from the Order Paper that we have the obligatory amendment from Her Majesty's Government, but that we do not have an amendment from the Conservative party. We shall find out in due course whether Conservative Members will support our motion. I hope that they will, but it seems unusual that one of the other Opposition parties has not put down on the Order Paper its views on such an important issue.
  The importance of this issue is self-evident to all of us who have a constituency concern, a parliamentary concern or a public policy concern in terms of rural Britain generally. Indeed, that has been further recognised by the Government, who have come forward with additional financial support. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been the first publicly to recognise in the media, in public prints and in discussions with my hon. Friends and with others representing the agricultural community, the extent of the difficulty that is being faced. That is why with the resumption of Parliament after the summer recess the Liberal Democrats were determined to take the earliest possible opportunity to give the House an opportunity to express the concern that has been made clear to all of us from all parties over the summer months about the degree of difficulty and, although it is a much overused word in politics, the degree of crisis that is facing the rural sector, rural interests in general and the agricultural sector, in particular.
  Let us consider some of the basic headline facts. The National Farmers Union has estimated that net income has fallen by 75 per cent. in the past two years and is certainly on a continuing downward spiral. It is estimated, if we take the figures for England alone, that the average net farm income for 1998–99 is a mere £8,000. It is not possible to run a business or a family enterprise on that level of income nowadays. After a recent audit of 5,000 farmers, the NFU estimates that we are now entering the worst agricultural depression since the 1930s. For all those headline reasons, it is essential that Parliament should be seen to be debating the issue.

  445
  We should also be seen to be debating and discussing the issue because there is a much wider public policy that goes beyond the immediate difficulties that are being confronted. On a European level, there is a broad agreement among member states, the United Kingdom included, and the Government, with all-party support, that we must seek and achieve further reform of the common agricultural policy, and that there will have to be a further emphasis or shift in the balance of approach away from direct sector support in terms of prices and price maintenance and towards environmental husbandry and countryside management.
  Is there not a great contradiction? If the family farm as a base unit within this country continues to implode, what will happen? More and more amalgamations will take place. We shall end up with a structure of family farming that will be more like that in North America than in the UK at the moment. We shall not then have the custodians of the countryside who for generations have been working, managing and looking after it to deliver the very environmental and countryside objectives that as a country and as a European Union we want to see achieved. It is surely of fundamental importance that in tackling the farming crisis we put it in a broader context and get across to the Government, and the Government get it across to the decision makers and policy makers at a European level, that unless something is done with even more urgency to redress the catastrophic state of income and the depressed state of morale among our fanners, we shall thwart the longer-term policy that we all think is a sensible way in which to move.
  We welcome the package with which the Government have come forward but what further policy objectives should they as an Administration within a UK context be pursuing? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and some of my other colleagues met the Minister fairly recently and rehearsed some of the arguments that we feel and argue as Liberal Democrats should be put forward.
  First, there should be a Government-funded calf disposal scheme. That is surely essential given the difficulties in that sector. Secondly, there should be a national ewe cull scheme. Given the efforts made recently by my party colleague, Ross Finnie, in his capacity as a Scottish Agriculture Minister, and given the rebuff that he suffered at the hands of the European Commission, I shall be grateful if the Minister or whoever responds to the debate will give some further indication of what further discussions, if any, have yet taken place with the Commission to see what else can be achieved.
  Thirdly—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. He mentioned Scottish agriculture. Will he explain to the House why his colleagues in Scotland are keen that the Government should maintain the ban on beef on the bone?
  Mr. Kennedy: My colleagues in Scotland are operating, as indeed are the Government here, on the advice of the relevant chief medical officer. The Agriculture Minister and the Deputy First Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), made it clear that the objective must be the earliest possible lifting of that ban. That remains the policy and the approach.
  446
  That is what devolution is all about. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a healthy interest in constitutional matters of one kind and another, both internally and in relation to Europe in the broader sense, and that he pursued an honourably consistent argument against devolution, but those of us who have argued consistently for it have always been quite happy with the fact that devolution, by definition, means that there might be different policies running in different parts of the United Kingdom. We should lose no sleep about that. It is a healthy democratic development, for which we should make no apology.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is very gallant, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Will he explain to British farmers, and my farmers in particular, how the policy evolved? Will he explain how the Liberal Democrat party in Scotland or elsewhere can still support a ban on beef on the bone, against all the best scientific advice? Can he further tell me how the Minister for Agriculture can try to kick the French into touch, when he is being undermined by the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Kennedy: I am beginning to lose the plot, but perhaps the hon. Lady lost it earlier than I did, in the course of her question. The Minister can speak for himself in due course, but I do not think that he feels that the Scottish Parliament, by any of its efforts or activities, is undermining the legitimate legal recourse, which we strongly support, that he is pursuing against the quite unacceptable activities of the French with regard to British beef.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I just need to work up to that moment. I am sure that the House shares my sense of anticipation.
  To return to the serious point made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I reiterate to her that within a devolved United Kingdom set-up, there can be differences of approach in different political circumstances. That does not remove the basic Liberal Democrat commitment, which we share with the hon. Lady and her colleagues: we would never have imposed the beef on the bone ban in the first place. She may remember that when I moved the opposition to that on the Floor of the House, we were delighted to have Conservative support. I look forward to being even more delighted to receive further Conservative support from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  Mr. Swayne: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. I followed entirely the logic of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but will he recognise that it generates frustration and is clearly not devolution, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, when the policy of the Liberal Democrat party and the party of government in Scotland is allowed to force the beast ban—the beef ban—to remain in England? Our policy is being driven by the policy of the devolved regions.
  Mr. Kennedy: It would be almost unparliamentary for me to speculate why the hon. Gentleman might be against

  447
  beast bans. However, I simply say to him that if one is serious about the devolutionary process—this party certainly is serious about that and about moving towards a more federally constructed constitution for this country—people in this place such as he and I are no longer in a position to discuss whether a different coalition is on the move in Edinburgh or a different set of political circumstances are in place in Cardiff. It is no longer our job to second guess.
  I am going wide of the motion, and you may soon upbraid me, Madam Speaker, but I say to those Conservatives who care and are concerned about these matters that, although we may disagree, the sooner the Conservative party in this place accepts the new reality of British politics and starts to apply its mind collectively and constructively to that, the better. We would stop wasting time on exchanges such as this and get on with serious policy issues that Westminster should be concerning itself with. That is what the argument has to be about.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an old pal, and then I must make progress.
  Dr. Godman: I am glad to be described as an old pal.
  I am not on my feet to defend that remarkable Agriculture Minister, Mr. Ross Finnie, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman—my old pal across the way—that I have every sympathy for the hill farmer, the crofter and the small farmer. May I point out to him that the richer farmers have had a hell of a lot more out of Brussels than, for example, our fishermen? I hope that, on another occasion, he will argue with the same vigour on behalf of his fishermen constituents in Ullapool and elsewhere.
  Mr. Kennedy: We can happily give that guarantee. One need only look at the spread of seats represented by the Liberal Democrats to understand the inherent importance of the fishing industry, whether in Cornwall, in Berwick, in my own part of the country or wherever. We will come back to that issue on another occasion, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that on the first day in the job, in a parliamentary sense, one cannot do everything.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) will be winding up the debate on our behalf. He has already established a track record on this issue, which has had a direct impact on the Office of Fair Trading. There are further searching questions to be asked of the role of the supermarkets in all this. Why are prices so depressed at the farm gate when the consumer, far less the farmer, sees no merit or benefit accruing from that? I know that that has been looked at in terms of competition policy, but it is essential that the Minister redoubles his efforts to get some of the supermarket chiefs—the big hitters who are calling so many of the shots—in for discussions and to call them to account.
  I hope that some of our Select Committees will look at that matter in the new Session of Parliament. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has already considered it and
  448
  it is absolutely essential that the supermarkets are called to account with greater rigour and greater vigour, because common sense and our own local experience tells us that there is something fundamentally remiss when the income level is dropping, the purchase level is collapsing and the supermarkets do not seem to be passing any of the effects of that on with the interests of the consumer in mind.
  Mr. Richard Livsey rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: I know that my hon. Friend has been much involved in this issue.
  Mr. Livsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs made its report 18 months ago and our family farmers have experienced depressed prices for the past three years. Is not a resolution of this problem long overdue? There is no income and farmers are in a great state of personal depression because they are making no profit whatever on our family farms. This urgent matter must be resolved immediately.
  Mr. Kennedy: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the role that he played in the Select Committee's work on that report. The Minister and his Department have to get motoring. We can all issue complaints and constituency press releases and we can have debates on the Floor of the House, but the Ministry is best placed to tackle the issue. There is no doubt that there is cross-party agreement that something is wrong. Consumers perceive that a rip off is taking place and it is high time that those responsible were called to account. I hope that the Minister will do that.
  In addition to the decline in income that is being suffered, the Government are piling on the charges, which is a perverse thing for any Administration to do, given that there is not the income base, in a family-run farm business, to sustain those charges. As my hon. Friends have told the Government on many occasions in recent times, it would be sensible to postpone, if not abandon, the policy of cattle passport charges. Why load more costs on the industry at a time when it cannot sustain them?
  Mr. Bob Russell: Stick the charges on the supermarkets.
  Mr. Kennedy: That is an idea worth looking at. Perhaps the Minister might like to respond to it.
  The second issue is that of importation. It is crazy that we load regulations and standards on ourselves and our domestic producers, which we cannot impose, on an equivalent basis, on some of our European competitors who provide lower quality importation products. Because of insufficient labelling, those products are then passed off to British consumers. That is a daft state of affairs. We have asked the Government repeatedly to do something about that. They need to move with more alacrity.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Has my right hon. Friend noted today's press release about chicken imports from Thailand? It says that EU inspectors approved a number of chicken factories there without

  449
  visiting them, and that the potential use of antibiotics in Thailand is not regulated, known about or exposed to our consumers.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I read those reports this morning. Given that this party supports the Government when they are positively engaged in Europe, we should use that positive engagement to insist that such ludicrous states of affairs are not allowed to be maintained. I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more.
  This is a short debate and I am anxious that as many hon. Members as possible from all parties can contribute. I wish to deal with two other issues. The first is that of genetically modified products, which is capturing people's imagination and triggering anxiety—and rightly so.
  The Government have inherited a series of contractual relationships and decisions from the previous Administration. That is understood. However, they must recognise that the GM issue goes much wider than the rights and wrongs of the issue itself. Scientific input is essential for any Administration. It would be highly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Clearly, however, the Government are not carrying consumer confidence with them. It would therefore be best to opt for a five-year ban on the commercial exploitation of GM foods. The Government should recognise the extent of public opinion and the fact that they are not carrying public opinion with them on this issue. Ultimately, that will do more damage to the general credibility of agriculture and the food chain, which will benefit nobody, least of all farmers.
  The second much broader issue is that of the single currency. I am glad that Britain in Europe campaign was launched last week and that it has a healthy degree of cross-party support, which is important. The Government must recognise, however, that there has been a significant change in grass-roots farming opinion on this matter. My view is based on discussions that I have had in the past couple of years. Because of the strength of the pound over the past period, the increasing perception among the agricultural community in this country is that a commitment on the part of this country to a single currency would be in the long-term interest of UK agriculture.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Kennedy: I can hardly not give way to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, but may I finish this point first?
  I appreciate that the Minister is constrained by the policy of the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, who from time to time seem to have the same policy on this issue. None the less, I hope that he will acknowledge that there will be real long-term benefits to British agriculture if we are coherently and sensibly part of a single trading currency zone within Europe.
  Mr. Gill: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many people, himself included, who should know better and probably do, know that the rate at which the United Kingdom would be permitted to join the single currency would be as laid down by the treaties? It would not be a figure plucked out of the air that would suit the British
  450
  farmer. Is it not time that the House faced the reality and told the British farmer that the single currency is not the panacea for all ills because we will have to go in at the mid-point of the exchange rate mechanism, which is DM2.95?
  Mr. Kennedy: No one who has considered the issue sensibly would argue that the single currency is the panacea for all ills in the agricultural sector or elsewhere. Of course it is not. It is a technical as well as a political and a constitutional judgment. On balance, it brings merits and benefits and that is why I am in favour of it for agriculture, as for other things.
  I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I do not necessarily concur with him but respect his views and the consistency with which they are argued, that equally if one is trying to take a balanced view of the problems afflicting agriculture, one must agree that they did not all begin on the stroke of midnight of 2 May 1997. Many of the endemic difficulties affecting countryside and rural issues predate the advent of this Administration by some considerable way and I am afraid to say that some of the guilty people are now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and used to sit on the Government Front Bench. That is an important political point of which we must never lose sight.
  On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I conclude by saying that, first, it is important that Parliament is seen today, here and now, to draw attention to the extent of the crisis. Secondly, it is important that all of us in all parties and all parts of the country reflect what we have heard from our constituents during the summer recess about the depth of the depression and the extent of the doom and gloom out there in the agricultural community.
  Thirdly, in considering the broader issues—labelling, importation, GMOs and so forth—we will face an even bigger problem in time to come if we cannot take consumers with us. That is essential both to underpin our domestic agricultural production base, but equally to instil a new sense of confidence in what those in politics and behind public policy are telling the people. That is what lies behind our debate and our motion and I commend it to the House.
  4.3 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the difficulties faced by agriculture and the wider rural economy as a result of the depressed level of farm incomes; approves of the special measures the Government has taken to assist the industry through three aid packages plus EU agri-monetary compensation worth in total £742 million; endorses the establishment of industry-led working groups to examine urgently the regulatory burdens on agriculture; supports the Government's promotion of collaborative working throughout the food chain to add value and generate the price premium that high-quality United Kingdom produce deserves, while noting that the Competition Commission's investigation of supermarket pricing includes an examination of trading practices throughout the supply chain; welcomes the Government's achievement of significant reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers; and fully supports the Government's commitment to the future of United Kingdom agriculture as a competitive, flexible and diverse industry, and the use of options available under Agenda 2000 to help secure this."

  451
  First, I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on his election to the leadership of his party. I also congratulate him on having selected a debate on food and farming for his debut in the House as leader of his party. I also pay tribute to him for the interest that he has taken in this subject in his time as the Liberal Democrat spokesman and for his constructive approach in what are difficult times for the sector. For completeness, I also welcome the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) to his new Front-Bench responsibilities.
  These are important issues and it is right that we should debate them today. We are not quarrelling, I hope, about the facts. Certainly I have no quarrel about the key fact, which is that farm incomes have fallen dramatically in the past three years and now stand at one of the lowest levels for the past 25 years. The Government see helping farmers through the deep and enduring depression in farm incomes that they are experiencing as one of their priorities. There is no doubt that the whole industry, and the livestock sector in particular, is facing severe difficulties. We are still feeling the effects of the unavoidable implications of the BSE crisis. That runs not only through the beef sector, but throughout livestock.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will first list the difficulties. I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman when I come to the response to them.
  The recession in the far east and the collapse of the Russian economy have increased pressures. While the strength of the pound, particularly in relation to the euro, to which the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West referred, is a reflection of the strength of the wider UK economy, it makes agricultural exports more difficult, draws in imports and reduces the real value of support payments to farmers under the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Baker: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon and thank him for the statement that he recently made about giving more money to the farmers. That has been very welcome to the farmers in my constituency. May I remind him that there are still major concerns among farmers and that they see the money as a sticking plaster rather than a long-term solution. He may be aware that I have written to his office to ask him to come to my constituency office to meet my farmers. Can he give me an assurance this afternoon that he can fit that into his diary?
  Mr. Brown: I am under enormous pressure to make constituency visits and to meet local groups of farmers. I try to meet as many farmers as I can. It has helped me in undertaking my responsibilities to have farmhouse meetings with groups of farmers. A number of Members have invited me to their constituencies. I make no distinction between political party because by and large these issues are not party political, or at least they should
  452
  not be. I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman's invitation, put it with the other invitations and come when I can. I should like to do so.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: The Minister adopts a characteristically conciliatory tone. One of the problems is Ministers themselves. Is it more arrogant to act as the Welsh Minister of Agriculture has done and refuse to leave the field even for a veggie burger when she has been given out by the umpire, or to act as he has done in relation to the ban on beef on the bone? He no longer has English scientific advice compelling him to continue with the ban and he is maintaining it simply for the convenience of his colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is it not legally perilous to withhold trade in circumstances in which he no longer has advice to maintain the ban?
  Mr. Brown: I do not agree with the thrust of either of the hon. Gentleman's points. I think that it is right to lift the ban on beef on the bone. I have said consistently since becoming the Minister that I wanted to lift the ban as soon as I could. I have relied on the advice of the United Kingdom chief medical officer, who now tells me that he believes that it would be right to lift the ban for retail sales, but not for manufactured products. That is what I want to do, but I want to lift the ban across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly rational to allow a short pause for reflection for other authorities with devolved competence to see whether we cannot lift the ban together in a uniform way before Christmas. I hope that that is a complete answer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the Ministers with devolved responsibility for agriculture, I have no quarrel with them for exploring schemes to help farmers through difficult times. That is a perfectly proper thing for them to do. I accept, exactly as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West accepts, that it is implicit in devolution that we get different outcomes in different parts of the United Kingdom where there is devolved competence. The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to devise schemes on the supply side that supplement the supply-side measures of the CAP. But why on earth people have fallen to complaining about the Welsh Minister and the Scottish Minister for trying to do so, and for trying to do their best, beats me. Of course, I was aware of the difficulties, and, in our discussions, we candidly discussed them, but the Welsh Minister set out to try to overcome them. The fact that she has tried for farmers but on the specific cull ewe scheme has not succeeded reflects no discredit on her at all. I am surprised that she has come in for the criticism that she has. She has tried to help, and that is a perfectly honourable thing to have wanted to do.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: This is a Liberal Democrat Supply day. I hope that there will be other opportunities to discuss these matters in the House before long. I do not want to eat into the time of Back-Bench Members, but I give way.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall be brief. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion? Is he telling the House

  453
  that the policy of maintaining the ban on beef on the bone is his policy and is not a consequence of his being driven by the policies of the devolved regions?
  Mr. Brown: My policy is to lift the ban in a co-ordinated way throughout the United Kingdom. Because competence in this area has been devolved, clearly the policy requires the consent of others as well; others examine the issue, too.
  This is not the consequence of devolution. When the original decisions were taken in government, and when Liam Donaldson's report in January was discussed within government, there were discussions between Agriculture Ministers—those representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—as well as myself as the UK Minister, so there is nothing new in this. Since the early 1980s, with regard to the sale of unpasteurised milk, there has been separate legislation in Scotland from the legislative arrangements in England and Wales. There is nothing new in having different legislation in this respect. We might do so in the future, but it is more desirable that we proceed on a UK-wide basis. That is why I pause before advocating an England-only policy or one for some parts of the United Kingdom and not others.
  The fact that there is devolved competence and people can do different things does not mean that we should always want to do different things just for the sake of it. In this regard, it is sensible for us to discuss the evidence and make the decision together; but for the Scottish authorities that has to be consistent with the advice that they receive from their chief medical officers, and the same applies to the other devolved authorities, just as it does to me. If the hon. Gentleman can bear to contain himself for a little longer, we will achieve the outcome that he wants.
  Let me return to the farm income difficulties which, in some sectors—for example, the beef sector—it is fair to describe as at crisis point. I take the beef sector first. We have been denied export markets for more than three and a half years and that has had dramatic consequences for the beef industry. Those markets will be hard to recover, particularly at retail level, but now that the ban has been lifted—at least in 13 of the 15 states in the EU, and a 14th is in the process of lifting the ban—exports have recommenced and we are starting to rebuild our markets.
  As all hon. Members will be aware, we are pressing the French to lift their illegal ban. I hope that we can come to a resolution soon, but, if we do not, I assure the House that we will press home our claim with all the rigour, vigour and means open to us. Initially, we look to the Commission to defend its decision and our corner in the matter, but that does not pre-empt us from taking other action.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that the Minister knows that he has our full support in ensuring that the French observe their responsibilities in lifting the ban. None the less, does he accept that the once prime beef exporters in my constituency are telling me that, whether or not the ban is lifted by the French, we will not achieve the sale of a single kilo of Scottish beef until we can be competitive on prices? Will the Minister undertake to continue to work with the industry to ensure that the
  454
  costs that have been imposed to deliver the conditions for the lifting of the ban are brought down to a level that will make it possible to develop new export markets?
  Mr. Brown: I shall have something to say about the regulatory burden later. I am alert to the point. I work closely with the Meat and Livestock Commission and others with responsibilities for the beef sector, but clearly, a precondition of being able to export is to obtain the lifting of the ban, which was implemented worldwide, which the EU has done, to ensure that our partners in the EU implement that decision where it is enshrined in their domestic legislation—not all countries did enshrine it in their domestic legislation—and then to go out and build the markets. Although the ability to transport through France is not the main issue, it is an important one. The transport ban is important, alongside the actual ban on sales. All we are asking for is the right legally to offer for sale a product that is among the safest in the world and commanded a premium price—this is especially so of the Scottish sector—because it is a premium product. We want to get back to that state of affairs, and I will not be happy until the markets are working normally again as they do in the rest of the European Union. That is my objective.
  As we know, the market for lamb is in severe difficulties for the third year in succession. Key problems include the strength of sterling, the apparent decline in export demand and the surplus of cull ewes and light male hill lambs. In the past, there has been good export demand for those animals in southern Europe, but, given the strength of sterling and the loss of overseas markets for sheepskins, it is becoming difficult to find sufficient export outlets. That has meant that the product has spilled over onto the domestic market.
  An additional cost is associated with necessary BSE-related controls, which require the splitting of ewe carcases to remove the spinal cord. Given the current state of the market, that is a significant issue because of the proportionate effect on producer margins. I shall take a hard look at what can be done about that within the law and consistent with the need to protect the public.
  Similar issues affect the pig sector, which we have discussed on several occasions. The position is grave because prices are depressed below costs and have been for almost two years. I have had three meetings with industry representatives in the past fortnight, and we are working closely on a range of measures to help. I hope to have something to tell the House in the next few days, but similar pressures now exist in all UK agricultural sectors, including dairy, poultry and horticulture.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Before the Minister leaves the subject of pigs, does he envisage some relief on the some £5 a beast that it costs the industry to undertake the measures inspired by the BSE crisis, which have nothing to do with the pig industry?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case: BSE has no direct connection with the pig industry, but that sector has to bear the costs of the recommendations from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee about meat and bonemeal to protect against the dangers of cross-contamination. I am taking a hard look at what can be done on that specific point.

  455
  The hon. Gentleman offers one way forward. It is not the only possible way, and we are examining whether it is possible to return an economic value to the product by going back to SEAC and examining its objections. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I have done that once already, and SEAC confirmed its belief that the rules should remain in place. It set out its reasons, but I intend to return to SEAC, in a November meeting with the Meat and Livestock Commission, to explore our proposals for meeting its objections. We have also explored informally with the Commission how far the Government can assist in that sector. The news is disappointing, because the initial outcome was not hopeful. Any intervention would constitute state aid in what is otherwise a light regime, but discussions are continuing.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the Minister also take into account the position of the egg-producing industry? My constituency contains Stonegate Farmers Ltd., which has a turnover of £100 million, with farms in Sussex and elsewhere. It is suffering badly. The cage, food and hygiene standards regulations have been imposed on it, but not on those who market eggs from abroad. If that situation continues, the industry will go out of business.
  Mr. Brown: Separate issues affect the poultry meat and the laying hen sectors. I shall meet the industry soon for a summit to examine all those issues and to consider what can be done. However, as with the pig sector, the regulatory regime in the European Union—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly pointed out the overarching impact of the CAP on the different regimes—is light, and I can do little by way of direct state aid, which is what people tend to ask for first. However, we shall explore all that in some detail.
  I shall take two other interventions, but I am conscious that I am using up the time of the House on what is, after all, an Opposition Supply day. I shall give way to the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and then that is it.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. A young pig farmer in my constituency—Mr. James King of Cowley farm, Preston Bissett, near Buckingham—expressed concern about the Belgian report on dioxins in Danish and Dutch meat. [Laughter.] This is a matter of the utmost seriousness and should not arouse levity among Liberal Democrat Members. What specific representations has the Minister made to Danish and Dutch Ministers about this crucial matter?
  Mr. Brown: Nobody takes this important issue lightly, and the Liberal Democrats have devoted one of their Supply days to discussing it.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am looking hard at implementing the advice on labelling regimes emanating from my Department. I hope to have something to say
  456
  about that matter to the House shortly, but any proposals would deal specifically with the question of country of origin.
  Mr. David Heath: I wish to return to the vital issue of how we can help the pig industry. The Minister suggested that any support to deal with what are effectively public health issues would be interpreted as state aid. The Belgian Government's actions in relation to dioxins appear to have been accepted without challenge, so why cannot the Minister act similarly to help our hard-pressed pig industry?
  Mr. Brown: The rules allow for action in what the European Commission deems to be exceptional circumstances. In the case of Britain, BSE was deemed to be an exceptional circumstance. The over-30-months scheme is a very good example of the regimes in this country that protect the public. That scheme, which is also a powerful market intervention measure, is a European Union regime that is unique to the United Kingdom. Similarly, the effect of the dioxin crisis on the Belgian markets persuaded the Commission to allow the Belgian authorities to introduce unique state aids to deal with that crisis. However, it will not be possible for me or any of my counterparts in other countries to argue that a sustained downturn in price comes within the definition of a crisis.
  I hope that that answers the question. The fact that I know the answer illustrates that I have had a hard look at the problem. I want to do all that I can to help the sector get out of the deep trouble that it has been in for some time. We thought that what we achieved in the spring and early summer, when we secured the 20 per cent. premium in the marketplace, would be enough to lift the industry to the break-even point. Disappointingly, the gap between the UK price and the continental European price narrowed. Worse followed when the price started to fall again.
  The problem requires a further considered response from the Government. I am working very hard on it, and hope to have something new and comprehensive to tell the House in a matter of days.
  I shall now deal with what the Liberal Democrat motion has to say about farmgate prices and the prices that show up in the supermarkets. The motion alleges that profiteering takes place. The Government's approach to the problem is to rely on the investigation of supermarket pricing by the Competition Commission. However, it is worth noting that, although that investigation will look at prices to consumers, it will also scrutinise trading practices throughout the food supply chain. If market power is being exploited anywhere in the chain, the Government will respond very strongly.
  In that respect, I repeat what the House will have heard me say before: I am convinced of the importance of getting all elements of the food chain working together collaboratively and co-operatively. I have set up a food chain group of senior figures from the industry, which will report on how best to improve understanding of the chain and how the different parts can best work together for mutual advantage. Part of the way forward lies in adding value and seeking out market premiums for UK produce.
  I shall meet the British Retail Consortium shortly, and have arranged a series of meetings with senior management of all the large retailers and major caterers in the UK. [Interruption.] I am being invited to get on with it; I am getting on with it, and have been for some

  457
  time. I regularly meet representatives of the retail, processing and distribution sectors as well as representatives of farmers and farm businesses.
  The National Farmers Union strongly suggested when I met representatives recently—the suggestion is included in the Liberal Democrat motion—that the burden of Government regulation was making a bad situation worse. In response to that generalised charge, the answer to which will be found in the detail rather than in general charges, I have, in partnership with the NFU, set up an industry-led review of the regulatory burden on agriculture. I hope that that review will go across government, not being confined only to matters for which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible. I have the support of my ministerial colleagues on that.
  Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Brown: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way, despite what I said earlier about not taking more interventions. The hon. Gentleman is an old hand at agriculture debates, and it would be wrong to keep him out.
  We want to minimise bureaucracy. We want to find out how to do things better and to root out all unnecessary restrictions. I have set up three working groups, chaired by representatives of the industry, to examine what the NFU and I felt were the three most urgent—though not the onlyߞareas for review. One group will consider the operation of the integrated administration and control system and on-farm inspections. The second will look into the meat hygiene rules and slaughterhouse regulations. The third will examine the workings of the intervention system.
  Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has spoken of understanding the problems of over-regulation and the added burden of costs on the industry. Will he therefore take this opportunity to tell the House that he will abandon the pesticides tax?
  Mr. Brown: If I were the Chancellor of the Exchequerߞgiven the promotion of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), there is hope for us allߞI would willingly do so. I am not the Chancellorߞ[HON. MEMBERS: "Split."] I am giving no secrets away here. The whole world knows that I am an opponent of a pesticides tax. Tax policy is, however, a matter for the Chancellor, not me, although my views are widely known and loudly put.
  Dr. Godman: In fairness to the Liberal Democrats, I remind my right hon. Friend that the motion welcomes the Government's achievement of significant reform of the common agricultural policy in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers. The Minister and his colleagues have achieved reform, but does he agree that the CAP is badly flawed? Among other things, it protects and promotes the interests of richer farmers and presents formidable problems for the enlargement of the European Union.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we go into the detail of these matters, we must not lose sight of the fact that the CAP is the overarching policy instrument for agriculture and farmers. The case that my hon. Friend makes for reform is also the Government's case. He is right to put it. Not only does the policy impact
  458
  on how farm business decisions are taken, but it is bound to influence our ambitions for enlargement of the EU. It favours those who produce most because it is essentially a production subsidy. About 20 per cent. of farmers receive 80 per cent. of CAP subsidies. That is logical because of the way the system is structured: it is intended to be a production subsidy.
  The case for reform and for moving away from the crude link with production towards the second pillar of the CAP-the rural development measures-as a way of getting moneys to farm businesses and the rural economy is clearly the right way forward. The Government have made a start on all that. In our negotiations, we secured the largest ever reform of the CAP and, more than that, we got each and every regime moving in the right direction. Should we have done more? Of course, I would like to do more, but I am in the vanguard on all this and I have to carry others with me.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall have to call a halt soon, but I will take some interventions and curtail my speech.
  Mr. Öpik: Some of the changes to Milk Marque may not be helpful in achieving the Minister's goal. Does he agree that, for a long time, Milk Marque has defended the interests of the small farmer?
  Mr. Brown: I worked closely with the Milk Marque leadership through what I acknowledge has been a difficult time for it. I also met representatives of the dairy processing industry and tried to act as an honest broker through a time that was difficult for both sides of the industry, but particularly difficult for the producer side when producer incomes have been low. I yield to no one in my support for farm and producer co-operation in the dairy sector. The leadership of Milk Marque, given the Competition Commission report, which I know farmers do not like, has been right—indeed, brave—to respond in the way in which it has. This is the right way forward for dairy producers.
  Mr. John Burnett: I am delighted to hear that there is to be a review of bureaucracy in agriculture. Will the Minister assure the House that it will consider the introduction of an appeal mechanism against the decisions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which currently acts as judge, jury, prosecutor and defender in giving decisions to individual farmers?
  Mr. Brown: It is not for me to tell the review what response I want from it. My understanding is that that issue is being considered, and certainly I have considered it within the Department. The difficulty is that the rules are very rigid and there is a risk of disallowance with substantial penalties if they are not rigidly followed. In our country, there is a tradition, in most aspects of our administrative life, of being tolerant of genuine errors. The European Union rules are much more rigidly drawn because they have to apply across the whole European Union. Within the constraints that the rules place on us, we are looking at what could be done and, in particular, whether it would be possible to operate a workable

  459
  appeals mechanism. However, I do not think that an appeals mechanism under the CAP schemes could ever deliver as much as something devised more generally to suit public administration in the United Kingdom. The constraints are very tight.
  I said that I would curtail my speech because I have taken interventions. I think that that is what the House wanted. I do not want to eat into the time of other hon. Members, but it is right to respond to some of the key points made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and to the specific ways forward advocated by the Liberal Democrats. They are right to identify the overarching importance of the CAP and the case for reform. The motion is light on advocating specific remedies, although the right hon. Gentleman advocated some in his speech. He mentioned the calf disposal and cull ewe schemes.
  I looked hard at the representations that I received from the Meat and Livestock Commission, among others, on the cull ewe disposal scheme proposition. It is being considered by Ministers in other Agriculture Departments, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Alongside that is the request for a modified calf disposal scheme. Both schemes come up against a difficulty with which many of us will be familiar: the Commission's attitude to extra and unlawful state aidsߞstate aids additional to the CAP. As a general point, we all want to help agriculture to get through what are acknowledged to be difficult times, in some sectors more than in others. It would be better to put our efforts into devising workable schemes on the demand sideߞI shall say a little about that in a momentߞrather than trying to supplement the supply side of the CAP. That is the hurdle at which these ideas have fallen.
  The only alternative would have been to reopen the whole calf-processing aid scheme in abattoirs in parts of the country, or perhaps throughout the whole country, until the end of the year. I thought carefully about that, and listened carefully to the representations that I received from the NFU when the scheme was due to close last November, because that was the position that I inherited. Hon. Members will know that I managed to obtain money from the reserve to continue the scheme until April, when I used moneys that I was able to draw together within the Department to continue the scheme, at a reduced rate, for as long as I could. I would have liked to reduce the rate further and to continue the scheme for longer in order to provide a market signal and a period of transition towards the eventual ending of the scheme EU-wide. That will happen at the end of this year. Some EU countries have closed the scheme; others still use it.
  The Commission took the view that it could allow only a modest variation in the EU-wide scheme for any individual member state. It relied on the figure of 20 per cent. It would be difficult to get the Commission to agree if we tried to introduce a scheme with a variation of more than 20 per cent., but, in any event, any EU scheme, under the CAP, must be open to all. Under the CAP, it is not possible to bring in partial schemes unless they are specifically permitted. Of course, the calf-processing aid scheme is not such a scheme.
  460
  I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the Ministers with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for trying to help the industries, in their Administrations, through difficult times. It is wrong for parliamentarians to criticise them for trying.
  I have already dealt with other matters that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, Westߞsupermarkets and the regulatory burden. I intend to say something about labelling soon; I am currently considering the regulations. In relation to standards abroad and at home, it is not legal to offer for sale goods, whether produced at home or imported, that do not meet our health and hygiene standards. I warn the whole House against trying to go down a protectionist road, with the use of instruments such as article 36—the example that is usually quoted by the Conservatives—as somehow allowing us to ban the import of produce from abroad that does not meet domestic welfare standards. I have sought the best possible available advice on that point, and I intend to put it in the Library so that we can all share it. However, it is clear that article 36 will not serve for that purpose. I intend to put the evidence in the Library; more than that I cannot do.
  The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West raised the issue of genetically modified materials.
  Mr. Tom King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I really must come to a conclusion.
  Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am a soft-hearted character; I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. King: Everyone understands the Minister's difficulty in trying to impose a ban on imports from countries that do not share our animal welfare standards. Although we want the highest welfare standards to apply in this country, when any new requirement is introduced is it not important to bear in mind the fact that that requirement cannot be imposed on other countries and that we are unable to prevent imports from countries whose producers do not have to bear the same costs as ours?
  Mr. Brown: I made exactly that point in almost the same way at the Council of Ministers meeting that discussed that issue in relation to the poultry sector. I was one of several Ministers who advocated taking forward the trade aspects of animal welfare in the coming World Trade Organisation round, and I received the support of other Ministers in that. Moreover, we got the toughest ever statement from the Commission on the subject of farm animal welfare.
  The right hon. Gentleman has correctly identified one of the dangers, which is that we insist on the highest standards, but find that, by so doing, we have exported the industry and so end up with neither a victory for animal welfare nor an industry. In my view, that would be a foolish course of action and I said so at the Council of Ministers. However, I do not conclude from that that we should resile from our ambitions for farm animal welfare. We should fight to obtain a premium for higher

  461
  farm animal welfare standards in the domestic marketplace and take a hard look at how farm animal welfare issues can be accommodated within the CAP. The matter will inevitably come up for discussion during the WTO round. It is early days yet, but no one should doubt the line that I shall pursue. In the meantime, I am alert to the impact on the domestic market, especially in a time of difficulties.
  The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in 1991, when we introduced changes in the pig sector, including the stall and tether ban, we allowed an eight-year conversion period. I make no political point: those, including myself, who voted for those measures believed that what we were doing was right in terms of animal welfare and that the industry could accommodate the changes. If we had asked pig farmers in 1995 and 1996 whether the industry could accommodate the changes, they would have said yes, of course, in part because, for a range of reasons, the new production systems were better than the old ones. Now, when margins are pinched or non-existent—producers in the pig sector now sustain losses—the effect of those changes on those who invested and are carrying debt is hard to bear. I want to find a way forward that specifically addresses the circumstances of the pig sector.
  The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West raised the subject of genetically modified organisms. He is right to emphasise the scientific impact and the need for the Government to stick to the science and to ensure that we are professionally advised. He is also right to say that consumer confidence has been badly shaken. We are setting up the Food Standards Agency to ensure that the professional advice given to Ministers, including me when I attend policy meetings of the Council of Ministers, is seen to be independent of ministerial or departmental government and to have been cast in an independent and scientific setting. I accept that it will take time, but I hope that the creation of that agency and the drawing together of the public protection work undertaken within government will have an impact on consumer confidence and trust. That trust has been shaken, and it is the duty of Government to restore it.
  I have been generous in giving way and I do not want to take up other hon. Members' speaking time, so I shall draw my remarks to a close by drawing the House's attention to some of the ways forward. As I said, we should look more at the demand side and less at the supply side when trying to help the industry through difficult times. There are good prospects for farmers' markets, a movement that is in its infancy in this country. I lay great personal emphasis on the farm assurance schemes, such as the Meat and Livestock Commission's British meat pork mark, which give the consumer the opportunity to purchase goods that have been produced to the higher United Kingdom standards. I should be willing to give my support to marketing schemes that emphasised the advantages of farm-assured produce.
  The recent growth in the organic sector, prompted by support from my Department, is welcome. So popular is the scheme that not only is it oversubscribed for the current year, but the waiting list for next year is now oversubscribed. I am considering how we can take that forward. We doubled the support given to the sector, and even that has proved insufficient to meet demand.
  462
  There are great possibilities in making use of regional speciality food endorsements and in trying to link the food industry, especially the farmgate food industry, with regional tourism. There are opportunities there, and we can also make use of the European Union legal protection of registered names.
  Diversification will continue to be important. About 40 per cent. of all farm businesses have a significant non-farm-based income stream, and I expect that to continue. I do not want to see the eastern part of the country turned into a prairie or the western part into a single ranch, but the trend for farm businesses to merge and grow larger is remorseless, and I expect that to continue. However, we must ensure that it does not become the dominant outcome.
  I believe in producer co-operation, and everything that I have said about the dairy sector underpins that. I believe in producer clubs, too, and the joined-up food chain with producers, processors and distributors recognising their community of interest and the long-term nature of the investment that they put into their businesses. In summary, the future is with the demand-side measures, rather than struggling to supplement the common agricultural policy on the supply side.
  We are going through a period of change. In 10 years' time, the position will not be the same as it is now. I am committed to working in a non-political way with the industry and others affected by it. Many of the issues are economic rather than political, and it is important that we find a response that is rational and will work and will help the industry through the difficult times that are partly cyclical, but partly structural as well.
  I welcome the contribution that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West has made to our discussions of such matters in the past, and the constructive attitude taken by his party towards those issues. Nevertheless, I urge the House to support the amendment.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on his elevation to the leadership of his party; I am sure that he will provide us with plenty of entertainment in that role in the months and years to come. I have not tabled an amendment to his motion because I agree with many, in fact most, of the sentiments in it. I shall therefore not ask my hon. Friends to vote against it at the end of the debate.
  I welcome the chance to debate the crisis in agriculture and in the countryside, and to examine the solutions that the Government have so often ignored or rejected. I was disappointed by the Minister's speech; it was similar to many of the offerings that we have heard over the past year, and can be summed up as follows: "I'm frightfully sorry about the ghastly mess, chaps, but there's nothing I can do about it."
  As usual, we are debating agriculture in Opposition time. In April and July we had Conservative Opposition day debates on agriculture, and I welcome the Liberals' decision to use their first available half-day for that purpose. Only the Government consistently refuse to debate agriculture in their own time, perhaps because Labour policies have made the crisis in agriculture worse,

  463
  not better—or perhaps because they refuse to recognise the central role of farming both in the rural economy and in the protection of the environment.
  Only today we read in The Times about a Cabinet Office proposal to end the protection of prime agricultural land. Here is a litmus test for Labour. Any weakening in the restrictions on developing prime farmland will not only be disastrous for the environment, but will send a chilling signal to farmers that the Labour party does not believe that agriculture has any long-term future in modern Britain, and that cool Britannia means covering prime farmland with houses and theme parks.
  On 20 September, the Minister announced a package of measures to which he made little or no reference during his 45-minute speech.
  Mr. Nick Brown: The only reason that I did not refer to the package of support that I announced for the industry is that I told the House that I would curtail my speech so that I could take interventions, and that was precisely the part of the speech that was curtailed.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: That shows what the Minister thinks of the package.
  Mr. Yeo: As my hon. Friend suggests, the fact that the package found no place in the Minister's 45-minute speech suggests that he does not attach much importance to it. It is fortunate that I shall now deal with the matter.
  Many of the individual measures were very welcome, but as so often happens with the Labour party, the reality did not live up to the spin. The package's cash value to farmers was not as high as the Government implied. Perhaps the Home Secretary had a hand in preparing the figures. Most of the money is European Union agrimonetary aid, paid directly from EU funds, which had been agreed before the announcement. Only £150 million of the package remained, and that consisted partly of a postponement of specified risk material removal charges and charges for cattle passports. In other words, those were decisions not to increase existing burdens on an almost crippled livestock sector for the purpose of swelling the Treasury's already overflowing coffers. The third element was a decision to maintain hill livestock compensatory allowances at the current rate for another year. In other words, that was a decision not to withdraw help from an extremely hard-pressed sector.
  Against that background, it is understandable that farmers were less than ecstatic. It is hard to quarrel with the verdict in the leader in the Farmers Guardian, which said that the package would not
  "make any real difference across the farming industry as a whole."
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister, and he will know that the £150 million is new money. It ensures that burdens that were to be placed on farmers will not be placed on them. There is new money also in the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are easily the best way to help the livestock sector in the uplands, where the key problem for sheep farmers lies. When I announced the £60 million last year, I said that it was a one-off and that the allowances could not continue in the future. I said that it was a specific programme
  464
  designed to help people who needed it immediately. As the problem endures—indeed, it is proving to be intractable—the Government decided to make the aid available again. That is new money, which I was careful to ensure people did not anticipate because the allowances were intended to last for one year.
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister is a little sensitive on that point. I cannot find many farmers who think that deferring the imposition of an additional charge for cattle passports represents the provision of new money. The Government have decided not to take from farmers as much money as they had intended at a time when the Minister has himself acknowledged that farm incomes are lower than at any time during the 18 years of the previous Government. I welcome that decision, but it does not qualify for the Minister's generous description of it.
  A particularly startling aspect of the package is its complete failure to mention pigs. I wonder whether the Minister, when he made his announcement, realised the severity of the problems with which pig farmers are grappling. British pig producers are teetering on the brink of disaster. The British sow herd is contracting, in contrast to the herds of Denmark, Spain, Germany and Holland. British imports of pigmeat from the rest of the European Union are rising. The British pig industry is now being exported, partly to countries that have lower animal welfare standards than ours. Week by week, the Government's policy of malign neglect is destroying the British pig farmer. I urge the Minister to take further action before it is too late.
  The first step must be to introduce honesty in labelling. It is outrageous that British consumers are sold items of pigmeat that may be labelled British even though the pigs were reared abroad, under conditions now considered too dangerous or cruel to be allowed in this country. The fact that those imports are produced in ways that are illegal in Britain need not even be disclosed at the point of sale to the consumer. Every food item should be labelled with the country of origin—showing where the food is grown, not where it is processed—and with the method of production, so that those consumers who want to do so can support high standards.
  Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is very fair, and I am looking very hard at the discretion that I have within the labelling regimes. However, could tell the House the constraints that there were on the previous Government in doing what he now advocates?
  Mr. Yeo: I shall tell the Minister the exact position. Under the previous Government, the British pig industry was not being exported. The need for desperate measures has arisen because of the present crisis in the pig sector. If I took the Minister to any pig farmer in the United Kingdom, he would say, "We would love to get back to where we were before May 1997." Desperate measures are now needed as a result of the Government's neglect of the issues, their hostility to the countryside and their contempt for agriculture.
  This debate is being listened to extremely carefully by pig farmers throughout Britain, many of whom have been in touch individually with me and with my hon. Friends over the past few days, and they will be dismayed to hear the Minister falling back on a cheap party political point at a time when they will be calculating—possibly even

  465
  this evening—how much longer they can continue in business. We now know the truth about how much Labour really cares for pig farmers.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Hon. Members frequently use the word "crisis" and it becomes almost meaningless, but I fully concur with what my hon. Friend says. This summer in my constituency, I have met dozens of pig farmers who are facing bankruptcy in the next few weeks. What we are looking for from the Minister—I accept that he hopes to announce some proposals next week—are some real, hard proposals to lift this crisis from the pig industry. Good words and phrases will not be sufficient. Many pig farmers will go bust in the next few weeks.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  The second step that is needed is to block the imports of food that has been grown in ways that are not allowed in this country. The Minister mentioned that in his speech. I welcome the fact that he will publish the advice that he has received. We shall study it with great interest.
  This week, the Minister wrote to me saying:
  "Member states cannot introduce a unilateral import ban or impose national standards unrelated to public or animal health".
  If our ban on feeding meat and bonemeal is not related to public or animal health, what on earth is it related to?
  The third step that is needed is to prevent the public sector from buying pigmeat that does not meet British standards. The Minister has told the House:
  "I have on my desk draft letters waiting to go out to the major public authorities—the prisons, the health authorities and local authorities—not via other Departments but directly, urging them to source products of the highest welfare and animal hygiene standards".—[Official Report, 1 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 422.]
  Before Agriculture questions in the House tomorrow, will the Minister place in the Library copies of those letters and the replies that, in the past three and a half months, he has received from the recipients of his letters, so that the pig farmers can see precisely which authorities are ready to support them?
  Mr. Brown: I shall not do that; I shall make my own announcement in my own time in the next few days.
  Mr. Yeo: When the Minister makes his announcement, will he publish those letters so that we may see exactly whom he wrote to and exactly who bothered to reply?
  The fourth step that is needed—which has been mentioned—is to help pig farmers meet the extra costs of offal disposal. The Select Committee on Agriculture made a recommendation on that subject in January 1999, and in the past few weeks the British pig industry support group has again raised the subject. That is another burden that many competitors overseas do not bear. Recently, Belgium secured European Union approval for the help that it has given to its pig farmers in the wake of the dioxin crisis, and I hope that Britain will be able to do the same.
  The beef on the bone ban was imposed by the Minister's unlamented predecessor, and we know what has happened to him in the past 10 days. The ban has exposed Labour's disastrous combination of weakness and muddle more clearly than any other issue. The Minister keeps saying that he cannot lift the ban because
  466
  of the scientific evidence. However, last month, as he has acknowledged, the chief medical officer for England said that the ban on the retail sale of beef on the bone could be lifted. Nevertheless, the Minister still will not act. Apparently, this is because officials in Wales and Scotland do not agree with the CMO. Does devolution mean that the UK is a convoy that can travel only at the speed of the slowest ship? Does it mean that unelected bureaucrats in Cardiff and Edinburgh now make the policy that applies to England? Does it mean that the Minister is too weak to stand up for the rights of English consumers? How can he expect the French Government to have confidence in British beef when the British Government do not have it?
  It is almost 11 months since the Minister announced to Parliament:
  "We have achieved a major objective of our policy towards Europe in the lifting of the beef export ban."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c.190.]
  On 17 December, the right hon. Gentleman referred to that as
  "a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners."
  He made a confident prediction about the timing. He said:
  "I anticipate that we will be able to start exporting deboned beef by the spring of next year."—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1091.]
  That timetable has slipped a bit. However, on 21 April 1999, during an Opposition debate on the crisis in farming, the right hon. Gentleman was at it again. He said:
  "We are on target towards the lifting of the beef ban. We are on timetable."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c.991.]
  Three months later, he was back in the House announcing once again the lifting of the ban. This time we were given a date—1 August. When I had the temerity to suggest that it might be well into August before exports actually started, the Minister slapped me down in a rather uncharacteristically petulant way. He said:
  "1 August is the start of August. How can that possibly be grudgingly described 'as well into August?"'
  For the record, the first beef to be exported—not sold but taken abroad for a promotional lunch—was on 23 August. For anyone who wondered how this great achievement was secured, the Minister told us, again on 14 July, that
  "Labour leadership in Europe and our constructive approach towards our European partners has clearly been shown to succeed."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 405-07.]
  So now we know. However, three months later hardly any British beef has been sold abroad. When the Minister came to Parliament to boast of his success in lifting the export ban, he had not even checked with the French authorities that they would accept British beef.
  Mr. Brown: We get used to this bombastic twaddle, but I shall correct one factual point. As the hon. Gentleman says, those who are watching the debate and following what he says may think that he is making a serious contribution. Incidentally, there is not a word of apology from the hon. Gentleman about the BSE crisis nor a reference to the Government who presided over it in the first place. There is not a word of apology from him about the previous Government's misguided and disastrous approach to the negotiations within the European Union when they were in charge.

  467
  As I have said, I shall correct a factual point, which is important to the industry and important also to those who may be following the debate. The fact is that beef on the bone has nothing to do with the export of British beef through the date-based export scheme—the arrangements for which were devised under the previous Government—which is for de-boned beef. The hon. Gentleman knows that because he read it out. He should not mislead people into believing that somehow the two issues are connected. They are not.
  Mr. Yeo: I think that even the Minister acknowledged in one of his previous statements on this subject that the agreement of the European Commission was secured on the basis of the terms set out at the Florence summit, when Conservative Ministers were negotiating the details. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been able to continue that process, but I deplore the fact that on several occasions he has raised the hopes of British beef farmers that the export ban was about to be lifted. On too many occasions, those hopes have been dashed.
  It is deplorable that the Minister made a statement in the House without having established clearly with France—which, incidentally, abstained at the Council last November, so he was on notice that it would need more persuading than some other countries—that one of our most important markets was ready to take British beef. That had nothing to do with the Conservatives. It was the Minister's statement, for which he must take responsibility, just as Labour must take responsibility for the absurd ban on beef on the bone, which, like it or not, is damaging confidence in a British product at home and abroad.
  The truth is that the statements made by the Minister on the subject at regular intervals, just like the statements of the Prime Minister himself, are not designed to help Britain's beef farmers. They have been designed to win Labour headlines, like the rest of the Government's agricultural policy. It is about spin, not substance. The price of that obsession with headlines has been paid week in, week out by Britain's farmers.
  To help the Minister to learn the facts of life, I invite him to join me on a fact-finding visit to France in the very near future, to learn at first hand about French attitudes towards British beef and about food standards in France, especially those relating to meat.
  Beef is not the only issue on which the Government have been undermining our farmers. That has happened in the dairy sector as well. The Minister will recall that discussions about the common agricultural policy reforms were concluded in March, and that after the settlement the Prime Minister's spokesman was quoted in The Times as saying that the outcome was
  "not satisfactory as far as we are concerned."
  That deal proposed that milk quotas, which currently prevent Europe from responding to growing world demand for dairy products, should continue until 2006. While Britain's milk quota will be effectively frozen until 2003—I know that there is a very small increase—four countries, including Ireland, which is already four times self-sufficient in dairy products, will receive a substantially higher quota next year.
  468
  The direct result of that negotiation will be that Britain's dairy farmers, already struggling with low prices and denied the chance to meet the needs of British consumers, will be further undercut by cheap Irish exports next year, while they remain prevented by quota limits from increasing their own production, despite having some of the best dairy-farming land in the whole of Europe.
  If that was not bad enough, the Prime Minister, chasing his headlines about Britain's budget rebate, made it clear to fellow Heads of Government at Berlin that farming did not matter to him, so they gratefully accepted the offer to sell British farmers down the river and they extended the quota regime for a further two years, till 2008.
  Mr. David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Unless the Opposition have changed their minds over recent months, I understand that it is Conservative policy to end the quota. Given that there is currently a surplus of milk in Europe, how do they intend to keep prices up if the quota regime is removed?
  Mr. Yeo: Ending the quota is a necessary objective if we are to allow Britain's farmers the opportunity to compete, as they should, against other dairy farmers. I do not suggest that ending the quota would suddenly have some miraculously upward effect on the milk price. Of course it will not, but it is not intended to do that. It is intended to allow Britain to take advantage of the conditions that we enjoy in this country to compete more freely than we can do at present against dairy farmers in other EU countries.
  Labour's milk policy has not ended with the damage done in the CAP reforms. In July, the much delayed Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published. Labour decided to prevent Milk Marque, the largest dairy farming co-operative in Britain, at least at that time, from doing what other European countries encouraged their dairy farm co-operatives to do—to invest in processing and to use vertical integration to give farmers a chance to benefit from higher value added products. At the very time that it is preaching to farmers about the need to be more market oriented, Labour is blocking dairy farmers from moving in that direction. As usual, Labour is saying one thing and doing another.
  In the interests of time, I also shall omit some of what I wanted to say, but I gather from the Minister's remarks that we may get another opportunity to debate these matters in the House before long. I shall touch briefly on three subjects. Badgers and bovine tuberculosis are a growing problem that is a real threat for many farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wrote to the Minister over a month ago asking about the progress of the Krebs trials. He is awaiting a reply. There are worrying reports about laboratories being shut down. Ignoring the problem certainly will not make it go away, and I hope that Parliament will be informed of the steps that the Government are taking to address it.
  On abattoirs, the much-delayed publication of the Pratt report on the impact of meat inspection charges confirmed what everyone knew, except perhaps the Minister and his officials. The report states in its conclusions:

  469
  "It is clear that … the British meat industry is seriously disadvantaged compared to other member states through a whole range of costs to do with meat inspection".
  When another slaughterhouse closes down every week, forcing fanners to send animals on ever-longer journeys, and when the costs and burdens on slaughterhouses cut the prices paid to farmers for their livestock, still further action is needed at once. I and many others have warned for months of the damage that over-regulation and excessive costs are inflicting on the industry. The Minister's reaction—the announcement of yet another review—is simply too little, too late.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he would omit part of his speech. Is he planning to omit his solutions to the problems that we have been discussing? All I have heard so far are four proposals for pig farming: two are illegal, one is already being implemented by the Government and one, concerning labelling, was not implemented by his party when it was in government. Then there was a lot of hot air about the beef on the bone ban, which is irrelevant, and criticism for delay—[Interruption.] It is irrelevant to the lifting of the beef ban, which he is criticising the Government for delaying. Their policy is an absolute success compared with the policy of non-co-operation in Europe, or "PONCE", that his Government pursued disastrously for this country and which got us into this mess.
  Mr. Yeo: I hope that every consumer and farmer in the Waveney constituency notes carefully the hon. Gentleman's statement that the ban on beef on the bone is irrelevant. I was going to omit, but shall now reinstate in my speech, the fact that last November, when the Minister made the first of the many statements about the lifting of the beef export ban, the hon. Gentleman told the House that champagne corks were popping in his constituency. I hope that he will now apologise to those farmers, who are still unable to sell beef on the bone to the customers who want to eat it, for reacting so absurdly and ignorantly.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: Not again; we have had enough nonsense from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to prepare a scheme whereby any further regulation in the agriculture sector will be tested against the overbearing and overarching costs that are driving farmers to the wall? I understand that the dairy herd tags are to be changed yet again, putting another obligation on already hard-pressed dairy farmers. What on earth could have prevailed on the Ministry to make it insist on a further change?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I welcome his suggestion, which is made with the benefit of his period as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We need to test regulations much more carefully for their impact, particularly on the small businesses that dominate the agriculture sector. I also suggest—this arises directly from the Pratt report—that we should stop interpreting these regulations over-zealously. It is clear that even those regulations that
  470
  we have accepted for perfectly good reasons are interpreted wholly differently in Britain, and usually much more onerously in respect of farmers, than in many other European Union countries.
  Mr. Brown: I make the hon. Gentleman an offer: if he can give me a specific example of that, I shall have it looked at, at once.
  Mr. Yeo: The ban on beef on the bone and abattoirs. I refer the Minister to the Pratt report. His officials should be following up its recommendations and finding out exactly how the inspection regime is operated in other EU countries. I know that they tried to suppress the report for several weeks, because they were embarrassed about the conclusions, but now it is in the open I hope that there will be a systematic response to find out exactly where we are going further than other EU countries. I shall certainly respond to the Minister's suggestion in more detail after the debate.
  The debate is timely because the crisis in agriculture became significantly worse during the parliamentary summer recess. The British pig industry is being destroyed; dairy farmers are being driven out of business; beef farmers suffer as muddle and incompetence put off the day when the task of rebuilding confidence in their product can begin; sheep farmers are reduced to the heartbreaking task of shooting their own flocks; and cereal farmers are threatened with new burdens, though I welcome the Minister's statement about his opposition to the pesticide tax and hope that he will not be forced to resign should the Chancellor of the Exchequer overrule him. Horticulture farmers face an arbitrary and ineffective climate change levy and slaughterhouses disappear week by week, but all he can offer is a package postponing the imposition of yet more burdens and yet another round of consultation and review.
  All that has taken place against a background of a recommendation from the Cabinet Office that prime agricultural land should be taken out of production so that it can be used for housing. The Minister needs to understand that his failure to respond to those challenges and Labour's neglect of agriculture and the countryside is leading directly and rapidly to a rural crisis so severe that the damage from it will take generations to repair. Only a change of Government will avert that crisis and, for the sake of the countryside, the sooner that happens the better.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: It will not be too difficult to rise above that contribution.
  In the European context, British farming has many natural advantages, certainly in terms of scale and climate, yet we have a struggling sector. The Opposition's response is that the problem is lack of Government intervention, and that we need further protectionism and cash support. Uncomfortable though it is to say this, I firmly believe that farming needs less Government intervention, rather than more, and that cash support needs to be reduced over the long term and transferred to payment towards social, environmental and welfare goals.
  Subsidising production—particularly inefficient production offering no other gain—is harmful to farming. Regulating and organising the sector through state and parastate bodies stifles innovation, discourages market awareness and encourages dependence. Such regulation as

  471
  we require should be constantly reviewed against tests of effectiveness and competitiveness. I shall concentrate on what we are achieving by what we are doing and on what impact we are having on the competitiveness of the sector that we are supposedly trying to help.
  Much the most significant feature of the welcome recent aid package was the announcement of a series of joint working groups to examine the weight and cost of regulation in the sector and its impact on competitiveness. That represents a change of stance by the Government. I have pursued this issue relentlessly in my time as a Member. Early last year, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  "if he will publish comparisons of charges made to ensure public health in the slaughter process in the United Kingdom with those prevailing in other EU states",
  to which the answer was:
  "The information requested is not available"—[Official Report, 12 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 373.]
  The response added that this issue was essentially a concern of individual member states and that it was for the European Commission to pursue any discrepancies. At the end of that month, when I pursued the matter further and asked
  "pursuant to his answer … concerning charges for veterinary inspection and controls, if he will make it his policy to collect the information necessary to allow comparisons of charges across the member states of the European Union."
  the former Minister of State, who is always a straight man, replied:
  "No. Given the flexibility of the EC rules"—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 317.]
  He then gave the same explanation, which was that this was a matter for individual member states and the responsibility of the European Commission.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious and important point. Does he agree that, if the idea of a regulatory impact assessment were being taken seriously, in relation to all the regulations that he describes, the regulatory impact assessment would inevitably also look at the comparative costs of the countries with which we compete.
  Mr. Todd: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would extend that view to my experience of regulation in other sectors. I spent my career in the private sector before joining this House, and I have puzzled over the process of regulatory impact reviews and their effectiveness. The hon. Gentleman therefore makes a fair point.
  Fortunately, the Government's attitude changed, and in the autumn of last year a review—perhaps partly prompted by my further letters to the Minister saying that the matter needed to be looked at further—produced a study of comparative costs and approaches to regulation within the European Union for the slaughter sector. The study, which lies in the House of Commons Library, reveals that some countries openly subsidise the slaughter sector, and that Government subsidies are available to the various slaughter operators. For other countries, the
  472
  information was so hazy that it was hard to say exactly what was going on. In Spain, for instance, the study says—it is couched in careful wording—that
  "Anecdotal evidence suggests there may be considerable variation in the pursuit of charges. Information received from unofficial sources suggests that charges may not be collected in all regions. Evidence to support this has not been provided."
  Sadly, a picture emerged of extremely incomplete information about the regulations and charging structure in that sector, and certainly of substantial variances from the British practice. I am glad to say that that has been built on by further Government research demonstrating that that is indeed the case, and that the matter has been pursued with the European Commission, which is responsible for ensuring that regulations are imposed evenly across the European Union.
  That is welcome, but the next step, in which the Government are engaged in their latest review, is to involve the industry in looking closely at how the regulatory burden works, and the costs associated with it in the competitive context, which is the real world of much of our livestock sector. We trade most of our livestock products internationally—although sadly not fully in beef as yet—and we must face the fact that the costs borne by our producers are also experienced in different forms by our competitors. If we choose to levy different burdens, that has an impact on our competitiveness.
  That is a welcome and realistic recognition of the significance, in both financial and morale terms, of the perceived inequities in the burdens faced by the sector. Farmers constantly tell me of the burdens which they think other member states' farmers face, and of the lack of regulation in other member states. We need truth and transparency, which is what we are gradually working towards.
  I also welcome the hold placed on increased charges in the last package pending a full appraisal of their competitiveness impact and a review of their effectiveness in achieving public health goals. That is an important initiative, which is belittled by Opposition Front-Bench Members, who say that the Government are putting off a charging regime which perhaps should not have been imposed at all. The announcement is much larger than that and looks at deferring the charges and at the effectiveness of the whole regime. That is welcome, too.
  I also commend the review of common agricultural policy administration conducted within MAFF last year. That is another subject that produces laughable anecdotes from farmers whom I represent about how inspection regimes operate in other member states. The review highlighted both significant savings that might be available in the administration of the CAP and the potential reduction in the bureaucracy that faces farmers in carrying out their tasks and conforming with the regime.
  It is perhaps regrettable that it took that review, which was conducted externally by Coopers and Lybrand, to recommend establishing something as obvious as a best practice unit to identify the best ways to implement the rigours of the common agricultural policy across the various regional centres through which MAFF delivers the CAP process. It is surprising that such an initiative needed to be made and had not been identified previously.
  Properly addressing the concerns of over-regulation is one strand of a strategy for assisting farming, but there are others. As parts of farming move progressively from

  473
  being regulated and directed, farmers need specific help. The recent MAFF publications on how to use the additional flexibility after Agenda 2000 make some interesting suggestions on how we should develop current initiatives and look at other ways of assisting farmers. Early retirement, support for marketing initiatives, training and retraining for farmers and support for co-operatives all feature, and those are steps that I would commend. I would add to those the encouragement that could be given to joint ventures along the food supply chain, which the Minister mentioned in his speech.
  We must consider how to improve the supply chain throughout its length. Let us take milk as an example, and step into a future in which we have no quotas. I agree with the Opposition spokesman that we should move in that direction, although the hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently economically literate to understand its implications in terms of pricing. Nevertheless, efficient and well-organised British farmers would welcome that prospect. We must look at how to take maximum advantage of that freedom and the particular strengths that we have in Britain, which would enable us to have a highly competitive dairy sector. It is crucial to look at the various links in the supply chain, and at the inefficiencies that exist.
  There is clearly a problem with the efficiency of our dairy processing sector, whose costs—in raw terms—are probably twice as high as those of its foreign competitors. We could not possibly sustain that in an open marketplace. It would be a burden on our sector and would hinder innovation and competitiveness. We must focus our efforts on attempting to improve our performance. Part of that improvement can come from a bottom-up process of encouraging farmers to move further up the food supply chain and take more responsibility for processing and retailing.
  That is one area where further work is required. Let me give a specific example of another way in which we could proceed.
  Mr. James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman believes that dairy farmers should move up the supply chain as he describes, will he explain why the Government have taken great steps to tell Milk Marque, which produces only 38 per cent. of milk, that it may not be a processor?
  Mr. Todd: Indeed. Milk Marque's mistake was to attempt to integrate the processing of milk, in which it was making commendable and intelligent steps through the acquisition of Aeron, for example, and other businesses, with the collection, transport and selling of milk. Obviously, that would place the sector at a disadvantage.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Todd: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me first to finish my answer to the previous intervention?
  The major purchaser and seller of milk would also be processing the milk in one corporate environment. In discussions with Milk Marque, I suggested to it that it should put the processing sector in a separate co-operative under separate management, thus freeing up the
  474
  relationship between the purchasing and transport operation and processing. That would have solved many of the problems.
  Mr. Tyler: I seek to help because neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) who just intervened were involved in the previous Parliament in producing the legislation on which the decision about Milk Marque was based. It was entirely owing to Conservative legislation that the mess occurred. The failure of milk marketing is entirely due to the previous Government's failure to understand the need to free up the co-operatives to enable them to perform effectively.
  Mr. Todd: I welcome that contribution. Perhaps I am insufficiently party political to be able to make such points freely. Essentially, I took them as read—perhaps the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had forgotten that piece of history and I did not want to waste time reminding him of it, but nevertheless it is true.
  As the Minister rightly said, the Government have substantially increased the aid given for the conversion of farms to organic produce. Those of us familiar with the sector recognise the problem. Farmers go through a period of no or minimal income as they convert their farms to an appropriate organic environment. Clearly, they have cash flow problems during that time.
  What has puzzled me is why the retail sector, which is doing extremely well with organic produce and is seeking more of it, has not been more active in assisting farmers in going down that path. It is assisting farmers by looking at longer-term contracts to try to ensure that those making the change can be confident of a market for their produce later, but the cost of dealing with that gap in production has been left very much to the Government to support, together with the farmers themselves.
  I see no reason why the Government should not encourage the retail sector to engage in cost-matching the conversion process. Increasing the amount of organic produce available to customers is very much in the interests of the British retail sector. That is what customers want and, as far as one can tell, the retail sector should be able to achieve good margins from selling such produce. It should be in its interests to move down the value chain to assist that process of change and to make up for the present gap in production. That is my concrete suggestion.
  The development of regional economic strategies, which offer huge potential. I particularly commend the east midlands draft strategy, which places the food sector at the heart of the document with an innovative proposal for a university for food to combine the research, educational and industrial interests of the sector. Those regional strategies are developing only as a result of the Government's policies. That particular development is welcomed and has been commended by farmers in my constituency as clear support for the long-term health and success of the food sector in the east midlands. I have also heard of the Welsh food strategy—again, a welcome initiative to highlight and build on the brand strengths of regions.
  Those are the ways ahead for agriculture. As hon. Members will recognise, most of them are the responsibility of the industry. Farming has been ill-served

  475
  in the long, if not the short, term—many farmers remind me of the times that they have received aid packages of some scale, which are sometimes not even needed, from Governments. In the long term, farming has been ill served by state controls and misdirected aid.
  I have found it puzzling—I have found this in meetings of the Select Committee on Agriculture—to have to defend free enterprise and entrepreneurial skills in farming to the Conservative party, which spends much of its time advocating protectionism, state aid and additional controls. That is a puzzling position, but it is one to which I have become accustomed.
  Farming and food need more enterprise and entrepreneurs, not further Government controls or misdirected aid.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: We seem to have had a general tour d'horizon of some of the ghastly circumstances that we all face and most of the points that need to be made about the crisis have been made. The Minister rightly said that in many respects it can only be described by that term. However, four points have not been covered and I intend to deal with those.
  The first matter results from direct experience of fanning in west Dorset. Two years ago—even as recently as a year ago—my farmers were complaining and upset, but they had not reached the end of the road emotionally. They thought that they would grit their teeth and get through. I am sure that the Minister must have gained this impression from his visits, but certainly this summer there has been a detectable change of mood. Many of those farmers who have struggled and survived—that includes some who are remarkably efficient when compared with their peers—have come to think that they may have reached the end of the road. That applies in particular in the pig sector, which has been much discussed and to which I will refer again, but it is also true more widely.
  One part of the explanation is odd. Having to kill their calves as they emerge, after having spent the night bringing them to birth, has brought home to farmers emotionally something that the economic difficulties they were facing did not.
  The Minister spoke—rightly, I am sure—about the likely results of the problems. If nothing is done, a large number of farmers will go out of business. If they do not do so, it will be their children who suffer because they will not take over the farms.
  West Dorset is a land not of small but of medium-sized farms of 100, 500 and sometimes 1,000 acres, many of which could survive in an open market under the right circumstances. That will change if nothing is done but there are three ways in which it could change. First, the area could change into a wasteland and I do not think that any of us would welcome that. The environmental consequences would be permanent. We would return to a sort of countryside that this country enjoyed—suffered would probably be a better description—before the 10th century. That is not a realistic prospect for a civilised nation.
  We learned the second possibility today and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to it. The Cabinet Office may be considering it. I never
  476
  know whether to trust leaks from the Cabinet Office, but from my experience of working in Downing street the leaks are often more accurate than the announcements. Perhaps there are people in the Cabinet Office who think that it would be advantageous if land such as that in west Dorset changed its nature, stopped being agricultural and was used for housing. I do not share that view and neither do the local people. Much more importantly, the country as a whole does not share it because the countryside is not there merely for those who live in it. I suppose that this will sound overblown, but it is our most precious resource. The thing about this country that makes it most tolerable to live here is that we can get out of our necessarily rather ghastly cities—for all their cultural merits, they do not look very beautiful—into a place that feels different. If we lose that, we shall have lost an irreplaceable part of our civilisation.
  It is not just a matter of trying in a nimbyish way to protect my constituents against acres and acres of ghastly new housing. Goodness knows under the Government's present policies and, I regret to say, the policies of Administrations past—now, thank goodness, my own party has come to its senses, long ahead of the Government—we have enough housing already. To move to a world in which agricultural land, which is the last land that has been protected against housing, suddenly becomes the new bonanza for house builders is to move to a world that is culturally desperate.
  The third possibility is the one to which the Minister gestured. In his usual way, he gestured towards it a great deal more nicely and gently than his predecessor, but his predecessor was very straight about it. On many occasions from the Dispatch Box—it was one of my first experiences on coming to the House—I heard him talk in very robust tones about the necessity to sweep away large tranches of small farms and end up with some big ones which he thought would be efficient. Now it is perfectly true that there has been a secular movement from smaller to larger farms and that we benefit economically, or we would do if it were not for the Alice in Wonderland world of the common agricultural policy, from having on the whole larger farms than many of our competitors.
  However, the society of West Dorset—there must be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have similar constituencies—does not depend alone on having farms. It depends on the numbers of farmers in the place. Rural life would not be rural life as we know it if it consisted of 30,000-acre, huge farm management operations with no farmers. The fact is that farmers are not just farmers. They and their wives are the school governors in my constituency, the people who keep the womens institutes open, who go round and collect for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the people who keep the place what it is. If they go, and they really are going now, we will not replace them. We will not have the same kind of place. Yes, there may still be, thank God, open fields instead of housing, if the Cabinet Office does not have its way, but those open fields and the villages and towns that are supported by rural life as we know it at the moment, will not feel the same when the rest of the population goes to visit it, and we will still have lost a precious asset.
  Worse, we shall have destroyed the one part of our society that really works. West Dorset is a place that has schools that are schools. They have never had all the nonsense of the 1960s. They are places to which

  477
  middle-class people, without having to move and buy expensive houses, are happy to send their children. West Dorset has almost no crime. I exaggerate slightly, but it has one of the lowest rates of crime in the whole of the United Kingdom and always has had. Why? It is because of the character of the society, and that depends incredibly on the existence of a fabric of small and medium-sized yeoman farmers and their families and the network of social support that they provide. One could run a whole university course on the sociological advantages of a farming community. All of that stands to be lost not in the next year or 10 years, but in the next few months. That is what I mean when I say that this a crisis.
  Much has been said this afternoon about the beef ban, the ban on beef on the bone, the slaughter of calves and cattle passports. All of those are important, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the long-term problem that the calf sector faces. It is not just a short-term problem. We may get sex-based semen; we may have some new ovulation techniques. I do not know. I do not know how long they will take to be introduced or how far, if the Minister will forgive me, the bureaucrats will let them be introduced. It may be that we do not have a huge pile of surplus calves five years or even two or three years from now.
  Barring those developments, something has to be done with the bull calves. We do not have an indigenous veal industry. We do not have the right to export the live animals. I would welcome a scheme to enable us to export them. That would require the Minister to go and do business in places such as France and make agreements which would enable people to check on the survival of the dam six months after the export, or five months if export takes place when the calf is one month old, to ensure that the BSE rules have been complied with. I am sure that that is achievable.
  Even if that were done, the amount of live export is never going to be very great. If I can put it in these terms, the sandals brigade, who are actually the poll tax protesters and anti-nuclear protesters repackaged, will be out there throwing stones in the apparent pursuit of animal welfare and making the life of the calves hell as they approach the dock. It will be very difficult to get a live export scheme going again.
  So the only long-term solution, unless we can move to sex-based semen or whatever, is an indigenous veal industry. I have not seen any sign of the Meat and Livestock Commission or the Minister putting their hand to the task of trying to develop such an industry. I speak from a vested interest because half of the United Kingdom's veal producers are located in west Dorset, but the whole of the dairy sector would benefit if the Minister directed his attention that way.
  Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the likelihood of any such live calf export scheme being introduced by the Government becomes even more remote if one considers the precedent of beef on the bone? Even supposing Europe thought that the Minister's scheme was a good one, he would have to consult his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and the likelihood of them giving him permission to do what he wanted seems extremely remote.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree that that is a bizarre consequence of devolution. My hon. Friend knows that I spent a large
  478
  part of the first year of my tenure in the House arguing about devolution, albeit not with this Minister but with others. We never spotted that one of the consequences could be the ruling of England not by a majority founded on Scottish Members—the well-known West Lothian question—but indirectly by Ministers in other parts of the kingdom. My hon. Friend is right. There is a problem.
  An indigenous veal industry would not cause such problems. We could create one in England and, I am sure, in the UK as a whole, with universal support. I press on the Minister the need to take that seriously.
  Much has been said about pigs this afternoon, and rightly. I want to make one or two ripostes to the Minister's assertion, which I take to be the kernel of his argument, that it would be an improper state aid to do something about offal disposal costs. I understand that it would be a state aid. We must not be confused in debates about state aids by the words "state aid". A state aid is a classification. It is not ipso facto a definition of something that is illegal or improper. Manifestly, the Commission and the treaties allow all sorts of state aid, as is proper, if they are properly notified and fall within certain rules.
  The question is whether providing aid for offal disposal costs would be an improper state aid. The Minister said that aid would be introduced only to deal with exceptional circumstances. If the disappearance of our pig industry due to exogenous influences, namely the BSE crisis, is not an exceptional circumstance, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Nick Brown: If that is right, why did the then Government not introduce some state aid when the restriction was imposed in 1996?
  Mr. Letwin: The honest answer is that I have not the foggiest clue, but I do not think that the fact, if it is a fact, that a mistake was made by legal advisers and by Ministers then, ought to deny us the possibility of rescuing the industry today. I am perfectly prepared to admit—God knows I have to admit—that we made very many mistakes. I do not think that they ought to be repeated.
  Mr. Drew: That is a new doctrine.
  Mr. Letwin: I believe that we benefit from the splendid doctrine of conceding and moving on. That is exactly what I am doing here. It is in the interests of Britain that we should do that.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware of a draft European directive which could put an enormous additional cost on pig suppliers in Britain in that it sets technical, non-mandatory standards for vehicles transporting livestock, the actual cost of which will fall on the pig producers? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should do everything possible to make sure that that directive, which at the moment is voluntary, does not become mandatory, so that additional costs do not fall on our pig producers?
  Letwin: No, I was not aware of that. One of the defects of the Alice in Wonderland world in which we live is that one can hardly live another day without hearing of another proposed directive or regulation. My hon. Friend

  479
  is obviously right. Any additional mandatory burden on pig producers today would be a nail in a coffin to be resisted.
  I come to the second part of the Minister's defence against action in this sphere, because it is important. He based part of his argument on the assertion that to subsidise offal disposal costs would be an improper state aid because, in some important way, such a subsidy is not similar to the cattle passport subsidy. Incidentally, I do not quite regard it as a subsidy because I have never been able to understand, on the basis of pocket handkerchief calculations, how the real cost of a cattle passport could be £7. Other countries appear to be able to provide that for £2. I beg the Minister to ask someone in his Department, or perhaps outside it, to investigate how the resource cost of a cattle passport could genuinely be £7. However, that is by the by. No doubt it has a cost and the Minister is subsidising it, which is splendid.
  The question is what is the relevant disanalogy between the subsidy of the cattle passport cost and the subsidy of offal disposal costs. Both are regulatory costs which apparently arise for health and safety reasons. We would not have cattle passports if there was no health and safety reason for them. We clearly have a health and safety reason for the offal disposal costs being imposed in the first place. They seem directly analogous, in which case I cannot understand what the relevant disanalogy could be.
  I admit that the legal gums in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have their views on what is or is not a proper state aid, but I beg the Minister to consider that the whole experience of the UK Government during the past 10 or 15 years is that we have been peculiarly timorous in stretching the boundaries of what we can get away with vis-á-vis state aids, or anything else, in the EU. That is one of our disadvantages.
  There is a matter of realpolitik here. If this was an open and shut case, if such a subsidy was clearly an improper state aid, I would not recommend this course of action, but if, as I deeply suspect, there is ground at least for legal argument, and if the Minister were to take the action of funding these costs only for the Commission later to decide to take him to court, it would be one, two or three years down the line before the matter was determined, and by that time we would have a pig industry. In a similar environment in Paris, that would hardly need to be said because everyone would know that that was the way one played the game. But for some reason it sounds odd to English ears.
  I welcome that it sounds odd to English ears because I welcome the fact that we still have—although the Government are still trying to destroy it, in co-operation with their colleagues from other countries—an English judicial system and a respect for it. Therefore, we are attuned to the idea of not taking—the Government in particular—the slightest risk. The Treasury Solicitor's Department is peculiarly well organised to help the Government to avoid ever taking the slightest risk. Spiritually, as an Englishman, I welcome that. But here we have a national crisis and a possible means of solving it, and there is a practical way of doing that if the Minister will take it.
  Mr. Nicholls: Should we not also pray in aid of what my hon. Friend says the fact that, if the Minister was concerned
  480
  that, given that legal advice suggested that he probably would not get away with it, he might be at some political risk as a result of an application under article 36 of the treaty, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has made it abundantly clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions that, if a challenge under article 36 were to fail, far from criticising the Minister for his venture, we would praise him for the attempt?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right, we would, and it would be disgraceful if we did not. Therefore, the Minister has some political choice. I am sure that Liberal Democrats would take the same view. This is a national concern. The Minister was right to say that it was not a party political concern. It is difficult for anyone who has been captured for any Department to see the matter in quite the same way as it appears to the rest of us, and, in this case, the outsider's perspective is closer to reality than that of the insider.
  I come now to pesticides and the pesticides tax. The infamous leak from the Cabinet Office suggests that, after all, the pesticides tax, to which the Minister so nobly objects, may be on the agenda. I do not have the slightest idea whether it is or is not, and it may be that the Minister does not either. But for a long while it looked as if it was, and the only person standing out against it was the Minister. That was an odd situation. I cannot recall a time in the recent past when an important member of the Cabinet avowedly opposed something and yet it continued to be spoken of as it was about to be introduced.
  Then there was a ray of hope because one of the Minister's colleagues, the Minister for the Environment, was rumoured in the media to have sprung to the astonishing perception that the time was not quite right for the introduction of the new and swingeing tax. Hurrah. It is marvellous that the Minister for the Environment should have spotted it. If the Minister played any part in enlightening him on that, we owe him a deep debt of gratitude.
  But now we have the Cabinet Office. Like most hon. Members, I know something about how government works. I have sat for endless hours with that little coven of witches in No. 10 Downing street and I know that when the Cabinet Office, or someone in Downing street, starts to cook up a proposition it is a powerful device. One never knows what will happen next. The Minister might find that the Chancellor has announced a pesticides tax without telling him in a Budget statement that was too secret to be let on about until two hours beforehand.
  There is a real danger that we will have a pesticides tax and there is a real problem with it. I apologise for making a party political point, but the Government are brilliant at introducing stealth taxes. The phrase has become so common that someone recently asked me why the Conservatives were not going on about stealth taxes. The phrase has become common property now.
  The first characteristic of a stealth tax is that no one notices it until it has happened. A pesticides tax would be like that because most people in the UK do not have the slightest idea that there are pesticides in the first place. In fact, roughly £1,000 million worth of pesticides are used each year, as the Minister knows. Therefore, a pesticides tax qualifies as a stealth tax in that regard.
  The second characteristic of a stealth tax is that it almost never achieves the effect that it purportedly attempts to achieve, and this is exactly such a case.

  481
  A bizarre feature of a pesticides tax is that it will not achieve a reduction in the use of pesticides. Farmers cannot use fewer pesticides. If the organic aid scheme, instead of being cut off for the next two years, were slightly larger than a pocket handkerchief, farmers might be able to stop using pesticides. However, we have intensive farming. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made a rational case for a more rationally disposed market—he did not mention that we would have to get rid of the CAP to do it, but I was with him all the way, cheering inwardly—and he said that farmers should be economically rational and that, I regret to say, implies intensivity and, inevitably, pesticides.
  Farmers the length and breadth of Britain have to use pesticides. One cannot imagine a farmer using more pesticides than he needed. If farmers had to meet a bill of £1,000 million simply because they liked throwing the stuff around, they would be carted off to a lunatic asylum. Farmers use the least amount of pesticide that they can get away with. The stuff is jolly expensive.
  When the tax comes along, when the other Mr. Brown, the Chancellor, the much less nice Mr. Brown, stands at the Dispatch Box to make the pre-Budget announcement on 8 November, or whatever, and tells an expectant House that he has managed to find another £5,000 million of our money with which to swell his coffers in order to do we know not what, yet, £200 million or £300 million of which a year will come from the pesticides tax, he will not say that that is £200 million or £300 million which will come from the farmers without a single drop of pesticide less being used in Britain. That would not be an environmental measure. If the Minister for the Environment had really considered the issue, he would have said not that it is not a good time to impose such a tax but that it would never be a good time. If the Government wish to reduce pesticide use, they would do much better to subsidise organic farming more.
  I hope that the Minister will pick up the telephone when he returns to his office and talk to his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. He should say to them, "Whatever you do to surprise me, for goodness sake do not surprise me with a pesticide tax." The farmers will never forgive this Government if at this time, of all times, that tax, of all taxes, is imposed.
  6 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because I agree with several of the remarks in the middle of his speech, although less with his causes and conclusions. Several hon. Members have mentioned the supposed leak, which appeared in The Times, from the Cabinet Office about a relaxation of Labour's attitude to the countryside—presumably in relation to planning policy.
  We can all agree that farmers face difficulties at the moment, and the high price of land is one of the reasons. Of course, agricultural land is measured in terms of development value. I do not suggest that a crash in land price in agricultural areas is what is needed, but it is difficult for farmers to envisage a recovery with land prices so high. That causes many problems, because better-off farmers still seek to buy land, and they keep up the price of land for agricultural use. The alternative is to consider other uses for the land, but the development potential of land keeps the price up. That is an economic
  482
  argument, not a political or moral one, but it is one of the paradoxes that farming faces and that causes many of the present difficulties. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) looks quizzical, but it is an economic concept, and not one on which I seek to find argument.
  The crisis in farming has a knock-on effect on the whole rural economy, although we must be realistic and accept that farming is now a relatively small part of that economy, and we do not face a rural crisis caused by the decline in agriculture. However, the agricultural situation is not helping the rural economy, and its difficulties, which are caused by a galaxy of different factors, need to be addressed.
  We now face the impact of the integration of the supply chain, which was to some extent encouraged by farmers, some of whom have come to rue that attitude. They have started to realise how they have lost control of the food chain and are angered and disillusioned by the way in which that has removed their ability to control what they produce and the price at which they are able to produce it. We need to learn from those mistakes, which go back decades, not just two years. We must learn lessons and reach for radical new solutions.
  One factor is the globalisation of the food chain. Different countries are now able to supply this country much more easily. Indeed, until the BSE crisis, we were able to supply internationally, particularly in sectors such as beef. We may understand that point, but doing something about it is more difficult—if only we could wave a magic wand and persuade the French to rethink their position. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is doing everything that he can, but the problem is not only Governments but the way in which consumers react. I understand the farmers' frustration, but causing a massive upsurge of unrest will not persuade consumers. Instead, it will draw attention to the continuing crisis.
  We are indebted to an earlier Liberal Democrat debate on BSE for the realisation that we must also deal with the impact of the north Americans and what they would like to do, as well as our friends across the channel. We know from experience that what starts as a reaction soon becomes a retaliation. The danger is that understandable reactions become retaliatory policies that cost millions of pounds in lost revenue and threaten jobs that have nothing to do with the immediate cause of the dispute. Nobody gains from such situations. However, I do not argue that we should throw in the towel: we should vigorously do all we can to make the French see reason. There is no reason why British beef should not be sold on the continent and throughout the wider world. We have argued our case, successfully so far, with the Commission which has accepted that it is wrong for individual Governments to do what they are doing. It is still true that the negotiations are difficult and tortuous, and I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister every success.
  Unlike the Conservatives, I welcome the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Minister made in the summer. It has been argued that they were too little, too late, but the whole package is important. No one has yet argued that the package should be rejected, and certainly all the money will be taken up. The distribution of funds will always be disputed, and I heard an argument—at the conference in Dartington, Devon attended by my right hon. Friend—that lowland farmers also needed help and too much aid went to the highland areas. However,

  483
  we must be realistic and recognise that the crisis is most deeply felt in highland areas. Immediate action was needed to help those farmers at the sharp end at the earliest possible opportunity.
  It is recognised on both sides of the House that we should move towards environmental payments rather than producer payments, so that subsidies are not directed at increasing the amount of food produced. Progress in that direction has been disappointing, and the need for that change in farming has been lost sight of in the immediate crisis. I am disappointed that we have not been able to put more money into environmental payments. The issue is one of helping not only the environment but those who farm and manage the land. We have managed to find £100 million to allocate so far, but—and it is difficult to say so—that is not a great sum in terms of the billions of pounds spent on other support measures. However, that is because we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. My right hon. Friend the Minister is nodding, and he knows far better than I do that we are stuck with existing procedures, partly because the previous Administration did not see the issue as a priority.
  It does seem daft. One of the things that is wrong with the CAP is that we are always stuck with history: because something was not done in the past, we cannot do it in the present, let alone in the future. That has to be changed, but it explains why it is so difficult to introduce new agricultural and environmental measures. Historical constraints mean that not enough money is available for those purposes.
  It is easy to talk about modulation, cross-compliance and the need to find national envelopes that will provide greater flexibility for individual countries to do what they want. However, these are difficult matters as we are locked into the CAP negotiations and cannot simply do our own thing, however much we might wish to.
  I hope that I can help my Front-Bench colleagues by setting out my personal views about how to move matters forward. As I have said already, the problem is that the whole sector is full of paradoxes. For example, food safety is very important to consumers. That is shown by their reaction to BSE and to the introduction of genetically modified organisms. I too have sometimes been critical of the Government's approach, which I do not believe has always been sufficiently rigorous in its opposition to GMOs. How that rigour might be achieved is a difficult problem, but such matters are part of the attempts by consumers to exert sovereignty over the food that they buy.
  Ordinary consumers, however, are also interested in the price that they have to pay for food, which at present has never been lower, in relative terms. Much less is spent on the ordinary person's food budget than ever before, yet we have failed to crack the problem of food poverty—the very poorest people now spend a greater proportion of their income on food than previously. That is another of the paradoxes that remains to be solved.
  I very much welcome some of the approaches that the Government have adopted. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned farmers' markets, of which the one in Stroud is a successful example. It was founded by a lady called Clare Gerbrands, and her enthusiasm and effort have attracted farmers to participate in the venture. More would be welcome, however.
  484
  It is another paradox that, although it is relatively easy to attract people who want to sell craft goods and knick-knacks to such markets, it is hard to attract farmers. That is not because farmers are unwilling to try such markets, but because they lack the ability to market themselves successfully. Also, because they have been so driven towards the centralised food chain, it is difficult for farmers to lock into a localised food chain. We should provide money, help and advice to make it easier for them to make the change to localised markets, because in that way everyone can gain: farmers win by having access to a local market, and consumers tend to trust locally produced food.
  Moreover, retailers can also benefit from such a system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is not in his place at present, but he intimated that retailers should provide support for conversion by farmers to organic methods. That is a thoroughly good idea. Those of us who are Christians may not like the idea of shops being open seven days a week, but farmers and consumers alike would benefit if shop space were reserved for locally produced food. My challenge to the supermarkets is that they should set up attractive spaces in which people can see the benefits of locally produced food.
  People want good-quality, wholesome food at a price that they can afford. The GMO debate has shown that people are interested in what they eat. Professor Tim Lang, professor of food policy at Thames Valley university, spoke in my constituency a few weeks ago. He said that the threat from GMOs is minuscule compared with that posed by what he called functional foods—for example, foods produced for specific sports or dietary needs. How will we cope with such foods when they enter the food chain?
  Perhaps that development will be the solution to all our problems. People may be able to eat exactly what they want to eat, because all their food will have been specially prepared for them. However, the threat is that there will be an even greater centralisation of the production, processing and distribution of food.
  Debates on these matters must be held: hon. Members must ensure that farmers can remain in business and that consumer needs are served. Those two aims should not be mutually exclusive. We must therefore look at new structures.
  I am a Co-operative Member and a co-operative person, and it gladdens my heart to hear co-operation and collaboration being talked about in this place. Yet how can we achieve such co-operation when 20 per cent. of farmers receive 80 per cent. of the available support? Tenant farmers are always vulnerable and at a particular disadvantage. I mentioned land prices earlier, but they affect tenant farmers too, as they are keen to get the best return from their annual rent. Theirs is therefore a difficult existence. We may need to make a special allowance to ensure that tenant farmers, who are the backbone of the farming industry, can continue to exist. In the main, they are smaller farmers, often in difficult locations. However, they are important because they are the ' ones who implement the agri-environment schemes and who look to go organic.
  If tenant farmers were to disappear, the impact on the countryside would be entirely negative, yet the present structures are especially disadvantageous to them. That is

  485
  why we may need to examine measures to ensure their continued existence. The problem is that tenant farmers are not common in Europe. The small farmers tend to be owner-occupiers, or part of co-operatives. How do we persuade our friends in Europe that our tenant farmers are an important part of our social fabric as well as of our agricultural industry? We have managed to skate around that question on many occasions, but now we really must try to find a solution.
  I could speak about Milk Marque, but I shall say only that it was set up by the previous Administration. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I would not wish on anyone the problems that he faces with regard to bovine tuberculosis. That enormous problem is devastating our milk industry, and it can be resolved only by means of science. It may not be as great as BSE, but it will have a big impact on the milk industry unless solutions are found soon. Magic wands and loads of money will not provide those solutions; only science will discover why TB arises in the countryside and how it is spread.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I am sure that the House endorses the hon. Gentleman's faith in science, but the Government stated that 10 triplet areas were to be set up to study TB. However, so far only two such areas have been established. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that?
  Mr. Drew: I am not satisfied, as I believe that the priority is to develop solutions to the problem. However, I want to choose my words carefully. I understand—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does—some of the reasons why it has proved more difficult than expected to get the trials under way. For example, there has been a great deal of opposition to and, at the same time, pressure for the drastic culling of badgers. Yet the difficult problem of bovine TB, which also affects milk industries in other countries, must be solved.
  Mr. Letwin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the difficulties associated with establishing the tests for bovine TB, but does he not understate the case slightly? Bovine TB is approaching the status of a huge crisis. Is not it necessary to ensure that all the stops are pulled out to implement the recommendations of the Krebs report as fast as the science permits? Surely no impediment should be allowed to delay that.
  Mr. Drew: I do not disagree. All hon. Members have faith in the Krebs report, and in the Bourne group that has actioned it. However, I have always been somewhat sceptical about the possibility of producing speedy solutions. I wish it were that easy, but it is not—this is a very difficult problem. Although I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I urge caution when it comes to going full speed ahead with the trials. The question of how they should be implemented is not at all easy.
  I have covered a wide range of the issues and paradoxes with which we must deal. We have to consider radical solutions, asking whether we have gone as far as we could. Some of us would argue that we have not done so when it comes to the centralisation of the food chain. Is it good, or should we encourage supermarkets to look back towards local supply and sourcing, which could benefit
  486
  everyone? We must reform the CAP. Dare I suggest that we need to see how it can be reformed for our national needs as well as for Europe as a whole?
  We must remember that Europe is changing. In Poland yesterday, I saw some of the ways in which agriculture will seek to feed people in western Europe. Whether that is good or bad, it will happen and it will have an impact on us. I was told that a major processing company is investing in a new plant in Hungary which will dwarf some British processing. Whether or not we want that, it is happening. We cannot persuade ourselves otherwise.
  Agriculture is in crisis and there are no short-term solutions. We must consider how to dig ourselves out of the crisis, taking the farmers with us but not avoiding the paradoxes that we must face up to. We can do all that only by travelling the route outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Important wider issues must be taken into account, and I hope that the White Paper due early next year will allow us to put agriculture in its proper context as an important part, but not the only part, of what happens in rural Britain.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I shall be brief because I do not want to take up too much of the Liberal Democrats' day.
  One issue not addressed so far is the problem of fallen stock in the countryside. Some weekends ago, the Sunday Post—not, perhaps, a mass circulation newspaper down here, but one which percolates into the north of England—carried a picture of a farmer shooting lambs on his farm. We all know why farmers have been dragged into doing that, but the picture and the report omitted the next stage of the process—how farmers get rid of stock that dies or is shot.
  Before BSE, the system was that the knacker—there were yards in many areas—would collect fallen stock. After collecting cattle, the knacker often picked up sheep for no charge. The cattle were taken back to the plant and stripped of usable material for pet food and other things. What the knacker could not dispose of, the renderer collected—even, in good times, paying for it. That material went to the renderer's plant to be disposed of as bonemeal or tallow. The system allowed and encouraged sensible disposal of fallen stock without damage to the environment. It also created some employment in rural areas.
  Today, of course, the market of the renderers—for bonemeal and tallow—has almost totally disappeared, although some tallow may return. The renderer must now charge the knacker if he is to collect what the knacker disposes of. The knacker, who also faces high investment in pressure cookers if he is to produce for the pet food industry, must charge the farmer for the collection of fallen stock. Meanwhile, farmers are less able than ever they were to pay the charges that the knacker is imposing.
  Farmers faced with the lowest incomes in generations—often negative incomes—will bury stock on their farms. As far as I can ascertain, provided that a farmer disposes of stock away from water courses, there is no regulation to stop him disposing of stock on his land, although the practice is banned in most other European Union countries. If fallen stock goes to the renderer, it is

  487
  classified as high-risk material, but if it stays on the farm, it is simply classed as agricultural waste. We may wish to ponder that anomaly.
  One consequence is unemployment: knackers have gone out of business, and the one in my constituency closed some time ago. Then, there are consequences for both health and the environment. Other EU countries do not allow such burial. Recently, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency produced a report on the matter, which said:
  "Fallen stock does not yet pose a problem but difficulties may be expected in future years due to cumulative effects of increased disposal. In view of the changing circumstances which are likely to lead to more on-farm burials and the unknowns relating to the environmental issues of larger-scale burials, it is recommended that alternatives to on-farm burial are encouraged."
  I believe that the agency is being too mild in saying that there will be a problem and that we must do something once it arises. The time to do something is now—a lesson we should perhaps have learned from past agricultural crises.
  We should not underestimate the scale of the problem. Figures are not available for the number of stock buried. We have passport and traceability systems, but traceability ends when the animal dies. No one knows what happens to animals then. In Dumfries and Galloway alone, I estimate that we dispose annually of 9,000 cattle and 36,000 sheep. The possible consequences of burying those animals in pits in the countryside are fairly horrible to contemplate.
  Even if, suspending disbelief, we assume that we can continue to bury a large number of stock in the countryside without environmental problems, we still have to remember the effect on public perceptions. We are trying to get across the message that we have high-quality agriculture that we want to keep. How can we do that if we are burying large numbers of fallen stock in the countryside? Does the Minister see any prospect of a scheme for collecting fallen stock so that stock is picked up, without payment to the farmer, to be taken away and disposed of safely and in an environmentally sensitive way?
  The pig industry receives virtually no support from the CAP. We have one of the world's most modern pig industries, but it is suffering burdens due to events outside the industry and bearing costs that are nothing to do with the industry. People in the industry believe that they face imports from regimes that are less strict, and labelling problems too. All that has combined to mean that pig farmers are going out of business. The remaining pig farmers must believe that the Government want to allow the industry to compete fairly with competitors abroad.
  I am glad that we are debating agriculture and that another debate will be held shortly. Agriculture is important to the economies of many of our constituencies. Some 25 per cent. of gross national product produced in Dumfries and Galloway is tied up in agriculture. We heard earlier about structural funds, but the area receives almost three times as much from the common agricultural policy as from structural funds.
  Every industry occasionally needs to restructure and to adapt to changed circumstances. In agriculture, however, that process seems to be happening by default, not design.
  488
  Farms, especially in less-favoured areas, cannot simply be closed, then reopened a few years later when things get better, as if they were factories making widgets. The Government must do more to address the agricultural industry's justifiable concerns.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Heath: In the brief time left, it is not possible to cover all the difficulties of agriculture, but all of us who represent rural constituencies know the depth of the crisis—that is not an exaggeration—that affects not only agriculture, but the downstream industries. That is the crucial point. This is no longer about farmers. The people losing their jobs and going bankrupt in the first instance are the agricultural engineers, the people who do the books for farmers, and those who run the shops. This is fast escalating into a major economic downturn in rural areas.
  There has, properly, been a tendency to concentrate on the upland areas, but the crisis also affects the lowland areas, such as my constituency in Somerset, where people do not farm enormous ranches. On Monday, I was sitting at a table with a farmer who farms 40 acres. He has 17 cows plus followers, which is near marginal agriculture, yet nothing is being done to support such farmers.
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, I do not have time. We have had hours of the Conservatives in this debate.
  Our pig and poultry sectors are suffering to the same extent. Pig producers are losing £12 per finished pig and poultry producers are losing £2 a bird. Those losses are not sustainable. Analysing the reasons is not simple; manifold reasons are evident to anyone who looks at the problems. There is BSE and its consequences, such as the lack of confidence. There is the strength of the pound and the imports that displace home-produced material. There are still serious question marks over the attitude of the supermarkets.
  On occasion, Government action, not necessarily in the Minister's Department, has made matters worse. We need only consider the delay at the Department of Trade and Industry in producing the Milk Marque report and the conclusions that were reached. That was extraordinary and had a serious effect on the dairy industry in my area. When the newspapers talk of the possibility of the agriculture industry being absorbed by the DTI, we must say, "Nick, please tell us it ain't so." That would be a desperately disadvantageous position in which to put agriculture.
  There is also unfair competition. Farmers often tell us about that, and they are right because different welfare and health standards apply in other countries—but there are few barriers to such products reaching our supermarket shelves. We heard earlier about the move away from antibiotics in chicken production in this country and the openness of our markets to birds from Thailand, Brazil and around the world that are not produced under the same amount of regulation.
  We have a great deal of regulation in our industry. I hear what the Minister says about the working party that has been set up. It is a welcome approach to the problem,

  489
  but it would be more fundamental and useful if the Ministry applied tests before making regulations to determine whether they would have a negative effect on the competitiveness of our industries and could be justified by their result.
  We have had a brief discussion of the common agricultural policy. I make no bones about it: the CAP is a disgrace and needs complete remoulding and drastic reform. What happened in the intergovernmental conferences was a very small movement. It is welcome and, as the Minister said, it goes across several sectors, but we have only to look at the results in the dairy sector to see that it is unsustainable. It will not survive the World Trade Organisation round, let alone anything else. It must be returned to time and again.
  Further problems with the WTO were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew): bovine somatotropin and its American corporate backers. I have a long history of battles with Monsanto, whose representatives I met back in 1986 to complain about bovine somatotropin. Nothing seems to have changed. The Americans are determined to foist upon European markets products with which we are not happy.
  There is also the Government package. We have not had sufficient debate in this Session on its parameters. I join other hon. Members in saying that it is welcome that the Minister has responded. Equally, few pints of cider were drunk at Frome market on the day of the announcement when people worked out what it meant for areas such as mine. Much of it was deferred gratification, or whatever the reverse of that is, in that it prevented something awful from happening that the Government had had in train. Its prevention was welcome, but it would have been better still had it not been there in the first place. Examining the consequences for lowland farmers shows that there is very little that is of direct benefit in the here and now.
  I want to use my remaining five minutes to discuss positive suggestions about what might help. I do not want to deal in the hyperbole of political argument, because that is not the point of today's debate. We are looking for ways in which we can help the agricultural industry and the rural economy. We need what the Government often boast about in other matters—joined-up Government. We are dealing with a crisis of the rural economy that cannot be handled within MAFF. Other Departments must pay the same attention to the rural economy. They must converse with one another and produce cross-departmental thinking that will address the issues.
  We need to deal with some of the immediate problems. One matter not mentioned today was the over-30-months restriction. The scheme is reaching the end of its life, but the restriction is still in place. I question the logic of that. If it was right that cattle over 30 months old eight months ago should be caught in that net, surely the limit should now be 38 months. Any logician applying his mind to the matter would accept that. There are dangers in that approach. We could flood the beef market with culled dairy cattle. That is not a sensible solution, but the matter should be examined.
  We need to reconsider calf slaughter, which many hon. Members mentioned. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington (Ms Quin), attended the south-west dairy industry dinner with me a few weeks ago.
  490
  I do not think that it was an entirely pleasant experience for her. There was widespread surprise when she appeared to say that everything was now all right with calf slaughter. I do not think that she meant it, but that is how it was taken. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, some people understand the desperation and futility of their industry when they have to spend all night calving a bull calf only to shoot it in the morning. There is no method of disposal and we must address that.
  On the pig and poultry sectors, we have already discussed why we do not use the latitude that the Belgians are happy to use in dealing with dioxin to deal with the animal welfare and health restrictions placed on those industries as a result of BSE and other matters. I agree that we need to test the parameters of what is permissible within law. We are far too well behaved in this country on such matters. We do not take a sufficiently rigorous view and so do not find out what we can do to support our industry. I also accept that if, two years down the road, it is proved to be an unlawful act, it is a great shame, but we would have saved our pig industry, and that is the primary responsibility of the Government and this place.
  We have mentioned the cull ewes scheme, for which we will continue to argue, but we should also consider specified offals in cull ewes. Was there a scientific basis for that or was it part of the package put together to convince others of the safety of British meat? If there is no scientific backing, let us reconsider whether we are putting an irreducible cost on the industry that bars export possibilities.
  We need to deal with the whole question of bureaucracy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) about the need to be able to challenge MAFF decisions. We need an agricultural ombudsman who can deal with the issues sensibly.
  We need to deal with some of the over-officious regulation that we sometimes see. There is a strong suspicion that, having given green-top milk the all-clear rather banning it, there is now an alternative move to kill it by over-regulation and additional cost. I invite the Minister to examine that matter.
  We have already talked about the essential element of labelling in relation to imports. With exports, we must of course lift the beef on the bone ban at the earliest opportunity, but we then have to do far more on marketing. MAFF will not do that well; indeed, MAFF should not do it at all. We need to use marketing experts for generic marketing and for regional and brand-name recognition. In Somerset and the south-west, we have extremely good names for our produce, which are recognised as meaning good produce. We do not make sufficient use of them. We need to examine the corporate structures—to make co-operatives work better so that they are more suitable for the job we want them to do. We need to reconsider agricultural credits.
  Finally, if we are to make progress in reforming the CAP in the direction that we want, we need allies; we need a coalition of interests. I invite Ministers to set aside the domestic agricultural aspect and establish bilateral relationships with countries that have similar agricultural profiles to our own—perhaps the countries of northern Europe, for instance, the Swedes—so that we can arrive at a commonality of interests that will win us some of these arguments. One could bet one's life that the

  491
  mediterraneans are doing just that in their councils, but we have always failed to do so. It is essential that we make progress.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation as a rational and listening Minister. He has shown that again today. The problem is that we now need much more action. I do not criticise him for some of the things that he cannot achieve, but some things that he can achieve would make life a lot easier for an extremely hard-pressed industry.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: We have heard wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions to the debate. I am especially pleased that we have been able to initiate a debate on agriculture so soon after the recess. I do not want to repeat what has been said because I agree largely with all of it; there is much consensus in the House.
  We have not touched on one small part of the farming industry, and although it is small, the people in it will not want to be left out. That is the free range egg industry, which has also had its income slashed enormously—up to 25 per cent. The producers have met, continue to meet, and often exceed Government demands on welfare, food safety and traceability, but those farmers now face operating losses. It is not difficult to understand why.
  There are no imported free range, farm-assured eggs sold in the supermarkets. There is no evidence of a significant over-supply, yet the contract price for a dozen free range medium eggs with a typical packer has dropped from 69p to 43p in a year. In an industry with capital inputs of about £20 a bird, to meet the high standards that we require, that price cut is absolutely devastating and cannot be sustained. A medium egg, for which the farmer receives less than 4p, can sell for up to 19p in the local supermarket. A mark-up of 475 per cent. between a packer and a supermarket on the sale of an unprocessed product is unbelievable. When the Minister meets industry representatives and the supermarkets, perhaps they could explain where that mark-up goes and who receives it.
  These debates are often characterised by what farmers want and by farmers' demands. Perhaps we could concentrate on what farmers do not want. They do not want a continual diet of subsidy and grant to sustain their businesses. That is all right in an emergency or for the short term, but it is now almost continuous. Farmers do not want that. No self-respecting business man wants to be dependent for his whole livelihood on a hand-out, subsidy or grant. Farmers do not want to have to compete with their hands tied behind their back all the time—sometimes even with their legs tied together. They do not want to see a joint of meat with a whopping great union jack on it in their local supermarket, knowing that it has not come from a British animal. That is abhorrent to them.
  Farmers do not want any more interest rate rises. The Chancellor may support the tough action of the Monetary Policy Committee, as we read in today's papers, but not only will interest rate rises increase the costs of farmers' bank borrowing, they will further strengthen the pound and there will be another round of uncompetitiveness. Farmers do not want any more regulation or costs in the immediate, foreseeable future; they cannot cope with what they already have.
  492
  Farmers do not want to continue in business, getting up every morning in fear of what will come in the post—a letter from the bank or a bill from a supplier—and living from day to day, with their whole livelihoods, their homes and their families under threat. That is what drives so many of them to suicide.
  I agree with the Minister that we need to concentrate more on what we should do on the demand side. The industry will improve and will give a secure future by providing a demand side commensurate with what can be produced.
  First, we talked about the promotion of farmers markets, which should certainly be considered. However, they are fragile and fragmented—run voluntarily in village halls and so on. We need to be properly organised and licensed so that we can set up farmers markets in appropriate places. What could be more appropriate than many of the markets that are falling into disrepute in our market towns? They would often provide an ideal location. Not long ago, in my town, we tried to set up a market, but we were told that, because of a charter of 1760-something in a nearby city, we were not allowed to do so. That is wholly ridiculous. We need concerted action to provide a framework within which farmers markets can flourish. We need to strengthen co-operatives and farmer-controlled businesses.
  Secondly, we need to restore premiums for the quality of the products. At one time, they existed in pigmeat, but they have gradually been eroded. We must find a way to restore those premiums—perhaps as a part of education—for all the hard work and investment that has gone towards attaining the quality that we have.
  Thirdly, we rightly referred to the beef ban, but we sometimes tend to forget that our special-relationship friends across the Atlantic still have no intention whatever of lifting their ban on our beef. I should like some pressure to be put on that part of the world market. Instead of suffering their genetically modified products and goodness knows what else, we should push our good beef into their markets.
  Fourthly, we talked about labelling. That is a difficult issue, but there must be labelling for ready identification by the housewife, the purchaser and the consumer. It does not need legislation; the supermarkets dictate what is on every part of every label. They can be made to ensure that what is on the label demonstrates what the product really is.
  Fifthly, we talked about the organic side. There is no doubt that the organic sector is the one sector that is receiving premium prices for its products. I cannot understand why we cannot expand what is clearly a successful scheme—there is a waiting list. If so many people want to go into it and it is a demand-led route, providing premiums for the work, surely that is something that we can do.
  I have referred to five aspects of the demand side, which could start to turn matters around. However, all that will be to no avail if there is no industry; we are talking about weeks, not years. Today, I learned that seven pig producers in Devon and Cornwall went into receivership over the past 10 days. At that rate, there will be no industry to provide those demand-side facilities. I know that the Minister is aware of the crisis and that the Government have the money. We need the will and the action to address it.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Overall, this has been a good and serious debate. I welcome the chance given to us by the Liberal Democrats to debate these issues at such an early opportunity after the resumption of Parliament. There have been many good contributions from both sides of the House—perhaps with the exception of that by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
  As a new Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I had not previously heard the hon. Gentleman's contributions to agriculture debates and so was unaccustomed to what my right hon. Friend the Minister described as the hon. Gentleman's usual "bombastic twaddle". The hon. Gentleman's speech was not worthy of the seriousness of the occasion, nor of the fact that we are all looking for ways to address the difficulties affecting the agriculture sector.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that our decision to defer the charges for cattle passports for the next three years was unimportant. In my first few weeks as a Minister, that issue was raised with me at every meeting, so I know that the decision to defer those charges was extremely welcome—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Such interruptions are not worthy of a Front-Bench spokesman.
  Ms Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Other hon. Members, among them Conservative Members, have made more measured speeches and interventions than the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
  As I said, I could not fail to appreciate in my first few weeks in office as an Agriculture Minister the severity of the difficulties facing several sections of the agriculture sector. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) spoke of the audit recently prepared by the National Farmers Union. I have looked at the figures and at some of the facts that lie behind those figures, especially the stress caused by financial difficulties that is experienced by farmers throughout the country.
  In my first few weeks, I have also been struck by the way in which the common agricultural policy has developed in the past 10 years. Ten years ago, when I was a member of the European Parliament's Agriculture and Rural Development committee, the CAP was a monster, but it has become even more complex since then. It does not surprise me that farmers raise with the Ministry problems of bureaucracy and red tape. That is why I attach importance to the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the short time scale given for it. We do not want that exercise to be long drawn out, but to bring speedy results.
  The views of farmers in this country on the common agricultural policy have changed greatly: there used to be far more support for the CAP than there is today. One of the encouraging developments in the medium and long term is the way in which Government and industry can work together to press for the changes we want to be made to the CAP. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and others on how that policy should develop.
  494
  It is no surprise that today's debate has focused on current problems, but we have also looked ahead. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), whose speech contained many good points relating to our approach to the future, said this morning on "Fanning Today"—essential listening for new Ministers—that Ministers had failed to look at the medium and long term. I do not accept that: the consultations on Agenda 2000 and the way ahead signal clearly that we are looking to the medium and long term as well as concentrating on current problems. We have a responsibility to do so, and I accept that responsibility.
  Hon. Members have raised many issues which it will not be possible for me to answer in the few minutes allotted to me, but we shall have opportunities to explore those issues in the coming weeks. We have questions on agriculture tomorrow and I expect that there will be further opportunity for debates in the near future. The issues thoughtfully raised by Labour Members give a clear lie to the ridiculous claim which is sometimes made, that the Government are not interested in farming or countryside issues. Since we entered office, there have been many occasions on which that claim has been proved false, whereas the sparsity of Conservative Members present in the Chamber does not indicate huge interest on their part.
  The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West did not appear to be aware that we had decided to defer cattle passport charges, so let me make it clear that, as part of the aid package announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Government will not impose such charges before 2002–03 at the earliest. Those charges include the charge that would have been levied at abattoirs for the checking of passports by the Meat Hygiene Service.
  It is not surprising that many hon. Members raised the issue of the French attitude toward the lifting of the beef export ban. I am glad that my right hon. Friend stressed so strongly the impeccable legal grounds on which we are objecting to the French action. The French scientific committee has come up with no new evidence and we believe that the Commission has every reason to pursue an action against the French if they refuse to lift their ban.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for South Suffolk that we reject the Conservatives' pick-and-mix approach to Europe and their argument that we should apply all sorts of import restrictions even if those are against European law—it was said that we could do that and, even though the European Court might get us in the long run, we should not worry about the consequences. That would be a disastrous approach if it were adopted by all European Union countries, because it would jeopardise the single market. Given that we export a great deal, we could find that, by such action, we had harmed our own agriculture industry as well as many other industries in this country.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister not recognise that some of us drew a distinction between open-and-shut cases such as the French ban, in respect of which we should certainly not act in such a fashion, and other cases in which there is wide scope for legal argument?
  Ms Quin: I certainly accept that some Conservative Members took a far more measured approach than others, but the official Conservative policy of pick and mix would damage the EU internal market on which we all depend. If

  495
  other countries adopted such a policy, the internal market would fall apart. I assume that that is not what the Conservatives want to happen.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked about veal production and I assure him that we are working with the NFU and others to build up domestic veal production. We are not ignoring the issue.
  Mr. Paterson: I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the calf scheme on 19 August. On 30 September, I received a reply from Baroness Hayman that revealed abysmal ignorance of why there are so many male dairy calves. Dairy farmers breed calves and cannot choose to produce only cow calves, but the Minister in the other place clearly does not understand that male calves are an inevitable by-product of breeding cow calves.
  Ms Quin: We believe that some of the better quality calves are now finding a market. That also answers in part the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who said I did not appear to be aware of farmers' difficulty in disposing of calves. I am fully aware of that difficulty, but in the speech to which he referred I was making the point that the better quality calves are now starting to find a market, and we must build on that for the future.
  There are many other issues that I would like to talk about, but time does not permit. I shall pick up one point that was made about the importance of regional sourcing by supermarkets, and of giving a boost to regional and local production. Last week I was involved in an initiative of that kind in the south-east of England; a supermarket was making precisely such a commitment. That is the kind of initiative that we want to pursue with the supermarkets in the coming weeks and months.
  Price is not the only factor affecting the purchase of food. We know that organic produce commands a premium, and that is also possible for regional and speciality food. I endorse what various Members have said about the importance of regional and local branding of products, which can be an important asset in the production of diverse and quality products for consumers to buy.
  Several hon. Members rightly emphasised the importance of rural issues as part of the regional development strategies being worked out by regional development agencies. I strongly endorse that. It is vital that RDAs see the importance of agriculture and rural issues, and see the rural economy as part of their regional development packages and strategies. I attach particular importance to that, so it is especially regrettable that the official Opposition are committed to dismantling the regional development agencies, which could play an important part in the regeneration of the rural economy in various parts of our country.
  The debate as a whole has shown the Government's commitment to agriculture both as a key industry on its own, and as part of the wider rural economy and the overall national economy. For that reason, and for the other reasons advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I commend our amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 326.

  Division No. 274]

  [7.2 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beggs, Roy

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brake, Tom

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Breed, Colin

  Moore, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burstow, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Salmond, Alex

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Thompson, William

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tyler, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Webb, Steve

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Welsh, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Willis, Phil

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Barron, Kevin

  Battle, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coleman, Iain

  Berry, Roger

  Colman, Tony

  Best, Harold

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cummings, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Browne, Desmond

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davidson, Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  497

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galloway, George

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grant, Bernie

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  498

  Pearson, Ian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Pendry, Tom

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pike, Peter L

  Stevenson, George

  Plaskitt, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Rapson, Syd

  Truswell, Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roche Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooker Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tynan, Bill

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Roy, Frank

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruane, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wills, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wise, Audrey

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the difficulties faced by agriculture and the wider rural economy as a result of the depressed level of farm incomes; approves of the special measures the Government has taken to assist the industry through three aid packages plus EU agri-monetary compensation worth in total £742 million; endorses the establishment of industry-led working groups to examine urgently the regulatory burdens on agriculture; supports the Government's promotion of collaborative working throughout the food chain to add value and generate the price premium that high-quality United Kingdom produce deserves, while noting that the Competition Commission's investigation of supermarket pricing includes an examination of trading practices throughout the supply chain; welcomes the Government's achievement of significant reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers; and fully supports the Government's commitment to the future of United Kingdom agriculture as a competitive, flexible and diverse industry, and the use of options available under Agenda 2000 to help secure this.

Transport Safety
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the next debate. Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move,
That this House notes with extreme sadness the recent Paddington rail disaster and the ensuing injuries and loss of life and extends its deepest sympathies to all those affected; congratulates the emergency services on their outstanding work in very difficult conditions: urges the Government not to respond prematurely but to ensure that swift action follows the enquiry into rail safety systems by implementing the key recommendations due in December 1999; condemns past Governments for failing to invest in an effective advanced train protection system; calls on the Government to remove responsibility for the setting of safety standards from Railtrack; further notes the serious concerns that exist over safety in other modes of transport and draws specific attention to the continuing pressure on safety standards in the air transport industry due to the vast rate of growth in journeys; notes the considerable opposition from all sides of the House to the Government's plans to privatise the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and the London Underground and the possible effect this could have on safety standards; urges the Government to re-consider its proposals and instead to make NATS and London Underground public interest companies, ensuring safety remains a core priority; further urges the Government to ensure that maritime safety standards are not compromised by the closure of coastguard stations around the country; and calls on the Government to reduce the possibility of road safety incidents by setting national targets for reducing overall traffic levels and encouraging nationwide implementation of initiatives such as "Safe Routes to School".
In this debate on transport safety it is appropriate for me to begin by repeating the sympathies expressed yesterday on all sides of the House for those involved in the tragedy of the Paddington rail crash. I also, as hon. Members rightly did yesterday, extend our congratulations to the emergency services and our thanks to the individuals who were prepared to come and assist at that tragic accident.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who, as Chairman of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, has made very helpful safety recommendations to the House. Liberal Democrat Members support the Committee's recommendation to establish an independent transport safety body. We hope that the recommendation will be accepted by the Secretary of State and his team. We hope also that if such a body is established, it will include people who not only are experts in transport safety, able to bring independent thinking to the issues, but have the courage to speak out on those issues.
I emphasise how much Liberal Democrat Members support the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks, particularly in the past few days following the Paddington rail crash, about the importance of moving from a culture of blame to a culture of safety. As he has rightly pointed out, a number of inquiries can consider who is to blame, but it is important now to learn the lessons from that tragedy and others so that we can think positively about the future, and I hope that the motion and the debate will contribute to that.
500
The whole House will be aware that concerns about safety on public transport are not confined to rail but extend to all other modes of transport.
Mr. David Chidgey: My hon. Friend mentioned his concern that inquiries should be followed through, and I believe that he was echoing the Deputy Prime Minister's view. Does he recall that 10 years ago, after the Clapham rail crash, Mr. Hidden conducted an inquiry and issued an authoritative report that made important recommendations for rail safety, particularly for the removal from the system of the old, slam-door rolling stock and for the introduction of the automatic train protection system? There was general, cross-party acceptance of those recommendations. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that 10 years later, we still have thousands—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to make such a long intervention.
Mr. Foster: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He is right to say that we must move quickly to ensure that carriages are safe and to introduce the automatic train protection system. I shall return to that issue.
Many of us will have listened to the Deputy Prime Minister speaking on the "Today" programme this morning and noted his comments about the running of the railways and safety legislation. He said:
"I don't think it's being done as good as it could be done. There can be changes."
I believe that we all accept that changes are needed, and I hope that some of my remarks in this speech will be acted on.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers present would probably agree with my next remark, although I suspect that Conservative Members will not agree with it. Many of the problems in the railways have resulted from the way in which privatisation was carried out, especially the confusion between safety and the other aspects of the railway—not least the confusion between safety and profit.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there were no unfortunate and tragic accidents on the railways before privatisation?
Mr. Foster: No. Of course I am not saying that, and we acknowledge that there were accidents before privatisation. However, several incidents have shown that the confusion that has been created by privatisation has left many people uncertain about who is responsible for the various things that have happened. That is one of our real concerns.
Not the least of our concerns arises from Railtrack' s continuing responsibility for setting and monitoring safety standards. We welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to separate out those functions. We believe that it would be helpful for him to say immediately that that is his intention, although we acknowledge that he was right to point out the difficulty of deciding where that responsibility should then be located. He is right to wait until he has received advice on that issue. However, in our view, Railtrack, which is a for profit company, must not be

501
judge and jury on rail safety issues and, if we are to regain confidence in our railways, Railtrack must no longer have power to set and monitor safety standards.
Responsibilities are confused in several areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned automatic train protection. Of course we want a failsafe automatic train protection system to be introduced, but problems arise because responsibility is fragmented.
The House will be aware that ATP has two key aspects—first, an on-board system, and secondly, a system by the side of the track. Some of the problems in the trials have arisen in the interface between those two systems, and it is unclear who is responsible for those interface problems.
There have been other problems with ATP. The tachographs that are attached to the axles, which were intended to have a lifespan of five years, are breaking down after an average of five months because they have to operate on very out-of-date stock and on somewhat bumpy rail lines. We understand that, as recently as last autumn, Great Western Trains was given the right to turn off the trial ATP system because of that old problem of leaves on the track; the wheels were spinning, so the tachographs were giving a false indication of the speed of the train.
It is clear to us that it will be some time before we find a failsafe ATP system, so it is absolutely right that we move ahead with the introduction of the train protection and warning system, as the Deputy Prime Minister is so anxious that we do. So far I have been praising the right hon. Gentleman in this speech but, given his keenness to see TPWS introduced quickly, it is odd that nearly a year passed between the final deadline for comments on the proposal and his giving approval for the go-ahead.
However, given that we are where we are now, I reiterate a concern that I expressed yesterday—that Railtrack has asked the potential contractors to bring forward the date by which they submit their bids for the introduction of TPWS, and yet Railtrack has made no commitment to let that contract sooner. I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to discuss that issue with Railtrack, and perhaps to discuss with it another of our concerns—that the trained and skilled personnel may not even be available to introduce TPWS. As a result of the on-off introduction of funding by Railtrack for that type of work, the three main contractors that might be involved in the work have laid off staff in the lean periods, and the majority may not now have sufficient staff to do the work so that TPWS may be introduced in the time scale that the Deputy Prime Minister and we would like.
There is also doubt as to whether sufficient funding will be available for the work to be done in time. We have all heard that Railtrack is to invest £27 billion in the next 10 years. Only £16 billion of that is actually Railtrack's money; the remaining £11 billion will come from various partnership agreements. Much of that £27 billion will be used for routine repair and maintenance, and a lot more of it will be spent on station upgrades. It is unclear whether there is enough money in Railtrack's current budget to provide the sums of money that will be necessary for some of that important safety work.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Obviously, a very important inquiry is under way and we
502
must await the outcome. However, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the Health and Safety Commission report, "Review of Arrangements for Standard Setting and Application on the Main Railway Network—Interim Report", published in September 1999, which concludes:
"We do not see any cause for immediate concern on safety grounds in the way that"
Railtrack's safety and standards directorate
"has operated its key safety functions"?
In those circumstances, is it right for the hon. Gentleman to be, in a sense, smearing Railtrack and the whole privatisation process, when an independent body says that there is no cause for immediate concern, and when there is an on-going inquiry, which should be given the opportunity to make its findings?
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr. Heald: Who runs the Health and Safety Commission?
Mr. Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that report in his remarks yesterday. However, some of us, including Liberal Democrats, believe that, as a matter of principle, the setting and monitoring of safety standards should not take place within a for profit company. That is the key matter of principle.
In other countries, investment in these matters is significantly greater. Germany will spend £27 billion not over 10 years, as Railtrack will, but over three years. In France, twice as much will be spent as in this country. Therefore I very much hope that the Deputy Prime Minister requires Railtrack to include a comprehensive safety strategy policy in its network management statement next year.
As many train operating companies are now seeking an extension of their franchises and will soon be looking to renew them, I very much hope that there will be no opportunity for train operating companies to use what is effectively blackmail on the safety issue. It is vital that no extensions of franchises are granted unless the train operating companies can at the very least show that they are running a safe, efficient and prompt service. There must be no opportunity for blackmail. I note that already Thames Trains says that it will make no further investment unless its franchise is extended. I am sure that that important issue will be taken on board. We hope to hear from the Minister what he is doing on that issue.
Some confusion remains about where funding for some of the safety improvements will come from. The Deputy Prime Minister has said in some comments to the press that when we have the report from Sir David Davies, cost will not be an issue and the Government will find the money; but yesterday, in his response to questions on his statement, he implied that the money for TPWS would come from train operating companies and Railtrack. I hope that we may have clarification as to where the money for those improvements will come.
I shall deal briefly with two other rail issues before I move on to some other areas. I suggest that it would be well worth considering whether there should be a separate and independent rail accident investigation unit. There are such units for maritime and air accidents. We are making

503
no criticism of the work of the British Transport police, but in other areas of public transport we have independent investigation bodies and perhaps such a unit could be part of the new independent body proposed by the Chairman of the Select Committee.
It is increasingly clear that among the 25 train operating companies there are enormous variations in training procedures. I hope very much that the Cullen inquiry will examine this issue and make appropriate recommendations. I hope also that it will examine supervision. It is becoming increasingly clear that since privatisation a number of TOCs have significantly reduced the number of their staff who are involved in supervision. It is vital that that issue is considered.
I shall refer briefly to other areas of transport safety, but I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) will be able to contribute to the debate and pick up on some of the points with which I have not dealt. Road safety is vital. There have been reductions in the number of road deaths in recent years. We welcome that, but more than 3,500 road deaths in one year is still a significant worry.
It is worth noting that in Oxfordshire, for example, there was one murder over the past 12 months, but 63 people died in road accidents. Although the numbers are reducing and despite the fact that we do better than many of our European counterparts, much work still needs to be done, not least when we analyse the figures and find that perhaps one of the reasons why the number of road deaths is coming down is that fewer and fewer of the most vulnerable road users are using the roads. There has been a significant reduction in the number of people making journeys on foot or by bike. That is all the more reason why we continue to press for road traffic reduction, something that the Minister who is about to respond has professed himself keen to see.
We are totally opposed to the selling off of National Air Traffic Services. That would be an entirely wrong move and one that would run counter to some of the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the Paddington rail crash. We note that 95 per cent. of the staff at NATS are opposed to the proposal. We note also that the pilots are opposed to it. We note especially that 115 Labour Members have signed early-day motion 446 in opposition to the privatisation.
We believe that privatisation is wrong. It could delay the introduction of the air traffic control system at Swanwick.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): There was already an overspend and Swanwick was already more than three years late under the existing system.
Mr. Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister rightly points out that there have been many delays, and I do not necessarily blame him for some of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the very staff who will be involved in the work to introduce privatisation should be spending their time getting problems solved. Given that there are alternative ways of bringing money into NATS without an impact on the public sector borrowing requirement, such as the setting up of a
504
not-for-profit public interest company, we urge the Deputy Prime Minister to consider them. We are concerned about maritime safety issues and about the plans for the closure of coastguard services.
I have touched only briefly on some issues. I hope that there will be an opportunity for other hon. Members to pick up on them. As I have said, we welcome the Government's review of transport safety. We are certain that there must be quick action when we are aware of the findings. We must move from a culture of blame to one of safety. We must learn the lessons from the past but we must now look to the future. We want to get more and more people on to public transport, but we shall be able to do so only if the public have confidence in all its different forms. We have initiated this debate to begin the process of improving public confidence in all forms of public transport.
7.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"notes with extreme sadness the recent Paddington rail disaster and the ensuing injuries and loss of life and extends its deepest sympathies to all those affected; congratulates the emergency services on their outstanding work in very difficult conditions; welcomes the prompt and comprehensive actions taken since the tragedy at Paddington, which demonstrate how serious the Government are about transport safety; notes the Government's continuing determination to take real steps to make transport safer for the public and the workforce; acknowledges the long-term reduction in fatalities on roads, in the air, at sea and on the railways; recognises specific action taken to improve rail, road, marine and air safety; commends the Government for setting up a comprehensive Transport Safety Review to look at how to improve the organisation of transport safety in the United Kingdom and whether there is a case for a single independent authority for transport safety regulation; and further notes that one of the prime aims of the Government's Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground is the enhancement of safety by securing high and stable levels of future investment, which are essential for safety as travel increases, and that safety regulation will be kept firmly in public hands in both cases."
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for the way in which he has introduced the debate. I thank him specifically for the supportive remarks that he has made about the response of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister following the terrible events outside Paddington, under the shadow of which we hold this debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government's policies on transport safety. I propose to address myself to the terms of the motion on the Order Paper. However, I share what I am certain is the unanimous feeling of the House that it is tragic that we should be discussing this subject in the context of the nightmare event at Ladbroke Grove junction outside Paddington station two weeks ago.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important statement about the Ladbroke Grove disaster and the actions that we have taken since it happened, which include the establishment of the Cullen inquiry into the causes of the crash and the inquiry by Sir David Davies into train protection systems and the means of reducing the number of signals passed at danger. I say to the hon. Member for Bath that we shall expect

505
Sir David to report to us on the readiness of the rail industry to implement either the train protection and warning system or other train protection systems. My right hon. Friend announced that he has asked for a weekly report to be sent to him on the number of SPADs. He has arranged for a monthly analysis to be placed in the Library. He confirmed that the chief inspector of railways hopes shortly to produce a second interim report on the Ladbroke Grove crash, following his first interim report issued on Friday 8 October.
My right hon. Friend expressed his full support for the action taken by the independent railway inspectorate—in instructing the train operating companies to improve, among other things, their arrangements for driver training and briefing on suspect signals, in issuing three enforcement notices related to the use of signal SN109 in the approach to Paddington and dealing with other signals with a recent history of having been passed at danger.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: I shall give way but I wish to lay down a benchmark: I know that many Members are eager to participate in the debate and I will take only a limited number of interventions.
Mr. Fearn: My intervention will be brief. The Minister has mentioned signals. Following the Paddington tragedy, 10 black spots were highlighted. One of them is in Southport at Birkdale station. The situation is urgent because every 20 minutes a train passes the black spot. Is the Minister saying that we must wait for inquiries and for action, or will action be taken this week on the blackspots?
Mr. Hill: I am saying that we have asked the inspectorate to look at precisely that issue, and we expect a report in the near future. We shall certainly be considering all the blackspots, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about which he rightly expresses serious concern. We share that concern and we hope to have a positive result in the nearest possible future.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was able to confirm both that following receipt of the independent Health and Safety Commission's report, which he initiated last year into concerns expressed about the wide range of responsibilities residing in Railtrack's safety and standards directorate, he has requested the HSC to report on necessary follow-up action, and that the Government are minded to transfer those functions out of Railtrack, provided that that does not result in an increase in risk. Finally, my right hon. Friend announced the convening of a rail safety summit for next Monday.
That comprehensive list of actions reflects my right hon. Friend's total commitment to securing the best possible safety regime on our railway network. Concern for transport safety has been a guiding light of his long and distinguished record in public life. He will be expanding on these matters when he appears before the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs tomorrow. It is entirely typical, as well as right and proper, that he should be in his place for this debate.
506
Sadly, we cannot bring back those whose lives were lost in the Ladbroke Grove disaster, but it is my duty as a Minister to make every effort to ensure that avoidable accidents are not repeated, and that we have the safest possible transport system in this country.
Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most harrowing aspects of the Paddington disaster was not knowing for such a long time how many people were in carriage H? Is he aware that there is no numerical limitation on the number of people who can ride across the country in a passenger rail carriage—unlike an aeroplane, bus or any other form of transport? Does he agree that we should examine that as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It was, indeed, a source of great concern that we did not know how many people were in that carriage. There is no evidence whatever that the number of people travelling in a carriage contributes to accidents, but it is clear that, when an accident occurs and there are a large number of people in the carriages, it can only exacerbate the situation. That is an important point, which I can assure my hon. Friend we will consider seriously.
There can be no more important matter for a Government—any Government—to address than public safety. That is why issues such as crime reduction, public health, environmental responsibility and effective safety regulation are all central to the work of the Government.
Transport safety is at the very heart of policy making in my Department. Transport is essential for the sustenance of everyday life. We all need transport to get to work, to visit friends and family, and to make our shopping trips. We need transport that provides comfort, convenience, reliability and affordability, but above all else, we want assurances that we can get to our destination safely.
Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment to safety. That matter is extremely important to my constituents, who were shocked by the train crash in my constituency—which fortunately did not result in any loss of life—only two weeks after Paddington. My constituents want to know when the Government will be able to say that a system is in place to prevent trains from passing a red light. That is the question that they have asked me to ask Ministers tonight.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the disturbing accident that occurred in his constituency on Monday evening. We await the findings, at the earliest possible moment, of the internal railway industry inquiry into the accident, and also the inquiry being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. We are anxious to move quickly to the institution of a train protection system that is as safe as possible. That is what we have asked Sir David Davies to look at, and we expect his report before the new year. We also expect to start work on implementing his recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
There are a number of key considerations that I believe it is important to keep clearly in focus as we address transport safety. First, all public transport operators,

507
whether privately or publicly owned, need to make safety their first priority. It would be totally unacceptable for financial interests to take precedence over safety.
Another key consideration is that safety standards should be declared and enforced. That means open information, and effective monitoring and enforcement. The safety culture needs to be intrinsic in every organisation, from top to bottom. It is not good enough to try to shift blame or castigate individual workers. It is the clear responsibility of management at all levels to make sure that a working environment does not develop in which accidents can happen.
Finally, the Government will not let cost considerations alone drive decision making on transport safety. Of course, there must be an assessment of cost-effectiveness when major capital expenditure is required, but we are committed to improving transport safety and we will weigh all the factors necessary to reach sane and sensible decisions.
Mr. Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: On that point, but this is one of the last interventions that I shall take.
Mr. Brake: Can the hon. Gentleman undertake that the subsidy for rail, which is to fall from £1.9 billion in 1997 to £900 million in 2002, will be increased? Is that what he is saying?
Mr. Hill: I am not saying that, but on the issue that is germane to the debate—rail safety—let me reiterate the clear assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in his remarks yesterday that when it comes to train safety, the money will be found.
Mr. Nigel Jones rose—
Mr. Hill: Let me continue for a moment. May I say, too, that common-sense safety considerations apply to every single person in the country, not just to workers and managers in the transport industries. Putting safety first is a responsibility that we all share.
I shall deal now with some facts. I do so not with callous intent, and certainly not in a spirit of complacency. I cannot stress strongly enough that the Government are not complacent about safety—very far from it. However, we need to have a rational debate if we are to work together in avoiding future tragedies across transport modes.
Since the Ladbroke Grove disaster, a suggestion has crept in that somehow that accident is symptomatic of a decline in transport safety generally. I have even read newspaper commentators suggesting that it proved that we have a third-world transport system. That is simply not so. There are parts of the world where fatalities among bus passengers caused by badly maintained vehicles, speeding or overloading are almost everyday news. In Britain we do not, and will not, tolerate such levels of transport fatalities. Indeed, it is the relative rarity of major disasters that makes accidents such as Ladbroke Grove so shocking for us.
508
In any case, we should not focus exclusively on spectacular disasters; that is a media temptation. The truth is that every transport accident that involves death or serious injury is a disaster for those involved.
Let me illustrate with a few facts and figures the gradual improvement in transport safety. For a start, we live in an ever more mobile society. Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, the average distance travelled per person per year in Great Britain increased by 27 per cent. That level of mobility inevitably brings with it increased exposure to risk, yet over the same period, the total number of transport fatalities in Great Britain fell—from 5,296 in 1987 to 3,516 in 1996. That is a fall of one third in absolute terms, and an even greater fall in terms of the increasing amount of travel that we all undertake.
Of course the great majority of transport deaths do not occur in rail, air or maritime catastrophes, but in the daily toll on our roads—yet even on the roads the picture has improved significantly in recent years, as personal behaviour, technology and design standards have all improved. Between 1988 and 1998 the number of people killed on Britain's roads fell from 5,052 to 3,421. The number of child pedestrians killed has more than halved, from 282 to 103 per year. That is still far too many, but the trend is in the right direction, and we are determined to keep it that way.
Let me say it again: every one of those deaths is someone's tragedy, but let us not fall into the trap of supposing that travel in this country is becoming more unsafe. It is not. The figures demonstrate as much.
I believe that the House and the wider public understand that however much we regard safety as the first requirement, in practice absolute safety is unattainable. Comments are made about safer systems overseas, but those are not foolproof either. Planes crash in the United States, high-speed trains crash in Germany, and even nuclear installations in Japan can go wrong.
The House will also be aware that, in road safety terms—roads account for the vast majority of fatalities around the world—Britain is just about the safest country in Europe, and probably in the world. Again, I would totally refute any suggestion that the Government are in any way complacent about transport safety. As I have already acknowledged, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is recognised for his very deep and personal commitment to safety, and we arrived in government determined to take substantive steps to make transport safer for the public and the work force.
That commitment was made absolutely clear in our White Paper on the future of transport in July 1998, which had much to say on the subject of travelling safely, and set out some of the many actions that the Government are taking to improve transport safety.
The list of our initiatives is long, and I will not delay the House by reciting them all, but let me cite a few examples. On the subject of railways, we announced in August the introduction of the train protection and warning system, which is a huge improvement on the existing automatic warning system and would have prevented the Ladbroke Grove junction disaster had it been installed on the Thames Trains commuter service. It was intended that that system would be in place across the entire network by the end of 2003.

509
We have brought forward by two years the removal from the network of all remaining mark I slam-door carriages and launched the secure stations initiative. Last year we commissioned, and have now received, the Health and Safety Commission report on Railtrack' s role in safety and standard setting. We are following up with an urgent review, minded, as we are, to transfer the main functions of the safety and standards directorate out of Railtrack.
We have also launched a review and restructuring of London Underground's safety case. There are few, if any, transport systems more suffused with a safety culture than London Underground. Under the proposed public-private partnership, public sector London Underground Ltd. will continue to have responsibility for the railway safety case for the whole underground, and the PPP will simply not go ahead unless it can be shown to contribute to improved safety.
In the air, we have subjected our aviation safety oversight system to a rigorous audit by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We were the first major aviation country to do so, and were pleased to receive an excellent report. We have intensified our programme of ramp checks of foreign aircraft coming into UK airports and a number of actions have been taken against unsatisfactory operators.
Against that background of proactive concern to improve safety, it was absurd for the hon. Member for Bath to suggest, in what I thought was the weakest part of an otherwise good speech, that the Government would be willing to compromise on air safety in pursuit of their proposal for a National Air Traffic Services PPP. I find it bizarre to describe as privatisation a share proposal that will leave the Government and the work force with a majority of shares, with the Government's 49 per cent. shareholding underpinned by golden share powers. That is emphatically not a privatisation. It is a public-private partnership that is designed to lever in from the private sector the vital new capital—£1 billion over 10 years—that is necessary to ensure that NATS maintains the highest standards of safety in a constantly expanding aviation market.
The hon. Member for Bath should also be aware that responsibility for aviation safety does not lie with NATS, which is the service provider, but with the Civil Aviation Authority. To be precise, that responsibility lies with the CAA safety regulation group, which has wide-ranging powers and ample experience in the UK of regulating the safety of private air traffic control services with no suggestion of a problem.
Indeed, as part of the PPP, we propose to reinforce the separation of safety regulation from service provision. That will ensure that those two functions are undertaken in two separate organisations, which is an objective that airspace users, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and the former Monopolies and Mergers Commission have long recommended.
Safety in the air will always be the Government's overriding priority. We have placed the same high priority on safety on the seas. We have reopened the investigations into the Derbyshire and Gaul sinkings, merged the former Marine Safety and Coastguard agencies to form a new integrated Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and established the Thames river safety inquiry.
510
On the roads, we have given local authorities the power to impose 20 mph speed limits without recourse to the approval of the Secretary of State, undertaken a major review of speed policy and championed the development of crash testing of cars for consumer information to standards higher than those set by regulation. In addition, we have reviewed our road safety strategy and targets with a view to introducing demanding fatality reduction targets by 2010. We will make a major announcement about our road safety plans shortly.
That is no more than a brief summary of some of our transport safety initiatives. I could offer the House many other examples and I should emphasise that none of the actions I have mentioned is an any way directly related to the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster. These are actions we have been taking ever since we entered office, which demonstrates beyond any question that transport safety is an absolute priority. However, the Ladbroke Grove crash forces us to re-examine everything we have been doing and to redouble our efforts to achieve the safest possible transport systems.
I remind the House that we are investigating wider structural questions in relation to transport safety. We have under way a transport safety review, which was launched at the end of last year in response to recommendations from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The review, which has undertaken consultations and an analysis of transport safety structures overseas, is nearing completion. It will advise us on whether the structure of transport safety regulation and accident investigation in Britain is balanced correctly.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—my mentor, whose knowledge of and concern for transport safety is unrivalled in the House—is waiting keenly for the review's conclusions. I want to assure her that we are working hard to complete the task by the end of the year and that we will benchmark our conclusions against the lessons from Ladbroke Grove.
I want to pay tribute to people involved in transport safety in this country. The detailed inquiries that we have set up may find fault with the actions or inactions of individuals, but I know that many people in the transport world who have devoted their careers and lives to safety issues will be feeling very bruised by association with the Ladbroke Grove disaster. I emphasise that it is not the intention of the Government to find scapegoats. It is all too easy for politicians and journalists to point the finger when they do not have to take the critical life and death decisions that they are debating. I hope that the House will therefore join me in commending the important safety work done by many people in all sectors of transport, on which we all rely for our safe journey home.
The House will note that, like the hon. Member for Bath, I have sought throughout my speech to refrain from trying to score party political points. That was very much the spirit of the House during yesterday's exchanges, which took place in response to my right hon. Friend's statement, and it was also largely the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. The safety of the British people is far too serious a matter for petty political squabbles. The whole country expects everyone involved in transport—whether they be company directors or train drivers, politicians or civil servants—to work together to ensure that we have the safest possible transport systems.

511
Safety is far more important than old arguments about ownership. I believe that we can make Britain the safest place in the world to travel, whether for work or pleasure, but sometimes, tragically, we have to learn the hard way. Ladbroke Grove causes us all to reflect on what more we can do to enhance safety and prevent the recurrence of such a terrible tragedy. I trust that every Member of the House will join the Government in working constructively on the ideas and solutions that will save lives now and in the future.
7.58 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: All Conservative Members and Members across the House continue to share the sense of appalling loss that the Ladbroke Grove tragedy has created. Nothing can bring back those men and women who perished in the accident and the terrible fire that followed in seconds.
The public are worried about safety on our trains, and I very much want to associate myself with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). We definitely want, and believe that it is in the public interest, to move away from a culture of blame to one of safety. The Minister's remarks, which paid tribute to those involved in transport safety, were well judged. They do a terrific job—under terrific pressure, sometimes—and we fully acknowledge the role that they play, but we must also recognise that the public want urgent answers to vital questions. They want to know why and how the accident happened and they want to be reassured that such a tragedy will not be allowed to happen again.
The public also want to know whether lessons that all those responsible for rail travel should have learned before 5 October were relevant—lessons that might have meant that the Ladbroke Grove disaster could have been avoided, and obvious lessons in common sense, which might have been drawn without waiting for the conclusion of the Southall inquiry.
An obvious common-sense lesson is how to stop trains going through red lights. People want to know whether enough on that issue was done, not only by the train operating companies, Railtrack—which has received an extraordinary amount of attention in a culture that is apparently not about blame—and the HSE, but by those charged with governmental responsibility for ensuring safety on the rails so that red lights on the track mean that trains stop.
Over the past few weeks, Railtrack has come under close scrutiny. Lord Cullen's inquiry will doubtless produce a verdict on just how much responsibility it should bear. It will not escape the House's attention that, in Railtrack's evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in March 1998, the company said:
"We believe Paddington to be the best protected major terminal station anywhere in the world."
We shall see whether it is the best protected. Judging by the events of 5 October, it is not protected enough.
Anyone who reads last year's Select Committee report on railway safety, which must include Ministers, will find that such a judgment about Paddington was, at best, in doubt. It does not take more than a cursory glance at the
512
daily diet of our newspapers to recognise that the public feel that action to promote railway safety could, and perhaps should, have been taken many months ago.
Let me deal with the issue of red lights. Information about trains going through red lights is collated by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Commission. Those figures go to the Government. Figures for trains passing danger signals make alarming reading. They were higher in 1991, when 944 trains went through red lights. Those who have jumped to the hasty and premature conclusion that a railway system in private ownership means that safety will be compromised must acknowledge that, since the railway system passed out of Government ownership, the number of danger signals passed has declined. In 1997–98, the figure had fallen to 593—still, in the judgment of many, far too high.
The Health and Safety Commission report of 2 September 1999 says that, of those incidents, 42 could have had
"potentially severe consequences where the train passed the overlap, and there are connections ahead, over which another train may be passing."
The public are understandably concerned to know that Ministers were told that in 1998–99—figures which we know from Lord Macdonald's recent statement were in the Department's office in August this year, two months before the disaster—the number of trains passing through red lights
"no longer followed a downward trend".
Last year's figure of 593 had increased to 643. Worse, the number of incidents which the Health and Safety Commission defined as
"having potentially severe consequences"
also rose by 25 per cent. on the previous year to 52.
As Lord Macdonald acknowledged, those incidents "over-ran safety margins". In straightforward terms, once a week, what may well have been the major contributory factor that caused the Ladbroke Grove disaster was, and perhaps still is, being repeated across the country.
I acknowledge the remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement yesterday, in which he said that safety was his primary concern. I am sure that safety is the primary concern of every member of this House. We are all concerned about safety, but we must be certain that any changes to those charged with responsibility for safety will improve standards, not imperil them. In the past few weeks, Railtrack has provided an all-too-easy target for that criticism. However, there is concern and we can all understand why. The public want us to be not only concerned about safety but, when safety may be at risk, they want us to take responsibility and action, where and when appropriate. They will not and should not tolerate undue delay or the failure to assume that responsibility.
There certainly should be concern about the length of time taken for the official response following the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee report on 4 March 1998. Nineteen months ago, on 4 March 1998, the Select Committee report on the Strategic Rail Authority first recommended the transfer of the standards and safety directorate out of the hands of Railtrack. Whether that is the right decision is another question; the crucial question was one of safety, which presumably is why that recommendation was in the report.

513
Two weeks after the report was published, the then Minister of Transport asked the Health and Safety Commission to commence the proposed review of railways standards arrangements to include consideration of the extent to which Railtrack' s current role in enforcing standards might be transferred elsewhere. I remind the House that that was 19 months ago.
It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the public have begun to ask why the response seems to have taken so long. Some months after its first report, the Select Committee returned to that issue. It is noteworthy that eight months after that first report in November 1998 it said that
"the present regulatory system gives Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate too much responsibility. The directorate needs to be free-standing and should pass to an independent safety authority, as already recommended."
The Select Committee said that nearly 12 months ago. What action did the Government take? How did those responsible respond?
The Government asked the Health and Safety Commission to respond. Its response did not, in either timing or substance, indicate a serious or immediate enough concern for the issues raised. Four months after that November report, the Health and Safety Commission produced a four-page special report, which said that the HSE
"is conducting a thorough review of Railtrack's role"
and would be expected to produce a report in the spring for the Minister of Transport containing a range of options. That report did not come in the spring. The report, called the Tansley report, came several months later—this October. That was 19 months after the issue was first raised by the Select Committee.
The Tansley report was not the only report about railway safety that was sitting on Ministers' desks in October. There was another, which was specifically about signals being passed at danger—the so-called "SPAD" incidents. It was published on 2 September and should have alarmed any Minister. It was highly critical of elements of rail safety. As well as reproducing figures about rail safety that showed a rise in SPADs, it made recommendations—22 in all—to deal with the problem of signals passed at danger.
After the rise in SPAD figures, the report should surely have been referred to Ministers. Can the Minister tell the House when officials first saw that report? When did the Secretary of State first see the report on SPADs published in August?
A number of questions arise that concern not only Railtrack, whose role in safety had already been seriously questioned by the Select Committee 19 months ago, but what action was being taken within the Department during that time, who assumed responsibility for it and who did they meet. The public want to know what happened when the HSE figures landed on Ministers' desks in August of this year showing the dramatic rise in figures. Were they referred to Ministers and what action did Ministers take? Following the HSE report on 2 September, which further drew attention to those figures, what action did officials and Ministers take and whom did they consult?
In his statement yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Tansley interim report reached his office on the day of the Paddington crash. Will he confirm that that was the same day that it reached officials in his Department?
514
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the report raised
"serious concerns about the rail industry, largely relating to priorities and decisions on safety standards".
Undoubtedly, there are questions to be asked not only on the priorities and safety standards but on decisions and priorities in the Health and Safety Executive and the Department itself. The public will want to know whether Ministers think that, 19 months after the Select Committee expressed serious doubts about rail safety, the production of not a full report but only an interim report with no firm conclusions demonstrates that the Government made an appropriate response, especially in the light of the Southall disaster.
Secondly, the public will want to know why, within five days of the publication of the Tansley interim report, the Deputy Prime Minister should make a statement in which he said that he is
"minded to transfer the main functions of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate",—[Official Report, 19 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 268-69.]
out of Railtrack. That decision is particularly surprising because the Tansley interim report, to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred and for which he had asked, states:
"any decision on the way forward should be taken in the light of a wider and more formal sounding of views in the industry … we would recommend this as the next step."
Therefore, the public will want to know—and indeed have a right to know—why Ministers and the Deputy Prime Minister specifically rejected that advice and with whom the right hon. Gentleman consulted before making his views known on the Saturday following his rail summit with the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will forgive me, but I am not sure whether he is in favour of an independent safety authority. Would he make that clear?
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Lady's point is extremely well made. I am in favour of the Government getting on with the task—[Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister does not like it. He delegates responsibility to others to produce a decision, yet when he has to make a decision, he flies in the face of those who advise him otherwise. He may not like to be reminded of his decision, but he made it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have hon. Members and, for that matter, right hon. Members shouting across the Chamber.
Mr. Woodward: It is odd, is it not, that for 19 months—
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Health and Safety Commission is an independent safety commission? Is it not extraordinary that the Deputy Prime Minister should ignore its viewpoint?
Mr. Woodward: It is not only extraordinary but astounding.
It is odd, is it not, that for 19 months it seemed impossible for the Government to reach any firm view other than to continue calls for further reviews. Suddenly, following the

515
disaster, it seems that a decision can be reached in a few days—even hours—even though that view flies in the face of those independent people who told the Deputy Prime Minister:
"any decision … should be taken in the light of a wider and more formal sounding of views in the industry."
Mr. Prescott: We will answer and respond to many detailed questions in the debate or by letter if they need to be answered. The hon. Gentleman asks when I was concerned about signals passed on red. Yes, I was—not just now, but last year. I ordered the Health and Safety Executive to bring in an automatic train protection system, which the previous Government had put off because they said that they could not afford it.
Mr. Woodward: That is not exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, but perhaps he is now telling us that he took action in August when he had those figures. We would be delighted to hear this evening what action he took this August when he realised that serious incidents had increased by 25 per cent. It seems tragic that it took a rail disaster to force sufficient attention to be paid to the issue, which had been flagged up 19 months before in the Select Committee report.
During those 19 months, great priority was given to the decisions that were required to deal with the Railways Bill, as well as discussions about punctuality, performance and investment levels. That certainly occupied Ministers and officials. During that time, was equal attention given, and by whom, to the serious questions about safety that had been so blatantly flagged up by the Select Committee—the August figures, the HSE report of September and now the Tansley interim report? What was going on in the Department during August and September?
As the Deputy Prime Minister seems so keen to rise to his feet, perhaps he will tell the House at which point he had a meeting to discuss the rise in SPAD figures, about which he would have received notice in August.
Railtrack's role has borne and will continue to bear considerable scrutiny, but others must bear responsibility as well. We now know that both the Health and Safety Commission and Ministers have long been aware of the dangers courted. We need to know, and the public have a right to know, what action the Department and Ministers were taking during the summer when those figures dramatically changed.
The calls for freedom of information have been much heralded by this Government and yet they have been remarkably secretive about information on some aspects of Railtrack. The Government have been conducting negotiations with Railtrack to award it a contract to run a number of London's tube lines. Yet when pressed on the conditions and terms of that contract, the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to make the information public or to put the contract out to tender. Whatever the merits of the case, what is surely clear now is that the Government have a duty to make all that information publicly available—information on Railtrack, including the secret deals that the Deputy Prime Minister has been conducting regarding the future of London Underground.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Was the hon. Gentleman aware, when the Conservative Government
516
were in control of our railways, that employees in the industry were afraid to speak up about safety concerns because they were afraid of losing their jobs and of being disciplined in an era of job insecurity? During that time, that Government did nothing to allow those people to speak out about their safety concerns in the industry.
Mr. Woodward: That is an important point because part of the culture of British Rail was that it was difficult to speak up and there is still a culture in which it is difficult to do so. We welcome the fact that people are speaking up and revealing malpractice—of course, that is right. Whatever the merits of the case, one person we want to speak up is the Deputy Prime Minister. We want him to tell the House and to publish the terms and conditions under which Railtrack will be given the underground lines. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the interests of the House and the country would be better served if the Deputy Prime Minister did not conduct those negotiations in secret, but published the details.
Confidence in transport safety needs to be restored, but it will not be in a climate of secrecy. A culture of safety rather than one of blame, requires—
Mr. Peter Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Woodward: No, I am about to finish. Such a culture requires the Government to be wholly transparent in their dealings with Railtrack and other transport companies. If, as is true of their dealings with the overground, the Government are transparent about the underground, the public will be reassured. Perhaps tonight the Deputy Prime Minister, who seems so keen to intervene from a sedentary position, will agree to publish that information and allow all the public to see his plans for the underground and his secret deals with Railtrack.
8.19 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and someone who spent his working life in the railway industry. I am also a director of a National Express subsidiary, which is exclusively a bus company.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on the way in which he introduced the debate. He did it non-controversially and briefly, for which we are grateful in such a short debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) to the Dispatch Box. I always thought that I was his mentor, but he has given that job to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—[Interruption.] Whichever one of us is responsible, we have done a pretty good job, given his performance tonight. He was both lucid and informative, and I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing from him again.
I am afraid that my congratulations end there. This is the second time that I have heard the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) speak in recent weeks. He and I addressed a meeting of the Railway Development Society a few Saturdays ago here in London. He demonstrated on that occasion the same weakness that he has demonstrated tonight. If one turns up with a pre-prepared speech, it is a bit hard to ad lib. At that meeting, he accused me of

517
saying various things that I had not said because they were on his brief. Tonight he accused the Government of various things that they had not done because they were on his brief.
How would it be possible to conduct negotiations with Railtrack about the future of the London underground—not that this has very much to do with transport safety—in the full glare of publicity? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows very much, given his track record, but I presume that he knows enough about business to be aware that a certain confidentiality must be observed. To accuse my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the way that he did was deplorable—it suggests that the person who prepared his brief does not know any more about business than he does.
As for the other accusation that the hon. Gentleman made, I find myself, like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, confused. I am not sure whether he was complaining that my right hon. Friend had spent all the time since the preliminary report first appeared in spring last year not doing anything or that he acted precipitately in making his decision post-Paddington. He did not make clear which of the two things he was complaining about, but perhaps that is not surprising given the confusion of his speech.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned signals passed at danger. He was right to point out that such incidents had increased in the past 12 months. It is fair to point out that the number of trains on Britain's railways increased by about 1,000 a day in the past 12 months. Given those circumstances, perhaps it is not surprising that the number of SPADs has increased.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is complacent.
Mr. Snape: I am accused of complacency by the sidekick of the hon. Member for Witney. He is another one I would not trust to wind up a Hornby 00 on the nursery floor. The number of SPADs has always been fairly high. The difference between the old days and the present day is that they are impossible to conceal. Present day signalling sensors produce their version of a black box so if a driver passes a signal by a few yards, it is automatically recorded.
In the days of oil lamps and steam locomotives, we kept these things quiet to avoid reporting each other. Those days are now gone, perhaps happily, and the vast majority of SPADs are comparatively insignificant matters, although the ones to which the hon. Gentleman tried to draw the House's attention may well merit further investigation. SPADs ought to be seen in the context of the number of train miles. The appalling tragedy at Paddington ought to be seen in the context of other modes of transport. We are rightly horrified by what took place at Ladbroke Grove junction, but two and a half Paddingtons take place on our roads every week of the year in terms of fatalities, largely without the hysteria—I choose my words carefully—that greeted the latest accident.
I know that it is not a fashionable thing to say, but I shall risk saying it. I hope that I do not get too much odium for it. The final responsibility for driving a train lies with the driver. Drivers at Paddington, Southall or Lewes do not suddenly come on red lights, whether they
518
are concealed by overhead gantries or whatever. Drivers get a preliminary caution and a caution signal beforehand, both of which must be acknowledged, as must the approach to the red light. Sadly, both the drivers at Paddington paid the ultimate price for whatever went wrong. It appears that the driver of the Thames turbo passed a signal at danger. The fact is that we pay drivers to drive trains.
I took part in various radio programmes following the Paddington accident. One or two former drivers who called in said that they wondered how the present crop of drivers would have handled trains into and out of Paddington in the old days when they were signalled by oil lamps and automatic train control on the Great Western trains. Great Western was more advanced than any of the other train companies. It was operated only on semaphore distance signals. The general view expressed on the radio was that the problem with driving trains today is that it can be seen to be too easy. People become complacent because they sit in the warm environment of a cab pressing the automatic warning system cancellation button in built-up areas all too frequently. Eventually, the inherent weakness of AWS is demonstrated. Drivers press the button approaching a red light, having pressed it passing cautionary signals, whether double yellow or yellow.
The answer is not to rush into spending £1 billion on the advanced form of automatic train protection. The time to spend that money was after the Clapham disaster in 1988. Railway safety and signalling structures and safety measures have moved on since then.
The hon. Member for Witney demonstrated the unfitness of the Conservative party to be in opposition, let alone in government. The Conservatives criticise the Government for what they term their tardy reaction to the Select Committee report. Let me remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I were the Opposition transport spokespersons after Clapham in 1988 when Cecil Parkinson, as he then was, pledged as Transport Secretary that £1 billion would be spent and ATP would be provided throughout Britain's railways.
I cannot remember the number of Transport Secretaries between 1988 and 1997.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Seven.
Mr. Snape: They came along more frequently than some of the trains did in those days, as my hon. Friend reminds me. The pledge so publicly given in 1988 was never implemented by the Conservative party.
Mr. Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: Although the hon. Gentleman refused to give way to me, I will demonstrate that I am a little more mature by giving way to him.
Mr. Woodward: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has demonstrated his maturity in spades by doing so. I draw to his attention the remarks made by the Labour Minister for Transport in another place. He said on only 6 October this year:

519
"to be fair to the previous administration, they weren't able to take action on introducing new systems because other alternatives weren't available."
Does he disagree with the Minister?
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman quotes out of context. He makes a clever public school debating point that has no relevance to what took place between 1988 and 1997. That pledge was given publicly and never implemented. There may well be good reasons why it should not be implemented now. I have tried to explain some of them.
Railway signalling and safety practice has moved on considerably since 1988. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but let me tell him that on the west coast main line, when it is ever modernised—someone said that in a good week its modernisation is announced twice and there is a press conference to follow—ATP will not be of any value. For much of the line, the visual signals will presumably be removed. We will have the continental system of signalling in which the maximum speed for that stretch will be shown to the driver, and if he exceeds it, the brakes will come on automatically. But that is not ATP; we have moved on from there.
I hope that Sir David Davies will not seriously say that we should spend £1 billion on yesterday's technology, given the changes that are likely to transform railway signalling practice in the years to come.
Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that TCS, the continental train control system to which he referred, is part of the contract for the updating of the west coast main line?
Mr. Snape: I am sure that that is the case. Tilting trains will not work to their proper capability without it. In the meantime, we cannot go on, year after year and, in some cases, month after month, having drivers pass signals at danger.
I do not want to prejudge the results of the inquiry into the Lewes accident, but it appears that a driver set off from a platform against a signal at red. That is a pretty common phenomenon in recent years. Mr. Stanley Hall, who was British Rail's safety expert, wrote a book about train accidents in recent years. That phenomenon is known as "ding, ding and away". It happens so often that, on much modern railway stock, including, as I understand it, the Connex South Eastern trains which were involved at Lewes, an additional safety system is fitted—a driver's reminder device—which, if the signal controlling the exit from the platform is at danger, should be applied in the cab to remind the driver not to pull away if the station staff give him the proceed indication. If that was the case on this occasion—my information is that it was, but I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry—spending £1 billion on ATP is not much good if drivers are incapable of doing the basic part of their job, which is what that particular case amounts to.
Some of my hon. Friends believe, as the papers did in their hysterical reaction to Paddington, that the disaster was all down to privatisation. There are some aspects of privatisation and railway safety about which the House should be concerned. The number of interfaces between the various people involved in railway safety is far greater
520
than it ever was with a publicly owned railway system, but it is not in the interests of Railtrack or the train operating companies to have rail accidents. To put it bluntly, they are bad for business. They will not wish such situations to arise.
Those of my hon. Friends who believe that the Treasury would have provided ATP—it did not provide it under a Conservative Government from 1988—should take a train up to Manchester. The hon. Member for Witney heard me recount this story at the Railway Development Society meeting. Before they get to Manchester, they will pass through Stockport where they will see a signal box where I used to work nearly 40 years ago. That was supposed to be removed as part of a modernisation scheme, but it is still there.
Let no one be kidded into believing that the Treasury will provide unlimited funds to modernise Britain's railway system. The privatisation argument is over. We must ensure that there are no further Paddingtons which can be attributed to the number of people who have to be consulted before fairly basic and simple changes are made to the railway network. The fact is that the Treasury never provided for railway safety under successive Governments, Labour and Conservative alike. We are where we are today, and we must go forward on the basis of the private operators and Railtrack.
I hold no particular brief for Mr. Gerald Corbett. I am told that he has lots of share options and has made lots of money, but that does not mean that the press should hang him at dawn because two trains collided outside Paddington. Given some of the hysteria in the press against Ministers and Railtrack bosses, it is no wonder that people are inclined to keep their heads down when anything goes wrong if that is the way in which the press conducts itself following a tragedy on the scale of the one we saw two weeks ago.
My final word concerns my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. In the years that we spent working together, I probably fell out with him more often than any other hon. Member, but I never lost my admiration for the fact that his concern for the railway and for transport safety generally was always paramount. I am confident that the decisions that he has taken so far during his term of office and the decisions that he will take in the years to come will give us a better railway system, something that all three parties represented in the House tonight should want. But, listening to what is laughably called the official Opposition, I sometimes wonder exactly what sort of railway they want and exactly who they want to blame for tragedies such as the one that we are discussing tonight.
8.34 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I start by commiserating with those of my constituents who were in any way involved in the Paddington crash and also with its victims. We hope that they will make a speedy recovery and that everything possible is done to ensure that our railways are safer in the future. That involves some short-term and some long-term measures, but before I go into those I want to nail one or two misconceptions. It is utter nonsense to say that somehow the safety of the railways has been prejudiced by privatisation. It is also

521
utter nonsense to say that the safety of the railways was in any way prejudiced by the current health and safety regime.
In the short term, it is odd that one of the country's leading signal experts should say that there are still signals at Paddington that are partly or totally obscured by metal girders. Such problems should be put right tomorrow, not next week, next month or next year. Some measures could be put in place immediately. It is completely wrong that each year there are 52 serious incidents, one a week, of drivers passing red signals—SPADs. That requires immediate tough action. There should be a proper investigation of every SPAD incident. All drivers involved in such incidents should be properly accountable for them and should be properly trained so that they do not take them as lightly as they have done in the past.
Another common misconception is that somehow the previous Government did not introduce the proper train protection and warning systems, or the ATP system. [Interruption.] It is all very well Labour Members saying that they did not do it, but the ATP system was fitted to this particular train and it is thought to have been on—that will be confirmed by the current investigation—so it does not seem to be the system that was at fault.
Before rushing to conclusions, we should consider the Tansley report, paragraph 46 of which states:
"We therefore think it important that any decision on the way forward should be taken in the light of a wider and more formal sounding of views in the industry".
Those are the short-term measures that should be taken. Meanwhile, apart from the measures that I have outlined, the Government are rightly speeding up the introduction of the train protection and warning system. I welcome that, but it will take four or five years to introduce, so short-term measures must be taken now.
One particular aspect of the Tansley report which has not been referred to this evening, but is worth looking at, relates to the further report of the Select Committee of 9 December last year. Referring to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, it said:
"In common with all areas of commercial endeavour, the prime responsibility for ensuring safety on the railway must rest with the party who is in control of the activity."
Therefore, whatever the Government do to alter responsibility for ensuring safety standards, safety as such will always be a matter for those involved, and that will be either Railtrack or the train operating companies. We cannot take away that responsibility. The question then is who should set the standards—the British Standards Institute or the Health and Safety Executive—and who should ensure that they are met. One aspect of that must be the proper training and supervision of the drivers. That is a short-term measure that could be taken immediately.
Tonight we have heard a lot about railways, but the Liberal Democrats' motion is wide, so I want now to deal with the possible sale of National Air Traffic Services. I do not care whether the Government call it a public-private partnership or whatever; I shall be delighted if they bring new badly needed investment into Britain's air traffic control system. It is a highly complex matter which needs new investment. Our already hugely overcrowded sky needs the most advanced information technology systems available. In that respect, the sky over Heathrow is, at certain times of the day, and even with the most sophisticated IT systems available, too
522
overcrowded. I urge the Minister to develop a better regional airport structure. There is no reason why we should not make better use of regional airports. Birmingham, for example, is under-utilised at present. In any event, I welcome the Government's proposals to bring badly needed private investment to the air traffic control system.
Mention has been made tonight of road safety. Although the number of deaths on our roads has fallen dramatically—as the Minister has confirmed—2,421 deaths is still too many. The Minister is nodding; that point is, and should be, uncontroversial between us, but the Government propose to cut the road building programme to shreds. We will not get rid of cars and motorists by cutting the road building programme and it will not improve road safety.
Mr. Hill: The key aspect of improving road safety is maintenance and I wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have put an extra £400 million into road maintenance.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Yes, that is part of the solution, but some severe accident black spots still require capital investment. I am grateful for the Minister's intervention because it makes my point. The A417/419 runs through my constituency. It is an arterial road that forms a strategic link between the M4 and the M5 and is a modern dual carriageway that has been upgraded so that one can drive from Sicily to the north of Scotland. However, on one small stretch of the road—the Nettleton Bottom link—in my constituency, the dual carriageway is missing and fatalities have already occurred in that area. The Government say that they cannot afford capital programmes, but how many more fatalities will my constituents have to suffer? How much more misery and congestion will my constituents suffer from the motorists who are funnelled in from every direction to that strategic chicane?
We must get our priorities in order. A senior official from the Highways Agency described that stretch of road as one of the worst bottlenecks in the country. Every fatality on our roads costs £1 million, with the inquest and other procedures. How many more fatalities must we have on that road, with the grief and misery caused by every serious accident? An accident is waiting to happen, because the pub at the bottom of the worst bit of the road holds public functions. It needs only another lorry to shunt a car into that pub and many fatalities will result.
I see the Minister nodding again, and I will write to him on the issue. Last week, we had a public meeting in the village hall, which was full; and people even stood outside to listen at the window. It is a serious issue for my constituency and for the nation, because that road links the north and the south, and London to the midlands because it cuts off the Bristol link. I appeal to Ministers not to slash the roads programme. Instead, roads should be improved to make them safer for motorists—who should not be penalised by severe petrol and diesel increases either; they simply make life a misery for those in rural areas.
Another aspect of transport safety affects schools and schoolchildren. Accidents happen every day involving schoolchildren crossing busy roads, with too many cars driven by a single adult coming to drop off and pick up

523
children. That is environmental nonsense. I wish to suggest to the Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister, if only he were listening instead of talking, a good scheme that was pioneered in my constituency 15 years ago. The dial-a-ride bus is a good model for the rest of the country. [Interruption.] I wish that the Deputy Prime Minister would listen to what I am saying about a sensible system that works, instead of muttering. A group of mothers could dial up the bus instead of all driving their cars singly. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister sighs, but I do not know why he is making such a fuss about the suggestion.
Mr. Prescott: The scheme has been going for 25 years.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That may be true, but it is a good system and should be extended elsewhere. If the Deputy Prime Minister would provide more than the paltry amount he has allocated for rural buses, perhaps it could be extended. It could reduce school accidents and it would be beneficial for the environment. The Government could do far more for road safety.
8.45 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank the Liberal Democrat party for devoting its valuable parliamentary time to debating the increasingly important subject of transport safety. My brief contribution will be mainly about the future of safety on our rail network, and I make no apology for narrowing the debate to that issue. We railway enthusiasts must repeat, wherever and whenever possible, that rail is still the safest way to carry people or freight from point A to point B.
When the driver of a local train went through a red signal near Ladbroke Grove junction on 5 October, 30 people were killed and 245 injured in the carnage that ensued. That was bad enough, but the tragedy may have caused thousands of people to move back to using their cars due to services terminating at Ealing Broadway, and the ripples of anxiety extend well beyond the Thames valley. When commuters resort to their cars for travel, their chances of suffering death or injury are 15 times greater.
I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the actions of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He has speedily put in place a thorough investigation of what went so terribly wrong that fateful morning two weeks ago. He is also determined to put matters right and, where necessary, to make available the money needed for essential improvements to the system. Lord Cullen is to look into the precise causes of the Paddington disaster. His inquiry will go much wider, and examine the safety of our rail network in general. It will also consider whether the privatised industry has the correct safety structure.
It was such a very great pity that the previous Government were so keen to sell off British Rail on the cheap that, through British Rail and Railtrack, they invested £548 million of taxpayer's money in the hiring of accountants, barristers and City experts to promote the sale. I believe that that money could have been invested
524
in the promotion of safety on our railways, possibly through the installation of train protection and warning systems throughout the network.
Sir David Davies, the president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, has been asked to assess the efficiency and costs of train protection systems, so that the Government can formulate an action plan to reduce the incidence of signals passed at danger. By that means, it is hoped that future disasters will be avoided.
Apparently, the interim report from the chief inspector of railways, compiled immediately after the Ladbroke Grove crash, suggests that it could have been prevented had the train protection and warning system been installed and functioning, both on the track and on the Thames train.
Mr. Snape: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Sir David Davies bases his conclusions on engineering factors, rather than on financial considerations? As he is acknowledged to be an expert in engineering, will not his conclusions show whether it is sensible to go forward with TPWS, or some alternative system?
Mrs. Cryer: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly, the matter of cost will have to be considered, but that should be of negligible importance in comparison with considerations of railway safety.
The three enforcement notices that have been issued by the railways inspectorate are welcome, if somewhat belated. One prohibits the use of signal 109 at Paddington; the second requires Railtrack to introduce, within the next three weeks, additional controls at the 21 other signals passed at danger most frequently. The third will reduce risk at all remaining signals with a recent record of being passed at danger.
The Government's policy of getting people out of their cars and on to trains—or buses for short journeys—and of encouraging the movement of goods by rail freight rather than by heavy lorry has my full support, as I believe that it will prevent injuries and loss of life and improve the environment. However, to achieve those changes, passengers and the movers of goods must have confidence that the alternatives being promoted are cheap, reliable and safe.
If any of those three essential elements are lacking, our battle for the hearts and minds of commuters, families on the move and manufacturing industry will be lost, and the carnage of Ladbroke Grove will be repeated time and again on our roads. There may not be the same visual impact but, every day, families will be bereaved and individuals terribly injured. There must be a severe conflict of interest when an organisation is under pressure from shareholders to make profits and yet also has a duty of care for the safety of its passengers. I trust that the measures already announced and the advent of the Strategic Rail Authority will remove the possibility of such a conflict. I also hope that the Government will reconsider—even now—their commitment to the privatisation of national air traffic control in the light of the Paddington tragedy.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Cryer: I am sorry, but I have finished.
8.50 pm
Ms Claire Ward: Like all hon. Members I want to offer my condolences to all those involved in the Paddington rail crash. I was shocked to hear of the crash: just two years after Southall, we were once again faced with a crash that would bring the safety of our railways into question. What dismayed me most was that the tragedy in Watford in 1996 seemed not even to have been taken into account, given what happened at Southall and Paddington. I have been further disappointed by the debate tonight; in all the speeches that I have heard about reports, about signals passed at danger—SPADs—and about safety, there has been not one mention of HM railway inspectorate's report into the Watford accident, a report that makes fascinating reading.
I was working in the constituency when that crash occurred, and I called for a public inquiry. I do not repeat that call; I am well aware that it is no longer realistic. However, I hope that the recommendations made in the Watford report and the circumstances of the Watford crash in August 1996 will be taken into account. I have made representations to the chairman of the Southall inquiry, and I hope that the report will be taken into account in the Paddington inquiry. Any recommendations made after Paddington and Southall should be tested against the circumstances of the Watford crash.
From what we know so far about Paddington, the similarities between that crash and the one in Watford are striking. People whose knowledge is much greater than mine suggest that those similarities are greater than the similarities between Paddington and Southall. Paddington and Watford had in common multiple SPADs—judging from the speculation that we have heard so far about Paddington. On 8 August 1996, a driver passed a red signal on the route from Euston to Crewe. The signal had been passed at danger several times. The crash resulted in the death of one person and injuries to 68 more. How must my constituents and the families of those who were involved in that crash feel about the fact that the subsequent recommendations of the inquiry report have not been acted on?
The report was published in April 1998, and I refer hon. Members—particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—to its recommendations. One of the issues regarding SPADs was that the British Railways Board group standard was superseded in March 1995 by the Railtrack group standard, which clarified certain duties and obligations that Railtrack and train operators were meant to put in place. That became effective in April 1995.
One of the key changes was a requirement that Railtrack should convene signal siting committees wherever a signal had been passed at danger more than once in 12 months or three or more times in a three-year period. Those circumstances certainly applied in the case of the Watford crash.
I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to question whether a signal siting committee was in operation in respect of the Paddington crash and whether previous SPADs reported at that junction had led to the convening of a signal siting committee. If they had, the committee might well have found that the signal was not easily seen by drivers. That was one of the issues that came out of the Watford crash. The report recommended that Railtrack should review its procedures to ensure
526
compliance with its own group standard in respect of the convening of signal siting committees. It was further recommended that the standard itself be reviewed so that following multiple SPAD incidents at any given signal, the SSC could assess all risk factors that could contribute to a SPAD incident. Had that happened after previous SPADs, we might not have got into the situation we now face with Paddington. I cannot overstress my disappointment that the recommendations following the Watford crash do not appear to have been implemented by Railtrack yet.
I want to draw attention to other issues relating to the Watford crash. It was recommended that train drivers who repeatedly passed SPADs should have special training from the train operating company. I would be interested to learn whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that that policy has been adopted by the TOCs since the recommendations were produced.
Her Majesty's inspectorate recommended that the TOCs audit their SPAD management systems to ensure that driving briefings are effective and that signal issues that concern drivers are pursued vigorously with Railtrack to provide satisfactory solutions. Over the past two weeks, several train drivers have said in the media that they have repeatedly reported signals that are difficult to see and where there are continual problems. I am concerned that, yet again, a recommendation that came out of the Watford crash that may well have prevented the Paddington crash has not been implemented. I would be interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's views on that.
This is a serious issue for my constituents. They faced the problems of the Watford rail crash and saw the deaths at the Southall and Paddington crashes. They wonder how many times this has to happen. How many reports, how many inquiries, how many different recommendations do we have to hear before something is done? I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been working hard on these issues but I would like a specific answer on this report. If he cannot provide it to the House in his reply, I would like to hear from him in writing. Like most hon. Members, I will have to respond to my constituents, who are concerned that despite the crash in Watford, there are several similarities with the Paddington rail crash that have not yet been dealt with and recommendations that have not been implemented.
Of course, other issues are raised by the Watford rail crash and the report—especially the fact that nobody has been blamed for the crash. The driver was prosecuted and acquitted, but nobody—Railtrack or the train operating companies—has been called to account. The inspectorate made several recommendations, some of which have been implemented by Railtrack and the train operating companies. However, at the end of the day, no one has been held to account for the 68 people who were injured and the one woman who died in that accident.
I want to raise some wider safety issues with my right hon. Friend. During the past two weeks, we have heard much about whether Railtrack should continue to be responsible for safety. Railtrack cannot remain responsible for controlling all safety matters. As a result of the crash, public confidence in Railtrack is low.
I want to make one point about where that responsibility should lie. It has been suggested that it should go to the Health and Safety Executive. I have some

527
concern about that possibility. As we know, even if the HSE were responsible for setting those new safety standards, it would, through the railways inspectorate, investigate the circumstances of a crash. In the event that the safety standards were not fulfilled, the organisation that set them would end up investigating itself. Will my right hon. Friend carefully take that point on board?
So much blame is put on individuals—whether they are train drivers or company management. People who have been involved in crashes want to know two things: what happened and why it happened. Most important, they want to know that it will not happen again. We can blame a range of people—Railtrack or drivers—but we must all work together to ensure that these types of tragedy do not happen again.
I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the safety of our railway tracks and of our trains generally. On Saturday, I was on a train from my constituency to Manchester—unfortunately following Watford football club on its trek to Manchester United and the rather disastrous turn it took there. On the trip to Manchester, the Virgin train was subject to an attack by some mindless idiots who threw something from a bridge, hitting the power cables of the train. In the light of the Paddington rail crash—we did not yet know of the crash in Lewes—hon. Members can imagine the fear that struck the passengers when they heard an almighty crash on the roof of the carriage and one of the power cables smashed into the glass on the side of the carriage.
Unfortunately, we were stranded six miles from Nuneaton for an hour and a half while we waited for a diesel engine to take the train to Nuneaton before we could regain some power. Of course, the people travelling on that train automatically thought about what had happened two weeks before. However, in relation to safety, I am also concerned as to how we secure our lines and trains from those mindless idiots who throw things from bridges. Unfortunately, that is becoming all too common an occurrence—objects thrown at trains or on to railway lines that could derail trains, or the general access to tracks by children in school holidays, who put their own lives at risk as well as those of train travellers. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that subject. I urge him and other hon. Members to consider ways in which we can improve security along our railway tracks, for the sake of all concerned.
9.5 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I shall confine myself to asking two brief questions of Ministers, the first of which relates to the public-private partnership for London Underground. One of the main criticisms of rail privatisation is that the proliferation of companies involved in providing rail services has led to, for example, communication problems, the culture of blame mentioned several times tonight and to insufficient investment by Railtrack in the rail network. How will the Government ensure that the same communication problems and culture of blame will not arise in an underground system that is split into three separate companies plus one company running the train services, with Railtrack a major player in the system?
528
My second question is about National Air Traffic Services. The Minister stressed repeatedly that safety is paramount and I accept that he believes that that is so, even if many Labour Back Benchers have expressed their concern by signing an early-day motion on the Government's proposals. I seek confirmation that the Government have assessed the impact of NATS' part privatisation in relation to the implementation date for the Swanwick system. The Minister must know that, if that system is further delayed, there will be an impact on safety—there can be no dispute about that.
I want to be reassured that the Government have considered that issue: the Minister must confirm that it will not affect the implementation date and cause it to slip even further. The Deputy Prime Minister has already said that the date has already slipped a long way and I hope that he was not suggesting that it could slip further still. All I seek tonight is reassurance on those two key questions.
9.7 pm
Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on an issue that is of great immediate concern following the tragedy of the Paddington rail crash.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), whom I congratulate on his appointment, set out several of the initiatives that the Government are taking to ensure that the highest safety standards are adopted throughout our rail system. We are doing as much as possible to prevent similar accidents from occurring.
There is no doubt that most people living in our modern society expect to be able to travel quickly, easily and safely. There are far greater demands on our transport system than ever before and our economy and businesses depend on good, safe transport to succeed. The development of that transport system has brought greater mobility for individuals, but it carries inherent dangers. Other speakers have referred to the need to improve safety in the rail industry, but, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Minister have said, it is also important to consider what we can do to improve road safety.
I remind the House of some of the statistics on road fatalities. Each year 3,500 people are killed and 150,000 people are injured on our roads. It is not only the cost in terms of human tragedy that could have been avoided; those accidents cost about £11.5 billion in real terms—money that could be saved if we did more to prevent them.
We all welcome the decrease in road accidents in recent years. We now have the lowest rate of road deaths among the main industrialised nations, and that is most welcome, but we must constantly try to find out what we can do to bring those figures down even further.
No doubt reducing speeding could play a vital part in improving safety on our roads, and I welcome the fact that, as the Minister said earlier, the Government are reviewing their speed policy. I know from my constituency experience how strongly people feel about reducing speed limits in residential areas. I am sure that all Members here will have been to meetings at which their constituents complain constantly about the danger to

529
their children caused by speeding in residential areas and outside schools, which causes enormous problems and makes parents worried about their children's safety. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned that subject.
The Minister said that the Government had recently given local authorities the power to introduce 20 mph zones without having to seek the consent of the Secretary of State. That is welcome, especially because a recent Transport Research Laboratory study showed that the average number of accidents in areas in which 20 mph zones had been introduced had been cut by 60 per cent., and the number of accidents involving child pedestrians and cyclists had fallen by 67 per cent.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has estimated that inappropriate speed is a factor in about one third of road accidents, which cause 1,200 deaths a year. We know that the severity of accidents, too, is linked to speed. Five per cent. of pedestrians hit by a vehicle at 20 mph will die, whereas if the vehicle is travelling at 30 mph the proportion of deaths increases to 45 per cent.; 85 per cent. of people hit by a vehicle at 40 mph will die.
The powers granted to local authorities could play a vital part in reducing accidents. Will the Minister tell the House to what extent local authorities are taking up the new powers, and whether there is anything else that he could do, perhaps by encouraging councils to exchange best practice in setting up 20 mph zones? I know from my discussions with local authorities that they would like guidance from the Department about where such zones have been set up to the best effect. They would also like to know whether the Government intend to set targets for local authorities, and monitor the effectiveness of the zones and the reduction in accidents that may result.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a programme to educate motorway drivers, including those who crawl along in the middle lane and cause bottlenecks, accidents and deaths? Would not that, too, bring about an overall cost saving?
Ms Winterton: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That needs to be considered, and I hope that the Government will include such a programme in their forthcoming safety review.
I now wish to refer to funding for speed cameras. A report by the police research group reveals that serious accidents decrease by 28 per cent. where speed cameras are sited. There are now about 2,000 speed camera sites throughout Britain, but the cost of installing and maintaining them means that some police forces will have perhaps only one in eight of the devices working at any one time. Drivers then begin to realise that if they speed past cameras they are unlikely to be fined or otherwise penalised, which is clearly unsatisfactory.
The police and local authorities have asked the Government to allow them to use a percentage of the money raised from fixed penalty motoring fines or to impose on the fine an additional charge to pay for the cameras. That money could then be diverted to police forces and local authorities to assist them with the cost of installing and maintaining speed cameras. The Government said in their transport White Paper that they were reviewing the funding arrangements for speed
530
cameras. Will the Minister assure me that his Department is pressing for such hypothecation so that the revenue from fines can be returned to the agencies that maintain and install the cameras?
I take this opportunity to address transport safety for blind and partially sighted people. I recently met representatives from the Royal National Institute for the Blind who raised the issue of train travel. It is hard for those of us who do not have sight problems to imagine how difficult it must be for blind and partially sighted people to access public transport, particularly for train travel. The Government should consider the RNIB's suggestion of having announcements on trains about, for example, which side of the train the platform is on, particularly in areas where the old slam-door carriages are used. Announcements could be made also when there is a large gap between the train and the platform, as on the London underground, where there is a "mind the gap" announcement. That would greatly assist blind and partially sighted people and would have the added benefit of encouraging more of them to use public transport.
Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the key problems is the need to ensure that train operating companies—in my constituency, Connex South Eastern—provide the escort service that they say they will provide to blind and partially sighted passengers? That service would escort passengers from the station to the train and from their destination station to a taxi rank or bus station.
Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That was another point made by the RNIB. The key is to ensure that there is consistency. The greatest problem is that one company may offer a good service to help passengers off the train and to a taxi or bus or to help them with their luggage, but passengers cannot rely on that help throughout the system, so they cannot have the confidence to make the journey. I hope that my hon. Friends will consider the RNIB's suggestions, because it would be to the advantage of us all to ensure that rail travel was made easier.
I know that the Government are giving the highest priority to improving transport safety, and I very much agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the personal commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister to doing so. Especially important has been the setting up of the comprehensive transport safety review, mentioned in the Government amendment. However, I hope that Ministers will consider some of the issues that I have raised tonight, so that we may make travel safer and reduce the misery of the deaths and accidents that have afflicted so many people in this country.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I shall not speak for long, but I thought that, as an ex-railway person and ex-chairman of an airport, some titbits of my personal knowledge might help the debate.
I shall start by trying to put things in context. It is important to recognise that in almost every mode of transport—bus, rail, aviation or the car—safety has improved significantly, not only in the two years since the Government came to office, but since 1987. That improvement cannot be attributed to any one Government.

531
I believe that it results from the fact that people have become more safety-conscious in many respects, and from new technology.
We should always aim to make things safer. When I worked for British Railways, there was what was called the failsafe culture. It was drummed into everyone that safety was the most important thing, which must be kept at the back of one's mind—not timetables or profits, only safety.
Everything had a back-up. Then we had the automatic warning system and the dead man's handle. Now that automatic train protection and the train protection and warning system are being introduced, we should not think of any of those things as exclusive. We should not suppose that any single thing will make trains safe, because it will not. The automatic warning system never made trains completely safe. What was called the dead man's handle—it was actually a foot pedal—never made trains safe although it was supposed to. None of the systems that are to be introduced will ever make trains completely safe.
It is a tragic fact that almost all the changes that have made railways safer have resulted from a major disaster.
Mrs. Laing: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), for whose expertise on transport matters I have great respect, who rightly said that it would be pointless for any organisation—public, private or a mixture—to spend a large amount of money on any system unless and until it was proved that that system would certainly work?
Mr. Heppell: No system will work 100 per cent., and it is a false economy to decide not to introduce a system because it would prevent only two thirds of accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East is correct; there will always be driver injuries and unforeseen circumstances. Even when we have ATP, there will be a way to isolate that system on every train. It is impossible to have ATP without a way of isolating it. Otherwise, if the system goes wrong, the engine is effectively stranded. If that happens on a main line, an accident will be waiting to happen. It is necessary to get trains off the line if a safety system has failed.
Individual drivers or signalmen will always make mistakes, but that should not rule out the introduction of safety measures. Indeed, we should bring them in as quickly as possible. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in that respect. We do not need a crystal ball, because the record book sets out what has happened. In 1997, my right hon. Friend was calling for the Health and Safety Commission to produce proposals on rail safety. In March 1998, the Government were asking the HSC to accelerate its review of Railtrack' s role in the setting of safety standards. I think that it was in July 1998 that my right hon. Friend signed the orders that will allow mark I stock with slamming doors to be dealt with, and the train protection and warning system to be introduced as soon as possible; I think decisions on those matters were brought forward by two years. We shall have none of the mark I stock in use after 2003. Similarly, TPWS will be in place by 2003.
532
It should be understood that TPWS is not perfect. It will not always be the answer to eliminating disasters. However, if we are to believe the technical advice that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been given, TPWS could prevent about two thirds of signals passed at danger incidents, which will mean a significant decrease in the number of rail accidents.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking a decision on TPWS. However, it should not stop us examining even more advanced train protection systems. New systems will come on to the market but they will take longer to develop than TPWS. We cannot wait for those systems to be developed. Instead, we must act now and introduce available protection systems. We must then try to ensure that more advanced systems are introduced as they are developed, and as it becomes apparent that they will work. Clearly we do not want to spend public money on things that do not work.
The Government's record on the railways has been exemplary. I am merely stating a fact and not trying to curry favour with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, it would be nice to see a smile from him every now and again.
There are other important issues apart from rail safety. We must recognise that the number of people killed on our roads is still significantly higher than we would like it to be. As has been said already this evening, there are still more people killed on the roads than in railway or aviation accidents. Our roads are still the most dangerous places in transport terms.
I hope that the Opposition will not try to play political games in terms of the pro-car and anti-car debate. I drive a car and so does my right hon. Friend, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does not. Most of us drive cars and we want to be able to continue using them. However, we must recognise that we cannot continue using our cars as we do at present.
A significant point has been made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about people who use their cars to take their children to school. I pass a school every morning on my way to the office in my constituency. If there is going to be an accident, it will be there, outside the school, where cars jockey for position to park right by the school gates. That cannot continue. There are other options, such a dial-a-bus. Some of the alternatives seem daft, but they are feasible. One suggestion is for people to pick up children on the way to school and take a trainload of them to school. All such ideas could help and should not be ruled out.
The real anti-car policy would be to do nothing. It would be bad for the car driver, bad for the pedestrian, bad for my children's lungs and my grandchildren's health—I do not want any of them to suffer because of the pollution being emitted into the air—and bad for the world. Everybody has heard of global warming.
Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; it is very kind of him. Will he encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to build roads that make towns and villages safer by building more bypasses to take dangerous trucks, lorries and fast cars out of villages and towns through which they should not pass in the first place? That is what the Deputy Prime Minister should be doing with the transport budget.
Mr. Heppell: I shall not take the simplistic view. Building more roads does not mean that people will be safer. In general, building more roads means that more

533
people will be killed because there will be more cars on the roads, but there are areas where bypasses should be built. In some cases it is common sense to build bypasses to protect small villages and make them safer. If my memory serves me well, the Government built more bypasses in one year than the Conservative Government did in the previous seven, so we shall take no lectures from Opposition Members. We are not against bypasses—but I return to the issue of safety.
We cannot continue the Conservative policies of removing obstacles from roads. In 20 mph zones and where there have been sleeping policemen and other real obstacles that have made drivers physically slow down—not just a sign showing a speed limit of 30 mph—there has been a reduction in the number of children killed.
I am quite happy if Opposition Members have to spend another 10 or 20 minutes, half an hour or even two hours on their journeys if that means that children's lives are safe. I do not want to be party political, but I am pleased that the Opposition are returning to the views of the earlier Conservative Government on transport, rather than the views expressed by their shadow Secretary of State in his paper on transport, which were crazy and a recipe for killing children on our roads.
My final point relates to the argument about the National Air Traffic Services. Much of the argument is fuelled by a misunderstanding about how air safety operates. NATS is not responsible for safety. That is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I am quite happy with the suggestion that 46 per cent. of the assets that are currently in NATS should be sold off to the private sector, but control of that body should be retained to ensure that the public interest is protected. The Deputy Prime Minister has given an undertaking that safety will remain with a public body and will not be allowed to go into the private sector.
I think that the same undertaking works for Railtrack. I shall not argue that we should renationalise the railways. Although I have a sneaking fancy to do that at some time—not necessarily in the near future—I recognise that the billions of pounds needed for renationalisation are not available. We can, however, have the same safety measures by ensuring that the safety aspects at present undertaken by Railtrack are carried out by a public body. The same applies to NATS, and we must not confuse the arguments about assets and about safety.
9.35 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: Transport safety is clearly of great concern to Members of the House and to the country at large. We have discussed a range of air, sea, road and, in particular, rail issues and, very sadly, we have done that in the context of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Like many other Members of the House, I extend my condolences to all those who have been directly affected by the crash and the many others who are still injured and suffering as a consequence of it.
The debate has been sombre as well as wide ranging, although the contributions have been extremely encouraging, and the tone in which the majority of it has been conducted is welcomed by Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The speeches of the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who have detailed
534
knowledge of the rail safety environment, were clearly informed by their own experiences and concentrated on issues that are of real concern to everybody. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made an important contribution about the lessons of the Watford rail accident. Many other speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), broadened the discussion and took in important aspects of the debate on road safety.
The essential principles that we have been discussing, which are at the core of all the debates about and different aspects of transport safety concerns, come back to public safety and the need for us to address it seriously. I agree with the Minister's opening comments, which were supported by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), about the efforts of the many in all the different sectors of our public and private transport systems who dedicate themselves day after day to maintaining public safety and trying to ensure the highest possible standards.
Closely linked to public safety, however, is public confidence, which routinely takes a battering when tragic events such as the Paddington rail crash occur. We have concerns about safety. Regardless of everybody's best efforts to achieve the highest safety standards, we need to ensure, in all circumstances, that there is public confidence. We have to do that in the context of a rapidly changing world in which the need for modern infrastructure—be it for our airlines, for the railway system, on our roads or on the sea—requires adequate and proper investment and funding. Otherwise, we cannot hope for a properly safe, effective and efficient transport system.
At the root of those concerns, many of which have been expressed this evening, is the matter of where the profit motive and concern for safety come into conflict with one another. Many people recognise that it is not necessarily the first desire of companies such as Railtrack and others to have responsibility for setting and policing standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made our party's concerns about the conflict of interest within the way in which Railtrack operates clear at the outset of the debate. We on these Benches do not think that that built-in dilemma and the serious conflicts of interest between the need to generate profit and to establish safety should be maintained.
We welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's comment, which was echoed by his colleague, that he is minded to remove responsibility for safety and setting standards from Railtrack.
However, I should like to reinforce a point that many others have made: although responsibility for setting standards should be removed from Railtrack, we must not develop the notion that Railtrack will have no responsibility for safety. People at all levels, whether they work in the rail service, on airlines, at sea or on the roads, are responsible for safety, and we must develop that culture.
Time and again, we must return to the core issue of funding. The sums discussed ever since the Clapham rail disaster, and many other tragic incidents since, have brought us back to the issue of funding. The Deputy Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions that funding is not an issue, but we need clarity about who will provide

535
that funding. Will it be Railtrack or the train operating companies concerned, or will the Government support developments in safety with further infusions of cash?
We have had a wide-ranging debate and I wish to deal with the issue of the National Air Traffic Services and the dilemma that the Government now face. This is where the need for new infrastructure and the problems of public safety come into sharp contrast. Demands on air services are increasing and new technology is undoubtedly required, but the question of who should fund the expansion then becomes an issue. Is Treasury nervousness about the cost of the new technology driving the whole issue of privatising NATS? The Liberal Democrats have their suspicions, and we have seen little to make us believe otherwise.
Future costs and investment are significant, but the proceeds from the sale of NATS formed a crucial part of earlier Treasury calculations. The most recent calculations and projections, and regular comments from the Government Benches, highlight the fact that the public finances are now in good shape. In the context of a public debate about the future of public safety and other transport issues, it is now time to refocus and reconsider the proposals being put forward.
Few people believe that privatisation, partial or otherwise, of NATS is a good idea. It causes concern to pilots, air traffic controllers and the public. Moreover, despite the Minister's comments about proceeding on a non-partisan basis, I remind him that an early-day motion has been signed by more than 100 of his colleagues, who are very concerned about the proposals. Even today in Prime Minister's questions, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) raised the issue and urged the Government again to ensure that they do not rush ahead before proper consultation has taken place. If the consultation is as thorough as it should be, I believe that the responses will be overwhelming and the privatisation will go no further.
Demands on the service are growing seriously. We have already seen operational problems in Swanwick, which was due to open in 1996 but was delayed due to a catalogue of problems. However, the question must be asked how privatising the service would help that process, not as a result of funding but, much more seriously, because of the distraction that privatisation would cause to senior managers in the service at a critical time of growing air traffic. There are alternatives. The service does not need to be privatised. The Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) proposed some real alternatives, not least the successful Canadian model, where private bond funding has been found. We already know that the cost of the service is recovered from those who use it and we believe that that principle can be extended.
Briefly, on other areas and the sea in particular, Liberal Democrats are greatly concerned that the campaign to preserve coastguard stations, which has been running for many months, has not resulted in a change of Government opinion or approach. Again, public safety is critical to the issue. Surely the safety of seafarers must come first in this debate. Yes, we accept that more has to be done in telecommunications, but closing coastguard stations smacks more of a need to save money and to fund the new technology, rather than to prioritise safety.
536
The National Audit Office said as much in a report in 1997–98. Another report produced by the Transport Sub-Committee pointed out that local knowledge is essential. Coastguard stations and coastguard officers are a fundamental tool in ensuring safety at sea.
This evening, we heard comments about London Underground from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). There are concerns. At a time when we are highlighting the fact that the fragmentation of the rail system may be a contributory factor in the worsening conditions on our railways—indeed, it is seen that way by most people—the Government are going ahead with plans similarly to fragment London Underground. That is a matter of serious concern. Surely the Government will now reconsider it.
This is an important debate on public safety. Major concerns have been raised on both sides of the House. As the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister have said on other occasions, it is important that we all look for solutions as swiftly and practically as possible. Once again we point out that, if we do not move from a culture of blame to a culture of safety, we will have failed those involved in Paddington and elsewhere.
9.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): On the whole, this has been a serious and thoughtful debate, in keeping with the gravity of the issue. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) struck just the right note when he moved the motion, as did his colleague in replying to the debate. I was disappointed—I put it no higher—that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) lowered the tone of the debate somewhat and, perhaps inadvertently, generated more heat than light. I will do my best to deal with some of his questions.
First, I welcome the widespread recognition that there are no simple, knee-jerk solutions to the problems that we face with transport safety. Most of those who spoke acknowledged that fact. Indeed, the chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, Sir Alastair Morton, rightly warned only today that if we go for quick solutions we may repent at leisure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, if we are to order new safety systems, it is our responsibility to ensure that they work properly.
As everyone understands, there is no scope for complacency. The Government have demonstrated by their actions, both before and after the disaster at Ladbroke Grove, that they are not complacent. Indeed, as a number of those who spoke acknowledged, any fair-minded person would have recognised that my right hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of interest in transport safety, which long precedes his occupation of his present post.
I shall do my best to respond to some of the many points that hon. Members have made. If there is time, I will deal directly with some of the issues in the Opposition motion, some of which were touched on by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who opened the debate. Inevitably, I am unlikely to get round to replying to all the points made, so I will look carefully at Hansard in the cold light of day and write to hon. Members about those that I have not answered.

537
First I shall deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Witney. There have been rather a lot of reports on transport safety one way or another and there is scope for getting one muddled with another or getting the dates confused. It may well be that I shall have to write to him setting out the precise sequence of events. However, I think that I can deal with some of the points that he made. He asked when the SPAD report was seen by officials and then by Ministers. It was seen by officials and Ministers a day or so before publication in August. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston issued a press statement endorsing the actions that the HSE recommended fairly soon after that. The Tansley report was seen by Ministers and officials on the day of the crash.
It grieves me to have to make this point about SPADs because I recognise that the issue is more complex than the cold dates suggest. If we are talking about action and inaction, the previous Government decided in March 1995 not to fit automatic train protection nationwide on the grounds that it was not justified on cost. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday in his statement, we do not want to make a political issue about that because we recognise that there were other factors, but the hon. Member for Witney raised it in a contentious way.
In August 1997, before any of this became public, my right hon. Friend ordered a safety paper on trains passing through signals at danger. He did so at a time when the number of SPADs was declining. There was no panic on and there was not perceived to be a crisis, but he acted as long ago as August 1997. He started a consultation procedure on the precise action to take in early 1998. The consultation ended in August 1998. Final recommendations were available by December 1998 on the train protection system and slam-door trains.
In July 1999—well before the disaster at Ladbroke Grove—my right hon. Friend signed the regulations to introduce a train protection system by 2003. In doing that, we shall take into account whatever conclusions Sir David Davies arrives at in his study of the technical matters.
Mr. Woodward: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: I am reluctant to do so as I have limited time. Perhaps I will not give way in the light of the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. I have only eight minutes left and I do not want to get bogged down in who said what to whom when. It does not strike me as all that helpful to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) asked what happened to the recommendations from the report on the Watford crash. Some have been acted on, but the HSE has commented critically on the way in which some of the recommendations have been followed up by the industry. The HSE's comments are in its report for 2 September 1999—the report on SPADs—and a copy is in the Library. I shall ask the HSE for a report on progress in implementing the recommendations following the Watford crash and pass them on to my hon. Friend as well as place a copy in the Library. She was right to draw that to the attention of the House.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) expressed support for the Government's plan for air traffic control. I welcome that and look forward to his voting with us in the Lobby when the time comes. I acknowledge
538
the good sense of the point that he made about the better use of regional airports. If he was suggesting—perhaps he was not—that we need lots more investment in new roads, I am afraid that I am not entirely with him on that. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his intervention, what counts in making roads safe is maintenance and traffic-calming measures.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: Forgive me, I have only six minutes left.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about London Underground and wanted to have the Government's position set out. I am grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to put the Government's position on record.
First, we will take account of any lessons learned from the Southall and the Ladbroke Grove disasters. Secondly, there is no question of entertaining any public-private partnership deal which does not contribute to improved safety, and that applies to Railtrack as much as to anyone else. Thirdly, it is vital that London Underground continues to have responsibility for the safety arrangements for the whole of the underground. Fourthly, all the public-private companies will take over existing safety arrangements, as agreed with the railways inspectorate. Finally, I repeat, the public sector London Underground will remain a single guiding mind on safety matters.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington also asked about the timing of the NATS public-private partnership, and whether that would have any effect on Swanwick. The Government have commissioned studies into the new Swanwick system which confirm that it is a good system which will work. It is on schedule to become operational most probably in the winter of 2001–02, and NATS is meeting all its target milestones along the way. By the time that we are talking to potential strategic partners about the public-private partnership the state of the project will be further advanced, and there is no question of the public-private partnership delaying Swanwick.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) asked about the funding of speed cameras. She was particularly interested in having the revenue hypothecated. The Treasury has accepted the principle that fines be used to fund the operation of speed cameras as long as it improves road safety rather than revenue collection. We are currently working on a mechanism for meeting Treasury criteria. A project group has been formed involving representatives from all interested parties, including the police, local authorities, magistrates courts and the relevant Government Departments, and we expect to appoint a project manager soon. The group's role will be to offer advice on the financial and organisational arrangements which will be necessary to meet Treasury criteria.
My hon. Friend also asked about the take-up by local authorities of the new powers to set 20 mph speed zones. Because local authorities were given those powers only this summer, it is too early to form a view on take-up. Local authorities are required to set casualty reduction targets in their local plans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) talked about the need for consensus with regard to the problems caused by cars. I strongly agree

539
with him on that. This is a serious problem which, in some respects, threatens the survival of the planet. About 500,000 people a year are killed worldwide by cars, and it is difficult for one political party to take measures to reduce the use of the car and to contain it and ensure that it is used sensibly if another of the major political parties is pronouncing itself to be the party of the car and appealing for votes on the cheapest possible basis. I hope that it will be possible to reach some sort of consensus.
I echo what others have said during the debate in paying tribute to the work of the emergency services in their response to the terrible event at Ladbroke Grove, and I wish a speedy recovery to all those who have been injured.
Mr. Paul Tyler rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 329.

Division No. 275]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Keetch, Paul

Baker, Norman

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Ballard, Jackie

Livsey, Richard

Beggs, Roy

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Brake, Tom

Moore, Michael

Breed, Colin

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Oaten, Mark

Burnett John

Öpik, Lembit

Burstow, Paul

Rendel, David

Cable, Dr Vincent

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Salmond, Alex

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Sanders, Adrian

Swinney, John

Chidgey, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Cotter, Brian

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Tyler, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Webb, Steve

Fearn, Ronnie

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Foster, Don (Bath)

Willis, Phil

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Sir Robert Smith and

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mr. Donald Gorrie.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beard, Nigel

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Begg, Miss Anne

Ainger, Nick

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Alexander, Douglas

Bennett, Andrew F

Allen, Graham

Bermingham, Gerald

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Berry, Roger

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Best, Harold

Ashton, Joe

Betts, Clive

Atkins, Charlotte

Blears, Ms Hazel

Austin, John

Blizzard, Bob

Barnes, Harry

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Barron, Kevin

Boateng, Paul

Battle, John

Borrow, David

Bayley, Hugh

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

540

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, George

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fyfe, Maria

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Galloway, George

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gapes, Mike

Browne, Desmond

Gardiner, Barry

Buck, Ms Karen

Gerrard, Neil

Burden, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Burgon, Colin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Butler, Mrs Christine

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Caplin, Ivor

Grant, Bernie

Casale, Roger

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chaytor, David

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clwyd, Ann

Healey, John

Coaker, Vernon

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coleman, Iain

Hepburn, Stephen

Colman, Tony

Heppell, John

Connarty, Michael

Hill, Keith

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

Corbett, Robin

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoey, Kate

Corston, Ms Jean

Hope, Phil

Cousins, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Crausby, David

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cummings, John

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dalyell, Tam

Hurst, Alan

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hutton, John

Darvill, Keith

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dawson, Hilton

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dowd, Jim

Drew, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Edwards, Huw

Keeble, Ms Sally

Efford, Clive

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kemp, Fraser

Ennis, Jeff

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Fisher, Mark

Kidney, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fitzsimons, Lorna

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Flint, Caroline

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Flynn, Paul

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lepper, David

541

Leslie, Christopher

Pickthall, Colin

Levitt, Tom

Pike, Peter L

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Plaskitt, James

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Pollard, Kerry

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Pond, Chris

Linton, Martin

Pope, Greg

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Pound, Stephen

Lock, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

Love, Andrew

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

McAllion, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

McAvoy, Thomas

Prescott, Rt Hon John

McCabe, Steve

Prosser, Gwyn

McDonagh, Siobhain

Purchase, Ken

Macdonald, Calum

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

McDonnell, John

Quinn, Lawrie

McFall, John

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Rammell, Bill

McIsaac, Shona

Rapson, Syd

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

McNulty, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McWalter, Tony

Rogers, Allan

McWilliam, John

Rooker, Jeff

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Rooney, Terry

Mallaber, Judy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Roy, Frank

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Ruane, Chris

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Ruddock, Joan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Martlew, Eric

Ryan, Ms Joan

Maxton, John

Salter, Martin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Sarwar, Mohammad

Meale, Alan

Savidge, Malcolm

Merron, Gillian

Sawford, Phil

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Sedgemore, Brian

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Shaw, Jonathan

Miller, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

Moran, Ms Margaret

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Morley, Elliot

Singh, Marsha

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Skinner, Dennis

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mudie, George

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Norris, Dan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Hara, Eddie

Snape, Peter

Olner, Bill

Southworth, Ms Helen

O'Neill, Martin

Spellar, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Squire, Ms Rachel

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Steinberg, Gerry

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stevenson, George

Pearson, Ian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Stoate, Dr Howard

542

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Ward, Ms Claire

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Wareing, Robert N

Stringer, Graham

Watts, David

Stuart, Ms Gisela

White, Brian

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Timms, Stephen

Wills, Michael

Todd, Mark

Winnick, David

Touhig, Don

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wise, Audrey

Trickett, Jon

Woolas, Phil

Truswell, Paul

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wray, James

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Tynan, Bill

Mr. David Jamieson and

Vis, Dr Rudi

Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with extreme sadness the recent Paddington rail disaster and the ensuing injuries and loss of life and extends its deepest sympathies to all those affected; congratulates the emergency services on their outstanding work in very difficult conditions; welcomes the prompt and comprehensive actions taken since the tragedy at Paddington, which demonstrate how serious the Government are about transport safety; notes the Government's continuing determination to take real steps to make transport safer for the public and the workforce; acknowledges the long-term reduction in fatalities on roads, in the air, at sea and on the railways; recognises specific action taken to improve rail, road, marine and air safety; commends the Government for setting up a comprehensive Transport Safety Review to look at how to improve the organisation of transport safety in the United Kingdom and whether there is a case for a single independent authority for transport safety regulation; and further notes that one of the prime aims of the Government's Public Private Partnerships for National Air Traffic Services and the London Underground is the enhancement of safety by securing high and stable levels of future investment, which are essential for safety as travel increases, and that safety regulation will be kept firmly in public hands in both cases.

Ricky Reel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to wait a moment before opening the debate. Would those hon. Members who are not staying for the debate please leave quickly and quietly? [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) conclude his conversation?
10.15 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: I wish to raise once more in the House the case of the death of my constituent Lakhvinder Reel, known affectionately to his family and friends as Ricky. I applied for this debate at the request of the Reel family, and everything that I say tonight reflects their views and is said with their permission.
Sadly, this week we commemorate the second anniversary of Ricky's death, yet two years on we still do not know how he came by his death on that tragic night of 15 October 1997. He went out that evening with his friends to Kingston and was racially attacked and, a week later, his body was found in the Thames. When someone goes missing in suspicious circumstances, it can often be difficult to discover exactly what happened to them. Mr. and Mrs. Reel and I accept that. However, I believe that our system failed, and continues to fail, the Reel family in their search for the truth about how their beloved son met his death two years ago. The purpose of this debate is to learn some of the lessons of the mistakes of the past two years and to seek a way forward in assisting the Reel family in finding the truth and coming to some understanding of what happened to Ricky.
There are two issues that I wish to address. Given the concerns expressed by many hon. Members about this case, I appreciate their wish to intervene. The first issue is the failure of our policing system to respond to the needs of a family experiencing possibly the most traumatic event that can be visited on any family—the loss of a family member. The second is the continuing failure of our legal system to assist the family adequately in their search for the truth of what happened to their son.
Let us examine the policing failures. No matter how unpalatable it is for us to accept, I fear that we must now acknowledge that our policing system has failed the Reel family. This is not an attempt to scapegoat, single out or blame individual police officers or to dismiss the support and hard work of many police officers in the investigation of Ricky's death. I pay tribute to them. However, there were admitted failures in the original investigation of Ricky's death and in the way in which the Metropolitan police service responded to the Reel family. As important, the culture of defensive secrecy that still pervades our policing system clearly undermined, and continues to undermine, the confidence of the Reel family in the capacity of the police to appreciate and respond to their needs.
Let me explain. Over the past decade, the Metropolitan police has changed the way it describes itself from "Metropolitan police force" to "Metropolitan police service". The translation from force to service is intended
544
to symbolise the acknowledgment that our police are not some body of force set above society but a service responsive, and responsible, to our community. Police officers are employed to serve members of the public, but the refusal of the Metropolitan police to operate openly and transparently during this investigation demonstrates that secrecy is still deeply embedded in the Met and that there is an institutional reluctance to accept that the Met is the servant of the public and should therefore be accountable to the public that it is serving.
This continuing culture of secrecy also undermines the potential for building confidence in the Metropolitan police following the Lawrence case and the Macpherson inquiry. The culture of secrecy is best exemplified in this case by the refusal of the Metropolitan police to publish the report of the inquiry of the Police Complaints Authority into its initial investigation of Ricky's death. The recommendations of the Macpherson report state clearly the need for openness and transparency. Recommendation 10 stated:
"investigating officers reports resulting from public complaints should not attract Public Interest Immunity as a class. They should be disclosed to complainants, subject only to the 'substantial harm' test for withholding disclosure."
The PCA report into the Metropolitan police's early investigation of Ricky Reel's death was instigated as a result of a series of formal complaints lodged by Mrs. Reel on 21 November 1997. The PCA appointed officers from the Surrey police in December 1997 to investigate the complaints. That was unusual in that the complaint was being investigated by the Surrey police while the Metropolitan police investigation was continuing. The PCA investigators examined existing and fresh evidence and re-interviewed family, friends, witnesses and police officers involved in the investigation.
From July 1998, the Reel family have sought access to the completed PCA report and its publication. The Metropolitan police are the owners of this report, and it appears that it is their decision whether and to whom it should be released. I find it extraordinary that a matter of such public interest should be left to the decision of the very service that is being investigated.
In 1998, the Reel family, their solicitor, representatives of the Southall monitoring group and I met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to seek publication of the report. That was refused. Some information was provided confidentially, but that was deemed to be useless by the family and was returned. Following meetings with the Home Secretary—I am grateful for the support that he has given us throughout this matter—the report was released, in confidence, to Mr. and Mrs. Reel and their solicitor, but not to myself or to their family advisers. We discovered later that the report had been given to a Metropolitan police advisory group—a group of civilians. The family contest that they were ever informed that the report would be distributed in that way.
Even now, the Metropolitan police refuse to release the report publicly, advising the Home Secretary that it is covered by public interest immunity. We have contrary advice, based on the case of the Queen v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police ex parte. It was established
"that there was no general public interest immunity in respect of documents coming into existence during investigation into a police complaint."

545
I believe that that defence no longer exists.
In more recent advice to Home Office Ministers, the Metropolitan police repeat the incorrect assertion that the courts have ruled that investigating officers' reports attract public interest immunity. They now pray in aid the coroner, who is concerned that any disclosure of witness statements will affect the inquest into the death of Ricky Reel in November. Does that mean that the PCA report itself will not even be available at the inquest? It is bizarre and tortuous logic to maintain this culture of secrecy. However, so as not to offend the coroner, I shall not draw on any witness statements and I shall name no names in this debate. I simply want to place before the House some of the findings of the PCA report. Lessons must be learned from that report. The House has an important role, which is to learn those lessons and to ensure that all our public services also do so.
The conclusions of the PCA inquiry are multiple. I draw upon some of them. In respect of communications with the Reel family during the initial police investigation, the need for clear, careful and considerate communication with the family was critical in investigations of that kind—as was learned from the Lawrence inquiry. In the investigation, we discovered that
"Mrs Reel and other members of the family were visited or contacted by telephone by a total of 10 different officers, from 3 different areas"—
in the space of two days—
"Each of them delivering slightly different messages."
The report concluded:
"This situation led to Mrs Reel being provided with conflicting information; being unaware of who was co-ordinating the investigation; believing that there was a conflict"—
between two police divisions, and—
"being unable to gain accurate knowledge of what action was or was not being taken."
The report states that the identification and interviewing of witnesses was vital to the lines of inquiry. It acknowledges that Mrs. Reel herself identified and located some of the witnesses. The inquiry also revealed that, in some instances, no records were checked by the Metropolitan police to confirm or support witness accounts; cross-referencing of information did not take place; and some witnesses were not found until the PCA investigating team found them. Witness information was sometimes not passed on from junior to senior officers. The PCA report states that there were "no debriefings", which would have been
"common in investigations of this nature; as a result, potentially important information was lost."
Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an especially sad case, particularly in light of the Lawrence case from which the House had hoped that some lessons had been learned? I have had sight of the report, which has regrettably been kept secret. One of the things that it reveals is that property records at Kingston police station showed that a videotape from British Rail at Kingston had been seized by a policeman and deposited in the property store. The tape was not viewed. Its existence was not drawn to the attention of investigating officers, and on
546
17 November 1997 the tape was destroyed. Does my hon. Friend share my shock that the police should treat so lightly such vital evidence?
Mr. McDonnell: I can give confirmation on that matter and add to my hon. Friend's remarks. The PCA inquiry reveals that all video evidence from shops was not seized promptly enough to provide information. The PCA states that videotapes from two restaurants
"may have provided information to the investigation had they been seized promptly",
but they were not. The British Rail tape was indeed seized, not viewed and destroyed.
Regarding photographic evidence, the three friends of Ricky Reel were never shown any photos of known racist offenders or offenders who had previously been involved in racial incidents in the area, in an attempt to identify the youths involved in the racial attack on the group.
Mr. Peter Bradley: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is standard practice for police to hold photographs—rogues' galleries—so that when, say, a victim of burglary makes a complaint to the police, he or she can be shown photographs and asked whether they can identify the perpetrators? Would not that practice have helped inquiries in the Reel case? Would it not have helped to secure justice for the victim's family? What happened appears to have been a flagrant dereliction of duty.
Mr. McDonnell: I believe that the PCA investigators considered that that was important. The PCA found:
"The Met did not initiate this type of inquiry at a timely point in their investigation."
The police did not at any time choose to show the photos of known local racist offenders to Ricky's companions on the night. I believe that that was a dereliction of duty and lessons must be learned for future investigations.
On forensic information, the PCA inquiry revealed that no clothing or personal items retrieved from Ricky's body were subject to forensic examination. Details of his clothing were not recorded and the PCA concluded:
"given the high priority accorded to the search for Ricky, the decision to call a special post mortem and circumstances before his disappearance, the way in which forensic evidence was dealt with is difficult to justify".
Mr. John Cryer: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether it is normal police procedure to make such records and to carry out forensic examination? I should have thought that in almost all murder cases, such evidence forms the cornerstone of the investigation.
Mr. McDonnell: The key issue is that the investigation was into a missing person report, but that the link between the racial attack earlier in the evening and Ricky going missing was not made soon enough. Not only was insufficient forensic evidence taken, but, as the PCA states, it is hard to justify why independent expert judgment was not sought on some issues.
On the post mortem, the report makes it clear that no one was clear about who was in control of the post mortem examination and who should have been asking the right questions. On verification at the scene, the report reveals that no forensic analysis was conducted at the area

547
where it was assumed Ricky entered the river; no fingerprint examination was made of the railing nearby and no foliage was taken; and there was no examination of the concrete block, although photographs were taken. The report concludes that forensic examination of the bank would have been helpful: it might or might not have substantiated the claim that the incident was an accident, but it would at least have challenged that theory.
The PCA report states that a key element in the investigation was identifying the means of escape used by the earlier attackers. The inquiry highlighted the role of the No. 281 bus, which the attackers may well have boarded. The Metropolitan police did not check the records of work or tickets on the No. 281. The report states that the No. 281 was
"the most likely line of inquiry to lead to identification of the youths or other witnesses."
The failure to follow up that line of inquiry was described as "a significant omission".
The PCA considered that there was no evidence that the Met progressed lines of inquiry into other potential witnesses from crime reports, arrests, fixed penalty notices on the night, accident reports, or racial incidents reported since 1997. In its general inquiries, the Met made no inquiries in respect of, for example, Ricky's mobile phone usage that evening. The PCA had to investigate the medical evidence relating to Ricky itself. On the involvement of the community in Kingston, the report states the PCA's belief that active and earlier involvement of the racial equality council would have been helpful to provide lines of inquiry in the area.
Overall, the report condemns the investigation because it lacked focus, it eliminated the racial incident earlier in the evening too readily, it lacked thoroughness, and there was a failure to initiate an early reconstruction of what happened that night. There was also confusion over the ownership of the investigation of the racial incident. The investigators came to the conclusion of accidental death before there was corroboration, and there was a failure to adopt policies that would have ensured that professional standards were maintained in the detail of the investigation.
The purpose of the PCA inquiry was to examine the complaints from the family, but it is clear that almost as soon as it became involved, the PCA team took over the investigation and ran it. The PCA inquiry is the basis on which the Met determined what action to take on that specific case and what general lessons to learn for future practice.
One action that stemmed from the early demands of the family was the introduction of a fresh investigation team, and I commend the Metropolitan police for bringing in that new team. However, in addition, the inquiry set out in some detail a series of recommendations for the reform of policing practices, and the problem now is that those recommendations, commendable though they seem, are part of the PCA report, which the Met keeps secret. That completely misses the point of the Macpherson report into the Lawrence case.
Public confidence can be restored and maintained in any public service only if mistakes, when they occur, are honestly admitted, and any remedial action is openly and honestly displayed. In this instance, the failure to publish
548
the PCA report means that we cannot allow for an honest admission of mistakes. More important, it provides no opportunity for the Met to display what lessons it has learned and what improvements have been made. It thus misses completely an opportunity to regain the confidence of the community in our police service.
Such has been the anguish of Mr. and Mrs. Reel over those events that I appreciate why they feel that only a public inquiry can bring into the open what happened to their son, what went wrong with the investigation and how such problems can be avoided in future. I ask the Home Secretary to consider that request.
The inquest will start in November, and the Reel family are asking for financial support to secure their legal representation. I urge the Government to provide that assistance and to do all in their power to provide the family with the resources to determine the truth about what happened to their son.
I believe that we can all learn lessons from the case—lessons about respect, openness and accountability, and about the relationship of public service to the community that it serves. By highlighting the case again—this is, I believe, the eighth time that I have raised it in the House—we may not only help to discover what happened to Ricky that terrible night, but learn the lessons that will help to prevent further tragedies such as Ricky's death. I certainly hope so.
10.33 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) not only for securing the Adjournment debate but for the way in which he put his case, with a restraint and clarity to which I pay tribute. My hon. Friend has raised important points, and he identified at the beginning of his speech the issues related to the failure of the policing and legal systems, and finished by talking about the need for respect, openness and accountability. Those are appropriate words in this context.
I shall begin where my hon. Friend started, by going through the facts and describing the present position. At the outset, I ought not only to pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend made his case, but express the sympathy of the whole House for the Reel family following Ricky' s death.
As my hon. Friend said, the circumstances of Ricky's death will be considered fully at the inquest, which begins on 1 November. As he also said, any criminal investigation within the Metropolitan police district is a matter for the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon. As the law stands, Ministers do not have powers to intervene—although I understand that Assistant Commissioner John Grieve's racial and violent crime task force inquiry team is investigating Ricky Reel's death.
The case has been widely featured publicly—for example, in the BBC's "Crimewatch UK" programme on 12 October, with an appeal for further witnesses. I take the opportunity to associate myself and the rest of the Government with that request for further witnesses to come forward. I understand that a number of inquiries are being followed up as a result of the programme of 12 October. The on-going investigation is an operational

549
matter for the Metropolitan police and I cannot comment in detail on that, although I shall refer to some of my hon. Friend's points later in my remarks.
The disclosure of the Police Complaints Authority inquiry report is a matter for the Commissioner. As I said, Ministers have no powers to intervene. My hon. Friend is right to say, following his meeting with the Commissioner, that the Commissioner does not propose to publish the report. As my hon. Friend said, the Commissioner agreed to disclose the PCA inquiry report to Mr. and Mrs. Reel and their solicitor on a strictly confidential basis. The Commissioner has informed me that his decision was taken on an exceptional basis and the purpose of the disclosure was to assist the investigation of Ricky's death by helping to ensure that every avenue of inquiry had been pursued. The Commissioner's view is that the disclosure struck the right balance between pursuing the investigative aim and minimising any jeopardy to the forthcoming inquest.
My hon. Friend accurately described the coroner's position. The Metropolitan police specifically sought the views of John Burton, the coroner who will conduct the inquest, on wider disclosure. The coroner has expressed his concern at the prospect of wider disclosure because of the potential effect on inquest witnesses.
As my hon. Friend said, sections of the PCA inquiry report were shown to members of the lay advisory panel to the Metropolitan police. The panel's purpose was to review the investigation to help to ensure that no opportunity or link had been missed. The Commissioner's view was that the PCA inquiry report was relevant to the lay panel's role and that the purpose of disclosure was to assist the investigation.
I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Reel's perception is that they were not consulted about the Met's intention to disclose sections of the report to the panel, and they felt that that was wrong. I am advised by the Met that on 15 February this year, Mr. and Mrs. Reel and their solicitor, Suresh Grover, met two members of the lay advisory panel. The Met's view is that the meeting agreed that the lay panel would recommend that the full PCA inquiry report would be made available to the family and the panel. The lay panel has told the Met that it is concerned about suggestions that Mr. and Mrs. Reel were not consulted about that, but I understand that that is an outstanding concern for all parties.
I come now to recommendation 10 of the Macpherson report concerning disclosure of investigating officers' reports, to which my hon. Friend referred. The Home Secretary made it clear in his response to the Macpherson report that the Home Office will consider, in consultation with interested parties, how to overcome the current situation whereby investigating officers' reports attract public interest immunity as a class.
We have set up a Home Office working group to examine how recommendation 10 can best be put into practice without compromising the integrity of the complaints process. We intend to announce our conclusions by the end of the year, so that we can further develop the policy. There are different views on that matter, but it is important for us to assess the recommendation and to make our position publicly clear, which we shall do by the end of the year.
550
I shall not now go into all the implications of the Macpherson report. My hon. Friend correctly assessed the report's purpose, which is to establish confidence. That requires important changes in a wide variety of procedures and approaches.
Those are the basic facts and they confirm the essential points of my hon. Friend's description of the situation. I turn now to his substantive points. First, he referred to a culture of secrecy that affects the way in which these matters can be discussed. He has raised valid issues. The Macpherson report and other inquiries have concluded that everyone will gain if we have a proper process whereby people fully understand the state of affairs. As I said in an Adjournment debate earlier today on a different case, I believe that the criminal justice system is opaque in too many ways, and that individuals cannot properly understand what is happening to them and how it happens. I am sure that constituents have expressed that feeling to all hon. Members at different times and in different ways.
At the start of his speech, my hon. Friend raised an especially important point of substance—the issue of communication with the family about the process that takes place as it moves forward. We are actively considering a range of proposals to ensure a far better quality of communication with the family.
The Crown Prosecution Service is currently running a range of pilot schemes. We hope that, as a result, by the end of the year 2001 there will established throughout the country a process by which, in all serious cases—as the case of Ricky Reel obviously is—there is proper communication between the prosecutors and the victim about decisions that are taken. One of the greatest sadnesses that people have is the failure to understand why decisions to prosecute are or are not taken in certain circumstances.
I know that my hon. Friend appreciates—because he has paid close attention to the matter—the difficulties in achieving a balance on that aspect, but the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service have a strong commitment to establish a form of communication that would give victims the information that they need to understand how the process operates.
Now is not the time to enter into greater detail on a range of areas where we hope to support victims and witnesses. As my hon. Friend said, there are major issues in ensuring that witnesses feel able to stand up or are able to stand up and develop the situation directly, and it is also important, in that connection, that the victim's views about the process can be part of the legal process. We are actively considering ways in which they may be.
My hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made important, serious points about the way in which the police have conducted the inquiry. I cannot, in my position, comment on the precise nature of the police inquiry or on the detailed points that my hon. Friends have made about that inquiry.
I believe that the fundamental point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington when he said that he felt that the police investigation lacked focus and thoroughness. I apologise for poaching the

551
words that he used. He also said that there was a need to reform police practices to ensure that those issues were addressed in the most effective and powerful way possible. My hon. Friend made his point clearly and strongly. I know that people will study his words extremely carefully to establish how the processes may be improved.
A great many of the issues will be resolved openly and clearly at the inquest, which starts on 1 November. On the more general issues that my hon. Friend has raised,
552
I say only that it is necessary and important to deal, in the way that he has said, with the issue of public interest immunity as a class in this case. That is a profound and important issue.
I conclude by giving my hon. Friend the assurance that I believe that he is seeking—that the Government position on that matter will be absolutely clear before the end of 1999.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Meetings (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have held meetings with the United States Special Envoy for Cryptography, Ambassador David Aaron, since 1 January 1998 on (i) encryption and (ii) other issues; what were the dates and locations of each meeting; and what other (1) British and (2) United States Government Departments took part in each meeting. [94011]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Cabinet Office Ministers have not met Ambassador Aaron. Cabinet Office officials have met Ambassador Aaron on four occasions since 1 January 1998. Each of these meetings related to discussions about national and international policies on encryption and possible changes to export controls on cryptographic goods under the Wassenaar Arrangement for Export Controls on Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods. The dates and locations of these meetings were as follows: 18 May 1998, London; 4 June 1998, Stockholm; 3 September 1998, Ottawa; 3 December 1998, Vienna.

  The meetings on 4 June, 3 September and 3 December were also attended by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government's technical advisers on information security, the Communications Electronic Security Group.

  On the United States side, the meetings involved officials from the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice and Defense, and from the National Security Council. With the exception of the 18 May meeting, which was a bilateral visit by Ambassador Aaron to the United Kingdom, these contacts were multinational meetings involving a number of other countries.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when officials from her Department attended meetings of the United States Department of Commerce's Technical Advisory Committee to Develop Federal Information Processing Standard for the Federal Key Management Infrastructure. [94010]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No officials from the Cabinet Office have attended meetings of this committee.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 29 June 1999,Official Report, column 128, on special advisers, how
  580
  many meetings Mike Trace, deputy to the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit to New York on 7 to 10 June 1998; and if she will list the date of each meeting and the names of the United States officials and members present. [93910]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Deputy UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Mike Trace visited New York as part of the UK delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session from Monday, 7 June to Wednesday, 9 June. During that visit he met the United States 'Drug Czar', General Barry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.

  Mr. Trace did not meet any other members of the United States Government on this visit; however, he did meet with numerous representatives from other nations and from non-governmental organisations.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what arrangements the Better Regulation Task Force has for liaising with other Departments. [94638]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Better Regulation Task Force is an independent advisory body supported by officials in the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit. The Task Force liaises with other Departments through established inter-departmental channels between Cabinet Office officials and their counterparts in other Departments, and through other arrangements as necessary.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what reviews are currently being considered by the Better Regulation Task Force for 2000. [94503]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In the year 1999–2000 the Better Regulation Task Force is undertaking reviews of payroll (tax and benefit integration), the overall impact of regulation on the hotel and restaurant industry, small firms exemptions, public sector regulation, self-regulation as an alternative to state regulation and regulatory protection of vulnerable groups.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what regulations broken down by department have been reviewed by the Better Regulation Task Force. [94501]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The areas of regulation which have been subject to published reviews by the Better Regulation Task Force are as set out together with details of the main Departments involved. The Task Force has also responded to a number of Government consultation documents. Full details of each review are available on the Better Regulation Task Force website, which can be found at www.cabinet-office.gov/uk/bru/index/task.htm.
  581

  Review

  Main regulations covered

  Responsible Department

  Consumer Affairs

  A wide range of consumer affairs regulations

  Department of Trade and Industry, Home Office

  Long Term Care

  Registered Homes Act, 1984, and supporting secondary legislation

  Department of Health

  Early years Education and Day-care

  The Children Act, 1989, The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996, the Schools Inspection Act 1996

  Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) and Department of Health

  Access to Government Funding for the Voluntary Sector

  This review examined in general terms the regulatory framework applying to Government funding of the voluntary sector

  The review was relevant to all Departments that fund the voluntary sector

  Licensing Law

  The Licensing Act, 1964, The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, The London Government Act 1963 and related secondary legislation

  The Home Office

  Enforcement

  The review took as case studies the following regulatory frameworks: 1. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, 1974 and 2. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 and The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997

  The Health and Safety Executive, The Home Office

  Anti-discrimination Legislation

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, The Equal Pay Act 1970, The Race Relations Act 1976

  The Department for Education and Employment, The Home Office

  Fit Person Criteria

  The Police Act, 1997 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

  The Home Office

  Regulations and Small Firms

  This review considered in general terms the range of regulations that impact on small firms

  This review was relevant to most Government Departments

  Enforcement Concordat
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many local authorities have signed up to the Enforcement Concordat. [94553]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  There are 142 local authorities in England and Wales and 21 in Scotland that have signed up to the Concordat for all of their regulatory enforcement functions. A further 19 local authorities in England and Wales have adopted the Concordat for some of their regulatory enforcement functions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many agencies have accepted the Enforcement Concordat; and if she will list them. [94552]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Twenty-two central Government enforcement agencies have adopted the Concordat. They are:

  Animals, Bylaws and Coroners Unit

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Companies House

  HM Customs and Excise

  Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate

  Drinking Water Inspectorate

  Driving Standards Agency

  Drugs Branch

  Egg Marketing Inspectorate

  Engineering Inspectorate

  Environment Agency

  Export Control Organisation

  Health and Safety Executive

  Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development's Trading

  582

  Standards Service

  Department of Health

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Marine and Coastguard Agency

  National Bee Unit

  Radiocommunications Agency.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the Enforcement Concordat is a new initiative. [94554]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Enforcement Concordat was launched on 4 March 1998. It was formally signed by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on behalf of central Government and by Councillor John Ryan on behalf of the Local Government Association.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 4 March 1998, Official Report, columns 692-94, announcing the publication of the Enforcement Concordat.

  Correspondence
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance has been given to Ministers on the handling of correspondence from Members of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. [95070]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Cabinet Office has recently produced guidance for Departments on the handling of correspondence under devolution. This includes guidance on the handling of correspondence from Members of the
  583
  Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of her Department, excluding non-departmental public

  Cabinet Office in-house publications and newsletters produced for staff in the last five years

  Publication

  Frequency

  Classification

  Start date

  End date

  SCOOPS—Staff magazine

  Monthly

  Unclassified

  1989

  Ongoing

  The Weekly—weekly round up of news/vacancies etc.

  Weekly

  Unclassified

  1997

  Ongoing

  Cabinet Office organisation chart1

  Quarterly

  Unclassified

  September 1997

  Ongoing

  Senior Staff Guide

  Quarterly

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Cabinet Office paper directory

  Half yearly

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Infra-red newsletter from IT section

  Quarterly

  Unclassified

  January 1997

  Ongoing

  New Accommodation project newsletter

  Quarterly

  Unclassified

  November 1998

  Ongoing

  Resources Accounting and Budgeting Manual

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Finance and Planning Manual

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Procurement Manual

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Fraud and Negligence Manual

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Little Black Finance Handbook

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Managing Local Finance Guide

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Punctuation Basics

  On Intranet

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Planning and Budgeting Round Guidance

  Annually

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Cabinet Office Annual Business Plan

  Annually

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Mid-year Performance Report

  Annually

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Annual Performance Report

  Annually

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  Mid-Year Review Guidance

  Annually

  Unclassified

  —

  Ongoing

  The role of Internal Audit in the Cabinet Office—Leaflet

  Issued once

  Unclassified

  November 1997

  —

  Guide to Parliamentary business

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Parliamentary Directory

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Conditions of service for Part-Time staff

  As required

  Unclassified

  February 1998

  Ongoing

  Performance Appraisal Guidance

  As required

  Unclassified

  February 1997

  Ongoing

  Pregnancy and Work (booklet)

  As required

  Unclassified

  Pre 1994

  Ongoing

  Training and Development Notices

  As required

  Unclassified

  Pre 1995

  Ongoing

  Training Directory

  Annually

  Unclassified

  Pre 1995

  Ongoing

  Grapevine (weekly bulletin of Personnel Division)

  Weekly

  Unclassified

  January 1999

  Ongoing

  Personnel Division Annual Report

  Annually

  Unclassified

  May 1999

  Ongoing

  Pay and Grading Consultation Document

  —

  Unclassified

  April 1997

  Ongoing

  Cabinet Office Management Code

  As required

  Unclassified

  July 1996

  Ongoing

  Terms and conditions of service Handbook

  As required

  Unclassified

  March 1996

  Ongoing

  Conduct and Discipline Staff Handbook

  As required

  Unclassified

  February 1995

  Ongoing

  As required

  Usually Unclassified (depends on subject content)

  Office Notices

  Pre 1994

  Ongoing

  Pay and grading Newsletters

  Up to 7 per year

  Unclassified

  February 1995

  Ongoing

  Job Advertising Scheme Guidance

  As required

  Unclassified

  July 1995

  Ongoing

  Banding Guidance

  Issued once

  Unclassified

  September 1997

  —

  Human Resource Strategy Document

  Issued once

  Unclassified

  1996

  —

  The Phoenix Project Report (Report on Department's Central Services)

  Issued once

  Unclassified

  December 1994

  —

  Induction Pack for new entrants

  Half yearly

  Unclassified

  1997

  Ongoing

  1 Available on internet

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those contracts, awarded to(a) British companies and (b) British research facilities under the US Strategic Defence Initiative and their total value in each year since 1985. [94430]

  Mr. Hoon
  So far as contracts awarded to British Companies are concerned, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 424.
  584
  bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93853]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Cabinet Office has a wide range of in-house publications to keep its people well informed and to ensure the efficient operation of the Department in delivering its objectives. Most publications are now available on the Department's intranet.

  So far as contracts awarded to British research facilities are concerned, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the UK and US Governments in respect of the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), provides for contracts to be placed directly with the other Party's universities, which could include research facilities. As with contracts established directly with British companies, no central or comprehensive record is maintained.

  It is believed, however, that most research has been undertaken on a Government to Government basis under an arrangement known as Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs). In such cases research has been undertaken by

  585
  the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) or its forerunners. The total value of LOAs entered into since 1985 is approximately $150 million. While expenditure on an annual basis is not available in detail, work commenced at approximately $2 million per annum in 1986, building to $12 million over a seven-year period, then falling away to some $5 million currently.

  Armed Forces (Strength)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Sir Roger Wheeler, Chief of General Staff, cleared with Ministers his comments on armed forces strength and commitments contained in his interview published in the press on 3 August; and if he will make a statement. [94383]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]General Sir Roger Wheeler was invited by Ministers to give the interview, and spoke with their full knowledge.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the current strength and (b) the establishment strength of (i) the Royal Navy, (ii) the Army and (iii) the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [94784]

  Mr. Spellar
  We remain entirely committed to achieving full manning in the Services, a key SDR target. Last year's recruiting performance was excellent; for the Army the best this decade. An Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy is being developed, of which recruitment and retention will be major strands.

  The required strength is expressed in terms of trained personnel. As at 1 September 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, the trained strength and requirement of the UK regular armed forces is:

  Trained strength

  Trained requirement

  Naval Service1

  38,652

  40,312

  Army

  96,381

  102,389

  RAF

  51,395

  53,081

  1 Includes Royal Marines

  EU Driving Directive
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the European Driving directive on the services; and if he will make a statement. [94782]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces are exempt from European Union drivers' hours legislation. It is, however, my Department's policy to comply with the spirit of the legislation, where possible, except during periods of active operations, training conducted under operational conditions, or in certain cases when acting in support of Civil Ministries and Authorities or when operating solely on Crown Land.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out(a) the results of his Department's funded research programme into the possible interactions between the vaccines and nerve agent pre-treatments that were administered to British troops during the Gulf conflict and (b) details of any other
  586
  of his Department's research relevant to the health effects of organophosphates and carbonates, including nerve agents, organophosphate pesticides and nerve agent pre-treatments. [95072]

  Mr. Spellar
  The initial phase of the research programme involving a preliminary toxicological study of the effects of the co-administration of vaccines and nerve agent pre-treatments (NAPS) in guinea pigs has recently been completed at CBD Porton Down. An outline of the study's findings was presented at a conference on research into Gulf veterans' illnesses in Washington DC in June. This initial stage of the overall research programme, which was primarily designed to help inform the design of more sophisticated longer-term studies, does not report any remarkable findings on the administration of the combination of vaccines and nerve agent treatments examined.

  The results of the study were reviewed by the Independent Panel, which oversees the vaccine interactions research programme, at a meeting earlier this year. The Panel agreed that the researchers should proceed with publication of the results of this initial study through the appropriate scientific channels. The Panel also agreed to more extensive rodent studies, to be carried out at the National Institute of Biological Standards and Controls, and further studies at CBD Porton Down which will include sophisticated techniques to examine any subtle long-term neurophysiological and cognitive effects of the administration of vaccines and NAPS.

  I have arranged to have a copy of the information presented at the Washington meeting placed in the Library of the House. A more detailed paper is being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and will be published as soon as possible. This information will be placed on the Gulf veterans' illnesses page on the MOD website in due course.

  I am also today placing in the Library of the House copies of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council's Working Party Report on the Long Term Neurotoxicity of the Anticholinesterases, together with the Ministry of Defence's response to the Report. I am also placing in the Library three previously unpublished studies by CBD Porton Down, and one already published, which are referred to in the Report.

  The Report, which is a review of existing literature and research, concludes that there is robust evidence that high doses of organophosphates may have long term toxic effects on the peripheral nervous system; that there is more limited information about the long term toxic effects of low doses of organophosphates on the central nervous system; and that there is little evidence that the prophylactic use of carbamates (such as NAPS) is associated with any long term adverse health effects, although this should be further explored. We hope that it will be a useful source of information on the long-term effects of these compounds. The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Report. We accept the recommendations for further research.

  As the MOD's response to the Report makes clear, we continue to carry out a range of research into the health effects of organophosphates and carbamates, including nerve agents and nerve agent pre-treatments. In addition to the research set out there, work is underway at CBD

  587
  Porton Down to investigate the question of whether these compounds might have an effect on the immune system. This work, which is following up research reported in the open literature, is in its very early stages and we cannot yet say whether there is any such effect, or what the implications of that might be. We intend to make public the findings of this work as soon as possible, as each part of it reaches scientific maturity.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Colchester Garrison PFI project. [95211]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am delighted to announce that, following a thorough evaluation of detailed proposals from three short listed bidders, we have now selected RMPA Services, a consortia comprising Sir Robert McAlpine, Primary Management and W.S. Atkins, as the preferred bidder for the redevelopment of Colchester Garrison.

  Detailed contract negotiations will now commence with RMPA Services with the aim of achieving contract signature towards the end of next year.

  The benefits which we see flowing from this deal are the replacement of an estate which is mainly old and substandard, poorly laid out and significantly underscale, with one which will provide high quality barracks and facilities which conform to the appropriate accommodation scales, are flexible to use and are capable of further development. Furthermore this will be achieved very much more quickly under the PFI route than would be possible using our own internal procedures. For example, once the contract is signed we expect the redevelopment to be complete within four years compared to the 15 years it could have taken using a conventional, staged approach. It will also free up land for redevelopment close to Colchester town centre and therefore be of benefit to the local community.

  Finally, this is a good deal for the taxpayer. As a result of the competitive bids received, we believe that from RMPA Services will offer the MOD excellent value for money resulting from design efficiencies, economies of scale in development and a more cost effective delivery of the support services.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  E-mail
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make a statement on arrangements for the introduction of a new e-mail system in the House. [94818]

  Mr. Allan
  As part of the Parliament-wide Information Technology Convergence Programme, which has been endorsed by the Information Committee, all personal computers linked to the PDVN are being converted to a new e-mail system, Microsoft Exchange and Outlook 98. Some older computers linked to the PDVN will need to be upgraded or replaced if they are to continue to use the parliamentary e-mail system. The old e-mail system, Groupwise, will be closed down on 16 November 1999, prior to the beginning of the next Session on 17 November.
  588
  The Parliamentary Communications Directorate (PCD) has sent to all Members and their staff information about the computer specifications required to run the new e-mail system and can advise Members and their staff about new central purchasing arrangements through which Members may purchase new equipment which meets those specifications. Members whose staff are linked to the PDVN from their constituencies are being sent a disc and information about remote conversion to use Outlook. Members and their staff based in the parliamentary precincts whose computers have not yet been converted to Outlook can arrange a date for their conversion and for a short training course by contacting PCD on extension 0899. Courses are being arranged for each weekday in October and November.

  Breast-feeding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what assessments he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for breast-feeding in the buildings for which her Committee is responsible; and if she will make a statement. [94798]

  Mrs. Roe
  There are no designated facilities for breast-feeding on the Parliamentary Estate. However, I understand that individual hon. Members have made arrangements, through the Serjeant at Arms, for appropriate facilities to be made available as required.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will consult on the proposal for a Holocaust Remembrance Day. [95213]

  Mr. Straw
  We issued a consultation paper on 18 October. Copies have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Urban Renaissance
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the development of an urban renaissance in the north-west. [94510]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government intend to respond to the urban renaissance recommendations by early summer next year. Already in the north-west, an urban regeneration company (URC), Liverpool Vision, has been set up in direct response to one of the recommendations in the Roger's Report and is actively pursuing the regeneration of the city centre. It is likely the URC for east Manchester will be announced shortly.

  Vacant Properties
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many local government properties are currently unoccupied; [93672]
  589
  (2) how many houses were unoccupied at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many had been unoccupied for more than (a) six months and (b) 12 months. [93677]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest available information shows that there were 753,200 dwellings in England vacant on 1 April 1998 of which 81,700 were local authority-owned. A level of vacancy is a usual feature of the stock,

  Vacant dwellings at 1 April 1998

  Total vacant

  Vacant more than 6 months and less than 12 months

  More than 12 months

  Local Authority

  81,700

  10,600

  16,000

  Registered Social Landlords

  29,300

  4,100

  4,800

  Other Public Sector

  19,000

  not available

  not available

  Other Private Sector

  623,200

  not available

  220,100

  Total Dwellings (all tenures)

  753,200

  not available

  not available

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns

  Housing Corporation RSR forms

  Litter Offences (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in each of the last five years for which figures are available, how many(a) warnings and (b) fines were issued for litter offences in the Chelmsford local authority area under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [94779]

  Mr. Hill
  The local authority does not collect information on the number of warnings issued for litter offences. No fines have been issued for litter offences in the Chelmsford local authority area under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the last five years.

  Alandia Stream
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the investigations to establish why the master of the Alandia Stream which broke down in the Fair Isle channel on 26 June delayed notifying the coastguard of his ship's condition. [94602]

  Mr. Hill
  The vessel when adrift, was never within six miles of the coast or within the designated six mile "area to be avoided" navigational zone around Fair Isle. The vessel fully complied with the MCA requirement to accept a tug and the Anglian Prince was despatched to the scene. A tow was accepted and the vessel taken to Sullom Voe, Shetland as a port of refuge, keeping outside of the "area to be avoided" as per MCA instructions.

  Following the Port State Control Inspection of the vessel at Sullom Voe, MCA investigated why six hours had elapsed before the tanker reported to the Coastguard that she was in difficulty.

  The Master's response was that he wished to check the problem to see if it could be fixed without assistance. He maintained that the vessel's drift was monitored carefully to ensure that the ship remained outside the area to be avoided.

  The MCA advised the Master that the UK Government expect to be immediately informed of any incident that affected the safety of vessels or possible endangerment to
  590
  reflecting turnover and movement within the stock. However, recent analysis of local authorities reporting problems with unpopular housing contained in the PAT 7 "Unpopular Housing" report shows that low demand neighbourhoods tend to have vacancies at three times the national level.

  A breakdown by length of time vacant is not collected centrally for all tenures. The available information is as follows:
  the environment even when assistance was not required. The MCA formed the opinion that the Finnish Master well understood the concerns of the UK authorities and would be more willing to keep the Coastguard informed of any future incidents.

  The MCA also contacted the Bahamas, the Flag State Administration, notifying them that we would have expected an earlier notification from the Master to the UK Coastguard. The Bahamas have agreed to follow this up with the Finnish owners of the vessel.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the key targets for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for 1999–2000. [94881]

  Mr. Hill
  I have today placed in the House Library a copy of the agency's business plan which includes its key targets for 1999–2000. The issue of the plan was delayed pending the publication of the Government's response to the Transport Select Committee's report on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which recommended de-merger. That response was published on 12 August.

  The key targets for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are:

  To complete: (a) at least 95 per cent. of the agreed programme of inspections, and (b) at least 90 per cent. of agreed key tasks.

  To decide on the search and rescue (SAR) response to accidents and life-threatening situations, and to initiate action if necessary, within 5 minutes of being alerted in at least 95 per cent. of cases.

  To follow up at least 95 per cent. of significant breaches of safety and environmental aspects of Merchant Shipping legislation to determine whether prosecution is appropriate.

  To implement the outcomes of the review of the organisation, operations and functions of MCA to be operational by 31 December 1999.

  Infrastructure Developments
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will
  591
  publish the Code of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major Infrastructure Developments; and if he will make a statement. [95071]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today published the Code of Practice and placed copies in the Library. The purpose of the code is to ensure that people are given as much information as possible at all stages of a development. It does, however, recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances where non-disclosure is justifiable, such as when issues of commercial confidentiality arise.

  The provision of a referee who can be approached by members of the public, if they believe that information, which should be forthcoming under the code, has not been provided, is a new element in the code.

  A key aspect of our proposals for modernising the planning system is to improve the handling of major infrastructure developments. The new code on the dissemination of information links the planning and implementation phases of such developments.

  We are currently analysing the responses to our consultation paper on proposals for streamlining the planning approval procedures for major developments. We are also conducting a fundamental review to improve the system of compulsory purchase and compensation, which are often important aspects of major development implementation.

  All Government Departments in England and their Agencies will follow the code. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly will be making their own arrangements. The code is also commended to local authorities and private sector developers who may be promoting major infrastructure developments.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further steps he is taking to prepare for the Greater London Authority. [95212]

  Mr. Hill
  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction, announced on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 398-99, that my Department had earmarked provision over the four years 1998–99 to 2001–02 to meet GLA preparation costs and that separate provision was being made to cover the costs of the first elections to the GLA, including publicity, and for establishing Transport for London and the London Development Agency. My Department has now earmarked £20.6 million from within existing budgets to cover these costs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Meetings (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings she held with members and officials of the United States Government during her visits to the United States on 22 to 24 June 1997 and 14 to 18 April 1998; and if she will list the date and location of each meeting and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93955]
  592
  Clare Short
  I visited New York from 22-24 June 1997 to attend the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the follow-up to the UN Conference on Environment and Development. I did not have any bilateral meetings with members and officials of the United States Government.

  On my visit to Washington from 14-18 April 1998, I had meetings with:

  Mr. Eisenstadt of the US State Department

  Mr. Atwood of USAID

  Mr. Schuerch of the US Treasury.

  Demining
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the expected expenditure by her Department on humanitarian demining for 2000 and 2001. [94666]

  Clare Short
  In 1997 I announced plans to double our annual expenditure on humanitarian mine action to reach £10 million in the financial year 2000–01. The programme is on track to meet this target.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 462, on Special Advisers, if she will list the countries to which her Special Advisers have travelled since 2 May 1997. [93911]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1997, Special Advisers from my Department travelled to the following countries on official business:

  Antigua

  Bangladesh

  Belgium

  Canada

  China

  France

  Hong Kong

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Nepal

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Vietnam

  West Bank and Gaza.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Health Act 1981
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy not to amend the arrangements his Department has for applying sections 40 to 49 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and any subordinate legislation made under the same sections of the Act; and if he will make a statement. [93213]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 July 1999]We have no plans for such amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the implementation of weapons decommissioning. [92978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are determined to see the Agreement implemented in full. We, along with the Irish Government, have appointed Senator Mitchell to review the points of difficulty: an inclusive Executive exercising devolved powers and decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons by May 2000 in a manner determined by the Decommissioning Commission. Senator Mitchell aims to conclude his review speedily.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. [92979]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been 298 prisoners who have been released from prison under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. This is drawn from information current at 13 October 1999.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Belfast agreement. [92981]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on the peace process. [92982]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress he has made towards establishing a power-sharing executive for Northern Ireland. [92986]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). 20 October 1999,Official Report, columns 424-26.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had with the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [92987]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Ministers continue to meet with members of the Irish Government on a regular basis to discuss matters relating to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and other areas of interest to the two Governments.

  Policing
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of officers in the RUC are(a) Catholics and (b) women; and if he will make a statement. [92984]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 1 July 1999 of the total number of people within the Royal Ulster Constabulary 8.35 per cent. were Catholics and 11.4 per cent. women.
  594
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Patten commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. [92990]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), 20 October 1999,Official Report, column 431.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Government have for lifelong learning in Northern Ireland. [92985]

  Mr. McFall
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), 20 October 1999,Official Report, column 428.

  Human Rights
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and if he will make a statement. [92988]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was established on 1 March this year. The Commission is required to produce an annual report under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Commission is an independent body and I have therefore asked the Chief Commissioner, Professor Dickson, to write to my hon. Friend to inform her of the Commission's progress since it was established and I shall place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Security
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to create a more normal security environment in Northern Ireland. [92989]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are committed to as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements, consistent with the level of threat.

  Since the Good Friday Agreement, routine military patrolling has been reduced by almost two thirds. Military installations have been closed and demolished. Since January, there have been under 15,000 service personnel on operational duties in Northern Ireland, except during short periods of heightened tension over the summer. This is fewer than at any time since 1970.

  Parades Commission
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent the Parades Commission has been able to achieve a local accommodation over the disputed parades this year. [92991]

  Mr. Ingram
  The role of the Parades Commission is to promote and facilitate local accommodation in relation to contentious parades. Where this cannot be achieved, the legislation requires the Commission to make a determination.
  595
  Since its establishment in 1997, the Parades Commission has carried out a unique and very important task in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. The relatively peaceful marching season was due in no small part to the Commission's efforts.

  Civic Forum
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made on the establishment of a civic forum in Northern Ireland. [92992]

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made on the establishment of a civic forum in Northern Ireland. [92995]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report identified the sectoral interests which should be represented and on 16 February 1999 the new Northern Ireland Assembly approved the report of the First and Deputy First Minister (designate) which included arrangements for a consultative civic forum guidelines which should be adhered to by nominating bodies. Work is ongoing to ensure the establishment of the forum within six months of devolution.

  Reconciliation
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to promote reconciliation in Northern Ireland among those whose family members or friends have been killed or injured in the past 30 years. [92993]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Government's Community Relations Programme and the European Union's Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, funding is provided to a wide range of groups which promote peace and reconciliation. These include groups working with victims, their families and friends.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to encourage inward investment in Northern Ireland. [92994]

  Mr. McFall
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, the agency charged with attracting inward investment, continues its aggressive marketing and sales campaigns worldwide. In particular, they are following up on last year's successful promotional tour of North America, a year in which I am delighted to say they have achieved a record number of new projects.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. [92996]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland was appointed on 2 August and took over the functions exercised by its predecessors on 596
  1 October. The commissioners have received training in their new role and are pressing ahead with the broadened equality agenda. The first formal meeting of the commission took place on 14 October 1999.

  Planning (Newtownards)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes are proposed in(a) those planning applications for which outline planning approval has been issued but construction has not commenced and (b) existing planning applications for which the planning decision has not yet been issued in the town of Newtownards. [92997]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is not readily available in the form requested; however, the planning service has recently carried out a detailed analysis of the housing land availability position in Newtownards. This assessment indicates that approximately 51 hectares of zoned land remains available for deployment, with the potential to accommodate some 850 dwellings. In addition, planning permission has been granted, or is currently pending, for some 360 dwellings on unzoned land within the development limits of the town.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further talks have taken place about preparations for a British-Irish Council. [92980]

  Mr. Mandelson
  All preparations are now in place for the British-Irish Council and the other institutions created by the Good Friday Agreement. The Council will be established immediately on entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement. This will coincide with the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Structural Funds
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he is having with industry and the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland on future EU structural funding. [92976]

  Mr. Ingram
  Representatives of industry and the voluntary sector are members of a core consultative group, established in July 1999, to enable local partners to be consulted on a regular basis regarding future EU funding. In addition, two major conferences have been organised involving many delegates from these sectors and they have also been invited to put forward their views in writing.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of illegal activities by paramilitary forces. [92983]

  Mr. Ingram
  The situation with regard to the activities of paramilitary groups is closely monitored.

  To date this year there have been seven deaths, 67 bombing incidents and 94 shooting incidents. Paramilitary attacks unfortunately also continue with 135 carried out so far this year.

  This level of violence is unacceptable. I call on the perpetrators to cease these activities forthwith.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1999,Official Report, column 339, on Child Benefit, when information by parliamentary constituency will become available; and if he will make a statement. [87864]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 28 June 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question pursuant to the answer of 9 June, Official Report, column 339, on Child Benefit, when information by parliamentary constituency will become available.
  Due to differing postcode formats used on the Child Benefit computer system and the Department's Analytical Services system, it has been difficult to derive accurate statistics by constituency. However, this is close to being resolved and I expect to be able to forward the figures to you by the end of August, once the necessary computer scans have been completed.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 May 1999,Official Report, column 187, on winter fuel allowance, if he will re-estimate the number of eligible pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham who will benefit from the winter fuel payments next winter. [94145]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 19 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question pursuant to his Answer of 26th May, Official Report, column 187, on winter fuel allowance, if he will re-estimate the number of eligible pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham who will benefit from the winter fuel payments (WFP) next winter.
  All eligible pensioner households will benefit from the WFP this winter. Pensioners, including pensioner couples who qualify by receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance which includes one of the pensioner premiums, and who are not permanently in residential care or a nursing home, will be entitled to £100. Eligible pensioners who live alone, or who are the only eligible pensioner in a household, will be entitled to £100. Other eligible pensioners will be entitled to £50.
  The estimated number of pensioners in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency who will benefit from WFP next winter remains the same as in the previous reply to the Minister of State's answer at column 187 of the Official Report. This information is based on the data held for last year's exercise. Of the estimated 57,000 pensioners who will benefit from WFP, approximately 28,000 will receive £100 payments. We are currently preparing the relevant computer systems for this winter's payments to ensure that all payments are made before Christmas.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in North Staffordshire are on incapacity benefit; of those who have been on this benefit for three years or more, how many have been called back on (i) a six-monthly basis, (ii) a 12-monthly basis and (iii) an 18-monthly basis; and with what results. [93659]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Whalley, dated 19 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in North Staffordshire are on Incapacity Benefit (IB); of those who have been on this benefit for three years or more, how many have been called back on (i) a six-monthly basis, (ii) a 12-monthly basis and (iii) an 18-monthly basis; and with what results.
  Information is recorded on the total number of constituents claiming IB at Hanley Benefit Office which covers the North Staffordshire area. The number of claimants receiving IB from Hanley Benefit Office is 25,940 and of these 15,160 have been receiving that benefit for three years or more.
  Statistical information on the timing of re-examination of claims is not maintained by the Benefits Agency. However, it is expected that on a national basis, 4% of claimants will be referred to Medical Services for the All Work Test on a three month basis. 16% every six months, 19% every 12 months and 8% every 18 months.
  I hope this information is helpful.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial and other assistance has been given to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy during 1998–99; what support the foundation received during 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for giving support to the foundation. [94543]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy received £3,136,970 from the Foreign Office in 1998–99 in Grant-in-Aid and special purpose grants, as well as a grant of £31,845 from DfID. For the current financial year the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been allocated £4 million in Grant-in-Aid and up to £244,000 for special projects from the FCO and £14,000 from DfID.

  In addition to financial assistance, an FCO official serves on the Foundations's Board of Governors in an advisory capacity.

  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy exists to promote democratic development worldwide. It has a proven track record in delivering high quality projects in support of democracy building around the world.

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how pay rates are set for locally engaged staff in overseas diplomatic missions; and what account is taken of recognised local poverty datum lines. [94162]
  599
  Mr. Battle
  Pay rates and other conditions of service for locally engaged staff are set by reference to comparable employers based locally. These comparators are usually drawn from other diplomatic missions, private companies, and the local Civil Service. UK missions are also required to follow the terms of local employment law, including legislation on national minimum wage levels.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Sierra Leone. [94876]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcomed the signature on 7 July of the Lome Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front. Our objective now is to help the Government and people of Sierra Leone to implement the peace agreement, and thus build a framework for lasting peace and security.

  We have implemented the £10 million package of assistance which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 2 March 1999. This has included: UK military advisers helping to train the new, democratically accountable Sierra Leone Army; a range of equipment for the new Army including uniforms, vehicles, and light weapons; logistical support and equipment for the ECOMOG peacekeeping forces; and support for civil society and Government participation in the negotiation of the peace agreement. The ECOWAS Secretariat confirmed that the weapons could be imported as an exemption to the ECOWAS Small Arms Moratorium; and the UN Sanctions Committee was notified of these exports. We are working with the United Nations to support the early deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to Sierra Leone.

  DfID and the MOD are also supporting a range of projects in Sierra Leone. We will take every opportunity, including at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of
  600
  Government meeting in Durban, to encourage further support for Sierra Leone from others in the international community.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish GCHQ's recruitment statistics for 1998 indicating the comparable figures for 1997. [94877]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ notified the Commissioners that as a result of recruitment schemes run in 1998, 182 individuals have joined the department or are awaiting completion of the recruitment process. The 1997 recruitment schemes yielded 236 new entrants. In addition, eight former members of staff were reappointed in 1998 compared with five in 1997.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the preparedness of other countries to deal with the millennium bug. [94878]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been actively gathering information about the preparedness of other countries to deal with the millennium bug. This information is being made publicly available on the FCO website at http://www.fco.gov.uk. So far, we have published information on 70 countries and these are continuously updated. More will follow soon. Copies of these statements have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  European Union Council
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union to the end of October together with the major European Union events for the next six months. [94879]

  Mr. Vaz
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  October 1999

  30 September-1 October

  Helsinki

  Ministerial Conference on Equality between Women and Men

  1

  Florence

  Trade Ministers (informal)

  4-5

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  4-5

  Tampere

  Regional Policy Ministers

  4-8

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  6

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  11-12

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  15-16

  Tampere

  Special European Council

  18-19

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Labour/Social Affairs Council

  24-25

  Helsinki

  Energy Ministers Task Force Meeting

  25-29

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  26

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  28

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  601

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  November 1999

  3-4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Consumer Affairs Council

  9

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  11

  Brussels

  Development Council

  11

  Brussels

  Standing Committee Employment

  12

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  11-12

  Helsinki

  Ministerial Conference on the Northern Dimension

  15-16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15-16

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15-19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EEA Council

  18

  Brussels

  Health Council

  22

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  22-23

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting (possible)

  23

  Brussels

  Culture/Audiovisual Council

  23

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  25-26

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  26

  Brussels

  Education Council

  29

  Brussels

  ECOFIN/Labour and Social Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  December 1999

  1-2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  2

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  2

  Brussels

  Research Council

  2-3

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  6-7

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  7

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9-10

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  10-11

  Helsinki

  European Council

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  13-14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  13-17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14-15

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14-16

  Brussels

  Ministerial Conference on following of progress on UN Beijing Platform for Action

  16-17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  16-17

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Council (possible)

  January 2000

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  24-25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24-25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28-29

  Lisbon

  Development Council (informal)

  31

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  February 2000

  11-12

  Lisbon

  Social Affairs Council (informal)

  14-15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21-22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  March 2000

  3-4

  Lisbon

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (informal)

  9

  Brussels

  European Conference

  13

  Brussels

  Social Affairs/ECOFIN Council

  16

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  20-21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20-21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23-24

  Lisbon

  European Council

  27

  Brussels

  JHA Council

  28

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  30

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council. [94880]
  602
  Mr. Vaz
  The GAC adopted the A points listed in document 11573/99 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its session of 13-17 September listed in document 10352/1/99. Copies of the documents listing the A points
  603
  and resolutions will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

  Preparation of Tampere European Council
  The Presidency briefed the GAC on Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen's tour of capitals. The traditional letter of invitation to Tampere would issue very shortly. The Presidency also briefly mentioned external aspects of Justice and Home Affairs co-operation, in the context of preparation for Tampere. There was no discussion.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  After a very brief discussion, the Presidency concluded that there was agreement on their proposals for the composition and rules of procedure of the body responsible for preparing the first draft of the Charter.

  ESDP Military and Non-Military Crisis Management: Preparation in View of the European Council in Helsinki
  The Presidency briefed Ministers on work underway on European defence.

  Earthquake in Greece
  The Greek Foreign Minister reported to the Council on the extensive damage caused by the earthquake in Athens on 7 September. The Council encouraged the Commission to examine all possible ways of assisting Greece, making full use of the possibilities offered under the structural funds, on the basis of a specific evaluation of the damage.

  Northern Caucasus/Chechnya,
  Ministers expressed their strong concern at the deteriorating human rights situation in Chechnya and at the risks of the conflict spreading. They supported the Commission package of 1.2 million euro of humanitarian aid.

  Western Balkans
  The Council agreed the Commission's proposal for a pilot of the "Energy for Democracy" programme in Serbia, which will supply heating oil and diesel to the towns of Nis and Pirot, where opposition parties run the local administration. The Council discussed the possibility of lifting the flight ban on Serbia, but no consensus was reached.
  The Council welcomed initiatives proposed by the UK on tackling organised crime in Kosovo. The Council asked the Commission and other relevant bodies to come up with proposals. Foreign Ministers will discuss the issue further when they meet at the Tampere Special European Council.

  Burma
  Foreign Ministers expressed their concern at the lack of progress on human rights in Burma. Ministers offered their full support for the forthcoming mission of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Burma and hoped that it would lead to an improvement in human rights and the promotion of democracy. The Council extended the EU's Common Position on Burma for a further six months, agreeing to review it after Mr. de Soto's mission.

  EU Code of Conduct on Arms Export
  The GAC approved the first consolidated report on the operation of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports and agreed to publish the report in the Official Journal. The report summarises actions taken by member states to implement the provisions of the Code and outlines priorities for future action.

  East Timor
  Foreign Ministers welcomed the deployment of the International Force in East Timor. The Commission announced its intention to provide further EC funds for the UN Mission in East Timor and for the eventual UN Transitional Authority in East Timor.
  604
  Preparation for Seattle Ministerial
  The GAC continued to discuss the EU's approach to the negotiations on a new multilateral trade round. They confirmed the EU's strong support for a comprehensive round to be launched at the WTO Ministerial conference in Seattle (30 November-3 December).
  Foreign Ministers had lunch with the Israeli Foreign Minister, David Levy. Mr. Levy stressed the Israeli government's commitment to the Middle East Peace Process, and the importance of restarting all tracks of the Process. He called for strengthened links between the EU and Israel. The GAC welcomed EU Special Envoy Moratinos' initiative for an 'EU-Israel Forum'.

  Meeting with Serb Opposition leaders
  The GAC met with representatives of democratic forces in the FRY. Foreign Ministers underlined the EU's readiness to support the people of the FRY in their efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the development of good regional and international relations.

  Co-operation Councils with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
  The first ever Co-operation Councils with the three South Caucasus states took place on 12 October. Discussion covered political co-operation, trade and investment, democracy and human rights and co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra(a) radiographers and (b) oncologists he plans to recruit in each NHS region by April 2000 to implement his proposal that no cancer patient referred by a GP should wait more than two weeks. [94022]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for individual National Health Service trusts and health authorities to determine the number, grade and mix of staff they will require to deliver services. An additional £10 million has been made available to facilitate the two-week all cancers waiting time standard.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93974]

  Ms Stuart
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will incorporate total and classification group average figures for each of the tables listed in the high level performance indicator set for next year; and if he will make a statement. [94062]
  605
  Mr. Denham
  The high level performance indicator set supports a comprehensive assessment of the performance of the National Health Service across the range of its activity, including services that are provided alongside social services. The current set was the first to be published and we are committed to making improvements over time. The Department is currently reviewing the content and presentation of figures for the next publication of performance indicators.

  NICE
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs of establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [93918]

  Mr. Denham
  The cost of establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was in the region of £734,000.

  This figure includes accommodation costs for the Institute, costs of recruiting staff for the Institute and staffing costs of officials in the Department.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what constraints the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be able to place upon a clinician's ability to prescribe. [93874]

  Mr. Denham
  Clinicians are expected to take National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment. Such guidance represents the views of an eminent body of senior practitioners who have had the opportunity of carefully considering the available evidence. However, NICE guidance does not override a doctor's individual responsibility to exercise his or her clinical judgment in determining what treatment is appropriate and necessary for a patient.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when information regarding maximum and minimum per capita management allowances for 1999–2000 payable to primary care groups in England will be available. [93870]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is currently being collected and validated. Full details will be published as soon as possible.

  Health Professions Regulatory Body
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will bring forward regulations to govern professions allied to medicine; and if a period of consultation will precede them. [93909]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health Act 1999 provides for the replacement of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 by an Order and the eventual repeal of the 1960 Act when replacement arrangements are in place. We are committed to full and wide ranging consultation on the proposals for new legislation as well as the three month statutory consultation on the draft Order, with a Report to Parliament on the outcome, when the Order is laid.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding loss of clinical freedom by clinicians consequent upon the establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement; and if he will make a statement. [93921]

  Mr. Denham
  The aim of the Commission for Health Improvement was clearly set out in the consultation document "A First Class Service" (July 1999). This was to work with clinicians to assure, monitor and improve the quality of care provided by the NHS. Clinicians will remain responsible for their clinical judgment in relation to individual patients, although they will be expected to take account of national clinical guidance and of the evidence on which it is based.

  Most responses to "A First Class Service" were supportive of the proposals for the Commission for Health Improvement and the Government's quality strategy as a whole.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made regarding the additional manpower required for the Commission for Health Improvement. [93920]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commission will be an independent body and it will therefore be for the Commission itself to decide its manpower requirements. In doing so, it will need to be aware of its duty to carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the powers of the Commission for Health Improvement to criticise individual doctors. [93922]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not the aim of the Commission for Health Improvement to assess or publicise the performance of individual clinicians. The Commission will look at organisational systems to assure and improve the quality of services.

  The Commission's powers to disclose confidential information about individuals is strictly limited in the Health Act 1999. In line with these restrictions, if the Commission does find evidence of individual poor performance it will draw this to the attention of the employing organisation for them to take action. It may also, if appropriate, draw this to the attention of the professional regulatory body concerned.

  NICE/CHIMP Running Costs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual running costs of(a) the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and (b) the Commission for Health Improvement. [93919]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's total budget is £9.8 million. NICE will determine its own running costs. However, we expect them to maintain their running costs at a reasonable level to ensure that as much funding as possible is made available for its work programme.

  The Explanatory Notes for the Health Act 1999 cited the estimated annual running costs for the Commission for Health Improvement for 2000–01 at around £7 million.

  Staff Shortages Survey
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the findings of his staff shortages survey will be published. [93876]

  Mr. Denham
  The results of the recruitment, retention and vacancies survey were published on 10 September and have been placed in the Library.

  Drug Prices
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the change in the number of category D entries appearing in the Drug Tariff published by The Stationery Office each month since February. [93878]

  Mr. Hutton
  Drugs are added to Category D of Part VIII of the Drug Tariff when community pharmacies are having difficulty obtaining supplies of generic drugs at Drug Tariff price. The closure of a significant manufacturer of generics last December, combined with the relocation of some manufacturing facilities at the beginning of the year, and the transfer of products from bulk to smaller packs has meant that a wider range of products than normal have been in short supply, and hence an unusually large number of products have been included in Category D.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates Special Advisers from his Department have visited the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997; which of his Special Advisers took part in each visit; and if he will list the meetings which these Special Advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit, specifying the date and location of each meeting and the names of the US members and officials at each meeting. [93945]
  608
  Ms Stuart
  Between 1 May 1997 and 18 October 1999, the Special Advisers to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have visited the United States of America on two occasions in an official capacity as listed.

  Date: 4-7 February 1998

  Destination: Washington DC

  Special adviser: Simon Stevens.

  Accompanying my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to meeting with President Clinton.

  Date: 21-23 October 1998

  Destination: Washington DC

  Special adviser: Simon Stevens.

  Accompanying my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the International Health Policy meeting and meeting with the Secretary for Health and Human Services.

  All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the findings of the inquiry into the level of provision of beds in NHS hospitals; and if he will make statement. [94794]

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 October. [94071]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.

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.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland
Catherine Margaret Ashton, having been created Baroness Aston of Upholland, of St. Albans in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Levy and the Baroness Thornton.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Genista Mary McIntosh, having been created Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Puttnam.
The Earl of Guilford The Earl of Guilford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Kemsley Viscount Kemsley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
Lord Ebury Lord Ebury—Took the Oath.

NATO and the UN
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the event of a difference of view between NATO, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, which body is the supreme authority, and on what basis Her Majesty's Government would make a decision as to military action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, NATO and the United Nations are not competing organisations; nor are they part of an international hierarchy. Within the United Nations, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and resolutions of the council, taken under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, can have legally binding effect. Any decision to take military action will be based on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that in recent experience there has been some confusion on that
1092
point? One wonders whether the question of where the particular responsibilities lie should not be more closely defined. Does my noble friend agree that a result of that confusion was that NATO took a leading role in the recent intervention in Yugoslavia, which will increasingly be perceived as mistaken, and ultimately shameful?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. It has been said in this House on a number of occasions that all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to remain silent. Her Majesty's Government were not silent; neither were the 18 democratic countries which joined with us to address the tragedy happening in Kosovo.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I appreciate that this is not an easy question to answer, so I have given the Minister notice of it. During our debate on Friday, the Minister told the House that,
"The old ways of settling conflicts without resolving the underlying causes are no longer tenable".—[ official Report, 15/10/99; col. 731.]
She also spoke of the need for a new model to settle conflicts in our increasingly interdependent world. Will she take the opportunity today to define the Government's vision for that new model in the specific context of the authority of NATO, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said on Friday, the world is faced with a new challenge: with intra-state conflict more than inter-state conflict. To that end, there is now a vigorous debate at the UN to try to decide how best to address that issue in terms of humanitarian intervention. I can give the noble Lord only a very general answer, but I shall be happy to write to him more specifically if and when there are greater details than I am able to reveal now.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with all those considerations in mind, can the Government give the House an assurance that the position of the United Kingdom in the Security Council will remain undisturbed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can.

Mental Health Care: GP Training
2.53 p.m.
Lord Laming Lord Laming asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to improve the training of general practitioners in response to the growing number of patients with mental health problems who consult them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, appropriate training is currently available for all general practitioners to help them meet the mental health needs of their patients. In addition, we are

1093
introducing a modernised system of GP training early next year which will ensure that all trainee general practitioners receive an educational needs assessment at the beginning of their general practice training. That will ensure that a range of appropriate experiences will be on offer.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend most warmly on his appointment as Minister. I feel sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will feel that this promotion is well-deserved, and we wish him well.
Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people who experience mental health problems are now cared for by the primary care teams? Is he aware of the recently published survey initiated by the Mental After Care Association which indicates that GPs spend as much as 30 per cent of their time on mental health problems, and yet many of them feel ill-equipped to deal with that work, especially when it is complicated by a greater misuse of drugs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. Of course, he is right. Most mental health problems are dealt with by primary care: by GPs, by other support staff and by community psychiatric nurses. I believe that the survey which he mentioned is important and it is one that we are considering very carefully. However, I am satisfied that the appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure the training of GPs to undertake this role, both at undergraduate level in training to be a GP and in the crucially important area of continuing professional development once they have become GPs.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned the survey of the Mental After Care Association which did, indeed, raise some worrying issues about the training of GPs. In the light of that survey, have the Minister and his department made an assessment of the implications of Professor Graham Thorneycroft's national service framework proposal? In particular, have they considered what further resources in terms of training and recruitment will be required? Will the £700 million over three years promised by the Government be adequate? In addition, will sufficient community psychiatric nurses be available in the light of the current major shortages? Do the Government have accurate figures in that respect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord. We are not aware of any particular problems in relation to community psychiatric nurses. However, a survey is being undertaken at the moment and we hope to have the interim results by March 2000. I believe that it is worth making the point that community psychiatric nurses play a very important leadership role. It is an attractive role which is very
1094
helpful in relation to future recruitment. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the £700 million extra resources which we are putting into the health service over the next three years for mental health services. That will undoubtedly help to underpin the development of a national service framework, which in itself will underpin the integration of both primary and specialist services.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as a former general practitioner, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the relevance of his Question. It is not only a question of knowledge per se but of attitude. Like many of us, some doctors find emotional problems difficult to handle as well as extremely time-consuming. Therefore, is not a team approach, as was mentioned earlier, the most suitable way to handle such problems? A general practitioner should be able accurately to spot a problem and then refer the patient to another member of the team, such as might be done, for example, in a primary care group. Is my noble friend aware of the very good work that is being done by the Royal College of General Practitioners' primary care mental health education unit and also in conjunction with the Royal College of Psychiatrists?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I agree with my noble friend that the Royal College of General Practitioners has done sterling work over 40 years in helping to drive up the quality of primary care services and particularly the work of general practitioners. Of course, some people who have mental health problems present major challenges to GPs. It is important that we have the right structure to enable the service to deal with those effectively. That is what the national service framework is about. It recognises the pivotal role of primary care and that GPs and support workers, whom my noble friend mentioned, have a major role to play. But it also develops protocols for the effective referral of people with severe mental health problems to specialist services, and it enables specialist services to provide support and advice to general practitioners in their general work.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some health districts mental health teams go from hospitals into GP practices or other health services in order to work together with the GPs? That supports the GPs and they learn on the job. Is the Minister aware that that happens in the Yorkshire Dales?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if I was not aware, I certainly am now. I am very glad to hear it. One can develop effective services in a whole range of ways. The working together of different sectors of the health service and the seconding of mental health service to primary care are important examples. Primary care groups enable GPs collectively to commission the provision of such services. They will be able to set the quality and agree on the kind of staff

1095
that they want to help them. As a result of using that method I am sure that we shall see a much more effective and integrated service in the future.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister realise that people who are treated for mental illness are not first screened to see whether their symptoms are the result of a physical condition or imbalance, particularly a nutritional imbalance? Does he believe that that screening is essential? Why does it not happen? Surely, that is more important than training doctors as psychiatrists. We need to train doctors to be better doctors.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord always puts an interesting point of view. I have no doubt that when a GP carries out an initial assessment of a patient it is important that he has the right tools to be able to do so effectively. It is well known that patients sometimes present themselves to GPs with physical ailments when in fact ailments of the mind are the problem. The effort being undertaken, particularly into continued professional development for GPs, will enable us to address many such issues and ensure that GPs are kept up to date with developments, whether they are newly qualified or have been in practice for 30 years.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether GPs have enough counsellors to help them deal with patients with mental health problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right to point to the value of counsellors, as other noble Lords have pointed to the value of community psychiatric nurses. There is no doubt that professional counsellors who have been well trained can provide an effective service within the GP setting. I believe that the work we are undertaking in developing a national service framework will enable us to quantify better whether there are enough counsellors. I also believe that primary care groups will be in a better position to commission those services and to enable there to be a balance of people available throughout the GP practices within the primary care group.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several charities have extremely extensive lists that could be useful to GPs. I refer particularly to SANE Line—I declare an interest as a director of SANE—which has a list that could be used by GPs for every circumstance that we are talking about today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of SANE and indeed to the noble Lord and his interest in this subject. When talking about support staff and the availability of support to primary care it is important to remember that the voluntary sector has a crucial role to play.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that much mental illness is successfully treated by natural
1096
and complementary methods of medicine? Will the Minister confirm that it is essential that there should be adequate training for doctors in such forms of medicine in the undergraduate curriculum?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the evidence is that medical practitioners increasingly are prepared to look at the opportunities that effective complementary medicine has to offer.

Kosovo Liberation Army
3.3 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of proposals to legitimate the former Kosovo Liberation Army and to make it the national army of Kosovo.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would not support any plans to perpetuate the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). We support the international community's efforts to demilitarise and transform the KLA. Part of that process is the establishment of the Kosovo Protection Corps. That will be a civilian emergency service agency, run by the UN Mission in Kosovo and supervised by KFOR. It will have no role in law enforcement. It is not an army-in-waiting or a national guard for Kosovo.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, although it is reassuring to hear that the protection force will come into being, will it be large enough, firm enough, mobile enough and so on to cope with a KLA which has now declared itself to be the national provisional government? The KLA is taking over towns and villages and expelling Serbs, gypsies and almost everybody else, which was not the idea when we took its part in the first place.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's description of what is happening at the moment in Kosovo. It is clear that there is a real need to restore civil society. The KPC is an agency that will be used for that purpose. Few people believe that this is an easy challenge to overcome, but the KPC will make a considerable contribution to it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that a police force is being trained in Kosovo? Can she also say whether that police force will include Serbs and Albanians who will be trained to work together?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that. It is extremely important that any reconstruction programme involves all parts of the Kosovan community. Part of our hope and aspiration is that we shall find a medium through which all participants can play a part.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply, but can she say a little mare about the areas of Kosovo where the KLA has played a part

1097
in the driving out of some minority groups? There is some concern in the House, in particular about what has happened to Romanis and to Serbs who still live in Kosovo.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have specific details in relation to that matter today. However, I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to answer her question.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that there is no question of revising or annulling the Security Council's resolution which required the demilitarisation of the KLA?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Absolutely, my Lords. The KLA has complied with all the conditions that have been laid on it. Of course, we cannot guarantee that absolutely every cache of arms has been discovered or disclosed because extremists will always find a way. However, we can assure the House that the KLA has complied with all the conditions that have been set.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report from the Macedonian news agency that Albania is to open an embassy in Kosovo? Does she think that that will help or hinder a peaceful settlement?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must confess that I am not directly aware of that. However, one can see that any rapprochement should be encouraged.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the internal security force will be accountable to the UN administration. Does she not agree that any security arrangements, internal or external, should be accountable as soon as possible to political institutions within Kosovo and to the Kosovar people themselves? Can she assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to promote the circumstances in which genuine, free elections can take place in Kosovo before long?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the House that all the efforts of the international community are directed towards re-establishing civil society in an appropriately cohesive way in Kosovo and maintaining the instruments of good government.

Scotland v. England Soccer Arrangements
3.10 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What special consultations and measures they plan to ensure that the Euro 2000 games between Scotland and England in Glasgow and London in November are both safe and successful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am taking a close interest in the arrangements. All
1098
agencies associated with them will be in close contact during the build-up to the matches. They include the respective football associations and the Metropolitan, Strathclyde and British Transport police forces and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The aim throughout will be to ensure that spectators can enjoy both matches in a safe and secure environment as they did when the two teams met at Wembley during Euro 96.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those details. However, does he agree that the eyes of the world will be on those two games and that if things went badly wrong our chances of staging the World Cup in 2006 or the Olympic Games in 2012 would be severely damaged? In those circumstances, might it be a good idea to call together sports editors, particularly those of the so-called "red tops" in both England and Scotland and suggest that they do not spend between now and the games whipping up the kind of hostilities and hatred which could well bring about hooliganism and which undoubtedly they would all condemn the day after it occurred?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It would be much better if the press and media generally spent time focusing on the games. If we have a message to deliver to the editors today it is that we want them to encourage responsible behaviour by spectators. We want them to encourage passion, pride and perhaps some patriotism but more than anything else we want them to encourage the good behaviour of all involved.
I do not see it as inevitable that there should be bad behaviour at either of those games or the events surrounding them. Members of your Lordships' House will want to encourage good behaviour and we must do all we can in our communications to ensure that that is the case. I am sure that all those on the "terraces" opposite and the "terraces" behind will do their best to whip up the right fervour and enthusiasm.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in view of the exceptionally high international profile of the two matches, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, set out, will the Government assist the football authorities financially with the policing and security of the matches, or charge them a large sum of money?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is our belief that the football authorities are well resourced to meet the expectations of the public which are quite rightly placed upon them. I am sure that with our active encouragement they will do the job in hand.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Government's Football Task Force. Does my noble friend agree with me that to talk of racism in the context of ticket application arrangements in relation to these two matches is both unhelpful and nonsensical? Indeed, it undermines the efforts that serious people in football are making to kick racism out of the game. In view of

1099
the fact that it is a legal requirement on both Scottish and English authorities to segregate fans at both games, should we not be applauding their efforts to keep the fans apart through segregation rather than belittle them in the way that the tabloid newspapers and others have done?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. We do not want to trivialise matters. We believe that segregation is right at football matches. We do not believe that the arrangements that have been made in any way, shape or form breach the Race Relations Act, although the matter is one for the Commission for Racial Equality. It has been referred to them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the best way to keep order at football matches is to keep down the amount of drink consumed before and during the game?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a well known fact that there is an association between the consumption of alcohol and occasional outbreaks of disorder surrounding football matches. We can achieve much by encouragement and that is what we shall attempt to do in this instance.
Lord Peston: My Lords, since safety is alluded to in the Question, can my noble friend say who is responsible for explaining to the two teams what the role of the spherical object placed in the middle of the pitch is? Who can explain that that is what is meant to be kicked rather than members of the other side?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am beginning to feel like a referee. My noble friend is right. It is the round object in which we should be most interested and getting it into the right net, whether one is a Scotland or an England fan. Let us hope that the correct outcome on the day comes to pass. However, footballers in general have an important role to play in setting a good example. I hope that all of those who play association football between now and the next two England-Scotland matches bear that very much in mind. Their behaviour on the pitch reflects the behaviour of the fans and colours the flavour of the game. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage good behaviour among football players and football fans alike.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I greatly welcome the spirit and the content of the Minister's answers today. My initial Question referred to the role of the print media. But many of the target audience—the young audience—watch programmes like "Soccer AM", and "Match of the Day" and listen to Radio 5. Would it not be beneficial to encourage the television and broadcasting authorities to join, as he suggested, in getting the message over that hooliganism is stupid and that all true fans of football should disown the hooligans?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case. My 10-year old son reminds me of that each and every
1100
week when he listens to, and watches, various programmes and hears the messages that go out to football fans countrywide. We recently introduced the new legislation relating to football offences. I am pleased to say that that legislation received widespread publicity. Indeed, I have received complaints to that effect from fans throughout the country who read my article in their local football magazine, so I know it to be true.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, folio wing the question relating to alcohol, would it not be possible to shut the pubs in the vicinity and give the publicans a free ticket to the match?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am rapidly becoming responsible for a whole range of new policy. I am not sure that this is quite within my remit.
All noble Lords will appreciate that matters relating to the consumption of alcohol, the opening times of pubs and so forth are operational issues. The issue is one on which the police, football authorities, local authorities and all others concerned keep a careful eye in assessing the risk of the outbreak of disorder. It is an important message and it has been conveyed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the procedure for the two Motions on hybridity which are the next two Motions on the Order Paper. It has been agreed among the usual channels and the movers of the two Motions that the Motion in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will be debated together this afternoon.
It may be convenient for the House if I outline the procedure to be followed when dealing with a joint debate of this nature. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will move his Motion. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, will then speak to his Motion. A debate will then take place jointly on the two Motions. Any noble Lord who wishes to speak on either Motion should do so at that point. The two Motions will be disposed of separately, with that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, coming first. There will then be no need for further debate before the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is taken. I hope that clarifies the procedure.

House of Lords Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose rose to move, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners in respect of Clause 1.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, we have lived with this Bill on and off for a great many months, but for all the simplicity of which the Government were so proud when it was introduced, it can take some time to consider all the possible implications.
My Motion is that the Bill is hybrid in respect of Clause 1, because that is where the Government attempt to create separate classes within the Peers who sit in Parliament. At various other points in the Bill there are other issues which affect the private rights of Members within that class, so the Bill as drafted does not seem to me to answer all the points that are required if it is to avoid this further scrutiny.
Your Lordships will by now be aware of the opinion of Mr Leolin Price QC which has been placed in the Library, supporting this view. I have also heard an opinion from Mr John Lofthouse to the same effect. I hardly need to remind your Lordships that the definition of hybridity that is contained in Erskine May is that hybrid Bills are public Bills which are considered to affect specific private interests in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same category. The hybrid procedure is designed to protect private interests from unfair invasion or restriction by legislation passed by the legislature at the behest of the Government or the Executive; that is to say, public Bills—this is a public Bill.
The words of that ruling are those of Mr Speaker Hylton-Foster, given during the proceedings on the Bill for the London Government Act 1963 in the course of a debate in another place. He accepted that the test for deciding whether to refer the Bill to the Examiners was that,
"if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]
I suggest that that is the test for this House today: not to make a decision on whether the Bill is hybrid, but to decide if it is beyond doubt not hybrid.
Perhaps the clearest guide on this subject can be found in the report of the Examiners on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. The Examiners noted with palpable regret the erosion of the test for hybridity, which took place due to rulings from other Speakers, but still applied it. The eroded practice allows the Government to choose their own class and, so long as they keep all who are in that class in the Bill and put no one from outside the class into the Bill, they will steer clear of hybridity.
Applying that test, I look at the Bill and it may be prima facie hybrid for two reasons. The Bill in its preamble—and, again, in Clause 1—adopts the expression of "membership of the House of Lords". In the Committee for Privileges on Monday and Tuesday, the Government explained to us, with great patience and perspicacity, that the reason that we are all here is the on-going effect of our Writ of Summons. In that committee, we even heard the assertion by Anson that, in answering a Writ of Summons and in taking a seat, every peerage is perfected.
It has probably not escaped your Lordships that these Writs of Summons, apart from the phrase of nomenclature, are the same and ask for the fulfilment of the same duties and responsibilities, irrespective of the reason or route by which the right to receive the
1102
Writ has been achieved. All, instead of just being Peers of the Realm, become Lords of Parliament. This Bill, by wishing to deal with membership of the House of Lords, is dealing with Lords of Parliament, including all the rights and privileges that evolve therefrom.
We are all well aware that from the earliest times in Parliament all Peers are equal. I have had my attention drawn to a statement by the 17th century lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, reiterating that,
"in the judgment of law any of the … degrees of nobility are peers one with another".
I should like to ask the Examiners to consider that a distinction made between Lords of Parliament during the currency of their Writs of Summons is a condition that is not germane to the Bill. This is not to say that the Government can never consider any distinction between Peers because, on the expiry of the Writ of Summons, we all revert to the class of peerage with which we have been endowed.
The other point on which some hybridity might occur is on the question of the inclusion of the titles of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and of the noble Earl, Lord Chester. Those two titles are not hereditary titles; they are titles that are given for life. If the Government wish by such a clause to include His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the noble Earl, Lord Chester, it is surely possible that they could then include anyone and make the Bill even more hybrid.
I turn now to the question of private interests. I do not need to detain your Lordships for long because during the Committee stage of the Bill I brought forward an amendment relating to the Lord High Constable of Scotland. I then received letters from the Clerk to the Public Bill office telling me that to introduce an element like this would render the Bill hybrid. Therefore, I take it that the Clerks have ruled that there are private interests involved.
There is one specific element relating to private interests about which I think your Lordships should be aware. By removing Peers from this House at the time of the passage of this Bill, anyone so removed will then lose his or her right to vote in elections until the next register comes into force. The question may seem slightly academic until we consider the fact that we are now facing a by-election in South Kensington and this might affect the rights of several Peers in that regard.
In raising these matters before the House, I am not seeking to be difficult or obstructive. One of the prime duties of this House, as recognised in the Government's White Paper, is that this House has an obligation to review and amend ill considered and badly drafted legislation.
This Bill is one of the most fundamental innovations that has been seen in our constitution for some time. We are all responsible for seeing that it falls within the structure of our historical constitutional processes. If there are any errors or anomalies, it is best for them to be considered now rather than left to litigation after the Bill has become law.
I am merely pointing out that starting from the original Bill, as first presented to this House, there was bound to be an element of hybridity for consideration. I do so supported by expert and constitutional opinion. Therefore, under the rules of the House, the Bill must be referred to the Examiners.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to the Examiners in respect of Clause 1.—(The Duke of Montrose.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in this Motion.
Leading counsel, Leolin Price QC, advises me that the Writ of Summons received by an elected Member of Parliament assures that person of certain "private rights"; namely, to attend, speak and vote in the House of Commons. Our Writ of Summons assures us of the same private rights and this statement has no effect on the findings of the Committee for Privileges which ruled on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Hybridity is concerned with making, in a public Bill, a distinction between the manner in which the Bill affects the private interests of one or more members of a class and the manner in which it affects the private interests of other persons in the same class. I shall be concentrating on further anomalies which render the Bill hybrid, by which it must be referred to the Examiners.
As your Lordships will see, Clause 5 introduces on to the face of the Bill provisions to allow for separate voting rights to be introduced for certain life Peers in the event of a Bill being presented to Parliament extending the duration of Parliament beyond five years. This is fundamentally a hybrid clause. Those Peers who are summoned to this House during the same Parliament which considers measures of extension of the duration of a Parliament will be prevented from voting on this Bill. This is quite clearly applying different treatment to some Peers within the same category when exercising their rights as Peers to vote in this House. On that ground alone, the Bill is hybrid and must be referred to the Examiners.
I would add my concern, and, I hope, the concern of all parliamentarians, about the general principle of changing a fundamental cornerstone of the constitutional arrangements of this country through the mechanism of this Bill. The inclusion of Clause 5 is a classic example of provisions rushed into a Bill without sufficient thought as to their consequences. Clause 5 will, if passed, bring on to the statute book some of the most radical changes to the constitution of the United Kingdom.
It is wholly misguided for such an important safeguard to be placed upon the statute book with so little thought, discussion and consultation as to its consequences. If any constitutional safeguards require further contemplation by wiser counsel, they are those measures which prevent the abuse of Parliament and the potential prevention of the right of the electorate to choose by whom and how it is governed. This clause
1104
is one such measure. These rights should not be dealt with in such a peremptory manner. I submit to your Lordships that such a measure should better be considered by the Royal Commission, rather than rushed through in a vehicle such as this Bill.
I turn to Clause 2(1) and 2(2). There is further introduction of hybridity into the Bill under these clauses. The hereditary Peers form part of the category or class of Peers as explained by the noble Duke. The hereditary Peers are affected by this Bill in that the Bill distinguishes the rights of some 90 hereditary Peers from the other hereditary Peers. Those 90 will retain their private rights to receive a Writ of Summons to sit, attend and vote in the House of Lords. The remainder of the hereditary Peers expelled from the House will have such rights removed. There is no way that those who have drafted this Bill can include these distinctions within the Bill without rendering it hybrid. There is therefore a clear difference in the way in which certain members of the hereditary peerage are treated from all other Peers. This renders the Bill hybrid.
The Bill goes on further to distinguish the rights of two hereditary Peers, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, as hereditary Earl Marshal of England, and the noble Marquess, Lord Cholmondeley, as hereditary successor to the position of Lord Great Chamberlain. The fact that these two Peers are clearly identified in the Bill as receiving completely different treatment, by virtue of their hereditary status, from the other 90 Peers who will be selected by other means, such as that of election, makes the Bill hybrid.
The argument that the Bill distinguishes the offices, rather than the holders of the office, does not apply. The title Earl Marshal of England is hereditary to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, just as are all his other titles, Arundel for one. The position of Lord Great Chamberlain, while not a hereditary title limited to one Peer, like that of the Earl Marshal, passes nevertheless between three hereditary Peers: the Marquess of Cholmondeley, the Marquess of Lincolnshire and the Earl of Ancaster, who succeed to it in turn by virtue of their hereditary titles alone.
By including these two Peers the Bill cannot avoid treating two Peers within the category of hereditary Peers in a different manner from the rest of the hereditary Peers in three ways. First, they are different from the 90 Peers who retain their place in the House of Lords by other means, such as election. Secondly, they are different from the 90 Peers who will retain their rights as hereditary Peers only for the interim period until phase two of the reform of the House of Lords is introduced. Thirdly, they are different from all the hereditary Peers, as they are retaining their rights as hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords, to receive a Summons and to debate and vote in the House by virtue of their position as hereditary Peers, while the Bill seeks to remove such rights from all other members of that category.
Further, the House should note that there are no provisions in the Bill to allow the holders of the great offices of state of Scotland—we have heard this from his grace the Duke—to be treated in a similar fashion

1105
to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. They are left among the broad mass of hereditary Peers either to be included among the 90 or among the remainder of the hereditary Peers expelled by this Bill. This omission introduces differences between the methods in which some holders of the great offices of state who hold duties to the House of Lords are to be treated, and thus, on its own, renders the Bill hybrid.
The Scottish offices relate to duties to the House of Lords as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. These duties do not arise out of their relationship to Westminster; nor do they refer to the Scottish Parliament currently in Edinburgh. The legal position is such that, if Parliament were to be summoned to sit in Scotland, the duties to the House of Lords summoned there would be carried out by those who hold the offices of state in Scotland, such as the Lord High Constable of Scotland, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. They would not be carried out by the Earl Marshal or the Lord Great Chamberlain. There must be reflection of this within the Bill. The fact that there is not renders the Bill hybrid.
Your Lordships' House will also be aware that the Clerks considered amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which introduced a specific allocation of Peers relative to different parties within the House. They found that this affected the private interests of some hereditary Peers and advised that the Examiners would have to consider the Bill in the light of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, withdrew the amendment so it has not had to be referred to the Examiners, but, in the light of such a finding, it is clear that the effect of the clauses which I have mentioned is to render the Bill similarly hybrid.
I turn to Clause 7. If the argument is raised that certain elements of the Bill's hybridity can be drained away by providing that the identification of those treated differently—that is to say, the 90 Peers and the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain—be made by statutory instrument or some other device, I would submit to your Lordships that, first, the statutory instrument is itself a form of legislation and is therefore subject to the rule of hybridity. Secondly, it is not possible to change the character of a Bill by an instrument which is not legislative in character, for example, through the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. Your Lordships' House will recall that it has determined that any affirmative statutory instrument should be subject to the Private Bill procedure. It has resolved that it has unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration. It is entirely proper for your Lordships' House to exercise its rights with regard to these measures.
Clause 7(4)(b) provides that the statutory instruments under this section are to be introduced as negative instruments. Given that this Bill is hybrid, it has to go through the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments. This should be reflected on the face of the Bill. It is to be hoped that, on a matter of such constitutional importance, the Government will
1106
not seek to impose any statutory instruments through the negative procedure and that this clause should therefore be amended.
The terms of Clause 7(4) are enormously wide. The notion that an order may modify the effect of any enactment or any provision made under any enactment gives the Secretary of State in effect unprecedented powers to change pieces of legislation. This has only been done once before, in Section 51(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1999.
There is also a desire to provide "not counting in the 90" treatment for exceptions who are members of the Privy Council, 28 of whom are hereditary Peers. The appropriateness of that is a matter of judgment. If adopted, it too would add another element of hybridity.
Your Lordships will be aware that one of the functions of this House is as a balance against the over-extension and abuse of power by another place. This Bill introduces some far-reaching changes into the constitution which have perhaps not been fully grasped by your Lordships. It does so in a Bill which I submit is hybrid, and for which the proper course is submission to the Examiners.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is confined to Clause 1 of the Bill. It does not seek to undermine the Bill, nor does it set out to undermine the Weatherill amendment within the Bill. If my noble friend's Motion were now to be referred to the Examiners, one of two different outcomes would result before Third Reading. First, if the Examiners ruled that Clause 1 was not hybrid, then no amendment would be required to Clause 1 as it is currently drafted. Secondly, if the Examiners ruled that Clause 1 was hybrid, then the Government could introduce at Third Reading an amendment to address and resolve the elements of hybridity.
Two other inferences follow from this consideration of how the process of referral would work. First, Clause 1 of the Bill can only benefit from now being referred to the Examiners. Before Third Reading the Examiners will either give the reassurance that Clause 1 is in order or else, by ruling otherwise, alert the Government to resolve the elements of hybridity at Third Reading. Secondly, the only way in which Clause 1 stands to suffer is if it were not now to be referred to the Examiners. The reason is very simple. If Clause 1 of the Bill becomes a section of an Act without referral to the Examiners, the allegation will continue that it was hybrid in the first place. Consequently, Clause 1 of the Bill will not command respect. If we wish it to do so, and if we wish to co-operate with the Bill and the Weatherill amendment within it, we should refer Clause 1 to the Examiners today.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great care to the speeches made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of

1107
Chudleigh. I was very interested indeed, in anticipation, to think what it was they were going to say.
It is much too late for this issue to be raised. We are not only at the 11th hour but at the 55th minute of the 11th hour—with Third Reading scheduled for next Tuesday—when, suddenly, along come the noble Duke and the noble Lord with an allegation that it is a hybrid Bill and that therefore proceedings should stop. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, even said that insufficient time, consultation and discussion had been given to these issues. The issues have been throttled to death—not over the past five years but some would say over the past 18. The idea that somehow or other there is anything new to be said about the reforms of your Lordships' House, as proposed by the Government, strikes me as fanciful.
As I understand it, this is not a judicial proceeding. It is a decision that the House has to take as to whether the Bill is hybrid. If the House takes that view, then the Bill goes to the Examiners. At the beginning of the Bill this issue was raised; at various stages during the passage of the Bill this issue was raised. It has been debated by the House now on a number of occasions. With great respect to noble Lord, to turn up now and to give us a dissertation upon the position of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain does not help the passage of this legislation.
I am not by nature a suspicious man. Indeed, I look for virtue in all the people I meet and with whom I discuss issues. Were I a suspicious man I should have to say that the thought might just cross my mind that the objective of this exercise is not to put a defective Bill right; it is not to deal with the minority interests of one group or other of a class in the House. It is to delay the legislation yet further. With great respect, I would not be prepared to accept that. Therefore, if it comes to a vote, I hope that the House will reject the two Motions, and by a large majority.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will find some virtue in me which he may not expect to find. It has not been his past experience, I believe.
There is another extremely important aspect to the issue which has not been touched upon. Your Lordships can take either the advice of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and consider whether the Bill is definitely not hybrid, or your Lordships can consider what is the purpose of the hybridity procedure. The purpose of the hybrid Bill procedure is to provide for private individuals to protect their individual rights when they are threatened by a piece of legislation which treats others of the same class differently. It is directed to the private interest. For noble Lords—myself included—to stand on the Bill on a matter of private interest is entirely wrong headed. It goes far beyond that.
We are considering the national interest. Any interests that private individuals have should be subsumed in the collective wish. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, the House has devoted a great deal of time to considering the national interest
1108
and the collective interests of individual hereditary Peers. My private interest in this matter has long ceased to interest me. I deplore and decry the removal from the nation of a great resource of free wisdom, advice and service—but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether I may join the queue in the Committee Corridor to put my view to the Examiners as to whether I am being defrauded of something which is intrinsically important to me. Even if it was, I should not take that opportunity. The national interest must prevail. That is what we should debate, and it cannot be done through the hybridity procedure.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure whether I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Elton. I have always thought that the Bill was hybrid. I have a great deal of sympathy for the two Motions before the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, says that the procedure is merely a delaying tactic. I do not think it is. If one has a Bill of this nature altering the constitution of the country which has been in place for some 600 years, it is right that Parliament should consider it in all its aspects.
We are all here by virtue of the Writ of Summons. I hope that the noble Lord will say that that was decided the other day. It fell to be decided whether the Writ of Summons was appropriate in the Bill, and the Law Lords decided that it was appropriate. I congratulate the noble Lord the Lord Advocate on his, as usual, very skilful portrayal of, no doubt, a very good case. I was also glad that he did not follow the example of footballers by going around throwing his hands in the air and saying "Aren't I clever", or of Formula 1 racing drivers by squirting champagne over everyone. He used his normal dignity, which was very agreeable. It is a pity that others do not follow his suit in that respect.
It is a great pity that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, could not come out with something a little more encouraging. She said:
"This whole exercise has been an expensive charade. The committee should never have been asked to hear the case, but the Tories have abused their majority in the House of Lords to force it through".
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness's position as the Leader of the House, she was quite wrong. There was a degree of very severe apprehension contained in the question about the Writ of Summons. Many people considered that it was wrong. It was quite right that the Committee for Privileges should have discussed the matter. It was quite right that it should come to the conclusion that it did. Everyone therefore was satisfied. One was always taught to be a good loser. I wish the noble Baroness would be a good winner. No one was trying to destroy the Bill; all we wanted to know was that the Bill was right.
Here we go again on this Motion. We are all here by virtue of the Writ of Summons. Like my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I return to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industry Bill, in which I participated a

1109
little. The Examiners decided that that Bill was hybrid because some ship repairing industries were being nationalised and others were not. Those which were being nationalised said, "This is not fair. We are being nationalised." Those that were not being nationalised said, "This is not fair because those which are being nationalised will have a whole lot of public money and we will not." Therefore there was a dispute over a single category of people. It was decided that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was therefore hybrid.
We are in a very similar position with this Bill. We are all here by a Writ of Summons. The writ lasts for the lifetime of a Parliament, as everyone knows. One gets a Writ of Summons; one comes to your Lordships' House. The writ has done its job and you are here. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate were kind enough to ask me to stay with him in Wales—he has not actually done so but it is an invitation to which I look forward with heady anticipation—
Viscount Cranborne: The Attorney-General.
Earl Ferrers: The Attorney-General. I do apologise. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not live in Wales.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is terrible. The Attorney-General does not live in Wales. I suppose he has crossed the border to find more lucrative employment elsewhere.
When he does return to his native land, and if he should invite me to stay with him, which I shall accept with alacrity, I will go to Paddington and buy a ticket with him. Of course the noble and learned Lord will travel first class so I will be obliged to do the same. It would be quite rough if I was thrown off the train at Swindon while the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General went on to Cardiff. My ticket would entitle me to remain on the train right through to Cardiff and it would be wrong to be thrown off at Swindon. But that is exactly what is happening in relation to the Bill. Certain hereditary Peers have come to this place and have subjected themselves to the Writ of Summons which allows them to attend through the lifetime of a Parliament. Then suddenly the Government say to those Peers, "Oh no, you lot get tipped off halfway through, while others of you are permitted to stay". I should have thought that was a classic example of hybridity.
That is my view, but I am not a lawyer or anything like as grand as an Examiner. For that reason, I shall defer to all of them. However, there are those who feel that this is a matter that ought to be examined, and indeed my feelings run firmly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. But there is a snag, and the snag is that time is short. If the matter were to be referred to the Examiners, people would need time to prepare their cases and there would be a delay. The Bill
1110
would overshoot the end of the parliamentary Session. Others would not understand what is happening, and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would—
Noble Lords: Bushwhack!
Earl Ferrers:—Bushwhack, to repeat the word used by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, hereditary Peers for having interfered with the Government's programme. Those outside the House would not understand what was going on. However, even if that could be overcome, once the Bill had overshot the parliamentary Session the Government would say, "All right, we shall deal with that by bringing forward the present Bill under the Parliament Act without the Weatherill amendment". We would get nowhere.
It is my conclusion, even though I regret it because my natural feelings are with the two noble Lords who have put forward the Motion before us, that for those reasons it would not be wise to submit this to the Examiners. Although I think it deserves to be submitted and my heart goes with them, I shall not be able to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that these Motions have come before us far too late, not merely for the practical reasons just advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but because of a matter of basic principle.
Noble Lords should bear in mind one important fact: the practice of referring Bills which are thought to be hybrid to a Select Committee is a matter of the practice of the House and not a matter of basic law or statute. Thus the House can always decide that, although a Bill appears to be hybrid, it is not to be referred to a Select Committee but is to be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary public Bill.
If it was thought by anyone that the Bill before us was hybrid in its original form, it has been open to that person to move that fact ever since the Bill received its Second Reading in the other place 10 months ago. If anyone thought that the Bill was not hybrid originally but became hybrid by reason of an amendment such as the Weatherill amendment, it has been open to them to move that ever since the amendment was passed over five months ago. Neither of those actions have been taken until today. Instead, the House has proceeded, even though it is clear that hybridity has been mentioned at every stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said in all frankness that he has always thought the Bill was hybrid. For that reason, it has always been open to him to move a Motion to that effect. However, instead of any Motion for referral being brought forward, the Bill has, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, been considered at some length during its subsequent stages. Because the House went on with its consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that hybridity was in the air, in my view it is absolutely clear that the House has decided by implication that it wishes to proceed with the Bill in the normal way it

1111
would proceed with a public Bill, regardless of the question of hybridity. It is far too late to change that now and these Motions should therefore be rejected.
Like many of your Lordships, I consider this to be a mistaken and a bad Bill. I have always considered that it was wrong to introduce a measure that dealt only with abolition without any proposals of what should be put in its place. I venture to suspect that in the hidden closets of their homes, members of the Government may now share that view, although I am not optimistic enough to expect the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to confess that when she comes to reply. But whatever view one has of the Bill, surely it is wrong to suggest that this House should misuse the procedures of the House by introducing Motions of this kind at this late stage to get rid of or to embarrass a Bill merely because one heartily dislikes it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Motions have been moved with obvious sincerity and conviction by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is a matter of courtesy to consider their arguments, even if one does not believe in them.
The noble Duke referred to the definition of hybridity in Erskine May, and I shall not repeat it. I say only that I find it impossible to see how anything in the Bill falls within the definition. For one thing, I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House has a private interest in that membership. In legal theory, I believe that attendance in your Lordships' House is a duty rather than a right. That is certainly the wording used in the Writ of Summons, which is a command and not an invitation.
It is also a recognised fact that Members of your Lordships' House who are unable to attend for a long period of time are supposed to ask for permission to be absent. Rights such as the right of access to the Chamber or access to the Voting Lobbies are ancillary to the duty to attend and participate in the work of the House. If that duty is discharged, the ancillary rights fall with it. However, whether participation in the business of the House is a right or a duty, it is plainly not a private interest, but a public one. No Member of your Lordships' House has a proprietary interest in the right or duty, whichever it may be, to sit here.
I believe the contrary was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but in my view that is not a sustainable argument. Those who attend your Lordships' House by command of Her Majesty are here to perform a public function as members of the legislature and have no private interest in doing so.
Nor do I believe that hereditary Peers and life Peers are simply members of one single and indistinguishable class. There is a clear distinction. That distinction was applied in the Peerage Act 1963 when existing Peers by succession were entitled to disclaim their peerages, but life Peers and hereditary Peers of first creation were not. No one suggested then that for that reason the Bill was hybrid.
The officers of the House have a duty to report to your Lordships' House if, in their view, a Bill is hybrid. That is a duty they must perform when a Bill is
1112
introduced. In this case they have not so reported. That clearly indicates that they believe the Bill is not a hybrid measure. The procedure adopted today is undoubtedly technically in order, but if this issue is to be raised, I must respectfully agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. If this point was to have been raised, it could and should have been raised at a very much earlier stage. The fact that it has been raised less than a week before the date fixed for Third Reading suggests that at least one of the motives is to delay and obstruct the further progress of this measure. It is completely wrong at this late stage to try to override the views of the officers of the House and to refer this matter to the Examiners.
4 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I agree with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. In my respectful opinion, the Bill is not hybrid. Dare I say that I think it is as plain as a pikestaff that it is not hybrid? I say that because a Peer does not sit in this House in order to enjoy personal rights granted to him. He sits here in order to perform duties imposed on him. The rights which he enjoys as a Member of the House are exclusively to enable him to perform those duties. I say that because Standing Order 20 states:
"Lords are to attend sittings of the House or, if they cannot do so, obtain leave of absence".
That is the fundamental position of a Lord of Parliament. He is here to perform a public duty. I find nothing in Erskine May which says that a Bill is hybrid because it relieves some members of a class from a public duty. The effect of the Bill is that certain Peers are to be relieved of a public duty which is imposed on them. It is a total misconception to speak of a Peer as exercising a right when he sits, speaks and votes. He is not doing so; he is performing a public duty. I therefore respectfully ask your Lordships to take the view that the Bill is not hybrid.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as someone who may or may not be here in a month's time and someone who is not privy to the closet thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I should just like to say that I so completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I am here by accident of birth, because my forebears got drunk with either Walpole or Pitt—probably both. I am here because I am summoned to do my duty. If and when Parliament says that I should not be here, then I go. I am not a corner shop in Scunthorpe. I am supposed to be doing my duty to the nation. Whether that duty is good or bad, I leave to your Lordships. But it would be absolutely wrong for us to pretend that we were corner shops in Scunthorpe.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am troubled by this debate. Some noble Lords may remember that I and several others proposed amendments to the Weatherill amendment when it was debated in July. We were juggling the figures, I suppose one might say, which were implicit in the Weatherill amendment. We were informed by the Clerk of the House—it was

1113
announced in the Chamber—that our amendments were hybrid. I found it difficult to understand how our amendments could be hybrid whereas the Weatherill amendment was not hybrid. So I incline towards the view that there is just possibly a hint of hybridity about this entire episode. I may well be wrong in that respect. But since my amendments were hybrid I have come to that conclusion.
I do not think that that really matters. We are at a late stage of the proceedings on the Bill. We are not actually dealing with constitutional niceties or things like that. We are actually dealing with brute politics. The brute politics are that this House is unbalanced politically—whether or not it is a matter of hereditary or life peerages—and the Bill before us is intended to sort that out in some way. I think that it has been badly handled right from the beginning. There might well have been attempts to reach some kind of agreement between the various parties involved, as was done in 1968. I suggested that at Second Reading some time ago. No one listened then and I dare say that no one will listen now. This is a matter of brute politics. My intention is to vote with the brutes. I shall support the Government.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I find intriguing the way the hybridity argument has been used on both sides. The moment certain amendments are proposed, they are deemed hybrid; the moment Clause 1 is examined, it is not hybrid. The same argument has been used on both sides. I find that awkward. I think that a future Chamber should consider how to define hybridity properly.
I should like to ask one question. If this Motion is agreed to and the Bill fails to pass in this Session, can the Government then invoke the Parliament Act?
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for bringing this matter before your Lordships today. It may be late in the day but it has not been resolved fully, although it has been discussed both inside and outside the Chamber.
I should like to query what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said—that we are being asked today to decide whether the Bill is hybrid. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, we are not being asked to do that. We are simply being asked to agree that there is sufficient doubt in the area that we are not competent to say one way or the other and that the matter can be settled only by sending it to the Examiners. Unless we do that, we shall be failing in our duty as the custodians of our constitution.
We must put the matter to rest one way or the other. Future generations will not look kindly on us if we let this matter pass without settling it. If, as the Government claim, they want to be transparent in all their actions, they should not be opposed to seeking to
1114
ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book without flaws and immune from recriminations. I support the Motion of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I should like to thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for introducing his Motion, which I support and to which I address my brief remarks, because it gives me the opportunity to return to the unfinished debate about hybridity which I had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on my Amendment No. 11 in our Report stage proceedings on 15th June (at cols. 233–235, 244 and 248 of the official Report). Because I suppose it is just conceivable that some of your Lordships may not instantly recall the details of that debate, which took place rather late at night, I shall repeat very briefly those parts of that Amendment No. 11 which are salient to the question of hybridity.
It proposed to leave all Peers with speaking and attendance rights for the duration of the interim House and to remove the voting rights of all Peers, both hereditary and appointed, except the Bishops and the Law Lords. It then set up four electoral colleges—one for each political party and one for the Cross Benches—to elect 700 voting Peers. Those 700 voting Peers were to be allotted as follows: 240 to the Cross Benches—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am sorry to interrupt him. I admire him enormously, but to go back over Report stage arcana to produce a point is to try the patience of your Lordships. I love him dearly, but he is seriously trying the patience of the House.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that must be for the House to decide. What I have to say bears on the issue before us and is relevant to the decision that the House must take.
As I was saying: 200 to Labour; 200 to the Conservatives; and 60 to the Liberal democrats. There would have been no distinction between hereditary or appointed Peers in the electoral colleges or in the allocations to the parties. The appointed Peers would have been put in the same boat (or perhaps the same tumbrel) as the hereditary Peers, and we would all have taken our chance together in the elections to become voting Peers. For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Onslow and others, I shall of course not repeat the advantages of that amendment over the Weatherill amendment.
Your Lordships should be aware, however, that prior to our Report stage debate on 15th June I received no fewer than three memoranda from the Public Bill office, under the signature of no less a personage than the Clerk Assistant, informing me that my amendment, if passed, would render the Bill prima facie hybrid, which would mean that it would have to go to the Examiners. The justification for that

1115
contention was contained in the following vital words in all three memoranda. The Clerk Assistant said that the amendment,
"by including in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House, affects the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers".
What struck me as most odd about the wording of that memorandum was the singling out of "hereditary" Peers, because hereditary Peers were treated no differently under the amendment than appointed Peers; and although allocations were made to different parties within the House, both hereditary and appointed Peers are of course essentially free to move between parties as they wish, as indeed some do. It was therefore difficult to see how hybridity did in fact bite on that amendment. So I put a few questions to the Government on 15th June (at col. 234), which have not been answered, and should be answered today before we take a decision.
The first question is really the subject of this Motion, which was to ask why the original Clause 1 of the Bill did not make it hybrid. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has dealt with that point. However, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied (at col. 244) that Clause 1 did not hybridise the Bill because it gave all hereditary Peers the same chance. But, I submit, so did my amendment, because it gave all Peers, both hereditary and appointed, the same chance, bearing in mind that membership of parties is not fixed in stone.
I then asked the Minister to explain the significance in the memoranda of singling out only hereditary Peers as causing hybridity in my amendment, and the record shows that he did not attempt to do so. I should be grateful for the Government's answer today. Why did my amendment make the Bill hybrid thanks only to its treatment of hereditary Peers, and not of appointed Peers as well?
The picture is even more confused, because I moved an amendment, Amendment No. 110E, in Committee on 17th May (cols. 43 to 59) which contained exactly the same features as were supposed to render the later amendment hybrid, and nobody said anything about it at all; no memoranda from the Clerk Assistant—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I am sure that he is producing some valid points, but they seem to be way off the subject of the Motion. I think it would be to the agreement of your Lordships if the noble Lord concluded his remarks.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. I have nearly finished.
The amendment at Report stage contained exactly the same features as the amendment at Committee stage. But I had no memoranda from the Clerks on that, and not a squeak about hybridity from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal when she came to dismiss the amendment (at col. 57). Yet the amendment had been in the Printed Paper office for weeks, and had
1116
even missed its turn once on the Marshalled List. So those who were concerned to find fault with the amendment in Committee had plenty of time to do so, but obviously did not think then that it might cause hybridity. This is part of the answer to those who say that it is now too late to introduce the aspect of hybridity. It should have been introduced at Committee stage, but because we did not receive the relevant memoranda and the Government did not produce the point, it was not.
I therefore ask the Minister: what happened to the theory of hybridity between the two stages of the Bill? Why was my amendment hybrid on Report, when it was not hybrid in Committee?
I mention all this to show that the issue of hybridity is not clear-cut, to put it mildly. We have heard many different arguments this afternoon. That is why the Bill should go to the Examiners, as my noble friend suggests. To me, all Peers who have taken the Oath form a single class, and there is nothing that the Government ought to be able to do to get round that simple fact.
Perhaps I may leave the noble Baroness who is to reply with one final and, I trust, rather awkward question. Does not the very word "Peer" mean "equal"—equal with one another, that is? And if so, on that ground alone, does not Clause 1 hybridise the Bill? I support my noble friend's amendment, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment only to pay a warm tribute from this side of the House to those hereditary Peers who follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in this debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suppose the real point behind the speech of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is that, had he received the replies to his questions at the appropriate time, we should not have needed to hear them again.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose put forward his Motion with the quiet integrity and logic that those of us who have come to know him and who value his contributions in the House would have expected.
I share with my noble friend his distaste, and that of many other noble Lords, for this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It is mean-spirited. It is a licence for old-fashioned patronage. It is a backward-looking "Old Labour meets New Establishment" Bill. It was conceived in malice and has been carried through with a lack of grace from start to finish that has greatly disappointed the House. But the issue raised by this Motion is not whether we like the House of Lords Bill, nor whether we want it to become law. The Motion is on the narrower issue of whether the Bill, in respect of Clause 1, should be referred to the Examiners.
I do not believe that that would be a sensible thing to do. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I agree with him that there is a clear and obvious injustice in the distinction drawn

1117
between life Peers and hereditary Peers. It goes against all the custom of this House—in which all Peers, from the noble Duke himself and the Earl Marshal of England, to those noble Lords who entered the House today are equal. They are all Peers.
But the Government, with their vicious, scornful and distasteful campaign against hereditary Peers—cliché piled on cliché, stereotype on stereotype, falsehood on half truth—have injected a poison into this House. They have destroyed that old balance by which all Peers looked upon each other as equal. That is to their shame. It will be up to them in future to justify their contention that a life Peer has some specific and special democratic legitimacy over and above an hereditary Peer.
But, carefully though I have heard my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I have to say that my advice is that the Government can draw such a distinction. Otherwise, how in future could a government present legislation on life Peers, along the lines of the provisions of Clause 2 for hereditary Peers, as I have no doubt some government, some day, may wish to do. Noble Lords opposite may well wish to ponder on that ambition.
But even if my advice were wrong, and the advice of the noble Duke were right, what would it achieve, as my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Elton have asked? The government spin doctors would go to work. The half truths and distortions would continue. We should be said to be trying artificially to hold up the Bill, although I know that that is not the intention of my noble friend. This afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already started on that charge. I can almost guarantee that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will use it once more when she makes her speech.
We will open ourselves further to that line of abuse and attack. We might even give the Government the excuse they crave to remove Clause 2 and introduce the full horror of a wholly appointed House of Lords. I do not think that would be wise.
The same considerations apply even more to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He asks for the clause that has come to be known as the Weatherill amendment to be referred to the Examiners. What would that achieve? If the Examiners found that the clause was not hybrid, we should be where we are today. If the Examiners found that the clause was hybrid, would not the recourse for the Government be to drop the clause and impose their quango-Bill for the House of patronage?
The House voted overwhelmingly for the Weatherill clause, new Clause 2, as making a bad Bill better. Today I see no reason to revise that judgment. I am therefore opposed to the reference of the clause.
Some of your Lordships may think that a finding that the Bill was hybrid would make it impossible to use the Parliament Acts. I am advised that that is not the case. A declaration from the Examiners that the Bill was a hybrid Bill would not prevent the Government re-introducing the Bill next year under
1118
the Parliament Act. That was the case in 1976–77 when the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was re-introduced under the Parliament Acts, even though it was a hybrid Bill. The hybrid Bill procedure and the Parliament Acts procedure are separate; they do not interrelate and no one who votes for this Motion should do so because they think it will frustrate the darkest purposes of the Government.
To return to the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I much admire him and hope that the House will long have the benefit of his wisdom. But I regret intensely that I cannot support him today. I also cannot advise my noble friends to do so. But neither will I oppose a Motion that he has put forward with such integrity and which, unlike the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, touches on a matter on which the House has not yet resolved. The question of a reference of Clause 1 is ultimately a matter for the whole House to determine, although for my part, I and my colleagues on the Front Bench will abstain if my noble friend tests the opinion of the House.
One last word: if the intention is to prevent this Bill from becoming law, it should not be done indirectly through use of the hybrid Bill procedure, a device that will not work to that end. If that is the preferred option of noble Lords, it is better to go for an open kill, at Third Reading, on Bill do now pass, or when the House considers the reasons sent to us from another place. That is when the House must finally determine the rights and wrongs of the Bill. I believe that it is on those debates that noble Lords who oppose or support the Bill should concentrate their energies.
For those reasons, I cannot, regrettably, support my noble friend, but I very much look forward to further vigorous debate at Third Reading.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in the interests of good grace, which we have heard expressed considerably this afternoon, I welcome the underlying points which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made about the specific Motions before us. We have heard from several places around the House distinguished and authoritative legal opinions on the points put forward; legal opinions which I think it is true to say were all in favour of rejecting the Motions. The House may be interested to know—and to some extent it is relevant to this afternoon's proceedings—that the Privileges Committee has just ruled in favour of the Government on the second reference on the Scottish Peers. The House will be aware that two days ago the Privileges Committee unanimously rejected the earlier reference on Clause 1.
However, even that resounding defeat for the opponents of the Bill had some spurious legitimacy as a unique process, which this afternoon's proceedings do not. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, argued that because there was no legal method for deciding a point of peerage law before the Bill was passed by Parliament, the Committee for Privileges

1119
should be invoked. I did not and do not agree with that argument, but at least he was invoking extraordinary procedure machinery to test it.
In the case of the Motions before us today, there is a routine machinery for testing hybridity in a Bill. That machinery has already been invoked, as several noble Lords said this afternoon, and the Bill has been judged not to be hybrid. For those reasons, although I hope to be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—and one must with courtesy respond to some of the points made by the two movers of the two Motions—I do not think it is necessary to reply in great detail to some of the points raised.
Let me just set out for the House how the system routinely operates and how it has operated on the Bill. There is a machinery in place for considering whether a Bill is prima facie hybrid. It works, whether or not a noble Lord seeks to refer a Bill to the Examiners. A Bill is considered by experts in such subjects as a matter of normal course of events in the process of its passage through the House and at each stage of that passage in relation to each amendment. The experts considered the Bill when it was first brought from the Commons, so they will have looked at the effects of Clause 1 then. They will have considered each amendment as it was tabled, including Clause 2(2).
I remind noble Lords how this works in relation to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his amendments. I take issue with his concern that he was not answered appropriately at the earlier stages, but without wishing to delay the House, I shall outline some of the points because they were relevant.
At Report stage, as the noble Lord told the House this afternoon, he was informed that he had been told that his amendment would be likely to be hybrid on a prima facie basis. He then sought guidance from the Government as to why his amendment might make the Bill hybrid while the Bill itself was not, as he explained. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General explained it thus. The Hansard reference is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gave us. Perhaps I may quote briefly from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General:
"Clause 2 gives all hereditary Peers the same chance. It does not specify any division. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, gives Tory Peers a different chance of continuing membership from Labour Peers. The Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain are in a class of their own. It is, I readily concede, quite a small class, but it is in fact a class which is treated equally within itself.
The same is true of Clause 1 in relation to all hereditary Peers".—[ official Report, 15/6/99; col. 244.]
As several noble Lords have emphasised this afternoon, the key point about determining whether a Bill is hybrid is whether it affects the private interests of some person differently from the private interests of some other person in the same class. The last four words are absolutely crucial. Setting aside the issue of whether the Bill deals with private interests at all—a point rightly referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Goodhart, and others—the Bill is not hybrid because it does not discriminate between
1120
members of individual classes. A class does not need to include everyone who could be included in another class of which it would be a subset. So, for example, Clause 1—the subject of the noble Duke's Motion—applies to all hereditary Peers. They, as we all know only too well, are a class on their own. I do not believe anyone in the House disputes that; indeed the whole thrust of our debate so far has been based on how they have special characteristics and are unique a group of citizens. A Bill which applies to all of them cannot, on that account, be hybrid.
The fact that a different class of Peer could be created which would include life Peers is frankly immaterial. For example, the 1963 Act allowed only for hereditary Peers to disclaim their titles. But no one suggested it was hybrid on that account.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, seeks a reference in respect of Clause 2(2). That is the clause which specifies that 90 hereditary Peers may be excepted, the so-called Weatherill amendment. The first part of that clause is not hybrid because neither it nor Clause 2(1) specifies who the 90 are. All hereditary Peers are to be covered by it. The reference to the Earl Marshal and the Great Chamberlain is, of course, to two hereditary office holders. As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General explained to the House, they are a class in their own right.
My noble and learned friend acknowledged that it was a small class but it is nevertheless a legitimate one, and for that purpose one is enough. The Public Bill office automatically considered the amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, tabled it, in the same way as it considered the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch (to which I have already referred), and several others, most notably those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is gracious to give way, but she still has not answered the question why, at Report stage, Amendment No. 11 was prima facie hybrid when at the previous Committee stage exactly the same amendment, Amendment No. 110E, was not considered to be hybrid.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not seek in any way to be unhelpful, but I believe that the matters raised by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, which I rehearsed, cover the point. If the noble Lord is still unhappy about it, perhaps it is better to deal with it in a forum other than this debate. But I assure him that the points then made in response by my noble and learned friend were adequate.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and other noble Lords that I have decided it is appropriate in this instance to quote from the advice given by the House authorities. The advice is not

1121
related specifically to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The advice is as follows:
"In my view, it is not prima facie hybrid. The new clause [Clause 2] is drafted to empower the House to except up to 92 hereditary Peers from the provisions of Section 1 … The exceptions will be provided for in Standing Orders of the House and do not arise directly from the amendment. Apart from subsection (2), the amendment does not specify those who will be excepted and therefore there is no hereditary Peer who would have a locus to petition.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, however, names the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. This does not hybridise the Bill because the two named Peers constitute a genuine class".
Although this is slightly repetitious, I restate the following to confirm that this is the official advice:
"They are hereditary Peers who by virtue of their peerage hold offices of State which have specific duties and responsibilities within the House of Lords".
I have gone into some detail—I suspect rather more than the patience of the House would prefer—in order to put on record precisely the points that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made in reply to debate. Without impugning the motives of some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, I suspect that we are spending time on matters that have already been discussed at great length and we would better spend our time on the important legislation which is set down for debate for the remainder of today. The questions raised by the noble Lords have already been carefully considered both in debate and by the appropriate House authorities.
Although the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seeks to patronise me on the question of manners and grace, I am bound to tell the House that on this Bill I represent and lead for the Government. The Government feel very strongly, as do my Back-Benchers, that we have wasted a great deal of time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that she is also Leader of the whole House—Conservatives, Labour, Liberals and Cross-Benches.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do. However, I am also a government Minister, and in this instance my government ministerial responsibilities are paramount. I hope that the noble Earl will take my remarks as a reflection of the degree of feeling on this side of the House about the way in which some of these matters have been conducted. In the United States an American commentator some time ago coined the phrase "clinging to the furniture". In that instance he was describing the attempts by President Nixon to hold on to office in the White House in the face of overwhelming political and legal opinion. That is not a phrase that is much used in this country. But there are some noble Lords on this side of the House whose patience is becoming stretched on some of these Motions. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said,
1122
this situation must be resolved politically and by the whole House. I urge the House to reject these two Motions.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words. However, I take issue with the Leader of the House. The question of hybridity has arisen in this House on a number of occasions, but it has never been fully discussed until today. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and expressed their views.
When I first became involved in this Bill—the accusation has been thrown at me, as I knew it would, that this is rather a late stage at which to bring the matter up—I did not seek to raise the issue of hybridity. However, I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. When I tabled an amendment I received a letter from the Clerk of Public Bills which said that if my amendment were accepted it would make the Bill hybrid. According to my first understanding of the Bill, I believed that my amendment would make it less hybrid. I then began to gain an understanding as to what parliamentarians regarded as hybridity. To some extent, that is my excuse for bringing up this matter rather late in the day.
Reference was made to the time remaining. Noble Lords will be aware that there are three weeks left of the present Session. One of the difficulties in moving this Motion is that, according to the Clerks, there is a lack of precedence as to how a referral for hybridity should be considered. My understanding is that it should be fairly easy to wrap it up in a couple of weeks, if not less.
Another question was raised about our interest in private rights. Any private rights that I may have here are not matters that feature largely in my life. However, I refer back to the letter from the Examiners which speaks of the danger of hybridity. From that, I take it that the Examiners have ruled that there are private rights. It is not a question of whether I or anybody else wants those private rights, but a whole class of people is being deprived of them.
I accept that this is very much a political Bill and that it has been the subject of much debate in many political circles. It is, however, also a constitutional Bill which directly affects Parliament, and it is as parliamentarians taking part in the constitution of this country that we consider this measure today. It is entirely right that the procedures of the House should be adhered to and that potential legislation, particularly that affecting the constitution, should be rigorously examined to ensure that any flaws are removed and that that which passes on to the statute book is well considered and constructed legislation. I intend to press my Motion and seek the opinion of the House.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 214.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Leigh, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Merrivale, L

Blyth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boardman, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Montrose, D.

Cadman, L.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller]

Munster, E.

Clinton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Naseby, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nathan, L.

Coleridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Nickson, L.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Denman, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Patten, L.

Dudley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dundee, E. [Teller]

Rees, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Elles, B.

Renwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Rodney, L.

Exmouth, V.

Rowallan, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Fisher, L.

St. Germans, E.

Forester, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Sharples, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray, L.

Suffield, L.

Haddington, E

Teynham, L.

Hambro, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Harrowby, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Hemphill, L.

Weir, V.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

Ironside, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bragg, L.

Acton, L.

Brentford, V.

Addington, L.

Brett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bridges, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brightman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Alli, L.

Brookman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amos, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Annan, L.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burns, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carlisle, E.

Avebury, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Bach, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Barnett, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Chorley, L.

Berkeley, L.

Christopher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Borrie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

1124

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

Crawley, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Croham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

[Teller]

David, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dholakia, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maddock, B.

Drogheda, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Marsh, L.

Ebury, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Methuen, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Filkin, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gale, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Geraint, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gilbert, L.

Newby, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Glanusk, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Onslow, E.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Patel, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grantchester, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hacking, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hamwee, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Razzall, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Rennard, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hooson, L.

Russell, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Serota, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hylton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shepherd, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Chancellor)

Shore of Stepney, L.

Islwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Slim, V.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Smith of Clifton, L.

Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Judd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kennet, L,

Taverne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Laming, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Levy, L.

Thornton, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thurso, V.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

1125

Uddin, B.

Whitty, L.

Varley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wilkins, B.

Walpole, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warner, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in response to my particular presentation as regards the hybrid measures. I would like to make one or two brief comments. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, simply does not comprehend sufficiently that a constitution is private. A number of noble Lords quite rightly said—the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has raised this already—that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was quite correct in agreeing with me when I presented various questions about certain of the parts of the Bill which, as I have argued, make it hybrid. None the less, having had the opinion of the House on the Motion moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, it would be unwise of me to press further. I shall not move my Motion to refer the Bill to the Examiners in respect of Clause 2(2).

Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.51 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 5 [The Immigration Services Commissioner]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 123, line 1, leave out ("(c),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. A number of other amendments have also been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
I shall be very brief. The purpose is not in any way to dispute what the role of the immigration services commissioner should be. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the immigration services commissioner would have to refer an alleged breach by a member of the designated professional body of that body's rules to the relevant professional body.
Amendment No. 108 is designed and intended to ensure that all complaints in respect of the members of one body are conducted by the same body to avoid members being subject to the unnecessary conduct of two investigations by both their professional body and the immigration services commissioner. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly said, Amendments
1126
Nos. 108A to 108C, which stand in my name, fall for discussion at this point. Amendment No. 108A allows the designated professional body an opportunity to address a problem which has arisen and to make representations to the commissioner before the commissioner becomes involved in the complaints procedure. Clearly, those who suggested it to us, in particular the Law Society of Scotland, believe that in many cases they would be able to resolve the problem without the necessity to bring up the heavy guns on the matter. That seems to me to be a sensible suggestion.
Amendment No. 108B has a slightly different character. It provides that the immigration services commissioner and the deputy commissioner should be disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales just as they are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and the Assembly for Northern Ireland. I am advised by some legal opinion that that is necessary in order to fill a lacuna in the Bill. I may be told that that is already provided for. I am sure that it is everyone's wish that the disqualification should be put in place. If that is so, no doubt the Minister will tell us.
Amendment No. 108C refers to fees. At the moment solicitors and others pay considerable fees which provide for the protection of the public. It is not apparent why additional fees should be paid. The Law Society of Scotland made representations on this point. It pointed out that the disciplinary system is maintained from the fees already paid and that will obviously continue. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 108C.
The Minister of State, Cabinet office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I am grateful for the very clear way in which these amendments have been dealt with. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the early part of his remarks was lost in the noise of the stampede of noble Lords leaving the Chamber. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that I shall answer every point. The noble Lord should feel free to interrupt if I have missed a point.
Perhaps I may also deal with Amendment No. 109, which is a government amendment. I can do that very shortly. That amendment ensures that aggrieved clients or the immigration services commissioner have the appropriate means to enforce in Scotland a direction given by the immigration services tribunal for the repayment of fees to clients or for the payment of a penalty to the commissioner. At the appropriate moment I shall urge noble Lords to accept that amendment.
Amendment No. 106 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would remove an alleged breach by a member of a designated professional body of one or more of the rules of the relevant body from the definition of a relevant complaint. It is linked with Amendment No. 107 which specifically excludes the designated professional bodies from the complaints scheme.

1127
The Government are committed to controlling the behaviour of unscrupulous immigration advisers. It has been decided that the best method of achieving that is by means of a statutory regulatory scheme. Unfortunately, some of the worst examples of unscrupulous behaviour have been carried out by members of the legal professions. In these circumstances it is entirely wrong that the complaint made against a member of one of the designated professional bodies would not be regarded, were this amendment to succeed, as a complaint to be investigated by the commissioner. Therefore, these amendments run contrary to the spirit of the regulatory scheme and I urge your Lordships to reject them.
Amendment No. 108 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would provide for the commissioner to bring to the attention of a designated professional body complaints made against a member of that body which relate to the competence or fitness of a person or of those working under his supervision or employ, to provide immigration advice or services or a breach of one or more of the rules of the relevant regulatory body.
However, the commissioner already has an analogous but more appropriate power under paragraph 9(1)(c) of this schedule under which he may determine a complaint against a member of a designated professional body and refer it and his decision on it to the relevant regulatory body. It is important that the commissioner should form a preliminary view on the complaint before referring it. As an independent regulator he can add value to the process. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, will not move his amendment.
The Bill contains a provision which allows the commissioner to give directions setting a timetable to be followed by a designated professional body in considering a complaint referred to it by the commissioner taking any disciplinary action in connection with a complaint.
Amendment No. 108A would limit the commissioner to requiring a body to provide an explanation where a complaint is made to him about the time taken by that body to deal with the complaint and to give a timetable in which the complaint will be dealt with. If the body then fails to adhere to the suggested timetable, the amendment would allow the commissioner to set a timetable.
We believe that it is only right that all professional bodies should deal with complaints in a reasonable time. Sadly, the record in terms of timeliness of some of the legal professions in dealing with complaints has not been a happy one. Some legal professions have been given additional powers to investigate complaints in the Access to Justice Act. Against that background we believe that it is perfectly reasonable to provide the commissioner with the power to set a timescale for the conduct of an inquiry into complaints against members of the legal profession.
1128
The purpose of the regulatory scheme is to ensure that people receive quality immigration advice and are not overcharged for that, and that complaints are effectively investigated within a reasonable timescale. The effect of this amendment would be that as regards some complaints the timescale for their effective resolution would be lengthened. That runs contrary to the intention of the scheme. I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment when the time comes.
Amendment No. 108B seeks to disqualify the commissioner and deputy commissioner from appointment to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. There is already provision in relation to disqualification of the commissioner and deputy commissioner from the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, disqualification from the Assemblies for Scotland and Wales is, we believe, a matter for those Assemblies. I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Amendment No. 108C would remove the provisions for specifying by order a fee for the purpose of meeting the costs incurred by the commissioner in respect of each designated professional body to be payable by the designated professional bodies and for the recovery of any unpaid fee. We have written to the professional bodies informing them that they will not be required to pay a fee in year one of the scheme. In year two, they may be required to pay a fee. Any fee will be based on an estimate of the likely regulatory activity carried out by the commissioner in year two in respect of each body.
One professional body will not cross-subsidise the regulatory activity of the commissioner in respect of any other professional body or those registered or exempted from the scheme. It is only right that each body should be expected to pay a fee For any regulatory activity carried out by the commissioner on behalf of that body. Again, I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I wanted to remind my noble and learned friend that it is a Parliament in Scotland, not an Assembly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise and stand rightly corrected in that respect.
5 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Like him, we are all concerned about the role of unscrupulous advisers and qualified people who exploit those who are in desperate need of help. The best course of action is to see how the functions of the immigration services commissioner are carried out. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 to 108B not moved.]
Clause 81 [Designated professional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 108C not moved.]
Clause 84 [Disciplinary charge upheld by the Tribunal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 56, line 26, leave out ("order of the Court of Session") and insert ("extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Interpretation of Part VI]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 59, line 17, at end insert—
(""the Department" means the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 110 is a paving amendment to provide that in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Security may make regulations in connection with Part VI of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 113 provide for the definition of the term "dependant" in Clause 89 to apply in relation to a "supported person" rather than simply in relation to the asylum seeker. This puts it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State can support an asylum seeker's dependants independently of the asylum seeker himself; for example, if he were detained for some reason. As currently drafted, Clause 89 defines a supported person as being an asylum seeker or his dependant to whom support is given under Clause 90.
Amendment No. 114 simply amends this form of words so that it refers to a person for whom support is provided, thereby harmonising it with existing references elsewhere in Part VI.
Amendment No. 116 is a technical amendment which makes it clear that for the purposes of Part VI an asylum seeker's appeal against refusal of asylum is regarded as being disposed of when it is no longer pending for the purposes of the Immigration Acts or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. This would include appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords.
This is important in terms of the termination of support because an asylum seeker being supported under Part VI whose appeal against refusal of asylum has been unsuccessful ceases to be entitled to support at the end of a prescribed period following notification of the outcome of that appeal.
There has to be a defined end to the asylum process at which point support provided under Part VI will be terminated. In essence, this is at the end of a prescribed period after the asylum seeker is notified of the decision on his asylum claim or, if he appeals, when he is notified of the decision on the final appeal. But given our concern for the welfare of children, Clause 89(5) disapplies that provision to families with children under the age of 18. They will receive support for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 117 clarifies that once the youngest child reaches his 18th birthday, the family will cease to continue to be entitled to support under subsection (5). It will be a wholly adult household and should be treated in the same way as other adult asylum seekers. This was always out intention and the amendment ensures that that is the case.
The purpose of Amendment No. 181 is slightly to broaden the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to the recovery of overpayments as provided under the clause. At present, the clause extends to payments made under the main support scheme. The amendment extends this so that erroneous overpayments made under the powers in Clause 94 would also be covered. Any use of these powers would be in respect of public monies disbursed in error. The power of recovery simply places the public purse back into the position in which it would have been had the payment not been made. The existing provisions make allowance for secondary legislation to prescribe exactly how the recovery is to be achieved other than through the courts. Clearly, efforts would be made to ensure that the recovery did not lead to untoward difficulties for innocent recipients of the unintended bounty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 111 to 114:
Page 59, line 18, after ("asylum-seeker") insert ("or a supported person").
Page 59, line 20, leave out ("the asylum-seeker's") and insert ("his").
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("the asylum-seeker") and insert ("his").
Page 59, line 37, leave out ("to whom support is given") and insert ("for whom support is provided").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 60, line 3, at end insert ("and shall in any event be extended—

(i) in the event that either party indicates an intention to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of an asylum claim or other aspect of an asylum seeker's immigration status, for a period reasonably long enough to enable him to do so, and

(ii) for so long as any such proceedings, and any further appeal or proceedings arising from them, remain pending, and

(iii) whether or not such proceedings are proposed or taken, for so long as the Secretary of State has under consideration further representations in respect of the claimant's immigration status, and

(iv) whenever and for so long as the Secretary of State does not or is for any reason unable to effect the removal of an asylum seeker and his dependants (if any) following rejection of an asylum claim").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 seeks to prevent support for an asylum seeker, with or without a family, being prematurely terminated. Its sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)

1131
concern further proceedings which either the asylum seeker or the Secretary of State may have the right to bring with the leave of the court in question.
Obviously, hunger and homelessness should not be used to block access to justice to asylum seekers who may have good grounds to apply for judicial review. The rule of law is nullified if access to justice is denied to the most vulnerable, especially if they risk being starved out of their legal rights by the other party in the legal proceedings in question; in this case, the Government. As things stand, there is no power to extend support even when it is the Secretary of State who brings the challenge. That appears self-evidently to be wrong.
It will be no less wrong, and equally a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to impose destitution in an attempt to prevent asylum seekers taking up their legal rights to seek to challenge unfavourable determinations. This aspect of the present proposals is perhaps especially worrying in the light of the 81 per cent success rate in immigration cases where leave to move for judicial review was granted in 1996–97. But the principle would be the same, whatever the statistics.
Sub-paragraph (iii) concerns the Secretary of State's power to reconsider cases. Surely, it would be wrong to fetter the duty and discretion of the Secretary of State to consider the adjudicator's recommendations or further recommendations and representations following a failed appeal by depriving the Secretary of State the power to extend support while he does so. There may be changes in family or other circumstances, or non-asylum humanitarian considerations, into which the Secretary of State would wish to make further inquiry. But as things stand, he may be effectively constrained from taking the necessary time to do so by the fact that the asylum seeker meanwhile has no means of feeding himself or herself.
Sub-paragraph (iv) concerns the various other circumstances in which unsuccessful asylum applicants may not be immediately removable from the United Kingdom. The asylum seeker may be in an advanced stage of pregnancy or otherwise unfit to travel; there may be problems and delays in travel documentation; or the circumstance in the country of origin may be such that removal to that destination is for the time being impossible or dangerous. For example, for the past year or more, UNHCR has advised that failed asylum seekers cannot safely be returned to Angola. That has resulted in some failed Angolan asylum seekers being on temporary admission for months following the dismissal of their appeals, with support where necessary being provided by their local authorities under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act.
What might happen to such people in the future if this part of the Bill is passed unamended? They could be removed from support scheme accommodation in whatever location they might have been dispersed, with no money or other means to feed or house themselves. As persons subject to immigration control,
1132
they would have no access to local authority assistance. What will they do? Will they beg, steal, and sleep in the streets?
In addition to all the other socially undesirable features of that scenario, how is it envisaged that the Immigration Service will find them when, and if, removal becomes feasible? It would be inhuman, not to mention prohibitively expensive, to detain indefinitely all those who, through no fault of their own, cannot yet be removed. The alternative, unless this amendment is passed, is the creation of a roaming vagabond class of unknown size and with no incentive whatever to maintain contact with the authorities.
The response of Mr O'Brien, the Minister in another place—that provision may be made for support through the voluntary sector—is not an adequate response. We in the voluntary sector seek to meet human need wherever necessary. Need of ten occurs through unforeseen circumstances or unforeseen consequences of otherwise enlightened legislation. We are more than happy to help to meet temporary needs in such circumstances. However, we are not happy to agree to provide a safety net in situations which are deliberately entered into. Without this amendment, it seems to me quite obvious that some people will be at risk of being made destitute. It is simply our duty to prevent that. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the principle of Amendment No. 115 is straightforward and simple. It is that the processes which entitle people in this country to the full protection of the laws should not be short-circuited by their inability to survive while that full protection is extended to them. As the right reverend Prelate very eloquently said, hunger and homelessness should not be reasons why people are not entitled to justice.
Most people who seek asylum status in this country are far from well off. Some, when they reach us, are already virtually destitute. That is exactly the reason why, quite properly, the Government have sought to provide some sort of support for them. However critical we may be of the form that support takes, we accept that the Government recognise that those people deserve to be supported.
The strange thing is that that form of support comes to an end before the appeals process is completed. Indeed, one of the most serious forms of appeal, judicial review, is not included within the extension of the support arrangements. People seeking and getting leave for judicial review have already, by definition, a fairly powerful case. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, in 81 per cent of cases where people seek judicial review, they are eventually satisfactorily shown to have a case which can not only be n lade out, but is accepted by the court.
What we are now effectively saying is that for the lack of the ability to support people, that final process of law may not be open to them. That is a profoundly

1133
objectionable principle. What is open to us should be open to them. It also conflicts, if I may say so, with what I might call the spirit of Tampere. It was only earlier this week that we were informed that under the agreements reached at the site of that European Union Council meeting, third country nationals were to be treated on a par with European citizens. Surely deprivation of the final right to that final stage of the judicial process hardly amounts to equal treatment.
I do not want to detain the House, but I believe that a fundamental principle is at stake here: the fundamental principle of justice to all, regardless of means, regardless of income and regardless of wealth. On the ground of that principle, I strongly commend to the House the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the last two speakers. There seems to me to be little point in a having a litany of rights of appeal and rights to have the courts supervising the jurisdiction being provided if one cannot have the wherewithal to live while that process goes on. A right which cannot be exercised is no right at all. I support, for the reasons given, the need for a power to support, even where the appeal may look hopeless. Many appeals look hopeless but in the end turn out to be successful.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too rise to support this amendment, but the case for it will not be strengthened by my rehearsing again the arguments already placed before this House.
I spent a day at an adjudication tribunal a fortnight ago, and I took the opportunity to speak with many of those involved in such cases at the front line. They are some of our finest lawyers and I was enormously impressed by the arguments they put forward on this subject. I wanted to add my voice to those saying that this seems an eminently sensible, humane and right amendment. I hope that it will have some support from Government.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. He has already referred to the work of charities and to the burden that this clause will create. We shall return to that point in a later amendment. I should like to ask the Government about the cost of including this amendment. I suspect that it may not be very great. I wonder also if, in their efforts to look firm—I understand the signals which they have to send to the public all through the process of this Bill—the Government are sacrificing their ability to be fair.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the subject of Amendment No. 115, which is an important issue, has received much consideration both in Committee in this House and in another place. The Government believe it important that there must be a defined point at which the support provided under Part VI of the Bill
1134
will come to an end. Asylum seekers whose application or appeal has been considered and found to be without merit cannot expect to receive continued support once their claim has been resolved. To do otherwise would merely encourage people to take unfounded cases to judicial review in order only to prolong their stay here and to receive support while doing so.
I must emphasise that it has already been stated on a number of occasions in this context that in the interest of the welfare of children, we are committed to support asylum seekers with children under the age of 18 for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom. By the time an asylum seeker's case reaches the stage of judicial review, it will have been thoroughly considered by the Home office, by an adjudicator, possibly by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, and will have been found to be without merit by all of these. If the tribunal's decision results in an appeal being heard either in the Court of Appeal or in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, support will continue for that period.
We believe that it is only right that those who want to take their case further by pursuing a judicial review should look to the voluntary sector or to their own communities for support. Recognising the role of the voluntary sector in supporting such cases, we propose to make substantial sums available to them for support of what one might term "hard cases", at their discretion.
The situations which the amendment seeks to cover are, with respect, exceedingly wide, and offer the less scrupulous economic migrant—for, at this stage of the asylum process, it is realistic to say that that is what they are of ten found to be—huge scope for creating delays. We know, for example, that the great majority of applications for judicial review never even result in the granting of leave. The scope of what the amendment terms "further representations" is huge, and the extent to which creative obstruction can create difficulties for normal removal is considerable. In order to continue the support, all that will be required is an application for leave to apply for judicial review or the making of further representations.
As part of the improvement of the whole immigration process, we are also upgrading arrangements for assisting the return of those no longer entitled to remain in this country. In certain circumstances, that may include assistance with documentation and ticketing. Rather than providing a continued expectation of statutory support, that is the correct approach towards people who claim difficulty in leaving the country.
Where there are genuine problems, the voluntary sector would be able to deploy a hard cases grant to assist such people. The support arrangements that we propose in this part of the Bill are eminently fair and reasonable for anyone with a genuine claim for asylum. I cannot accept the proposition contained in this amendment.
I shall deal with two points. First, I was asked what would be the costs involved. It will be impossible to tell the costs without knowing the number of people

1135
involved in the making either of an application for judicial review or the making of "further representations", to quote the wording of the amendment. In 1998, there were 1,350 judicial review applications from asylum seekers. However, I cannot tell your Lordships how many asylum seekers in total are covered by that number because the number of dependants would also have to be taken into account. Of those 1,350, only 320 were granted leave to make the application for leave for judicial review. Therefore, of the 1,350, 1,030 were rejected as having no arguable case. Despite that, the effect of the amendment would be that those cases would be entitled to the continuation of support.
A second point was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who asked what could be done by people with no resources. As is clear from the argument which I have advanced, we say that an end must be brought to the support when, in effect, the process comes to an end. It is worth pointing out that there has always been some person who is subject to existing immigration control while having no access to benefits. So far, such people have not been evident in the population of those sleeping rough on the streets. That was a point made by the right reverend Prelate.
In the light of all those circumstances, I respectfully ask the House not to accept the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, the point was made about applications for judicial review. What will happen if the application has been granted? That would cut down very considerably the problem of numbers mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. It means that a judge has taken the view that there is a good arguable case for establishing that someone has acted with out jurisdiction or has acted unfairly in the judicial review sense. What harm would there be in enabling support to run from the moment that leave to move has been granted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that point was raised in Committee. It has been very carefully considered by the Government. We do not believe that the appropriate way to deal with the comparatively small number of such cases in 1998 is by reviving the right to support, which is the implication of the noble and learned Lord's suggestion; we believe that those cases can be dealt with by the substantial sums that will be given to the voluntary sector to help with the hard cases.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned "substantial sums". Will he give the House a rough idea of what is meant by that and whether the voluntary sector has been consulted on whether it wants that burden?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips. I shall write to the noble Lord in relation to that. The question of whether the voluntary sector has been consulted was also raised
1136
in Committee. The answer is yes, it has been consulted. I acknowledge that the voluntary sector said in many cases that it preferred the matter not to be dealt with in this way. Of course, for obvious reasons, any sensible voluntary sector organisation would say from its point of view that it is far better that the state bears that burden. However, we do not believe that that is the right approach as a matter of policy.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I respect the arrangements which the Government seek to make for what the Minister has called "hard cases". However, with respect, such hard cases sometimes end on the streets or on our doorsteps and I prefer not to see more of them.
I feel that this matter involves an important legal and moral principle. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Methuen, L.

Brentford, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Calverley, L.

Newall, L.

Carlisle, E.

Newby, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ogmore, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Palmer, L.

Davidson, V.

Patel, L.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L

Gage, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Glanusk, L.

Sandwich, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Southwark, Bp. [Teller]

Hemphill, L.

Suffield, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L

Jakobovits, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Thurso, V.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Tordoff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kintore, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1137

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ahmed, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Privy Seal)

Alli, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Kennet, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barnett, L.

Leathers, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Levy, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Crawley, B.

Monkswell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Northbourne, L.

Desai, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Filkin, L.

Serota, B.

Gale, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Goudie, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grantchester, L.

Thornton, B.

Hacking, L.

Uddin, B.

Hanworth, V.

Varley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Winston, L.

Chancellor)

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Islwyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 60, line 5, leave out ("Part IV") and insert ("the Immigration Acts or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 60, line 8, after ("while") insert ("—

(a) the child is under 18; and

(b)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark The Lord Bishop of Southwark moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
(". An asylum-seeker, and his dependants (if any), shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act or Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of —

(a) initial asylum decisions; and

(b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions,

and certifying that the average time from the lodging of the application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the initial asylum decisions is less than six months.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it is no secret that those of us in the voluntary sector involved in the day-to-day care of asylum seekers do not like the system of vouchers proposed in the Bill; nor do we like the overall level of the support package. Nevertheless, we have been slightly comforted by the Government's constant assurance that the care package is simply for a matter of months while an asylum application is swiftly decided, after which a successful applicant would fall within the normal benefit system. So there will be an inadequate and harsh system of care imposed for a matter of months.
The problem is that there are grave doubts that cases will be decided in a matter of months. The Home office computer at Croydon lies within my diocese and I am not at all comforted by the stories from those working there. The figures are not too bright: a little over 2,000 decisions made in July; 4,680 in June and 4,185 in May. Furthermore, the July figure included speedier Yugoslavian cases for which less casework was required.
The Government's aim of fairer, faster, firmer decision-making is thoroughly laudable. The aim of reducing the average time for processing applications to six months is a noble one. However, if that target is not reached in the short or the medium term, it is not right for asylum seekers to exist for years on an inadequate care package which was designed to see them through a few months.
Of course, we understand the politics of the matter. The Government do not want to be seen to be a soft touch for asylum seekers with weak cases, which is why vouchers, not cash, are given. I am also sure that the Government do not want to appear to be harsh and unjust to those who prove to be genuine in their search for sanctuary in this humane country of ours.
Amendment No. 118 takes the Government at their word and would provide that the support system shall not come into force until the Government have met their own targets for processing and that, in the mean time, benefits shall be restored to all asylum seekers who qualify for them. The Government have issued a consultation paper laying out new interim arrangements to be operated by local authorities from the coming into force of the Bill to the coming into force of the support arrangements to be operated by the proposed asylum support directive. It seems that those interim arrangements will, to a large extent, mirror the support arrangements under the Bill.
I may well have misunderstood these matters as they are complex and complicated. It appears that these proposals for interim arrangements constitute a breach of a commitment not to bring families into the support system until the time targets are met, as the interim arrangements would mean that they would be living under virtually the same scheme.
Amendment No. 118 would supersede all of that by restoring benefits for an interim period until the Government's targets are met. It keeps matters straightforward and just. I hope that your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, whom I am happy to see in her place, suggested during our debates on single parent benefits at the beginning of this Parliament that some of the gravest hardships facing people on benefit fell on those who had been a long time on benefit. She has since repeated that suggestion a little more definitely. It is the sort of thing about which she is of ten right. I take that suggestion extremely seriously. It is that principle which underlies the thinking behind this amendment.
The thinking behind Amendment No. 118 is that a system which puts people below benefit levels is only excusable, if at all, on the assumption which the Home Office has consistently made; that is, that it is to apply only for a short time. It is certainly a thoroughly plausible view and one I am strongly inclined to share.
This is an extremely moderate amendment. It does not challenge the introduction of the Home Office system. It simply puts a "condition precedent"—as the draftsman put it—on its commencement. That condition precedent is that the Home Office should have achieved an objective which it actually set itself.
I pass over altogether the argument of whether it is proper to use the system of support to deter asylum applications to this country. In saying that, I feel I am entitled, like Clive, to,
"stand astonished at my own moderation".
I pass over altogether the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, with which the noble Baroness is quite familiar in relation to the adequacy of benefit levels and therefore a fortiori the adequacy of support below benefit levels. I pass over all the arguments about vouchers. Whenever such things have been introduced they have rapidly produced a discounted, second-hand market in
1140
which some remarkable things have happened. I pass over altogether the problem of supply in kind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may remember the point I made on the initial Statement last year; that when food drops were first offered to Bosnian Muslims, they were 30 per cent pork. We see in other contexts that where provision is made in kind, the actual amount of provision is diminished because some of it is unacceptable to some of the people who receive it. I pass over also an argument of costs such that we have had to get assurances that local authorities operating this system will be exempt from the provisions of best value legislation.
We are concerned only with the reality of the Home office's justification: that this scheme will be in force for a short time for each applicant. I rely on the Home office's White Paper which is the background to this Bill, paragraph 8.18. Having justified the claim that there ought to be a separate system of support for asylum seekers, the White Paper then states:
"The corollary of this is that asylum applications must be resolved much more quickly than at present, so that those who can establish an entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom are promptly distinguished from those who cannot".
I agree with the Home Office on that. When the Home Office meets its own target, which I do not believe is imminent, this amendment would allow the scheme to go forward.
I remember reading—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has read it also—the testimony of Sir Michael Partridge to the Public Accounts Committee on the CSA. Sir Michael said that one thing that must never happen again was to have at one and the same time a major new piece of legislation, a major administrative reorganisation and a major new computer system. I pass over whether the Home Office computer is exactly new, but it is certainly having as many teething problems as if it were. Sir Michael's reservations apply strongly to this system of support. Under the interim system, the Home Office is proposing to introduce something close to that system no more than a month from now. Introducing a system which is even now being amended fills me with misgivings. We think of the CSA and the poll tax; we do not want to be there again.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, attached to this group of amendments is my Amendment No. 183, which is designed to ensure that disabled asylum seekers have a right to special support for which they qualify because of their disability.
Clause 111, as currently drafted, means that no one who is subject to immigration control will be entitled to a range of income maintenance and extra cost benefits, including disability benefits. This amendment would ensure that severe disablement allowance—a meagre income replacement benefit available to those who are defined as 80 per cent disabled; disability living allowance which is an extra cost allowance for those with significant care or mobility needs; attendance allowance which provides

1141
for the care needs for those aged 65 and over, and the disabled person's tax credit, would be available to those subject to immigration control who meet the criteria for those benefits in terms of their disability.
Regulations have debarred asylum seekers and their families from claiming disability benefits since the changes to the benefit rules in February 1996, except for a small number who remain entitled because of transitional provisions. It is the view of disability organisations, and indeed my own view, that people with special and additional needs due to disability should have access to those special benefits in recognition of the extra costs that they face. The standard rate of support envisaged by the special support scheme for asylum seekers does not meet the needs of disabled adults and children. The simplest way for the Government to give asylum seekers that additional help is to restore to them the right to claim those benefits if they satisfy the medical tests. If the application for asylum fails, the entitlement to benefit will cease unless the asylum seeker appeals against the refusal of asylum status. Then the right to the benefit will continue until there is a final decision on the claim for asylum.
Although there do not seem to be official figures on the number of asylum seekers or refugees who are disabled, disability organisations' experience supports the view that the incidence of disability and ill health is much higher for this group than for the population in general. For some, direct experience of oppression, imprisonment, ill treatment, beatings or torture results in disability. For example, beatings around the head can cause permanent damage to the inner ear and loss of hearing. Rape and other forms of sexual abuse of ten result in permanent damage and recurring health problems. For others, disability results from untreated wounds or malnutrition experienced when fleeing persecution or war. The loss of limbs as a result of land-mines is a major cause of disablement in some parts of the world which are, or have been, experiencing warfare. Those asylum seekers with existing conditions such as diabetes, heart disease or haemophilia will have had them exacerbated by stress and the inability to obtain regular and safe medical care or treatment. It is extremely common among asylum seekers for a physically disabling condition to be accompanied by mental health problems.
As the House will know, there is an accepted body of research which substantiates the fact that disabled people face extra costs as a direct consequence of their disability. That is accepted by the Government and is reflected in the social security system through the provision of extra cost disability benefits, such as disability living allowance and attendance allowance. There is also some limited recognition—in the form of disability premiums and disabled child premium for income support within means-tested benefits—that extra financial help is necessary for those families with a disabled member.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I should like to press this point in relation to children. I work closely with the Children's Society in this matter. We are very concerned about the plight of families with young children whose circumstances are so grave that they can conceive of no other solution than to uproot themselves and flee. I am not clear what the position is as regards under 18 year-olds. Perhaps I may put it as a question. Can the Government assure us that asylum-seeking families with young children will not be provided for under these new interim arrangements but will continue to receive support under current arrangements until we know that the targets will be met for determining asylum claims?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, Amendment No. 184, which falls to be spoken to in this grouping, has been tabled in my name. I shall preface my remarks by harking back to the debate in which I took part on Monday evening. At that time, I pleaded the case strongly for special consideration to be given to women who, as well as having many other sadnesses as regards their circumstances, also allege that they have been raped. The case that I made was brought to my attention by the Black Women's Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape, which operate out of Crossroads Women's Centre in Kentish Road.
I took great heart and comfort from the manner in which it was explained to me that the burden of their complaint is that rape, which amounts to persecution, had been insufficiently taken into account as regards the circumstances of women in that class. I am very grateful indeed because I felt that there was some sensitivity in the reply of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on Monday night and an indication that the issue is well understood.
My amendment seeks to exclude asylum seekers from a number of categories set out in Clause 111. It says:
"Subsection (1)(a) to (k) of this section shall not apply to an asylum seeker where there is evidence of persecution or torture…including rape or other sexual violence, who shall be paid income support at the urgent cases rate as prescribed".
The case has been made from different points of view, but it is all the same. The purpose of the amendment is to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers where there is evidence of persecution and/or torture, including rape or other sexual violence. Again, I refer to my noble and learned friend's words on Monday night from which I detected that this was accepted as persecution.
I believe that it is urgent to ensure that the same standard of treatment is applied to victims of rape and other torture seeking asylum as rape victims in Britain. This includes access to cash benefits, reverting to the situation that existed prior to 1996.
The voucher system administered not by the DSS but by the Home office would stigmatise women and their children. This system forces women and children to live on inadequate and inappropriate food, seriously undermining their health, which is likely to have been significantly damaged by the torture from which they have fled. It will impose hardship and

1143
inestimable stress and anxiety on mothers who will have no cash for essential items such as nappies, medicines, and so on. It is also urgent to restore access to healthcare and social services to victims at a time when they need it most, as they are traumatised by rape and other torture as well as recovering from physical injuries or illness.
I believe that the case stands on the words that I have used. I am sure that noble Lords are not short of human feelings and that they recognise the dreadful situation of women who find themselves in such circumstances. I am also well aware that the Government do not have a bottomless purse and that they have to set priorities and make judgments—indeed, harsh judgments at times. However, the case I have made on behalf of these unfortunate women merits the most sympathetic and, l hope, generous response.
Baroness Masham of Ilkon: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question relating to Amendments Nos. 183 and 184. I have in mind the facilities which will or will not be available for HIV and AIDS treatment. I believe that everyone in this House knows that Africa is ripe with HIV and AIDS. Many asylum seekers may be HIV positive but not know it. I should like to know what happens when such people become ill. Can the Minister tell us what the facilities for testing and for drugs will be? Can he also say what facilities will be available for the children who may also be HIV positive? Indeed, some of the women who have been raped may become HIV positive.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, when we discussed Part VI of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lady Mar and I moved a number of amendments which dealt with some of the questions that have been put before the House today. I am happy to support the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Swinfen, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Lichfield and of Southwark in the amendments to which they have spoken. They are good amendments which should commend themselves to the House.
Linked with these amendments are Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 which are tabled in my name. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said earlier about taking the path of moderation, but perhaps I may for a moment lure him away from that path. These amendments are designed to go right to the heart of the voucher system. I make no apologies for saying that I believe it to be a bad system and that I would not wish to see it in the Bill.
I know that we are pressed for time and for that reason I shall be brief. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the voucher system. My understanding is that it will be run by an asylum-version of Camelot; in other words, a private company. I have no objection to this in principle if we can be told what the pr of it margins and the costs will be; and, indeed, the number of employees who will be running the system. Would it not be a better use of such personnel if they were to deal with the backlog of
1144
asylum cases, rather than setting up what is effectively a new counter-currency in the country? Frankly, on the basis of our experience in recent months with the administration of the passport system, I think that the Home Office probably has other administrative priorities on its mind without entering into these unknown waters. Of course, these are not entirely unknown waters because we know of the experience of the county of Kent, which does not stand well in this respect. Indeed, on the basis of their experience with vouchers, those concerned would recommend against the use of such a system.
I should like to raise a few practical points with the Government about the use of vouchers. Can the Minister say whether they have thought about the effect on people who will be vulnerable in any event of standing in queues and holding vouchers which will be available only to people who are asylum seekers? They will immediately be identified and, therefore, capable of being discriminated against and stigmatised. Have the Government thought about the bureaucratic business of being at a till in a supermarket and handing over vouchers and about the effect on those running the tills; and, indeed, the effect on the people waiting behind them in the queues? Have they thought about the practical consequences in that respect?
Moreover, can the Minister say whether or not change will be available from these vouchers? It has been put to me that they will come in denominations and that no change will be available when handing in such vouchers. If that is the case, it will reduce yet further the total level of support being given to asylum seekers. It also means that the very places where poor people would go to do their shopping—for example, street markets, stalls on roadsides and very cheap shops—will probably be out of bounds for those using the voucher system.
There are a number of other points that I could make in this respect. There is much evidence to show that vouchers do not act as a deterrent; indeed, we are told that cash is a pull factor. I do not think that there is any evidence for that—the Scottish experience certainly does not suggest that that is so. There are certainly administrative problems with a voucher system and there is the point about the stigma. For all those reasons, I should like the House to reconsider the question of whether we should be embarking upon this experiment which, frankly, I believe to be foolhardy.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group which have been either moved or spoken to. I wish to discuss in particular Amendment No. 149, to which my name is also attached. Clause 91 deals inter alia with non-legal expenses. I wish to give some examples of such expenses which an asylum seeker almost certainly will have to bear. I refer to stationery, stamps, telephone, fax, the cost of interpretation and translation of documents and travel not only to access legal advice

1145
but also to case hearings. It seems to me essential that all these matters should be covered either by a cash payment or by a kind of voucher which is instantly exchangeable for cash. I commend Amendment No. 149.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I have one question for the Minister on the voucher system. I have been told that 300 new staff are being recruited to operate the new voucher support system. If they were employed to take decisions on outstanding asylum applications they could take an extra 51,000 decisions a year, which would seriously reduce the backlog. I would be grateful to receive confirmation of that. On the matter of being stigmatised—I support what the right reverend Prelate said about that—I am concerned about the children because I understand that they are likely to be stigmatised as "voucher kids" which will make life more difficult for them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too support this group of amendments. I must apologise to the House for not declaring my interest on Monday evening. I am a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. If the tribunal was run efficiently, there would be no need for Part VI of the Bill. Cases would be dealt with quickly and there would not be the drain on social security and housing benefit resources. Like the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I feel that if the machinery for hearing cases was improved, that part of the Bill would not be necessary.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I enter a slightly discordant note in this series of speeches in support of this group of amendments. I speak as someone who has been involved in social security for 10 years of my life. It is worth bearing in mind that social security is based on some principles. Some of those principles comprise residence in the UK and having the contingencies which require entitlement to a benefit. I suggest that the Government are quite entitled to take the view that UK asylum seekers do not meet either of those requirements and are quite entitled to shape the support arrangements in accordance with the needs of those asylum seekers. This is exactly what they are doing in this Bill. They are making a benefit available in kind in the form of accommodation and support for housing goods. They are providing money, part in cash, part in vouchers, for day-to-day living expenses. That seems to me an approach which is perfectly defensible. I remind the House that previous governments, Labour and Conservative, have used vouchers when it suited them, for example as regards beef and butter. They gave vouchers to pensioners and other people on low incomes when that was thought appropriate as a matter of public policy.
It is worth recalling those circumstances. It is also worth recalling that there is nothing in this Bill which prevents asylum seekers having access to the NHS and the kinds of services that they require if they have particular illnesses or other conditions. I suggest that
1146
the Government have gone a long way to provide support for asylum seekers in an appropriate form, have listened to some of the complaints that have been made and have enhanced levels of support for children and for families with children who enter as asylum seekers. I suggest that we are fretting about nothing and that we would do well to go with the flow and let the systems be introduced, as has been proposed in this Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned previous governments giving vouchers for beef and butter. Does he not agree that that was done to reduce the beef and butter mountains in Europe and was not a case of vouchers being given for normal day-to-day or weekly maintenance?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was simply making the point that as a matter of public policy governments of all persuasions have used vouchers where that was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. This Government are doing nothing different in these circumstances. They are using vouchers where that is an appropriate part of the arrangements for the support of asylum seekers.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that my name also appears on Amendment No. 118, to which I wish to speak. We accept the introduction of the new support system, including the vouchers, provided that it can be properly implemented. The proposed short timescales for the introduction of the system that I have seen worry me a great deal. Some of us who have been in government have experience of the gap that can arise as between ministerial wishes and aspirations and the actual operation of policies on the ground. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the dreaded letters "CSA". All of us who were in another place during the previous parliament have them engraved on our hearts as a result of our experiences in constituency surgeries and so on. I see some of my former colleagues nodding their heads in support.
This new system will comprise a large, bureaucratic task to be set up from scratch all over the country as people are to be dispersed as part of the policy. It will be a difficult task to get the system running smoothly and it will be made impossible if there are large and increasing numbers of claimants, as there are at present. Last year once again more applications were made for asylum—about one-third more than the previous year—than in earlier years. Fewer applications were processed. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark reminded us, the situation continues to worsen in this respect. More people are waiting and more people are applying. As far as we can see at the moment, fewer people appear to be having their claims processed.
I believe that the Government must get on top of the asylum applications backlog before they start to introduce this other policy. Otherwise the support

1147
system will not work well and it will not work humanely. We all want it to work humanely for all these people, and particularly for the genuine asylum seekers and refugees who seek refuge in this country. Other provisions of this Bill are designed to help the Government to get on top of the problem. It is not that the Government are not doing anything about the problem; this Bill forms a big part of doing something about it. The Government have a worthy target of six months for processing asylum applications. The amendment suggests that we should take the Government at their word and say, "Introduce this new support system once you have achieved the target and then you will stand a much better chance of being able to introduce it humanely and efficiently in the interests of all those concerned and in the interests of the good name of our country". Therefore I support Amendment No. 118.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I remind your Lordships of the amendments in this group which comprises Amendments Nos. 118, 149, 150, 151, 183 and 184. As has been observed by more than one of your Lordships who have spoken, these are topics that we have discussed on past occasions in Committee.
I start with Amendment No. 118. I have to say that the lone of what has been said in respect of all these amendments is one that I recognise as being entirely based on legitimate motives. However, I suggest to your Lordships that some of the fears are misplaced when one considers the problem a little more closely. The whole point of the new system is to provide for asylum seekers to be supported separately from the main social security system. The point made by my noble friend Lord Warner is a valid one. Some people claim asylum for financial reasons. I shall deal with that matter briefly. I am not being harsh and dismissive. We do not have an open door policy in this country. I do not believe that the majority of people in this country would support such a policy. I know I am repeating what I said on previous occasions, but if we do not have an open door policy for those who are motivated by economic reasons, then we must have a strategy to deal with those who come here for reasons which our political policy does not accept.
I repeat, if I lived in poor conditions in an eastern European country and I had young children, I would want to travel to this country, to Canada or to the United States. I do not despise that motive; I hope I fully understand it. However, while we understand and respect those motives, it is not government policy to accept them. It is not sensibly in prospect that any government would have a policy whereby we deal with economic migrants in the same way as we deal with those who are eventually demonstrated to be genuine asylum seekers. I hope that that does not sound harsh—it is not intended to be—but it is the essential underpinning of government policy. I repeat, I do not believe that any prospective government of any political colour is likely to alter that policy. We are not
1148
living in the age when the United States, for instance, throughout a great part of the 19th century, was able to say,
"Give me … your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
That is not the situation in which we find ourselves or are ever likely to find ourselves.
Going on from that matter, if there is a cash-only system, an economic pull is thereby generated. I am not saying that is discreditable; it is a necessary incident of the human condition that if one thinks one can do better elsewhere—economically, financially and in prospects for one's family—one is likely to think about doing so.
Part of the point of the voucher system is to provide a viable alternative to cash benefits; it will allow asylum seekers who turn out to be genuine to support themselves properly, without economic migrants being able to make unreasonable gains from the system. I do not think I can define our policy more plainly. I recognise that others in the House may have a different view. It is from that basis of policy that we derive the present structure of the Bill and our entire approach.
I repeat what I have said so many times to your Lordships, our intention in doing this is to ensure that asylum seekers are supported in this way for a short period of time only. I have given assurances to your Lordships and the Home Secretary has given assurances absolutely unambiguously in the Commons. He has undertaken that the new support arrangements will be based on bringing down the length of time it takes to resolve an initial application in asylum cases to two months, and for the resolution of any appeal a further four months. The noble Countess is right—we have to speed matters up. That is one of the central purposes of the Bill. I am informed that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is well on the way to achieving that target.
I am not sure that all of your Lordships will remember that Mr Straw has given a further undertaking that, if the two-month target is not met, families with children, who are of ten the most vulnerable—I agree with the right reverend Prelate—would not be brought into the new support arrangements until the target is being achieved.
I understand the point of Amendment No 118 but it is not practicable. There will certainly be a lead time to setting up new arrangements or to continuing with the existing ones. We cannot delay the decision—which is long overdue—until the day before the new arrangements are due to take effect. My quarrel with Amendment No. 118 is that it is unduly rigid and restrictive.
In any event, I do not accept the implied proposition that the new support arrangements will be any less satisfactory for the genuine asylum seekers and their families than the present piecemeal ad hoc support arrangements that have grown up, even if the

1149
occasional circumstance may arise where asylum seekers are constrained to remain within the support system for rather longer than six months.
Perhaps I may advert to what my noble friend Lord Warner said. The genuine asylum seeker, by definition, requires decent treatment. Our system proposes all-found accommodation, free; with pots and pans, linen and so forth provided; with utilities provided at public expense; with a voucher provision, made for the reasons I have indicated; and a cash payment of £10 on top. I am not pretending—none of my colleagues ever has—that that will enable anyone to live a life of luxury. However, taking a decent, fair view of all the interests involved, I suggest that it is not unreasonable to provide such a system for a relatively short period of time. If some of your Lordships disagree with that, I respect the disagreement but we shall have to part company in our policy approach.
We are trying to achieve a systematic structure which deals with people who are in serious difficulties on a proper, efficient basis. No government so far has succeeded. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has been scrupulous on these occasions not to make any party political points. Nor shall I. No one has managed to deal appropriately with these difficulties. The noble Lord was generous enough to say that he welcomed the general approach behind the Bill.
Again I have to put a matter plainly; I hope it is not regarded as harsh. One way of making the system more prompt and effective is to reduce the flow of unmerited applications. One way of doing that is to mitigate, if not to remove entirely, the pull factor of cash benefits and unrestricted choice of residence. I do not think that I can illustrate our approach more clearly. If we disagree, we disagree.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150, it is a fundamental principle of the Bill that support for asylum seekers should no longer be available in the form of cash for the reasons I have set out. We have found that after the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, when those who did not claim asylum at port of entry became ineligible for benefits, there was a fall in the numbers claiming asylum after they had arrived in the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 149 may be technically defective. That is not my argument; I am simply indicating that the amendment is defective in the drafting, probably because there is a word or two missing. I am trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. If he wants to come back with the amendment he will be able to say "I have cured the deficiency". However, that is not my point. My point is that we differ in the fundamental approach.
We wish to honour our international obligations. We are obliged to provide a safe haven for those with a well-founded fear of persecution. Equally, we are not minded to continue a system which provides for those who seek to, or do, enter the United Kingdom simply for economic advantage. I repeat, we believe that essentially these needs can be properly met by the provision I indicated.
1150
I turn now to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, Amendment No. 151. He has not spoken to his amendment, but it may be helpful if I deal with it at this stage. I am perfectly happy not to if the noble Lord does not wish me to do so.
Under the new arrangements, vouchers will be issued to the main applicant, who will usually be the person who has claimed asylum, and not a dependant or other nominated person. That will ensure the secure and efficient delivery of the vouchers to those in need. It is important where there are children that the responsible adult is required to receive a substantial number of vouchers. I do recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances—which may be what the noble Lord had in mind because he referred to this earlier—where the main applicant may be unable to collect or use the vouchers. In such cases we shall make arrangements for the main applicant to have his voucher allocation issued to another family member or nominated person.
I cannot accept Amendment No. 183, but I hope that my explanation will be sufficient to satisfy noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who spoke to that amendment. I accept that suffering a physical challenge may bring special needs. There is nothing between us on that. We have taken the power to make provision in the regulations on the circumstances in which support may be expected at levels other than that which is provided as a general rule. I refer to paragraph 3(b) of the new schedule to be introduced by Amendment No. 124. That will ensure that appropriate support can be given to asylum seekers with such needs, and to their families.
Where an asylum seeker or his dependants have special needs that require additional support, that will also be taken into account in the assessment of accommodation and essential living needs. It is possible that that could result in a higher level of spending power being made available in particular circumstances. We would certainly want to reflect the particular needs of a disabled person in deciding, for example, what kind of accommodation should be provided. The most obvious example would be the provision of level access for wheelchair users, but one needs to be flexible. Asylum seekers with disabilities would also be able to look to local authorities for assistance under the appropriate social services legislation. I reiterate what was said by my noble friend Lord Warner. There is, of course, an entitlement to use the general facilities of the National Health Service.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, Amendment No. 184, is the last with which I need to deal. His amendment addresses those cases where there is evidence of persecution or torture or both. Those would be tests that give an entitlement to social security benefits rather than support under Part VI. It is inherent in seeking asylum that one is alleging persecution or a well-founded fear of it. I would suggest that that is a claim properly to be assessed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate rather than the Benefits Agency. For that reason, I cannot accept the

1151
amendment, but I should like to give such comfort as I may to those who are troubled by the same concerns so well articulated by my noble friend a moment ago.
We recognise that there will be a number of asylum seekers who have particular problems as a result of past torture. Perhaps I may refer to the helpful conversations I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and remind noble Lords of our discussions in Committee when I believe that I was able to meet their concerns quite significantly, if not absolutely entirely. We are continuing to consider these matters. I repeat my earlier tribute to the work of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. We are still in active discussion with the foundation. Our conversations with the noble Lords I have mentioned have not stopped with the announcement I was able to make in Committee. We are having talks with the foundation about how to ensure that the new support arrangements can ensure that clients are able to continue to have access to their services.
I did take on board the further points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about location near to specialist services. Part of that was met by my comments on expenses for travel. That may not be the full answer, and in a certain limited number of cases it may well be necessary to locate those who have suffered in this way close to the main sources of treatment. However, I should say immediately that that would run counter to our overall philosophy of moving asylum seekers away from London and the south-east. However, in a certain number of cases we shall be giving consideration to that, in conjunction with the foundation.
I realise that I have spoken for a long time, but I have done so in the main to honour all the concerns that have been expressed. I believe that we have provided a proper system. Perhaps I may turn to one or two specific questions which I shall deal with quickly, but if I should omit any points, I shall send detailed letters and, as I have always done, I shall place copies in the Library so that all noble Lords may have the benefit of reading them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about staff in relation to the voucher system. The figure of 300 new staff does not cover simply the voucher system, but is to run the asylum support system as a whole. Further, we have more than 200 new caseworkers to consider asylum claims. Over the next three years—I revert to the point made by the noble Countess—we shall be investing £120 million to speed up the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about items such as stationery. That will be covered by the level of spending power available through the vouchers. It is no different from that with which an asylum seeker presently drawing social security has to contend.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, asked me about cash exchanges for vouchers. That is not currently planned. As I said in Committee, we are looking at the possibility of the redemption of vouchers in charity shops, and of course the fact is that £10 per head shall be made available.
1152
Questions were asked about the voucher system itself, its pr of it levels and so forth. Those details will become clear only when the tendering exercise presently being conducted has been completed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about facilities for HIV and AIDS victims. There is undoubtedly a problem there and we are not in disagreement on that. We are actively considering the issue, and I am grateful for her reminder. We are considering it in collaboration with the Department of Health and the voluntary sector, which has such an important part to play. Those sufferers will undoubtedly need special provision, and we are putting our minds to that.
I hope that the explanations I have given have done justice to the concerns expressed, even if I have not managed to persuade all of your Lordships of the virtue of the course we have adopted.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I thank his Grace the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that response. I have of course listened carefully to what he has said, but I reel that Amendment No. 118 is a moderate and reasonable amendment that does not affect government policy in any way. If the Government are successful in meeting their targets—we all hope that they will be—the amendment simply would not come into force. It is only if the targets are not met that further protection would be given under the benefits system until those targets are met.
In all conscience I cannot see the logical objection to this provision. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Caithness, E.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carlisle, E.

Alderdice, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chesham, L.

Astor, V.

Clancarty, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Attlee, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Avebury, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Coleridge, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Biffen, L.

Courtown, E.

Blaker, L.

Cranborne, V.

Blatch, B.

Crathorne, L.

Boardman, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Byford, B.

Dholakia, L.

Cadman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

1153

Dundee, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Eccles, V.

Montrose, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morris, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ezra, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Fookes, B.

Newby, L

Freeman, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gage, V.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Geraint, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Onslow, E.

Gray, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Pender, L.

Hamwee, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rennard, L

Haslam, L.

Renton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodney, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Rowallan, L.

Hylton, L.

Russell, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandwich, E.

Iveagh, E.

Savile, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Southwark, Bp. [Teller]

Kinnoull, E.

Stewartby, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinfen, L.

Leigh, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Teviot, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Thurso, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Torrington, V.

Maddock, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mar, C.

Trumpington, B.

Marlesford, L.

Waddington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Warnock, B.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wise, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brookman, L.

Alli, L.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Chandos, V.

Bach, L.

Christopher, L.

Barnett, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Blackstone, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Borrie, L.

David, B.

Bragg, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Brett, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

1154

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

[Teller]

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Filkin, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gale, B.

Milner of Leeds, L

Gilbert, L.

Molloy, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Monkswell, L.

Glanusk L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Nicol, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Patel, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grantchester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Hacking, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Uddin, B.

Privy Seal)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Kennet, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kintore, E

Wharton, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Whitty, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wilkins, B.

Levy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly
6.37 p.m.
Clause 90 [Persons for whom support may be provided]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 60, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley. It seeks to remove subsection (2) of Clause 90. I do not think that we are very far apart on this issue. I refer your Lordships to our proceedings in Committee on 21st July when (at col. 1105 of the Official Report) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave an assurance that regulations would be introduced to cover circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to provide someone with support under the scheme who otherwise appeared to be destitute.
The views on this clause of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee have had quite an airing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded

1155
us that they had been quoted ipsissima verba twice in Committee. On page 3 of its report the committee stated:
"We question the need for clause 85(2)"—
the clause numbers have changed since the Committee stage—
"which would enable the Secretary of State to remove this linchpin of support from those who, in the words of clause 85(1) are 'destitute or … likely to become destitute', and recommend its deletion from the bill, or at very least that the circumstances under which the power may be exercised are set out on the face of the bill".
As it stands, Clause 90(2) has serious Henry VIII implications, and we propose that it should be deleted. In view of the earlier assurance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, we suggest that the Government's power, in appropriate circumstances, to withhold benefit from asylum seekers otherwise appearing to be destitute would not be inhibited. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I should also like briefly to raise the more general matter, which we have raised previously, of delegated powers issues.
As noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will know, we are very concerned about those clauses and amendments which still raise substantial issues with regard to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, and in particular those that have not been able to be considered by the committee. We shall debate a number of new clauses later, and I raise the matter now so as to avoid having to do so in regard to each of them. We fear that phrases used in the government amendments—for example,
"for the purposes of that section and in that paragraph"
do little to meet the committee's concerns. Some of the new clauses virtually set up totally new systems of regulation. I refer, for example, to the proposed addition of a new schedule before Schedule 8, and to the new Schedule 8 itself, which has only recently been tabled. The new proposals give huge powers for regulatory provision to the Secretary of State. The provisions arise in area after area—in terms of support, the treatment of asylum seekers and many others.
The proposal in this amendment—namely, to remove the power by regulation to exclude people from support—relates to only one example. A large number of later amendments also give rise to the objection that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has not had an opportunity to be heard on these matters. Therefore, we should very much like to know how Ministers intend to discharge their earlier pledge in regard to the amendments that are presently before the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the difficulty that arises in regard to Clause 90, and is brought to a head in subsection (2), is that an important matter is left in a state of uncertainty. We should have to wait until the circumstances had been prescribed.
1156
An issue of this kind affects the future of an asylum seeker, the merits of the matter, and the public purse. It would have been better had the Government found some way of indicating what circumstances they have in mind in the Bill. I do not know whether it is too late for anything to be done along those lines, but it would certainly help.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment largely because I do know the Government's answer to the recommendation of the Select Committee on delegated powers. The committee's comments are strongly worded and require an answer. For the present, no such answer appears to have been provided.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my Amendment No. 121 is in this group. The burden of the amendment is to ask the Government to clarify and, I hope, sympathise with the point that I make. It relates to the virtual ghettoisation, under the terms of the subsection which I seek to delete, of people entering this country. The subsection relates to the provision for support and deals with the accommodation that such people may be offered. The lines that I seek to delete refer to the location of that accommodation, the fact that it is temporary, and the fact that the persons concerned have no enforceable right to occupy the accommodation. Under the provisions of this part of the Bill, asylum seekers would be forced to live in areas designated by the Home Office—in my view explicitly disregarding family, friends, church and other support networks, upon which women with children depend in particular.
The matter is urgent. Many asylum seekers are severely traumatised as a result of their experience. Further isolation, and even the hostility of those around them, compound their suffering. It is vital for rape victims to have access to the support of communities, and to agencies which have particular expertise and resources, as well as to expert legal advice and specialist medical and other services, which are of ten not available outside London. Asylum seekers who had already been the victims of a lack of legal advice, or bad legal representation, would be further penalised. The Home office has raised corrupt. negligent legal representation as one of the justifications for the Bill, but there is a refusal to take that factor into account when deciding on asylum claims. Again, that would punish the victim.
I do not say that there is an easy solution. I simply ask the Minister and his advisers to bear in mind and understand the situation. It can be readily understood that people who can begin to justify their case that they are the victims of persecution and rape are desperately in need of communication and social intercourse with those who are either from their former country or share a common situation. Subsection (6) is

1157
deleterious to the interests of those who are in that dreadful situation. I hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply, given the case that I have made.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, which speaks through its published reports and not otherwise. Speaking for myself, I regard subsection (2) of Clause 90 as an extraordinary provision. Subsection (1) of the clause gives the Home Secretary power, appropriately, to provide special arrangements for asylum seekers who are destitute or are likely to become so. But subsection (2) simply goes on, without any explanation, to state that a person who would otherwise fall within subsection (1) is excluded in prescribed circumstances.
We do not know what those circumstances are. It may be that there are some circumstances in which that approach would be justified. But in the vast majority of foreseeable circumstances it would not be justified to take away the last barrier between a person who has entered this country and destitution. It seems clear that, if this subsection is to remain in the Bill, it should do so only on the basis that the circumstances are clearly spelt out in which the power to avoid destitution can be removed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in this group are Amendment No. 119, government Amendment No. 120, Amendment No. 121, government Amendment No. 122 and Amendment No. 122A.
I take the points which were so moderately made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and latterly the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I believe that they are entitled to the explanation which they so courteously requested.
As we know, Part VI offers the proposition that asylum seekers who are destitute—I take up the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—may be supported under Part VI. The reason we have subsection (2) is that there are many situations where asylum seekers already have access to other forms of support. Therefore they do not need to be within the Part VI support system. For example, in April 2000, when the Secretary of State's new support arrangements come into being, some people who applied for asylum at the port of entry will be entitled to social security benefits. Others will be supported by local authorities under the interim arrangements in Schedule 8. We do not therefore intend to bring all those into the new support system all at once at the beginning of April 2000. It would be unrealistic to contemplate it. The power in Clause 90(2) is therefore included in part to deal with those circumstances, but there are others.
Some asylum seekers are nationals of countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance or the European Social Charter. Asylum seekers who are nationals of those countries will, by virtue of provisions in the
1158
agreements, continue to be eligible to receive benefits after the new support arrangements come into force next year.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Surely people in those categories will not be destitute or likely to become destitute.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they might well be destitute or likely to become destitute if they did not take up their entitlements in the way that I have described. We want the power to say: "These are alternative entitlements which you must look to".
To develop the question asked, there may be other circumstances. We are considering with some care how we deal with someone who has made himself intentionally destitute. I do not believe anyone would sensibly contend that in those circumstances there ought to be the automatic right to the Part VI support if he makes himself intentionally destitute by spending recklessly whatever money he brings into the country with him. If someone is being supported under Part VI, is it legitimate to consider withdrawal of support, for example, if he wilfully mistreats the property in which he is housed virtually to the point of destruction? We may need to rely on that power, Clause 90(2), and the provisions of paragraph 8 of the new schedule under Amendment No. 124 to make regulations on those matters.
There is no sinister plot being considered or engineered. Those are the kind of circumstances in which we would want the regulations available to be made to deal with them. I say quite unambiguously that we have no intention of using the power arbitrarily to deny—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister assist us as to why the categories he mentioned cannot be put on the face of the Bill? For example, a prescribed situation would be where there are reasonable alternative sources of funds. Alternatively, as the noble and learned Lord said, it could be where the destitution had been brought on by the applicant's own unreasonable behaviour. Those are all circumstances which can be identified and prescribed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is right as a blunt point. But I do not believe that restricting ourselves to the circumstances which we envisage at present being on the face of the Bill, in the way the noble and learned Lord suggests, is the correct answer.
We want the regulatory power in order to deal with circumstances which are not arbitrarily denying support to people who have no other means of alleviating their destitution; that is, except possibly in extreme circumstances where there has been real misbehaviour. That is the policy purpose behind Clause 90(2).
I turn to Amendments Nos. 120 and 122. They are drafting amendments to achieve consistency of the regulation-making powers in subsection (5) with those elsewhere where similar formulations are adopted.

1159
Amendments Nos. 121 and 122A have been debated on a number of occasions. They concern the test of the adequacy of the accommodation that an asylum seeker has when he seeks assistance. Amendment No. 122A invites us to delete the matters to which the Secretary of State may have no regard but would leave us with the option of re-introducing any or all of them by regulations under subsection (5)(b). That is counter to the criticism which we have heard on many occasions, including this evening, that we are not setting out enough of our proposed policy on asylum support in primary legislation. We think the principles set out—absence of security of tenure, sharing, the temporary nature of the accommodation and its location—are sufficiently central to the policy that they ought to be set out.
I do not dismiss the concerns raised on Clause 90(2). I wish to reflect on them, though I have to say as my immediate response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we may still want secondary legislation for fine detail. Perhaps I may leave it in this way. The questions that have been raised are legitimate. I wish to consider them with my noble friend Lord Bassam to ascertain whether we can accommodate both our purposes. I can give no guarantee, but we will look at it together.
I was dealing with the later amendments. Asylum support is to be a last rather than a first resort. If there is other accommodation that meets their needs, they should not expect accommodation under the support scheme. For example, if someone is staying with friends or relatives who are willing to accommodate him, that should suffice, though under Clause 90 (6) he would not have a,
"right to occupy the accommodation".
The directorate may not take into account the sole fact that accommodation is shared with another household. Shared accommodation may be quite adequate. We would not ignore real or serious overcrowding or the fact that a large number of people were relying on very limited shared sanitary or cooking facilities. Equally, "temporary" accommodation can be quite satisfactory for some during the limited period of their asylum claim. I do not say that this is ideal but at the moment homeless families, as citizens of this country, live quite adequately in temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation for substantial periods of time. They are of ten longer than the periods that we contemplate here.
Location is not a matter to which regard should necessarily be had. If an asylum seeker has available accommodation provided, for example, by a relative in Birmingham, the fact that he might wish to be accommodated elsewhere is not of itself to be a determining factor in assessing his destitution. We are still considering whether to prescribe other factors under subsection (5)(b), and if we do, similar considerations would apply.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for intervening and am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I wished to pursue the matter he raised that under Clause 90(6) regard cannot be had to the sharing of
1160
accommodation. I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord. He mentioned that it might not preclude overcrowding. Can he give an assurance that if overcrowding is a factor—and it can be related in part to the people sharing the accommodation—that matter could be considered under Clause 90, or would it also be barred?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a fair question. Some accommodation would be overcrowded even if it were in single family occupancy because there is not enough room for a large family.
We wish to look not at whether it is shared, which in the true sense is not relevant. If there were overcrowding, it would he a relevant consideration because the accommodation would not then be adequate. On a slightly different point, some accommodation in Birmingham might well be adequate but it might not be suitable if it were unsafe if it were in an area where there had been racial attacks. Those are the kind of factors we would wish to take into account. We want to get a humane test, a fair lest which is reflective of all legitimate interests.
I hope that the assurances that I have given, particularly the indication that my noble friend Lord Bassam and I will look again at the principled objection to Clause 90(2), will suffice to induce noble Lords not to press the various amendments in this group.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution of noble Lords to the debate. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his indication that he will look at this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 60, line 41, after ("prescribed") insert ("for the purposes of this paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 60, line 42, leave out ("any prescribed matter") insert ("such matters as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 123:
Page 61, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations supplementing this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this group we find Amendments Nos. 123, 124, 146 to 148 and 152 to 158. Government Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 158 replace and add to the provisions setting out the new asylum seeker support scheme previously contained in Clause 93. Essentially, this is a framework for powers to make regulations governing the parameters and operation of the scheme. In November we intend to publish a consultation paper on the regulations, which we hope noble Lords welcome.
Paragraphs 2, 5, and 6 of the schedule extend the scope of powers to make regulations regarding the resources of the applicant that may be taken into account in determining destitution and the support that is to be provided; in other words, we want to be able to take account of cash, savings and income. That will also allow us to set thresholds as to the level of resources below which a person is to be treated as destitute, and to make valuation of any assets other than cash that an asylum seeker may have at his disposal. It is reasonable to suppose that an asylum seeker might bring certain non-monetary assets into the country, for example, valuable jewellery. We do not propose that such assets are taken into consideration in the same way as cash or savings. Such assets will be required to be declared on the application form and if subsequently sold should be declared as a change of circumstances to the Asylum Support Directorate which will offset the value of the cash against further support.
Paragraph 9 of the new schedule makes provision for notice to be given to an asylum seeker to quit property provided to him under the support arrangements. Asylum seekers are unlikely to be tenants of accommodation provided under the new support arrangements, and we need to set clear terms under which they might be required to leave accommodation, whether because they are no longer supported or because it is necessary to move them elsewhere.
Paragraph 10 makes new provisions for the treatment of any income. It is possible that the asylum seeker has an income stream which, although less that the level of support that he might expect to receive under the new support arrangements, can be used as a contribution. In some cases this may be taken into account simply as an offset in the spending power he is given through the vouchers that he receives. In other cases, for example if he is living in a full board hostel, he may be asked to provide a cash contribution.
There will be a few instances where an asylum seeker arrives in this country without any money but with assets that can be realised in time; for example, shares or property that can be sold only on an overseas market. That should not debar him from support while he has no other disposable assets available. Equally, it is only fair that he should be required to repay the value of that support if he can realise those assets (paragraph 11). I recognise that in many cases asylum seekers come here with virtually nothing in their pockets. That is not true in every case. We need to cater
1162
for the whole range of cases to protect the legitimate interest of the taxpayer. That is the purpose of the new schedule.
Destitute asylum seekers may be provided with support under Part VI in a number of ways. Amendment No. 146 provides for the Secretary of State to meet costs incurred by the asylum seeker's dependants to allow them to attend the bail hearing, in the event that the asylum seeker is detained. The reason for this is that, if bail were granted, the asylum seeker and his dependants would be directed to move direct to the dispersal accommodation on release. Therefore, we wish the dependants to be able to be present at the bail hearing so that they can travel as a group to the accommodation provided. I hope that noble Lords regard that as a decent, civilised approach to this matter.
In the event of one of the asylum seeker's dependants being detained, we have also provided for the Secretary of State to meet the costs of the asylum seeker and other dependants to permit them to attend the bail proceedings for the same reasons. The support scheme is not, however, intended to cover any such expenses incurred by the asylum seeker or his dependants where release on bail would not result in the whole group being dispersed together. This proposal is along the same lines as those set out in Amendment No. 147 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I hope that Amendment No. 146 meets his reasonable purpose.
Following the report of the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation about the Henry VIII powers to amend subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 92, at Committee stage we undertook to reflect on this matter. We have done so and have concluded that it is appropriate to provide that, if future governments think it appropriate to make changes to these particular provisions, they can do so only by repeal, not amendment. Amendment No. 155 does that. I hope noble Lords accept that we have fulfilled that earlier commitment. I hope that this meets the Committee's concerns and that, had the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, considered moving his amendment (Amendment No. 154), he will now find it unnecessary.
Perhaps it is helpful to deal with Amendment No. 148. I recognise the concerns behind the amendment. As I said earlier in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asylum seekers who receive support under the scheme will qualify for full NHS treatment. I confirm that that includes treatment of a specialist nature, as well as more general medical care. There are provisions within the NHS for people in receipt of benefits, such as free prescriptions, to receive assistance with travel to an NHS hospital for necessary treatment. This would apply to asylum seekers supported under the scheme.
The legislation does not allow us to take asylum seekers' preferences as to location of accommodation into consideration. But if there is a particular reason—I repeat my response to concerns raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble

1163
Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—why an individual, or one of his dependants, needs to be placed in a certain area, for example for ease of access to a specialised hospital to meet specific health needs, that will be taken into consideration by the directorate before reaching a decision.
We do not believe that there is any justification for the Secretary of State agreeing to meet the costs incurred by an asylum seeker in travelling to see his legal adviser. As asylum seekers are dispersed and the cluster areas become established, we expect legal firms in those localities to have expertise in immigration law. We are discussing this precise matter with the Legal Aid Board at the moment. It should not be necessary for asylum seekers who need legal assistance in pursuing asylum claims to travel any distance. I do not believe that we should pay the kind of expenses proposed. Having heard my explanation, I invite noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Amendment No. 152 gives me the opportunity to explain how we propose to provide accommodation. I repeat, we want to provide accommodation to meet appropriate needs. We are setting up contracts for the provision of accommodation and shall take account of needs and realistic availability of facilities. We shall have regard to any special needs, not least the safety, welfare and protection of children. Obviously, we shall apply our minds to the maintenance of public health and work closely with local authorities, health authorities and public bodies to ensure that proper account is taken of these matters. I expanded our views on the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture and in this context I do not need to revert to it.
As part of the arrangements we are making for the provision of accommodation and support, we shall be ensuring that the necessary translation services are made available. Clearly these will have to recognise the language capabilities of the applicants.
With regard to education, it is the Government's clear aim to ensure that all children of school age have proper access to the educational system. We would generally expect that this would involve the absorption of the children of asylum seekers within the mainstream educational system. Given the nature of our system, it will ultimately be a matter of detail for the receiving local education authority.
We want also to recognise fully the importance of ensuring the proper integration into the community of former asylum seekers who have been granted leave to remain. Again, we shall be publishing a consultation paper setting out our overall strategy. It can only work with partnership between central Government, local government and the voluntary sector.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 92 contains a power to make regulations on matters of the sort we are discussing. I suggest that the flexibility of a secondary legislation provision offers a better solution than enshrining them permanently in primary legislation.
I assure noble Lords of our concerns over the matters that have been reflected not only in the amendments in this group but generally in our other discussions.
Perhaps I may set out our policy as regards Amendment No. 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. We must relieve the pressures in London and the south-east. I believe that no one who knows of the problem in detail could take a different view. The situation in some parts of London is now so difficult that local authorities have no alternative but to rehouse local homeless families outside their area—despite the presumption in the legislation against it. There are many empty houses in both the public and private sectors, mostly away from London and the south-east. So we shall be looking for provision outside London and the south-east. We shall seek areas where there is a history of multi-ethnicity, where we can ensure the necessary support for asylum seekers. In general, we shall seek to house together asylum seekers from the same background. That goes to the point of mutual support—noble Lords mentioned the issue earlier, with which I agree—and managing such matters as translation. We have to bear in mind the questions raised in Committee. For instance, one cannot deal with Kosovars as a single group because they may be bitterly hostile to each other, as between Serbs and Albanians. We have to be careful and scrupulous about that also.
We do not want to be harsh. I have to say again that I do not believe that genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, or a proper fear of it, could object to being relocated in this way for a relatively short period. If they wish to go elsewhere where friends or relatives can help them, and receive only vouchers by way of support, they may do that. Those who are using the asylum system merely as a vehicle for economic purposes will not be happy; but that is our purpose.
Other systems that provide accommodation for people in need—such as the legislation on the homeless which serves both local people and some asylum seekers, and those social services provisions under which some asylum seekers are housed—do not allow for the preferences of the applicant to be taken into account. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising an important matter in Amendment No. 156. All the illustrative figures that have so far been published have been published in 1998–99 values. They will need to be uprated to reflect the march or inflation between the publication of those figures and the commencement of the new support system in April 2000, in effect to reflect the two rounds of uprating that have taken place in the social security system.
It is our intention to make regular annual reviews of the level at which support is provided to asylum seekers, to reflect inflation and other changes in costs over the preceding year. I am reluctant to tie that inexorably to the uprating which might be made for income support purposes. I cannot speak for the long-term plans of colleagues in the Department of Social

1165
Security for the uprating of their benefits. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the scheme I describe is geared essentially to meeting short-term needs. Social security systems cater for a much wider range of circumstances, including people with longer-term needs. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we are committed to undertaking a regular review of the level of support.
We intend to delete Clause 93, although its provisions will be reinstated in the new schedule proposed in Amendment No. 124.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 157. We remain firm in our intention that the directorate should be able to take account of the support and assets available to an asylum seeker from his own resources or from other sources. That includes, rightly I suggest, friends and family but also charitable and/or religious organisations. Such organisations have longstanding expertise to which I readily pay tribute. Indeed, there may be instances where such organisations are funded by the Home Office to support asylum seekers under the provisions of Clause 107.
As the Home Secretary made plain in the House of Commons, there is no question of voluntary organisations being required to deplete all their finances in support of asylum seekers. We do not expect them to subsidise the work of the directorate. But it would not be proper for us to be required to support those who are or could be supported quite adequately by the voluntary sector. The potential for such double funding would not be acceptable. If the amendment were to be pressed, I should advise my colleagues to vote against it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on my Amendment No. 147, and on Amendment No. 146 the purpose of which the Minister has described. I welcome the outcome of the discussions held in the summer by the Minister with the voluntary agencies which resulted in Amendment No. 146.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what the provision means as regards dispersal and bail. The head of the family could be in one place and his family in a remote location. Let us take the example of a Somali family. They arrive at Gatwick. The head of the family is detained in Tinsley House with the family dispersed to Sheffield where I believe that there is a concentration of Somalis and support facilities for them. The bail hearing may be scheduled at Hatton Cross. The detainee has to travel from Tinsley House to Hatton Cross and the family from Sheffield to the hearing at that location. Such an example makes one question whether it will be possible for the family to hold together. If they are in such different parts of the country, how will they be able to visit one another? What arrangements will be made for the family to travel from Sheffield to see the head of the household while he is detained in Tinsley House? Is the Minister
1166
satisfied that it is reasonable for a person to be detained in a location so distant from his family as to render family visits almost impossible?
The Minister said that in such cases dependants will be able to attend the bail hearing at Hatton Cross (or wherever it may be) and that the costs of their attendance will be paid out of public funds. However, the difference between the Minister's amendment and mine is that there is still no provision for the costs of the detainee to be paid. If I am right in my interpretation of the Minister's amendment, the head of the family still has to get from Tinsley House to Hatton Cross at his own expense. By definition he is destitute. How is he going to pay the cost of getting from the place where he is detained to the bail hearing? I should be grateful if the Minister would look at that.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could say whether he accepts the idea inherent in my amendment that sometimes people will be able to attend the bail hearings of third parties. I am thinking of cases where a surety is required. A person closely associated with the detainee, but who is not one of his dependants, might act in that capacity. Sureties are very important. The adjudicators normally require those involved to attend in person. If that is made impossible for financial reasons, we shall be irresponsible in not trying to correct that position while we have the opportunity this afternoon. Notwithstanding the fact that I welcome the Minister's amendment, as far as it goes, I hope that he will move a little further and accept the wider purposes of my amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful if I respond immediately. Amendment No. 147 does not deal with wider purposes. Someone in custody is going to be taken to the bail hearing in the usual way. In the circumstances that I identified earlier, we have said that dependants would also be taken to the hearing at public expense. The question of whether one can have a publicly supported visit for a person in custody before or between the bail hearing is not addressed in the government amendment or in the noble Lord's amendment. I believe that I have met all the noble Lord's concerns in Amendment No. 146.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I hope that it is possible for him to deal with the further point I made about third parties and the need for people who are not part of the immediate family occasionally to act as sureties. How would their expenses be met?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly think about that. It is not dealt with in the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I address Amendment No. 148. I was very heartened to hear my noble and learned friend say that as a result of discussions there has been acceptance of the fact that treating those who have suffered torture, for example, is of ten beyond the abilities of most health professionals and that, given the idea of introducing

1167
the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country, there would be acceptance of the need to meet the expenses of medical and other support services.
However, I am concerned that the noble and learned Lord does not accept the existence of the same need as regards the moneys needed if any asylum seeker is to meet with his legal representatives. Perhaps I may explain why I am concerned. The Minister has very rightly recognised the extraordinary damage that can be inflicted on asylum seekers by inexperienced, incompetent and unscrupulous legal representatives. The Legal Aid Board has stated that only specialists should practise in that area. I believe that we would all agree that it is a great advance that there will be the franchising of a core of competent lawyers in that field, which will drive out the shysters who have exploited the needs of asylum seekers.
However, we should recognise that asylum appeals are of ten complex and time-consuming. For the foreseeable future, expert assistance will be concentrated in London. Given that the clusters of dispersed asylum seekers may be far and wide, it is clear that even when expert assistance is available the clusters may result in asylum seekers having to travel long distances to receive the right kind of legal advice.
There are often expressions of horror by adjudicators where it emerges at appeal that lawyers have not seen their clients of ten enough—or at all—for the effective preparation of cases. Points have been missed through inadequate representation. There is of ten last-minute representation and judicial review applications. It seems to me and others practising in the field that that defeats the aim of the fast and effective disposal of appeals as well as being appallingly unjust if asylum seekers are not properly represented purely because they have not been allowed to travel to see their lawyers prior to the appeal because they did not have the money to meet that need. Therefore, I ask that the Government reconsider the position as regards support and this amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too welcome what the noble and learned Lord said about this group of amendments. Perhaps I may also raise a few more concerns with which I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will wish to deal. I turn first to Amendment No. 124. I am sorry if I did not put the point sufficiently clearly when I spoke earlier. The amendment comprises a new schedule, which we did not see until Report stage. It contains a great many powers to make regulations. Some of them affect people in a most precise way. It proposes, for example, the power under regulation to cease to provide support; to change the levels of support; to determine what assets should be taken account including those of dependants; and to consider what income can be taken into account.
In our view, such matters should not lie in secondary legislation. If they do, at the minimum they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is usually the responsibility of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to inform the House whether in its view there should be some form of
1168
affirmative procedure because the matters under regulation are of sufficient weight to require consideration by this House and another place.
In the light of the very generous assurances that were given to us on the first day of the Report stage that the schedule preceding Schedule 8 is the kind of instrument that the Select Committee should have the opportunity to look at—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a decent point here and I am content to adopt the course that she has suggested. Her point goes to Amendment No. 124 and I include Amendment No. 123, which is part of it in spirit. I do not propose to move them this evening because the point made by the noble Baroness is well made.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the capacity of the noble and learned Lord to take the wind out of my sails is yet another of his very many attributes. In future I shall avoid putting an) wind in my sails to begin with. Therefore, perhaps I may rely on the engine for the other remarks that I wish to make.
As my noble friend Lord Avebury has said, we are appreciative of the concessions made by the Government concerning Amendment No. 147. The noble and learned Lord addressed quite a few of his remarks to that amendment. We understand what he was saying. However, some questions arise. First, he will notice that the wording refers to "an application for bail". That means that someone other than the asylum seeker himself could apply for it. It might be a member of the family or some other person. From the noble and learned Lord's reply we are not entirely clear whether his remarks would apply as regards an application made by someone other than the person directly concerned. It is germane for the reasons adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that in some cases such an application is more likely to come from someone close to legal advice who is a member of the asylum seeker's family rat her than from the asylum seeker himself. That is the first direct point that I wish to raise with the Minister.
The second concerns Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. It directly relates to the consideration given under Amendment No. 152 and we are grateful to the Government for the provision they have made with regard to meeting the travel costs of alleged victims of torture to see specialised medical people.
Our concern was reflected by what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. There are substantial sections of the country in which there are neither the necessary legal advisers nor medical advisers. Perhaps I may give an example of a city which might well be within a cluster to which the Government decided they wanted to send asylum seekers. According to my information, there is no provision for a registered legal practitioner in Liverpool or any application for such a registration. I also understand that there are no specialists in the wide area around with any experience of victims of torture.

1169
I understand that the Government intend to look to general practitioners to sift out the cases and I understand the arguments for that. However, if a general practitioner finds that the person before him is likely to have suffered torture, will that factor be taken into account in the placing of victims of torture? There are two considerations. The first is that the Government might meet the travel costs and the second is that the Government might bear them in mind in deciding where to send such an asylum seeker. We are also concerned about the support that such a person would have, quite apart from the problems of travelling to a medical practitioner.
I want to ask a question with regard to Amendment No. 156. My noble friend Lord Russell will undoubtedly return to this issue, but I want to ask the noble and learned Lord to comment on the family premium which makes a great deal of difference as regards support given to asylum seekers and that given to people within the normal support system. I take it that that will not be included. My noble friend Lord Russell probably knows the answer anyway, but I do not.
In conclusion, we are grateful for the provisions that have been made. However, we are profoundly concerned by the fact that the cluster policy will be engaged in quickly. We understand that the interim support arrangements are likely to be in place before the end of this year. We fear that the building up of legal and medical expertise will take longer than three months and therefore, if the Minister could say how the gap between them is addressed, that would be most helpful to the House.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has given me the pleasant opportunity to begin with a hat-trick of thanks. The first is for his concession to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby a moment ago. The second is for his concession to me on Amendment No. 156 about uprating. That is generous and extremely welcome. I must confess to a small amount of regret that he did not agree to write it into legislation because, as he so effectively reminded me on Monday night, one cannot always trust those who are to come after. Nevertheless, when given at least three-quarters of a loaf, the only sensible thing to do is to say thank you and take it.
I should also like warmly to thank him for his concession on the delegated powers amendment, No. 154, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I must also offer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, having discussed the amendment with him before it was tabled, my apologies for not putting my name to it in advance. I assure him that that is sheer oversight and pressure of business on two Bills and I am sorry. I should have supported it to the hilt and I am thankful it will not be necessary.
There are a considerable number of other amendments in the group. Inevitably, one must try to do justice to as many of them as possible and cannot
1170
possibly manage them all. Amendment No. 157, that funds provided by the voluntary sector shall not be regarded as support, rouses strong feeling in a number of quarters in this House. The purpose of the voluntary sector is to make things better than they would have been, not simply to relieve the pressure on the Treasury. The purpose is to do good to the people concerned. If one throws that aside, one creates strong feelings and necessarily so.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I regret that nothing more is being done on travel to meet legal representatives, especially since the cluster areas concerned will be wide—at least, so rumour leads us to suppose. I have heard it suggested, for example, that Scotland and Wales will be cluster areas.
If asylum seekers were sent to Ullapool, it would be no great consolation to them that legal advice is available to them in Edinburgh. If asylum seekers were sent to Colwyn Bay—which I imagine is a serious possibility as there is a lot of vacant accommodation there in winter—it would be no great consolation to them that legal advice is available in Aberystwyth. To make that journey, you have to go right round into England and back again. It is a considerable journey. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but I believe he is assuming possession of a car. I doubt whether most of these people have cars, especially if they are destitute. It is not easy to run a car when you are destitute!
I also regret that nothing has been done to meet Amendment No. 153, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and to which I should have put my name. That would have left out subsection (2) of Clause 92, which directs that the Secretary of State,
"may not have regard to … any preference that the supported person or his dependants … may have as to the locality in which the accommodation is to be provided".
I understand what the Minister has said many times about the desire to move people out of the south east. I do not want to reopen that argument now, but the wording of that provision is so draconian that there is a slight risk that a provision might turn out to be ultra vires if by sheer coincidence they sent an asylum seeker to where he actually wanted to go. Will the noble and learned Lord look carefully at the words and assure me with all the authority of his office that that is not the case? I should be relieved to hear it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord most warmly for that. He might also want to consider ensuring that he does not inadvertently give that impression to casual readers such as myself.
That leaves me with government Amendment No. 124. There is an awful lot in that. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said. It strikes me that these are very unrestricted powers. Ministers talk about flexibility. This is flexible to the

1171
point of contortionism. It leaves the Minister free to do practically anything he likes and there is little—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that this is the fourth thank you that the noble Earl meant to give, but I was not going to move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I intervened to be helpful. I believe that the noble Earl is dealing with Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 now.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; I had misunderstood what he said. I imagined that when he said he was not going to move it he meant that he was not going to press it to the vote. I had imagined we would have a debate now, as we would have had in Committee, and raise issues which might give the Minister warning of points which might be made when the issue comes back.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands, but I understood it to have been agreed that we would debate the matters when we had the benefit of the comments from the Committee. I believe that that is so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if that is the Minister's understanding and the understanding of the House, of course I accept it. I thank him for it and apologise for having misunderstood what he said.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, because I judge this to be a point of such great importance, I want to thank the Minister for his assurance under Amendment No. 152 that there will be access to mainstream education.
I am thinking of two actual groups of asylum seekers who have made asylum applications this year. I refer to several hundred Rwandan and Burundian children and their families fleeing the terrors of genocide in that region. For such children who have suffered a fearsome experience access to education as mentioned in Amendment No. 152 is essential. A good primary school can be the beginning of stability and a place where children, having undergone such ordeals, can begin to make sense of a new country.
As the West Midlands, where I live and work, is already designated as a new cluster area for asylum seekers, I want to underline how glad we are that there will be access to our schools for that very needy group.
Having thanked the Minister, perhaps I may try something on him as a second point. Assuming that he is persuaded that providing for a basic: uprating will be proper and reasonable, will he consider making the total value of such upratings available to families with children in the form of an increase in the cash element of what they receive? A small reduction in the proportion of vouchers to cash at each uprating would be a judicious way of effecting an improvement to the lot of asylum-seeking families, especially those with children.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for a number of his comments, in
1172
which he has already answered the questions that I was going to ask. On Amendment No. 148 it seemed to me that my noble friend's amendment sought to introduce private medical care, to be paid for by the tax payer. It seems to me that that should be restricted to the NHS. I believe that that was what the noble and learned Lord was saying, and I therefore support him on that point.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord is going to look again at the wording of Amendment No. 153. I certainly misread it. I understood that he was saying that Clause 92(2) would be taken by the asylum seeker to mean, "Stay put in London". At the meeting last week, I asked the Home Secretary about the Government's programme for dispersal. I received an answer which was more or less that given by the noble and learned Lord this evening, but I am not sure that that is what that subsection actually says. I wonder whether there will be any regulations incorporating the admirable policy which the noble and learned Lord was himself giving this afternoon. Certainly, it is important that in this cluster policy the asylum seeker should be able to go where there are people who speak his own language, from the same background, where he can feel as much at home as he can anywhere in this country. That is the matter to which I took the subsection to be referring.
The noble and learned Lord's answer on Amendment No. 156 was satisfactory, but wonder whether it is going to be incorporated in regulations. I did not quite hear him say that. It may be government policy, but I should like to see it written down somewhere, because I am sure that that policy is correct. If it is not to be incorporated in the statute, will it be incorporated somewhere so that his successors can follow his excellent views on it?
I support Amendment No. 157. I believe that there can be an abuse of charities and churches, where local authorities should actually be paying, but they pass the buck. The local authority should repay to the charity or church what they are disbursing. I should like to see something more strongly along those lines in the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the effect of dispersal. Clusters of people may be created who will not have access to proper medical and legal representation. In particular, I confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was saying about areas such as Merseyside and the unavailability in Liverpool of some of those specialist services.
I recognise that there have been unreasonable demands placed on the south-east of England, as the Minister himself told the House earlier on. However, we should be extremely careful, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has just rightly reminded us, about the dangers of using Clause 92(2) in ways which will prevent any immigrant or asylum seeker from being able to express a preference about the area to which he will go if those support services are there.

1173
I particularly want to raise a concern with the Minister about the over-reliance which I believe he is placing on what he described as empty properties outside the south-east of England. Even if people have no preference about the property which they may be allocated, the Minister should consider carefully at least excluding properties which have been designated by local authorities as hard to let.
I vividly recall the period when Vietnamese boat-people were coming to England. I was chairman of the housing committee at that time. The immediate instinct—which was a good one—of saying that we should provide accommodation was immediately followed by the suggestion that we had empty properties which were hard-to-let properties into which we were not prepared to put our own residents and which could be used instead for those asylum seekers.
I regret to say that as recently as within the past 12 months in the local authority on Merseyside precisely the same thing has happened again. When there was a possibility of Kosovars coming to their district, it was suggested that some high-rise blocks of flats which had been empty for years and out of which local residents had been decanted because they were unsuitable for people to live in might be set aside for refugees. Of course, they were also seen immediately as potential sources of income for the local authority.
We must guard against that outcome and look carefully at the wording of Clause 92(2) which states that people may not have preferences. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to give the House an assurance that it would not be the wish of the Home Office that designated hard-to-let empty properties, already set aside as hard to let by local authorities, should be used for asylum seekers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 148 and then to Amendment No. 157 which is tabled in my name together with those of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
First, perhaps I may briefly say on Amendment No. 124, which I understand is not being moved tonight, that there are major issues around the amendment and it would be useful if some sort of dialogue could be established between now and the next stage of the Bill to address those matters.
I declare an interest relating to Amendment No. 148 in that my firm has a legal aid franchise for immigration and asylum work. I believe that the Government are about to score something of an own goal unless they heed this amendment. If the solicitor has to go to the client in order to take proper instructions, the time taken has quite rightly to be compensated for by the Legal Aid Scheme.
If the Government are quite properly concerned about the related expense, frankly, a far cheaper and better way of contending with the problem is to allow the asylum seeker to go to the solicitor in his office.
1174
There is a high concentration of practitioners with franchises in the Greater London area which deal with cases all around the south coast and the airports. To have people zooming out, day in and day out, is totally counter-productive. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look at that matter again.
I need hardly remind the Attorney-General that Amendment No. 157 has been debated in this House and in the Commons at some length. The fact that it is now back on the Marshalled List is an earnest of the importance which the voluntary sector attaches to it. I speak in particular on behalf of several of the major aid charities which have bent my ear.
One needs to reflect upon the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector, which has been put together with extreme care. That was done, first, by Alun Michael when he was Shadow Minister at the Home Office. He spent two years trawling with admirable care the voluntary sector to find out what sort of relationship would be best for it and for government if and when the Labour Party came to power, as it did.
Tony Blair has made clear that he supports the compact, as one might call it, between the Government and the voluntary sector. A key element—indeed, I would say almost the fundament of it—is that government and the voluntary sector should maintain a certain distance, each recognising the proper concerns of the other and neither trying to trample unduly upon the legitimate territory of the other. —
One of the major concerns of the voluntary sector in its relationship with government—not this Government; all governments—is getting too close; being too directly and closely drawn into the government's policies and projects. I believe that it is for that broad underlying reason that there is real alarm about the provisions in the Bill. Clause 93 states that the Government are permitted to make regulations which can take account of assets and income of those who are detained and who are destitute. As your Lordships well know, it defines assets and income as not only actual assets and income but income and assets which,
"is … or might reasonably be expected to be … available to the person concerned".
I need hardly explain to a lawyer of the eminence of the Attorney-General what a rubbery piece of drafting that is.
I refer to the words used earlier today by the noble and learned Lord. He said that almost without exception the voluntary sector should not be put in a position where all its assets are depleted. Those were the noble and learned Lord's words. Indeed, it should not. It should not be put in a position where any of its assets are depleted against its wishes. Although it is fair to say that there is nothing in the Bill which allows the Government to raid the assets of any charity, it comes close to a sort of blackmail situation if, when considering the assets of destitute people, the Government can have regard to what they believe a charity might do by way of alleviating their misery. That pulls the charities directly into the legislation in a

1175
way that I suggest to the Government—I believe that the Government may agree—is not right or proper in terms of their own well-publicised intent to keep a proper relationship with the sector.
Another comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, was that government do not see why destitute people should be supported by them if that person could be supported quite adequately by the voluntary sector. I return to that point. What is the definition of "adequacy"? Why should the resources of the voluntary sector be looked at at all? It is for the sector to decide where the resources should be disposed of, where best they are used and where the demand is greatest. I believe that presents a shifting of liability from the Government to the sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made the same point in reverse. He asked why the voluntary sector should thrust those responsibilities on to government. On this side of the House we say that it is the Government's responsibility and it is quite wrong, directly or indirectly, to impose those obligations on the 'voluntary sector.
I urge very strongly that, however difficult this point is, it should be reconsidered because I believe that the House would accept that the voluntary sector as a whole does not act foolishly and is in business to do everything that it can to make the best of the extremely difficult problems with which it and the Government, in their different ways, are contending. I hope that the matter may be reviewed.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I thank the Government for having agreed in toto to the two amendments in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. I wish to mention that the willingness to offer interpretation to asylum seekers in their own language is a very great offer. I thank the Government in particular for that.
It seems to me that we have come a long way in our free country when one compares the situation now with that pertaining until the 18th century when one could not even have one's own religion without ending up on Tower Hill, as did many of my family.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall interrupt the noble Duke, if I may. I did not accept Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. I took a little while to explain the reason behind our policy and our thinking to indicate that those amendments would not be necessary.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I take it that everything in those amendments has been mentioned. Therefore, I understand that it is not necessary to move them.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I wanted to speak to Amendment No. 152. However, I should say first that I was greatly impressed by the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, of the relationship between the voluntary sector and government and I wish to pay tribute to that. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's answer.
1176
With regard to Amendment No. 152, having worked for many years in east London, I understand the imperative to spread and disperse the situation that we are facing. With the large numbers involved, it is not hard to see the Government's difficulties. Of course, they are nothing as compared to the difficulties experienced by the people caught up in this process. They find themselves in a country with a different language and a totally unfamiliar social setting, with almost no resources to put together any sort of life, and waiting in a limbo.
The exchange a moment ago was helpful. I wish to speak to this amendment because I believe that what is stated in Amendment No. 152 does not seem to be stated obviously on the face of the Bill. It needs to be supported. There seems to be a surprising lack of reference to any criteria for a designated cluster, other than the availability of suitable housing.
At the moment in rural Somerset, in the Quantocks no less, there is a substantial argument about the use of an empty school. The village in which it is found is remote from any substantial nearby towns and is extremely remote from any settlement whatever of any foreign nationals. In fact, I believe that in some of our villages in Somerset a "foreign national" means someone who comes from the next village.
On the one hand, it is right to provide hospitality in such places and to resist racism and the sentiment of "not in my back yard". On the other hand, there is a feeling among those who would be moved there that they would be substantially isolated. The importance of Amendment No. 152 is that it sets out the essentials. Those ought to be stated. They make a very remote Somerset village seem inappropriate, not only because of the lack of specialised legal and medical resources but probably very little in terms of interpreting and translation services. Certainly they present considerable difficulties for long-term settlement. Those criteria seem to me to be very helpful for people who might look at the Bill to try to understand what is involved in the decisions which the Government are making.
In east London we always found that the most important element in not feeling alien was to be near to a community that did not react in that kind of way, and where possible to be near a community of familiar people. I understand the difficulties, but I still believe that Amendment No. 152 is important and that those details should go on the face of the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand that we can adjourn for dinner in the middle of a group of amendments. As this is the Report stage, those who have already spoken cannot speak again. For the convenience of the House and of those waiting for the Unstarred Question, I believe that we should adjourn this debate now and return to it after the dinner break.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that is helpful. I am one who is waiting to speak in the debate on this group of amendments. However, if f were to speak without having had my supper my speech might

1177
be briefer! If your Lordships are prepared to put up with the consequences, I believe that it would be convenient to have the dinner break now.
Lord Carter: My Lords, despite the suggestion of the noble Lord that speeches might be shorter, I am happy to move that the debate on Amendment No. 123 and further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving the Motion, I am sure that the Chief Whip intended to suggest that the Report stage should begin again not before 9 p.m.

Cuba
8 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy towards Cuba.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the usual channels for this arrangement and to all who will contribute to the debate.
It is some time since I tabled the Motion, following my first visit to Cuba in January this year. At that stage, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, fresh from a first visit, was eager to wind up the debate. I am happy to see her sitting on the Front Bench this evening. However, diaries did not permit a date to be settled until now. As a result of recent government changes I am delighted that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, especially in view of her particular responsibilities for the Caribbean region.
Since January a number of events and developments have spotlighted Cuba and had a positive effect on our relationship with that country. Therefore, now is 'a good time to hear from the Government their reaction to those events, as well as any new policy developments.
The delayed timing of the debate also enabled me to make a second visit to Cuba. My first visit was a private holiday and my second visit—some two weeks ago—was memorable not only because it gave me the opportunity of a meeting with "El Comandante", Fidel Castro himself, but also because it signified the completion of negotiations and the implementation of an agreement between SmithKline Beecham Biologicals, a Belgian subsidiary of SmithKline Beecham, and the Finlay Institute for the further development and licensing of the meningitis B vaccine developed by the Finlay Institute. As a non-executive director of SmithKline Beecham, I am extremely pleased by that important breakthrough which will have such an impact on the health of children throughout the world.
That leads me to one development on which I want to focus in the short time available for this debate. Health generally and biotechnology in particular have
1178
been given a high priority in Cuba and there have been many successes with first-class research and development facilities and a pipeline of products of which the meningitis B vaccine is a leading one.
In April this year, at the invitation of the Cuban Government, and with the support of British Trade International, CARITAG (the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group) organised and led a small biotechnology mission to Cuba. The idea was to introduce United Kingdom pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, large and small, to the sector in Cuba by visiting some of the 38 biotechnology facilities grouped together near Havana and to identify projects for future partnership and co-operation. The mission was successful and recently was followed up by the visit here of a team from Cuba led by Dr Agustin Lage, the director of the Centre of Molecular Immunology in Havana. He spoke to a well-attended seminar and had a busy programme of bilateral meetings with experts in England and Scotland.
I believe that that is a most exciting development in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role. I hope that other concrete projects will result. I want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for an assurance that the Government will continue to give support and encouragement to bilateral missions of that type in order to encourage further partnerships.
In passing, I mention that both the Cuban ambassador here in London and our ambassador in Cuba have worked hard on such missions. They deserve congratulations on, and thanks for, the roles that they have played in supporting the development of relations in that important sector.
In regard to health in general, Cuba has had great success as a result of its health programmes, including its preventive health programme. Cuba enjoys the lowest infant mortality rate in the region. As I understand it, Cuba is interested in developing a special health role in the region. As a result of the consequences of the Hurricane Mitch disaster, Cuba sent 400 doctors to Honduras. Doctors have also been sent to El Salvador and a number of Cuban doctors are working on loan in Haiti.
On my last visit I was able to see La Escuela Latina Americana de Ciencias, the Latin American scientific school which has recently been opened. It has 2,000 students from low-income families and from country areas all over Latin America. They spend two years at the institute and complete their medical training in hospitals or clinics in other parts of Cuba. That is an interesting and an important initiative. It may be that United Kingdom interests in the region could coincide with that initiative. We could encourage our doctors and medical professions to give help and support.
Other events this year include the visit of members of the Cuban National Assembly, led by Dr Ricardo Alarcon. I know that my noble friend Lady Young was much involved with that. She organised a parliamentary seminar which gave many of us the opportunity to offer our views on such issues as the

1179
impact of the extra-territorial effects of the Helms-Burt on legislation and human rights issues, as well as discussing communication in the areas of educational and cultural exchanges.
Among the good news this year is the fact that the Export Credits Guarantee Department has reinstated Cuba as an insurable risk for British exporters. Many of us had been pressing for that for some time, and we are delighted by that development.
Another piece of good news is the fact that in a couple of weeks' time, in November, the Ibero-Hispanic Summit is due to take place for the first time in Cuba. The heads of state of virtually all the Latin American countries will be represented, as well as Spain and Portugal. There will also be the first visit ever by a King of Spain to Cuba.
Among the bad news, however, is the havoc caused by Hurricane Irene last week in claiming two lives, destroying 13 buildings and causing damage to the banana and tobacco crops. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Baroness what the Government are doing to help and support in that emergency.
Cuba is a small country, struggling to maintain its identity in a difficult world economic scene and with an impossible relationship with its closest neighbours to the north. We may not all agree with some of the politics, but we should help. Certainly in my capacity as president of Canning House (the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council) I know we shall continue to encourage not only trade and commercial activity, but also more contact and exchanges on the educational and cultural front.
The United Kingdom has important historic associations with, and considerable influence in, the Caribbean. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has ministerial responsibility in that area. I hope therefore that she can give us a positive and optimistic view and plan for the future.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in speaking in the debate this evening I begin by declaring an interest as president of the UK side of the Cuba Initiative. Before I say anything about Cuba, I want to say that this will be the last time that my noble friend Lord Montgomery will be speaking in your Lordships' House. I am sure everybody will recognise that, as the acknowledged expert on Latin American subjects and on the Caribbean and Central America, he has made a major contribution in this House. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that he has to leave it under the circumstances in which he does.
On previous occasions I have had the opportunity to raise Questions about the nature of Britain's relationship with Cuba and the importance of resolving differences through dialogue and close contact. In doing so I have been conscious of the need for us at least to maintain our relations at the level of that of our European partners and not allow the concerns of the United States in its relationship with Cuba to determine the pace at which we engage in dialogue.
1180
In the time available I can raise only a few topics, but I too would first like to commend the Government's recent decision to take forward with the Cuban Government a dialogue for resolving questions on official debt, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hooper. I understand that in September the ECGD reached an understanding with the Central Bank of Cuba. That means that British exporters will soon be able to take advantage of new export credits for Cuba. The agreement, which stems from a memorandum of understanding enabling repayment of a proportion of Cuban short-term debt, owes much to the personal involvement and interest of the then Minister for Trade, Brian Wilson, and I am pleased to acknowledge that.
In parallel with those discussions on the official debt, informal proposals have been developed to try to resolve the question of Cuba's remaining commercial debt to British companies. The Government have been supportive of that initiative which is now being developed with the Cuban central bank. I hope that, as those discussions proceed, Ministers will continue to note to the Cuban Government the importance of removing this remaining impediment to UK-Cuban trade.
In the past 18 months Cuba has indicated in a very practical way its willingness to co-operate with Britain and others on the interdiction of narcotics passing through the Caribbean region. That is indicative of the ways in which Britain can develop a much closer relationship with Cuba at a functional level and is to be welcomed.
Perhaps I may raise a specific issue of concern. The Government are committed to a ban on tobacco advertising by December of this year. There is a difference between cigarettes and cigars. Cigars are a different market from cigarettes. There were 55,000 people in Cuba employed in the tobacco industry in 1999 and in 1998 tobacco accounted for 13.5 per cent of Cuba's GDP. Moreover, cigars account for 40 per cent of all the exports from Cuba to the UK each year. Cigars are sold largely through mail order, specialist shops, restaurants and hotels. Those concerned with this business are worried about the lack of clarity in the regulations affecting that issue. I hope that the Government will be able to say something on that. I shall understand if the Minister cannot respond this evening but, if not, perhaps she will write to me. It will have a serious knock-on effect in Cuba, something I do not believe was ever intended.
Of course, we have differences with Cuba on issues of human rights and issues relating to governance. But I echo what my noble friend said when. I say that I am glad that we had a successful visit in which the Cuba Initiative was able to host jointly with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy a visit to the UK by members of the Cuban National Assembly. The delegation, led by the president of the assembly, Ricardo Alacon, was able to debate with Members of both Houses, our political parties and others the relative merits of our two systems of government. It is fair to say that both sides benefited from the contacts.

1181
I hope that there will be further visits of that kind. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will visit Cuba at the earliest opportunity. And I hope that in this country we shall see senior members of the Cuban Government, including Dr Carlos Lage, the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Council of Ministers.
Britain also has a role to play in the closer integration of Cuba into the Caribbean region, and most particularly in relation to its possible accession to the Lomé Convention. Cuba is already participating in the present negotiations as an observer. Should it decide to proceed to full ACP status, it will be necessary for EU member states to accept that this will change the nature of its relationship with Europe. Recent remarks by Caribbean leaders indicated their desire to have Cuba inside the grouping in order that a more substantive dialogue on matters of mutual concern can take place. I believe that such an approach is equally as valid for Europe, as Cuba within the ACP will encourage a more intimate and practical dialogue within the broad-based development relationship Europe has with countries of the ACP.
Britain has an important role in enabling the Cuban people to chart their own course with the Americas. Further steps are now required by the Government to build on the much improved relationship that is now in place.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for asking the Question and speaking with such clarity, and also for the work she is doing to promote technical co-operation and trade between Cuba and this country. I am also delighted that my noble friend Lady Scotland has inherited responsibility for Latin America and the Caribbean. I am sure she will do well. I hope she will follow her earlier predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in taking a special interest in Cuba and the Caribbean.
I have always been interested in Cuba's social experiment and have twice visited the island in the past three years, the last time as a member of the IPU delegation. Cuba has many lessons to teach other developing countries and some developed countries too, especially in the field of public and primary healthcare. That is despite the fact that it is a one-party state with a centrally-controlled economy—hardly the model currently favoured by the IMF or the OECD.
The achievements of universal access to healthcare and the virtual elimination of illiteracy are remarkable for a poor country, as are the advances in higher education and research of international calibre as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—the most famous being the meningitis B vaccine, a world first. A number of other potential developments in the biotechnical field are of great interest, some involving genetic modification—I am not sure Greenpeace would approve.
When assistance from the Soviet bloc suddenly ended in 1990, many observers thought that popular dissatisfaction with the austerity programme, known
1182
in Cuba as "the special period" that followed, would see the end of the Communist era, especially as the USA seized that moment to tighten the screw on Cuba through the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts. But this was a serious miscalculation. For one thing, Cuba has a fierce tradition of independence, initially from Spain, but now from the USA, which grossly exploited Cuba economically in the past while giving little back in the first half of this century. It was this exploitation and profiteering, particularly by sugar plantation owners, but also by others, which lay behind the nationalisation without compensation of land and enterprises after the 1959 revolution.
However, I return to the substance of the Question. It is clear that, partly due to the pioneer work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there have been significant increases in trade and cultural exchange between Britain and Cuba in recent years, as described by both noble Baronesses. I am sure that my noble friend will tell us about the visit of her immediate predecessor, who is sitting in front of me—her noble friend Lady Symons—and her honourable friend Brian Wilson, the Minister for Trade, last year. Particularly encouraging has been the reopening, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, of ECGD funds to Cuba, although the sums so far underwritten are quite small. But it will allow us to catch up somewhat with other European countries, such as France, Spain and Italy, which long ago found ways of providing credit for their exports to Cuba.
But looming over all efforts to increase trade with Cuba is the American embargo, which extends to food, medicines and medical equipment, though recently there has been a little bit of a relaxation on the medical side. There is also the effect of the extra-territorial Act. Can my noble friend, for example, give us an update on any action that Britain may have taken, or intends to take, in the World Trade Organisation or in Europe which might persuade the US Congress to end these restrictive unilateral measures against trade with Cuba?
There is no doubt that US trade policy has been damaging to the Cuban economy. For example, it has been much more expensive for Cuba to obtain goods from Europe than from the USA, its traditional supplier. Some items are completely unobtainable because of US links to the multinational companies that supply them—this has applied to medicines and chemicals for Cuba's own pharmaceutical industry. The American Association for World Health, in its well-known 1997 report on The Impact of the US Embargo on Health and Nutrition in Cuba, states:
"The inclusion of food and medicine in an international trade embargo is a violation of international human rights conventions which uphold the principle of a free flow of food and medicines, even in wartime, to serve the basic needs of civilian populations".
The report goes on to list all those conventions that the US has broken in this embargo. The report gives plenty of evidence of the harmful effects of under-nutrition and lack of equipment; of spare parts, for example, to repair water purification plants, which have broken down. What is remarkable is that, despite under-nutrition and an increase in water-borne

1183
infections, the infant and child mortality rate has continued to improve. This is because of careful nutritional targeting of vulnerable groups and a very effective primary healthcare system which gives universal coverage.
The contrast with the situation in Iraq, which has also suffered food and equipment shortages as a result of sanctions, is striking. There the infant and child mortality rate, which was quite good before the Gulf War, has more than doubled, probably due to inadequate food distribution and primary care and lack of health education—something which is given on a personal basis to every Cuban by his or her GP or community nurse.
I should like to finish with one paragraph. This system so impressed Professor Patrick Pietroni, who is the Postgraduate Dean of General Practice at London University, that he is organising a British-Cuban conference for GPs which will take place in Cuba next March and which will provide an opportunity for the mutual exchange of ideas. More than 100 British doctors will be attending, among whom I hope to be. I very much hope that the Government will be able to give this imaginative conference their blessing. It would be enormously appreciated if my noble friend could arrange to visit Cuba at that time and look in at the conference, as well as bringing, perhaps, a Minister from the Department of Health. Although the traditions are different, our National Health Service, especially at the primary healthcare level, might find the Cuban approach well worth studying.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is most fortunate that this debate is taking place so shortly after the visit of my noble friend Lady Hooper to Cuba. If I may say so, it was a very successful mission. The Cubans are extraordinarily talented people and the fact that this technological development has been put to world use is quite marvellous. I hope that there will be more of them; indeed, this should be supported most strongly.
Most of what I had intended to say has been said, so I shall endorse some of the comments made. First, I turn to the devastating effect of Hurricane Irene. On this occasion it was mostly rain 'that caused the damage; but the damage was to the tobacco crop, which is one of Cuba's principal exports. I was shocked to hear what my noble friend Lady Young said—namely, that there will be difficulties about the export of this crop because they will need help. I am not sure that they need the total help of aid. Cuba is full of extraordinarily talented people. They are very energetic and hard working.
What the Cubans need is trade and investment because that will create employment and bring the country into the international community as a fully-fledged member. I know that there are problems with the political system, but we should work with them and work towards that aim. That is why the memorandum of understanding which will lead to the restoration of full ECGD cover is so welcome. Of course, as the noble
1184
Lord, Lord Rea, said, it is a modest start. But it is a start. We have been asking for this for some time and I am sure that it will grow. We have been at a disadvantage in the United Kingdom with some of our friends across the water in the rest of the European Union. It is to be hoped that this will grow from that start.
As several speakers have mentioned, the biggest obstacle is the question of the restrictions on Cuba by this drastic and absolutely catastrophic legislation in the United States, which we all know is called Helms-Burton. This is a totally scandalous piece of legislation; it is completely against all international law. The WTO has been extremely weak as regards doing anything about it—very wishy-washy. I regret to say that I think the European Union took a rather half-hearted approach to getting something done about it. It is very much incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to press the EU to take a much more robust line with the WTO to ensure that the US is brought to book on this issue. If we are to have a world in which we can trade together internationally, such infringements cannot be allowed. The fact that the United States is enormously powerful and tries to bully a small island nearby is totally unacceptable to the international community. I hope that we can be much more strong minded about that in the future. Indeed, that would be very welcome.
My noble friend Lady Young has done miracles with the Cuban initiative, which has been a very important event. Last year we had the inward mission from the Cuban National Assembly led by Ricardo Alarcon, to which my noble friend referred. I endorse her suggestion wholeheartedly that we should have a visit from Carlos Lage, who is a very important member of the Cuban Government. He is a talented young man. In fact, I made that suggestion in an earlier debate on this very subject.
Regrettably, I must thank my noble friend Lady Young for her kind remarks about my efforts in this field. It is correct that this will be my last intervention because, alas, I am leaving at the end of next week to go on a South American tour in order to honour some long-standing commitments which were made long before this House of Lords Bill started its passage. Therefore, I shall not be here at the end of the Session. However, it has been an enormous privilege to serve in this House. I have been here for 23 years and have pursued certain causes, many of which were related to Latin America, but I have also pursued other causes. It is encouraging to see that so many enthusiastic potential Latin Americans have participated in this debate. I may not agree with what is being proposed for the future of the House but I accept the will of Parliament. I shall retire, I hope in good order, and I hope to keep in touch with many friends in the hereafter.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? He has until tomorrow to submit his name for election. I think that it is absolutely outrageous that he has not already done so. I for one, as a great admirer

1185
of my noble friend, hope that he will change his mind and submit his name for election to continue in this House.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. I have written some letters on this subject and my view is that if we believe in democracy we should practise it and have a fully elected senate.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this debate. It is quite difficult to make another comment on my noble friend Lord Montgomery. My noble friend may have made his final speech here but one never knows. As someone said, a week is a long time in politics.
My theme is Cuba's economy and its economic prospects. I am mindful that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is operating in Cuba and this welcome initiative, supported by the then government, came shortly after my time with CDC. Given Cuba's geographical position and its considerable economic potential, we might expect prosperity. Cuba has the population needed to continue its development and it has a fair share of natural resources. It could aspire to a leadership role in the Caribbean. But the Cubans are not prosperous. Cuba's economy is narrowly based and too dependent upon tourism, its exports too dependent upon sugar, and those exports too dependent upon Russia. Fuel consumes a large proportion of its foreign exchange earnings, 20 per cent. Of which come from US dollar remittances.
Not much foreign investment—SmithKline Beecham excepted—is being made in Cuba, hard though the Canadians have tried. Yet Cuba's slow economic progress is not in our interests. Small states have problems and temptations enough. The Caribbean needs to progress and to remain stable. Cuba is patently not playing the part that it could. Indeed we do not hear the same story from the Dominican Republic, still less—if your Lordships will forgive me—from Puerto Rico.
Central to progress is the availability of foreign capital and freer access to markets. Regrettably Cuba idiosyncratically chose the wrong partner, the Soviet Union, a partner which could never have delivered a fraction of the economic opportunity available from good relations with the United States. Nevertheless, for how long must Cuba now be stood in the corner? And for how long will Fidel Castro be able to rail at his neighbours to rally his faithful? What will the United Kingdom do to speed up the rate of change in this stalemate relationship? Minor US relaxations of earlier this year have been welcome but are nowhere near enough. What additional dimension can the European Community bring? France, and to a lesser degree Holland, have Caribbean interests. A large proportion of the Caribbean peoples are Hispanic, which brings in United States domestic politics,
1186
probably regrettably, and as dollar remittances are likely to come from Castro's opponents, Cuban domestic politics also.
Nevertheless when two states, one the world's most powerful and the other small but potentially a full member of the international community, are at loggerheads we are presented with an excellent test for our diplomatic skills. For we cannot want Cuba to remain an outsider, nor be content to see the United States of America being so unforgiving. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us how she believes we will fare with our diplomatic representations and what other people we can bring to bear with us to be more successful than we have been so far in drawing Cuba into the international community and achieving a reconciliation with the United States.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my claim to take part in this debate is three years' residence in Havana as a diplomatic wife in the early eighties—I was the Candidate from Cuba in my first parliamentary campaign—and a continuing interest in the country and its people since then.
Most people seem to like Cuba and the Cubans. There is, even now, a residual admiration for Fidel Castro—the young lawyer defending his student friends against the Battista regime and the romantic hero of Moncada—and the entry into Havana still exercises a spell, albeit a fading one. Not many people ask why so many of his close colleagues from the revolutionary era committed suicide.
The Cubans have a high standard of literacy, their health provision is good. They are naturally enterprising in the Caribbean way. Despite its poverty, the country still turns out good doctors, and, as we have been reminded today, good scientists and technologists, architects, dancers, artists and musicians. Indeed the success of the Buenavista Club and the recent Cuban Festival in London has brought a new generation of admirers. On his historic visit in 1998 the Pope called for openness and dialogue among Cubans. It seemed that Fidel might be reintegrated into the family of leaders, and to some extent that process has begun. And yet, in March four people who criticised the party in print and called for free elections were imprisoned for periods ranging from three and a half to five years.
This July the Cuban Human Rights and Reconciliation Commission estimated that there were 300 to 400 political prisoners in Cuba. To put that in context, that would equate to 1,500 to 2,000 in the United Kingdom. In October Elizardo Sanchez, who leads the commission, was refused an exit visa to attend a conference organised by Vaclav Havel. Cuba is not a free society; Fidel still wears his tailor-made battle dress and hurls defiance at the evils of the world financial system or of the USA, and sometimes who can blame him?
Raoul Castro, the anointed heir, tells us that nothing will change if Fidel dies, although observers are getting either nervous or excited according to their

1187
natural disposition. There is tension developing internally between those who can benefit from the dollar economy of tourism and those who cannot and who live in poverty, even when they hold professional positions. So what next? Interestingly, the Canadians and the Spanish—who in my time in Havana arguably enjoyed the best relations with Cuba of any of the "Western" powers—despite their continuing close relations sometimes demonstrate their disapproval of the lack of progress since the Pope's visit. Canada has suspended some of its high level contacts as a protest against human rights violations. My understanding is that the Spanish foreign minister has indicated that conditions may not be right for the King of Spain to visit Cuba on the occasion of the Ibero-American summit, and the presidents of Argentina and Chile may not attend either.
So what should the UK Government do? One obvious thing—many people have mentioned this—is to continue to oppose the Helms-Burton legislation, which at best merely provides Fidel with the excuses he needs to defy change in his country and, at worst, can cause real hardship to his people. Developments such as the institution of direct flights from the UK to Havana are to be welcomed, especially for those of us who, like myself, remember rather hairy journeys in ancient aircraft via Miami.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper and Lady Young, and the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, all individually contribute in their different ways to the creation an Anglo-Cuban network of activities and personal contacts. These are greatly to be valued. I join with those who regret the imminent departure—as I believe it will be—of the noble Viscount. When I first arrived in this House he was one of those who greeted me warmly and welcomed me to this House. I personally—and I am sure all of us—will miss his presence greatly.
The recent establishment of the British Council in Havana is a further excellent development. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to expand this small initiative, which would doubtless be much welcomed in Cuba? The news given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, of the development of further successful co-operation between our two countries on medical matters is also most welcome.
Can the Minister tell us what is happening in terms of the valuable technical assistance being given to Cuba in the area of banking and public finance, for example? Can she confirm the Government's intention to continue to act vis à vis Cuba in a balanced way? Does she agree that the obvious benefit of integrating Cuba into the wider world of international trade and other relations must not obscure the desirability of encouraging development towards greater democratic freedom in Cuba? While growing trading agreements and tourism can improve the Cubans' standard of living and can help to bind Cuba into the family of nations, we should not forget that democratic progress should ideally start before Castro dies in order that he can use his prestige and charisma to assist its implementation. Our pressure towards democratic
1188
development should not cease, otherwise we could see an explosion after his death which will plunge this delightful and talented people into tragic chaos.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I shall begin by echoing the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Young about my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. The knowledge and expertise he displayed yet again this evening will be greatly missed. We on this Front Bench deeply regret his impending departure from the House.
We are indebted to my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this debate. Many noble Lords are already aware of her deep and enduring interest in Latin American affairs—an interest which l am keen to make clear that I share. I believe it was almost three years ago that your Lordships' House last had an opportunity to consider in detail our relationship with Cuba—thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lady Young, whose knowledge and understanding of Cuba and the Caribbean as a whole is without parallel. I am delighted to pay tribute to her.
It has been the policy of successive governments in this country, together with our European Union partners, to support a peaceful transition to a pluralist democracy in Cuba, where there should be respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Underpinning this vision of Cuba's future is our ongoing effort to promote a sustainable economic recovery and improvements in the living standards of ordinary Cubans. This is a goal which we share with the United States, but we have differed—and continue to differ—on the tools we should use to achieve this goal.
In particular, we have our disagreements on the American application of the punitive economic embargo first imposed 39 years ago yesterday. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, or LIBERTAD Act, the unwelcome legacy of the Helms-Burton legislation, is the most recent embodiment of this unjust US policy, an issue to which I shall return later. However, we would like to make it clear from these Benches that we view this legislation as an international trade issue, rather than an argument with the United States over the quintessential aims of our policy towards Cuba.
We do not believe that the United States embargo against Cuba is the way forward. For that reason, under the previous government, the United Kingdom voted with our European Union partners in support of the Cuban resolution condemning it at the United Nations General Assembly. It is important that the Government continue to demand an end to the US embargo. It is important that the Government continue to recognise that economic isolation will serve only to drive those who are already poor to further extremes of destitution and desperation and thus to invite the twin spectres of social and political chaos to take up residence in Cuba.
Turning to trade and investment, our links with Cuba must progress in tandem with our political relations. It is therefore unsurprising that we

1189
welcomed the visit to Cuba a year ago of the Minister's predecessor at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Given the lengths to which successive governments went towards steadily improving and developing our diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba, her presence this evening at this debate is most welcome. It shows both her personal and ministerial commitment to the subject.
I am very pleased that the Government have continued the initiatives pioneered under the previous administration. I believe we have seen much progress as a result in the past two years. In particular, I should like to single out the British Airways inaugural flight, which took place in April this year. I believe it to be an important milestone in achieving our ultimate goal of a Cuba fully integrated into the global community.
Private investment is crucial to sustained development and economic growth in Cuba. Under the foreign investment law passed in 1995, which allows 100 per cent foreign ownership in certain circumstances, Cuba is actively seeking foreign participation in commercial activities. Although I understand that investors can still face practical difficulties, there are some excellent opportunities for establishing joint ventures or other forms of commercial association. Will the Minister pledge to encourage British investors to make the most of those opportunities, provided that British investors and businessmen who choose to invest in Cuba endorse best business practices and recognise the basic rights of Cuban workers?
Historically, when one step forward is taken, two steps backwards have often followed. However, on a more optimistic note, there has been some new flexibility towards Cuba in US policy. Last year, following the Pope's visit to Cuba, the US administration implemented measures including the restoration of direct passenger flights, the resumption of family remittances, increases in the sale of medicines and the expansion of people-to-people contacts through cultural, scientific and sporting exchanges. These measures have provided some relaxation of the trade restrictions in Cuba. They were expanded in January of this year to include such things as the restoration of a direct postal service between the US and Cuba.
We cannot ignore the fact that Cuba is the sole country in the western hemisphere with a Communist regime. However, most agree that some form of transition will eventually take place in Cuba. It is critical that this transition is a managed one.
As to human rights, I would simply ask the Minister whether, in line with the Government's ethical foreign policy, she can give an assurance that the Government are committed to a vigorous programme of meetings with dissidents and human rights groups during ministerial visits to Cuba, as well as forthright representations to Cuba's ruling elite on the need for reform.
Some of these thoughts are the way forward—the way forward being won through engagement and dialogue. It is in the common interest of both this
1190
country and of Cuba to forge a deeper relationship from which our companies, our exporters and the Cuban people can all benefit. It is through this approach alone that we shall encourage Cuba to realise its full potential in the next millennium.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway what a happy event it is to stand at the Dispatch Box for only my second debate and to hear such unanimity from all sides of the House. It is a particular pleasure. I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for introducing this debate. The House continues to benefit from the keen interest the noble Baroness shows in Cuba and the depth of experience she brings to issues relating to Latin America and the Caribbean.
I am also pleased that the House has been given the rare opportunity to discuss Cuba in this way, particularly given the recent tragic loss of life and damage to crops and homes as a result of Hurricane Irene, to which the noble Baroness referred. We do not have yet full information about the damage caused by Hurricane Irene in Cuba, but the Cuban authorities are aware that we stand ready to look at ways of helping, should they so request.
The landmark visit to Cuba of my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, a year ago was followed by two highly successful visits by the then Minister for Trade and his business teams. Bilateral relations between Cuba and the United Kingdom have continued to expand and grow in several important ways. Trade and tourism continue to increase, reflecting the United Kingdom's interest in Cuba, not least among its business community. Regular trade missions are now diversifying into the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors, with positive signs.
At this stage, I should like also to take an early opportunity to express my pleasure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has chosen this debate in which to make his last contribution in this House, and to acknowledge the gratitude of the House to him for all his helpful interventions and wise counsel given on issues relating to the Caribbean and Latin America. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, rightly praised developments as regards British Airways, which now flies to Cuba. We feel that that is an extremely helpful venture. In April, we were pleased to welcome Ricardo Alarcon, the President of the Cuban National Assembly, with a delegation on a parliamentary visit. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I would also like to compliment on her great contributions in this area, is to be congratulated on the sterling work that she has done in relation to the Cuban initiative, and on her efforts to make that visit such a success. The Government support such parliamentary exchanges. These are helpful building blocks in furthering the bilateral relationship. I am also happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, the assurance she sought as regards the continuation of those bilateral relations.

1191
This year has also seen issues relating to official short-term debt being addressed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and the Government of Cuba, with the possible provision this allows for the negotiation of new medium-term credit. This is good news for capital goods exporters to Cuba.
Co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Cuban authorities on countering drugs and crime problems continues to develop. British Customs officers have provided training for their Cuban counterparts. Mr John Abbott, the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, visited Cuba in August of this year.
I should like to echo what has been said by several noble Lords as regards cultural links. These, too, are being explored following the visit by the Cuban Minister of Culture earlier this year. Now that the British Council has re-established its presence in Cuba, which we and the Government of Cuba welcomed, there is a growing mark et for Cuban culture and the arts in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Baroness will be pleased that this development has taken place.
In scientific co-operation, too, we are moving forward, with successful exchange visits on biotechnology taking place this year and the academic and commercial opportunities these raise. We have heard a little about those in today's debate. On the Cuban meningitis B vaccine, in particular, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her recent successful visit to Cuba. The Government acknowledge the important work being done in this area and will follow events—and the potential for further collaboration—with great interest. Further, I hope that the indication made by the noble Baroness that the cross-fertilisation of medical views and the connections they have engendered will of course continue.
Her Majesty's Government welcome all these developments in our relations. In time, Cuba is surely set to become one of the giants of the Caribbean. Its success or failure in finding a future path that avoids economic or social collapse will have a major effect on the region, for good or ill. The Government are conscious, too, of their obligations to our Caribbean Overseas Territories.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about Cuban cigars. Early indications from the Department of Health suggest that her anxieties about the negative effects do not at the moment appear to be justified. However, I invite the noble Baroness to contact the Department of Health in relation to pursuing the matter further.
When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met the Cuban Foreign Minister, Perez Roque, at the EU/Latin America and Caribbean Summit in Rio in June, he took the opportunity to convey to the Cubans a strong message about that country's poor record on civil and political rights. But he was able to acknowledge the important role that Cuba could play economically in the region, suggesting that Cuba could be the motor for the future
1192
economic well-being of the Caribbean. In this, as with our traditional Caribbean partners, the UK will seek to play its part.
In saying that, the Foreign Secretary also echoed the words of His Holiness the Pope when he began his historic visit to Cuba in January last year. He called on Cuba to open up to the world and on the world to open up to Cuba. That is why we give our wholehearted support to Cuba's participation in events in the international arena, such as the Rio Summit. Cuba and the other 47 participating countries signed up to an "action plan" document at the summit. It covered many of the areas in which we are working in partnership with Cuba and our EU partners; for example, in both the economic and the human rights fields. Another important area covered in the summit "action plan" was science and technology. That issue is one that several noble Lords have highlighted in this debate. Cuba's enthusiastic co-operation with the UK in the field of biotechnology, as we have seen, is the sort of practical co-operation that the spirit of Rio was trying to engender.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly emphasised some of the challenges that are still left as regards our relationship with Cuba. In terms of our bilateral relations, the UK, as I have outlined, is warming in its relations with Cuba. However, this Government make no bones about those aspects of the relationship with which we are much less than happy. I firmly believe that none of the other aspects of the bilateral relationship will function properly if we do not also work hard at the complex of issues in our political relations.
With our EU partners, the United Kingdom believes that dialogue and co-operation—not embargo and isolation—is the most effective way of encouraging the political and economic evolution we wish for Cuba. The EU common position codifies this clear statement of the EU's commitment to intensify its dialogue with the Cuban authorities and all sectors of Cuban society. The common position's flexibility allows EU partners to pursue their own bilateral relations within its overall framework. We want to be Cuba's partner—with full co-operation dependent on improvements in human rights and fundamental freedoms—by discussing all issues of mutual interest and concern in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, with give and take on both sides.
My noble friend Lord Rea, the noble Viscounts, Lord Montgomery and Lord Eccles, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others all raised the issue of the United States relationship and Helms-Burton. The US Administration has been left in no doubt that we do not support extra-territorial legislation; nor do we agree with its policy towards Cuba. At ministerial level, our most recent exchanges—indeed, my own exchange in Washington, together with those of my noble friend Lady Symons—have raised these issues with some vigour with our American friends. Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to raise the matter, which is one upon which obviously we do not agree.

1193
On economic, social and cultural rights, Cuba can claim to have made significant achievements. However, we and our EU partners attach great importance to civil and political rights and respect for fundamental freedoms, on which Cuba's record, sadly, remains poor. We are therefore keen to work in partnership with Cuba on its international human rights obligations and to encourage an end to arbitrary detention and the unconditional release of prisoners; freedom of expression; free media; and co-operation with the UN human rights mechanisms. In this regard, I welcome the recent talks at senior level on a range of UN issues, including human rights, in the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
In closing this debate, I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness for giving the House the opportunity of discussing Cuba. I reaffirm that the hallmarks of this Government's policy towards Cuba are frank and respectful critical dialogue coupled with practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest. I know that both our countries seek to develop the relationship in a sustained way, even when our views do not always coincide, entitled as we are to express our own views. In this spirit, we respect Cuba's right to the view it has of its current situation. Through our increasing contact, this Government will go on to learn more about the Cuban reality. However, we are hopeful that our Cuban counterparts will signal their desire to continue to work with us in an open and constructive way on all these issues so that a greater understanding might evolve of our own concerns as we work towards building an effective dialogue and co-operation.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
9.1 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 90.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 123.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I should like to return to the grouping, which carries with it such a wide range of amendments, and speak to Amendment No. 157, which stands in my name. However, I should like to remain able to move it formally when the time comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in a masterly understatement, said earlier that a rather important matter has been left in a state of uncertainty. I have the feeling continually in this debate that we are dealing with a good many important matters, but we are being swept away by the great galleon of government. I am a small cabin cruiser sailing across the bows just to warn the Government that there are very important issues disguised in these amendments.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not want to be harsh on asylum seekers and that he did not want to be harsh on non-governmental organisations. We take that point and the noble and learned Lord's great sincerity. But, equally, we must re-emphasise the
1194
fact that the NGOs and the voluntary agencies are concerned only with genuine asylum seekers. There is no question of them being concerned with the wider number of immigrants which is sometimes implied. So I return to the subject of Clause 93—organisations which assist refugees, including young people among refugees. Those organisations are very concerned about the Government's intentions in this clause. I realise that the subject is now being moved to Paragraph 5(b) of the schedule and we may need to return to it later.
When I worked in the voluntary sector in the 1980s we saw the growth of government support for NGOs and we welcomed it. We recognise that there is informal co-operation with the NGOs at every level. But NGOs and voluntary agencies are not agencies of government. They are there to top up inadequate support and provision and to reinforce what the Government are not able to do. They are not a substitute for it or for the lack of it. I should like to quote from a note I received from the Children's Consortium which represents all the children's agencies in this campaign for refugees. It states:
"The purpose of the work with asylum seeking families with children is to make good some of the gaps in statutory provision, to try to ensure minimal damage to the lives of such families in a difficult period of transition and uncertainty, and to offer prospects of hope and personal development which can best be provided by the staff and volunteers of voluntary projects".
In some cases the refugees themselves are the voluntary organisations. There is no one to support them except their own communities. They set up community organisations and ad hoc committees to meet particular circumstances. I do not need to remind noble Lords or the noble and learned Lord that the voluntary sector already carries this heavy load. It genuinely feels that it is again being coerced and co-opted into becoming service providers, not alongside government but somehow within the great panoply of government. That has been the trend over the past few years. NGOs are not surprisingly concerned and they raise the matter again and again. This is another such occasion. We have heard the reassurances. The Minister in another place, Mike O'Brien, seemed to be genuinely aware of this problem, but it was an inadequate assurance. I just hope that the noble and learned Lord will have some more encouraging response to make today.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Sandwich has said. I should like to put a specific question to the Government. Can they confirm that their new schedule, which may result from Amendment No. 124, will not by its paragraphs 2 and 5 force destitute people to rely at least in part on resources coming from charities and NGOs? It would be wonderful if the noble and learned Lord could reply to that point this evening. If he cannot, I hope that it will be seriously considered.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a large group of amendments, starting with Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I am not sure whether I am allowed to do more than express gratitude to the noble and

1195
learned Lord the Attorney-General for agreeing to withdraw those two amendments. They are extremely important. They represent a rewriting of Clause 93, as has been explained. But it is obviously a very careful rewriting. There are some small changes which make one wonder why they have been made—whether it is merely for the purpose of tidying up the English, or for some other reason. We shall have an opportunity to return to them later.
The next amendments in the group are government Amendment No. 146 and Amendment No. 147—which has already attracted some debate as to whether it is adequately covered by Amendment No. 146. I have nothing to add to the comments already made.
Amendment No. 148, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has attracted a great deal of attention both at this stage and previously. The first part deals with expenses for specialist medical care. The noble Duke was correct in saying, in a slightly abbreviated form, that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General had said that such expenses would be payable through the National Health Service under ordinary arrangements. So presumably we do not need to trouble ourselves about that.
But the position remains difficult with regard to the second part of the amendment, which deals with the costs of travel to appointments with legal representatives. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I too have heard of the controversy in Somerset regarding the school that is being considered for conversion. I am not sure exactly how many miles it is from Bristol—25 or 30, I believe. Travel by public transport over that kind of distance in that kind of area is expensive. If one does not have a car, it is difficult; and of course the journey is expensive by taxi. It is not something that people in this kind of situation can be expected to do.
I am not sure whether Bristol, or for that matter Bath, has the necessary number of sufficiently qualified legal experts who are able to deal with the kind of specialist cases about which we are talking. As we have heard at some length, it is not just any solicitor who can deal with these cases. A whole section of the Bill is devoted to the exclusion of a large number of persons who might otherwise be considered immigration advisers. So the Bill acknowledges that this is a specialist matter. I do not know how many people are regarded as qualified in this specialist way in either Bristol or Bath. Even assuming that there is a sufficient number to deal with the individuals concerned, it is still an expensive business, quite apart from people having to travel right across the country to London. It is relatively local travel, but it is still expensive. It has certainly been my experience that one visit to a lawyer is not always sufficient to deal with a problem. It is sometimes necessary to go a number of times before one arrives at a solution. So that is a difficult aspect at local level, quite apart from the points that have already been made regarding wider travel.
1196
I have added my name to Amendment No. 152, and I share the concerns that have been expressed. However, the Minister's words were somewhat reassuring.
Amendment No. 153—in regard to which I was grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—relates to preferences being expressed as to where a supported person would like to be accommodated. Like the noble Earl, I thought that, without this amendment, if any supported person was unwise enough to express a preference, it might make matters difficult for the Secretary of State. A brief intervention from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General appeared to be of a reassuring nature. However, I should like to hear slightly more about why he thinks it so incredibly damaging as to require a law against it, and why an unfortunate person who finds himself in this position should be debarred from expressing a preference for one town rather than another because he has relatives or compatriots there, or feels that he has a connection with that town, or merely wants to go with his compatriots who have arrived with him. That seems a draconian position. I understand that the Secretary of state will not always be able to fulfil such requests. There is no question of that and we do not argue for it. But it seems extremely unreasonable that they should not be allowed to express a preference, even if it is not held against them afterwards.
On Amendment No. 154, I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. However, as he rightly said, Amendment No. 155 seems to move in the direction of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers which the amendment concerns. I am glad to see it and grateful for it. Like the noble Earl, I was reassured by the reaction to Amendment No 156.
That brings me to Amendment No. 157 which is the most difficult in the group to dismiss or be reassured about. There were some careful words from the Attorney-General at the beginning of our debate some time ago but they did not seem to me to take us far. I can think of no other instance where, if a charity gives money to a deserving person, that person then has their social security or other benefit taken away from them. But that is contemplated here. I admit that it is not set out in the Bill that it should happen but it is open to the Secretary of State to interpret the Bill that way.
In the re-write of Clause 93, which is incorporated in the new schedule—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is in the Bill. Clause 93(3)(b) explicitly states that the Government or the authorities are entitled to look at not only what a destitute person has but what they may have. It is not even a question of taking account of what a charity may have given them; they have the right to consider what a charity might give them.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, yes, I was going to say that the schedule, having incorporated Amendment No. 124, repeats the words with very slight variations which do not seem to be other than a change of English. I do not believe the legal meaning is altered.
It seemed to me that either in Amendment No. 124 or Clause 93 the phrase states that if the support is haphazard, if I happen to pass an asylum seeker in the street and give him £10, he could not reasonably expect that to happen. So it would not be discounted from the point of view of his support. If, on the other hand, a charity sets itself up, among other things, to support people in that situation and begins regularly to assist people in a certain area or situation who fall within the provisions, it will not be long before the authorities are able to say: "Ah! You have an expectation of that. Every other refugee who has been in your situation for the past six months has received help from this or that charity, so you must expect it. Therefore, we are knocking £X off your support".
The Bill does not say that money given by charities shall be treated in that way. But refusing to put it or anything like it into the amendment fuels the concern of charities and others that it might happen.
Valuable though it may be to give haphazard support, as I have described it, to deserving cases from time to time—and no doubt we all do it—targeted and organised support, organised by people who know what they are doing and can discriminate between the good and the worst cases is more effective. Being a chartered accountant, I have to point out that it is sometimes more tax effective as well if it is done through a charity. I do not believe that was in the Government's mind, but it is more effective in the way that it works in terms of relieving the poverty and distress at which it is aimed.
That kind of thing worries me about the wording in Amendment No. 124 to Clause 93 at which the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is aimed. It is not a matter which we can brush off. It has worried many charities and many people, including myself, and the Government must pay careful attention to it in the course of looking at the wide range of amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a quick point on one matter that I have been mulling over while the debate has proceeded. If charitable funds are to be taken into account, will not the charities consider them to be a replacement of public funds and therefore not charitable? Is it possible that the Charity Commission will consider any donations of this kind not to be charitable and, therefore, that the charities which provide such funds are acting illegally?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, a charitable organisation would not be acting illegally in those circumstances. In the nature of things, many charitable functions which are performed by charities can be regarded as "a replacement of public funds" but would not be illegal on that basis.
1198
I tried to pre-empt many of the questions that have been raised. Therefore, I deal with such questions as have been raised which seem to me to have been highlighted. First, I take up the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, relating to charity. Perhaps it is useful occasionally to remind oneself of the text on page 63 of the Bill. Clause 93(3) reads:
"The regulations may also make provision requiring the Secretary of State, except in such circumstances (if any) as may be prescribed, to take into account, when deciding—
(a) whether to provide support under section 90".
Pausing there, Clause 90(1) refers to those who are destitute or likely to become so. Therefore, that is the sub-text of Clause 93(3)(a). Next, we see,
(b) the level or kind of support".
What we need to do—I would have thought that most of your Lordships' thoughts are concentrated on this—is to look at the factual circumstances which subsist. I give an example. I suggest, and hope not to be contradicted, that if an asylum seeker has accommodation that is provided by a charitable organisation, the fact that that accommodation has been provided and assured by a charitable organisation for, say, six, nine or 12 months is plainly a part of the factual matrix which any prudent dispenser of public funds will take into account.
I give one or two further examples. It is not our policy to require those who are destitute, or may become so, to solicit support from charities, but quite a number of charitable organisations are grant-aided by the Home Office. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable and proper, as a prudent steward of public funds, to say that charity x is partly funded by the Home Office and is providing support of a level or kind that should be taken into account. I see no proper call for the public purse to be struck twice in those circumstances. All that the regulations are able to do is take into account—I underline those words—when deciding whether to provide support and what kind, any support or assets which are, or may reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available.
If one is looking at actual or immediately prospective need it is perfectly sensible, right and fair to say that an individual has support from a charity which has indicated that it will provide guaranteed accommodation—as a charity that can be relied upon—for three, six or nine months and also a level of support. That support may not be simply financial, because here we have in mind the level or kind of support. Perhaps I may finish my point before noble Lords intervene. If one goes on to point out to all those who are concerned with asylum seekers that they are grant-aided, why should one not take it into account? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is first and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is second.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have no argument with the circumstances described in which someone has accommodation and the charity providing it has been grant-aided under Clause 107. That is entirely reasonable. However, I am concerned with those circumstances in which a charity has not

1199
been grant-aided under Clause 107 and someone does not have accommodation but, looking at the words of the Bill,
"might reasonably be expected to be",
provided with accommodation. Those are the areas of concern to the voluntary sector. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will see the radical difference between the two. One would hope to be able to rejig the arrangements so that the fears on the second score do not impinge on the perfectly reasonable points the Minister made on the example he gave.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, reasonable expectation is a perfectly legitimate concept well known to law—not "rubbery" to repeat the phrase used earlier. If a charity has a history of a certain level or kind of support, it is entirely legitimate for the directorate to say, "It is highly probable that you will be supported in one way or another by this charity". It partly depends on the double funding point as to whether the money comes from the Home Office. But if a long established charity has as its only charitable purpose and function the assistance of asylum seekers from, let us say, the Roma community in Czechoslovakia, it is reasonable to take into account that it has a good track record on providing the level and kind of support about which we are thinking.
Throughout all sections of this House, our common purpose is to provide a decent level of life—I move myself away from support—to those who really need it. If that decent level of life is assured by funds, charities, churches or various organisations which are not publicly funded, I see no difficulty in recognising those facts or those reasonable expectations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for saying that it is not the policy of the Government to expect those who would otherwise be destitute to rely on the voluntary sector. But perhaps I may ask him to compare his words with those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on Amendment No. 115. I say no more at present; we may return to the point at another stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl's specific example.
Lord Bach: My Lords, this is Report stage and not Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for reading from the Companion. It states:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down".
I know that the noble Lord will put his comment in the form of a short question.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, it is this. The Minister used the phrase "highly probable" or "assured" in respect of a charity whose objects were extremely narrow. The noble and learned Lord gave the example of Romanies. Does he accept that the anxiety expressed by those supporting the amendment
1200
are for the much wider group of charities where there is no assurance, no high probability and no narrow objects?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we a t tend, as I asked noble Lords to do, to the language of the Bill. It states that the Secretary of State by the regulations may take into account,
"the level or kind of support to be provided".
When he is deciding that he may look at,
"support (or assets) which … are, or might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
That seems entirely the kind of enabling provision which gives flexibility to the Secretary of State or the directorate when coming to its conclusion. I see nothing objectionable in it. One needs to establish fact; in this context that includes what is reasonably likely to be an outcome.
When one is talking about public funds, as one is, and contemplating our common objective to make sure that people have a decent—I have conceded many times that it will never be luxurious—opportunity of subsistence, this is a perfectly proper and prudent regulation on which to rely.
There were other matters of interest. For instance, the refugee arrival project gives initial reception facilities at Heathrow with Home Office funding. It is perfectly legitimate for anyone who has a decision to make to take that into account. That is not oppressive. Without reluctance or feeling aggrieved, we fund two charities. Other charities do not have that funding. But if they did and they used their moneys for the charitable purposes which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, indicated, it is perfectly reasonable for the decision-maker to take that into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, specifically asked me whether persons would be forced to rely on charities. I hope that I reassured him in my preceding answers that that is not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, with his enormous knowledge of local government matters, referred to property which is hard to let. I agree that some of the property he spoke about is in the category that he described. But some property is hard to let because of its poor condition, as the noble Lord described. Some of it is hard to let because there is no local demand. There is no doubt about that. Demographic changes demand changes. If the property is hard to let because of its poor condition, I agree that it would not be adequate. But where there is no local demand for otherwise perfectly good property, that would be perfectly adequate for the class of asylum applicants of whom we are speaking.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, asked about the policy on uprating. We intend to review it annually. That is part of the inherent flexibility of the regulatory powers. I hope that I have made that assurance as plain as I can. We then come to the question of preferences. I agree that when one looks at the language of the Bill one questions why it is in that form. It is because it is not required to have regard to preferences, but we can have regard to circumstances.

1201
So we can look at the background circumstances of a group of asylum seekers to disperse all those with a common ethnic, linguistic or territorial origin to a place common to all of them. That is looking at the circumstances and not preferences.
The right reverend Prelate asked me specifically about uprating. The question was whether or not a proper balance of cash and vouchers would be kept under review. I cannot say what the outcome will be, but I am happy to confirm that the balance of cash and vouchers will be kept as part of the review.
We now turn to the question of legal services. The noble Baroness is not here. She asked a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about access to legal services. It was referred to on our resumption by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It is sometimes easy to overstate the problem. There are medical and legal sources across the country. When we look at the clustering destinations, obviously one matter we shall have in mind is whether or not there is a settled immigrant community which, because of that, already has expertise in that particular area of law. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not an easy area of law and one needs to have expertise.
There are quite a few communities throughout the country—even, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in West Wales—which have been well settled since 1945. I shall finish what I wish to say because I am going to treat myself to an anecdote. I believe I am entitled to do so. One of the first cases that I did at the Bar in West Wales was a right-of-way dispute—they always are. My clients had two languages. One was Polish, with which I am not familiar, and the other was Welsh, with which I am familiar. He could not speak English at all. There are well-settled communities out of London. There is life outside London. It is not the centre of the discovered universe. There are people with medical and legal expertise outside London, as I know from my experience of 13 years at the Bar on the Wales and Chester circuit.
We want people to have access to legal services. We do not want them to be troubled by long, expensive journeys. We have looked at the priorities and I am bound to say that in doing so my desire to accommodate was prioritised in what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told me about the victims of torture. I believe that there are many areas outside London—I could specify them, but it might be invidious and raise undue alarm or prospects—where local solicitors are well capable of dealing with these problems.
The noble Earl is about the incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Bach. I shall sit down.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may clear my name. I was by no means intending to impugn the
1202
multi-cultural character of West Wales, which I know well. I referred to the difficulty of rural Welsh transport.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take that point, but it is part of a view, which is sometimes held and expressed, that the only provision of good medical service is in London and that the only provision of expert legal advice and service is in London, and that is simply not true. There are many communities from different parts of the world in, for instance, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Leicester, filled with people who have come from beyond our shores and who have good access to legal and medical services. Sometimes it is a shade disagreeable to overlook that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and for his kindness. I should point out the fact that I have a Welsh grandmother, otherwise I should not dare to intervene in what he is saying about Wales. I want to ask him one question. I understand that there are no franchises for legal representation in Wales. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can confirm that, but that is the basis of our concern. It is not that we do not believe that Wales is a wonderful country full of lively people; we do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may well be no franchises in certain areas of the country. That is one of the significant points in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is doing. In insisting that there should be available legal services on a franchise basis, there is careful consultation with the Law Society. Cardiff is the capital city of Wales and there has, for instance, been a long established Somali community there for the best part of this century. Expertise is available outside London and I cannot restate that point firmly.
I have dealt with preferences. The question of the consequences of torture was reverted to and I have made that reasonably plain. I shall not trespass further on your Lordships' time. A specific question was asked about family premium. We believe that the level of support to be provided will be adequate for the needs of families and will not include the family premium.
Those seem to me to be the headline points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was right in saying that it is a disparate group of amendments. They are not without importance, as I hope I have recognised in the length of my reply. The noble Lord said that one visit to a lawyer was frequently not enough. If he had said that one short visit to a lawyer was frequently not enough, after two days arguing against the unarguable in front of the Committee for Privileges, I can only say that I respectfully agree.
I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that I should not move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124.
[Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Asylum Support: Interim Provisions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 132, line 13, after ("authorities") insert ("or local authorities falling within a prescribed description of authority").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated that the earlier group of amendments was long. This one beats it. It includes Amendments Nos. 125 to 144, 145A, 279, 312 and 312A.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask, with the leave of the House, that Amendment No. 279 be decoupled from these amendments, because it has nothing whatever to do them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, of course, my Lords, although I am bound to say that the fact that one amendment in a group has nothing at all to do with the others has never been grounds for disqualification! When I come to Amendment No. 279 I shall therefore omit it from our present considerations.
The group is numerically fairly hefty. Perhaps I may just indicate how we are intending to move from the existing support arrangements to the future arrangements contained in Part VI of the Bill. The Asylum Support Directorate is well on track in putting into place the new support arrangements which will have effect from 1st April 2000. We are in discussion with landlords over the provision of accommodation, and intend to be inviting tenders soon. We are well on the way to establishing a system for the provision of vouchers. We are also well along the way to producing agreed plans to establish support arrangements with the voluntary sector and local authorities.
Generally, those people who have claimed asylum at the port of entry and are in receipt of social security benefits will continue until the first decision on their application for asylum, even after the new support arrangements are in force. If they stay in the country pending the outcome of an appeal after 1st April 2000, they will move over to the new support arrangements.
I believe that it is common ground that the present arrangements are close to breakdown, and we shall not continue to accept that. Schedule 8 therefore makes provision in the period between a date shortly after the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the main provisions coming into force in April 2000, in order to ease the pressures faced by some particularly hard-hit local authorities. That will provide legislative underpinning for the voluntary arrangements which the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have been working on. I pay tribute to the work they have done in very difficult circumstances.
We need to replicate in Schedule 8 much of the substance of the provisions in the main body of Part VI. That is why —and I repeat the apologies given by my noble friend Lord Bassam and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer—we have had to table so many amendments, many of which, of course, address mere points of drafting. I hope that the new draft schedule
1204
circulated by my noble friend Lord Bassam last week will have helped noble Lords find their way through the detail.
The interim provisions in Schedule 8 achieve two things. First, they provide a sound legal basis for the provision of support to destitute asylum seekers by local authorities. They replace the duties tinder the National Assistance Act 1948. Secondly, they are a means of assisting hard-pressed London boroughs and certain other authorities in the South East to disperse their case load. They do that in a number of ways. The Secretary of State can set a ceiling on the number of asylum seekers which certain types of local authority are required to support. Once the prescribed maximum is reached, they can be transferred to another local authority which has not reached its maximum.
There is a power to prohibit local authorities placing asylum seekers in areas already overcrowded with asylum seekers. One sees significant problems which inure to no one's benefit when one looks, for example, at the overload of asylum seekers in the Dover area. The provisions further allow the transfer of case responsibility between two local authorities on a voluntary basis. The Bill allows for the dispersal of any asylum seeker who makes his claim for support to the Secretary of State at the same time as making his application for asylum at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
When the interim arrangements come into effect, local authorities' responsibilities under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989 will end, and those persons will be deemed to have been accepted for support under the interim arrangements. That does not mean, I repeat, that people with a need for mainstream social services support will lose that protection. Amendments to paragraph 11 of the schedule, as your Lordships will have seen, provide for regulations which could specify that children who are in need—for example, because they have been the victims of abuse—would still be entitled to help from local social services.
The period of consultation has just finished. We are reflecting on the comments received and obviously we want to take them into account. In particular, we want to work closely with local authority associations to ensure that the dispersal of asylum applicants away from pressure points is carried out in an orderly and decent way. There has also been severe pressure—quite apart from that experienced by the south-east local authorities—on homeless persons units.
I deal now with the specific amendments. The Local Government Association and the Association of London Government have asked us to broaden the scope for the dispersal of asylum seekers under the voluntary arrangements. Amendment No. 312 is designed to facilitate that request. It allows the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the homelessness legislation in respect of applicants who are persons subject to immigration control during the immigration period.
We shall be looking to achieve three things. First, we are providing a power to enable a local authority to transfer asylum seekers to another authority by

1205
agreement with the other authority. Secondly, the provision can be used to enable local authorities to have regard to the fact that accommodation is to be temporary, pending resolution of the asylum claim, and to enable local authorities not to have regard to any preference of the applicant as to the location of the accommodation. Thirdly, there is a power to modify the existing provisions on out-of-area placements so that an authority will not have to consider whether accommodation is available in its own district if it has the agreement of another local authority to place the applicant in the accommodation of that other authority.
We are establishing voluntary arrangements with the consortia of local authorities. As I said earlier, that is one of the building blocks for the new arrangements to be operated after 1st April 2000. It is quite impossible for the new directorate to take on board all existing local authority cases on that date. The transitional arrangements in Amendment No. 312A provide for the phased transfer from local authorities to the directorate over succeeding months. Therefore, we hope to be able to ensure that proper cover and support remain available to existing cases and that the accommodation and support arrangements created for one cohort of case remains available for the next.
There has been far less pressure from asylum seekers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the moment, we do not envisage a need to apply the interim arrangements in those areas. Instead, Amendment No. 312A makes provision for a phased move from support under social services legislation to the new support arrangements as appropriate.
It may be helpful if I deal with the Opposition's amendments as we see them. I put on one side Amendment No. 279, which is now decoupled. I simply say for your Lordships' assistance that that is an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, relating to Northern Ireland and to which he referred a moment or two ago.
Those are the matters within this clutch of amendments, excluding Amendment No. 279 to which I shall speak later. I beg to move Amendment No. 125.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that in this group of amendments there are quite a lot of powers to make regulations of one sort or another. Nevertheless, to some extent they replace powers which are already in Schedule 8 and which in some detail are of a similar character. Therefore, it is my opinion—subject to what other noble Lords may say—that there is no need to regard this as part of the undertaking. However, I believe that it would be wise for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to look at the new amendments, given the considerable changes that have been made to the powers. But I do not believe that that should be part of the undertaking. I believe that it would be tidier to insert these amendments into the Bill at this point rather than to hold them back for a later stage,
1206
particularly as they deal with interim provisions where obviously it is necessary for the Government to make even more urgent preparations than is required for other parts of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is extremely generous and not unexpected. I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Had the matter been raised, that was to be my response. If the committee has a view we shall pay attention to it. However, I agree with the noble Lord that this falls into a rather different category from those amendments that the noble Baroness and I discussed earlier—namely, Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. I cannot over-emphasise how much I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has said and his general attitude.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as possibly a more obstreperous Member of the House, perhaps I can ask whether the noble and learned Lord will agree to one slight compromise on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has suggested. I agree that it would be foolish for us simply to hold up large numbers of amendments in the critical situation that we face and to delay further the Government's ability to deal with that situation. We recognise, as the Attorney-General has said, that this is a critical area.
I have a question on three particular amendments: government Amendment No. 132, government Amendment No. 135 and government Amendment 136. In the first amendment regulations would allow local authorities to discontinue or suspend support during the interim period, which would mean that some asylum seekers would have no safety net of any kind. Amendment No. 135 allows the Government to prescribe areas in which local authorities may not place asylum seekers; and Amendment No. 136 lays down the maximum number.
We do not object to this group of amendments being put to the House on Report, but we would ask that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation be asked for its view on those three amendments in time for any amendments to be tabled at Third Reading so that we can consider what the committee has to say. That would mean that we would not expect to hear anything further for at least 10 days because of the fortnight gap. However, I believe it would be helpful if, before we come to the final stage of the Bill in this House, we could have the views of the Select Committee on those three powers to regulate, which directly affect people's lives.
With that mild compromise, which I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel could be conceded, and which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cope will agree is sensible, we could accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Before I continue, would the noble and learned Lord like to respond?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to say: that it was not within the letter of the agreement at which we

1207
had all arrived. I repeat my gratitude for that. Of course, speaking as a servant of the House, it seems to me that the more information we have about the views of the committee, the better. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said exactly that; that the matters would be moved tonight and if the Select Committee had a view we would be better informed to have our debate on Third Reading. That is how I understood the remarks of the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord formally move Amendments Nos. 126 to 145A en bloc?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on a point of order, I gave way to the noble and learned Lord not because I had finished my remarks—I had not—but simply as a courtesy as I thought he would like to deal with that issue immediately. I apologise to the Deputy Speaker. I was merely yielding to the noble and learned Lord so that he could respond to my direct question. I am afraid that I have a few more questions. In good faith I said that I was giving way for the purposes of reply to that particular point and not, alas, that I was giving way on all the other points in this group of amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness had not finished speaking. She asked me for my help, which I gave and she is not in breach of any rule.
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I can assist. If the Deputy Speaker were to put Amendment No. 126 now it may be that the noble Baroness Williams could speak to that amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 132, leave out line 14 and insert ("eligible persons.
( )"Eligible persons" means—

(a) asylum-seekers, or

(b) their dependants,

who appear to be destitute or to be likely to become destitute within such period as may be prescribed.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if, like the noble and learned Lord. I addressed the whole group of amendments. It would obviously take a great deal more time if we dealt with each separately. Therefore, it may be helpful if I respond to the amendments in the same spirit in which he has moved and spoken to the government amendments. I shall do so as quickly as I can
This whole group of amendments fundamentally concerns the role of local authorities in dealing with what is unquestionably a critical situation. The Government are seeking to take powers to deal with
1208
that critical situation which we have all seen exemplified over the past couple of months in Kent with the sudden arrival of a great many refugees, especially from Kosovo but also from other areas of the Balkans. It led Kent to have to deal without notice with a huge problem both financially and in terms of administration. I therefore understand and sympathise with the Government's desire to share the burden more equally among all local authorities in this country.
The issue I should like to raise with the Government goes directly to many of the Government's amendments. As I understand it, it is the view of the Local Government Association that the present voluntary arrangements are working reasonably well. It believes that that is a more effective approach to the whole difficulty of finding interim ways of dealing with asylum seekers than is the more heavy-handed approach of the Government. In its response to the Home Office consultation paper, it stated:
"The Association believes that the most effective approach to interim arrangements for asylum seeker support is to secure and to develop existing voluntary arrangements. The dispersal of asylum seekers to parts of the country outside London and the major ports is in practice already under way and there is a need to support and to build on the progress which has been made to date".
The final sentence, which is the most important, stated:
"The Association has serious concerns that the timetable for implementation of the [Home Office] proposals will obstruct such an approach".
The Local Government Association went on to make detailed comments to the effect that the timetable for the implementation of the interim arrangements is so constraining that the advantages of early action will be outweighed by the practical difficulties. Therefore we have a more substantive basis for concern than might be shown immediately in opinions being expressed in this House.
The Local Government Association, we know, is under great strain. If the Financial Times of Saturday is correct, it already believes that it is being obliged to dip into funds intended for uses other than to support asylum seekers. That, of course, is an argument for the Government's proposals and not against, because those proposals will enable a more equal sharing of the financial burden to be borne among many local authorities. But the Local Government Association responded to that in an eminently sensible way by suggesting that regional consortia should try to deal with the issue of how best to settle refugees and asylum seekers. In saying that a region should deal with a certain number of asylum seekers, the Government should consult closely with the regional authorities in that consortium as to how it might best be done, and they should all share the costs of doing that.
What troubles me—I shall not keep the House long—about the interim arrangements and this group of amendments is that they almost exclude local authorities from being able to bring to bear t heir own knowledge and experience. In my view, they have great knowledge and experience. The noble and learned Lord has already thanked them for their co-operation

1209
so far in what has been a very difficult endeavour. I hope that the Government will be able to say that they will consult. I hope that they will give careful consideration to the idea of building up regional consortia which will then take their share of the asylum seekers and refugees who come to this country and who will no doubt continue to come under the EU arrangements, although we hope that the burden sharing will then be yet wider. However, I am troubled by the degree of what one can only describe as "bureaucratic overlay" in the proposals made by the Government.
I have a certain amount of absolutely direct and first-hand experience of the particular situation which the Government face. When I was Minister of State at the Home Office, which is a long time ago now, one of the problems that we confronted, which is identical to the one faced by the Government, was the sudden arrival of 30,000 East-African Asian refugees—who incidentally arrived at extremely short notice; indeed, within a matter of weeks. It had been agreed that the promise made by Iain Macleod had to be abided by. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, who is not in his place at the moment but who knows that I am going to make these remarks, very courageously took the decision to take those asylum seekers and did so within a matter of a few weeks of the problem arising.
The problem arose because Mr Idi Amin of Uganda proposed to drive these people out or to kill them if they would not be driven out. That problem was dealt with—30,000 people in a matter of about a month or two—by the setting up of something called the Uganda Resettlement Board, with which I was closely involved. It took the decision to approach local authorities, which in a matter of weeks resettled 30,000 Ugandan refugees. It was done with eminent success and, if I may say so, without any government orders at all and provided the necessary emergency funds to enable those refugees to settle down. They went on to become among the most successful group of immigrants ever to reach this country since the great Jewish immigration of the turn of the century.
I strongly commend the experience of that Uganda resettlement system to the Government. It was cheaper; it was less bureaucratic; it required no primary legislation that I can recall; and it managed to deal with 30,000 in a very short time. I commend it to the Government. It is the reason why I have very grave doubts about the approach that the Home Office is taking. It seems to me to be over-centralised, over-didactic and over-prescriptive. With those words, I conclude my comments on this full set of amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has left the Chamber because, not for the first time, I am happy to say that it is to the ever-lasting credit of Mr Heath's government and the present noble Lord, Lord Carr, that they dealt with the problem which the noble Baroness identified so humanely. That was a discrete problem and it was dealt with quickly.
1210
We welcome the co-operation of the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government. As I said earlier, I particularly welcome the work of the LGA in building up consortia, to which the noble Baroness referred, both for the interim arrangements and for the longer term. But it is possible that we may need to act quickly. Not all local authorities are of equivalent excellence. That is why we are looking at the statutory powers. However, even if they are used, I am happy to reaffirm our view that the LGA will still be in the lead on dispersal, not least because it has the knowledge, the expertise and the facilities.
None of these provisions is in contra-distinction to what the noble Baroness said. If all works well with, for example, the consortia, that will be fine: the Home Office's burden would be lessened. Perhaps I may take just one short example from Amendment No. 136, which says:
"The regulations may make provision for the determination by the Secretary of State—

(a) for local authorities generally,

(b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or

(c) for particular local authorities".

It seems to me that that precisely meets the noble Baroness's point about consortia of local authorities in some circumstances being able to do well.
At present, and in the past few years, it has been very difficult for London local authorities and authorities in the south-east to deal with such problems. They feel—not without justification—that they have been overburdened by questions which are national and which ought to be dealt with on a national basis. These are regulations which give opportunities to the Secretary of State. I repeat: we would much prefer it if the local authorities were able to determine these matters themselves, but they do not have the power to set limits at the moment. They do not necessarily have the power to say, "We have done our reasonable bit. We have carried our fair share of the burden. Someone else must also assist". That is what these regulations are for. Without being, as the noble Baroness would say, unduly obstreperous, we are by and large in agreement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 144:
Page 132, line 18, leave out ("destitute") and insert ("an eligible person").
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) The regulations may make provisions for support to be provided, before the determination of that question, to a person making a claim for support under the regulations by the Secretary of State or such local authority as may be prescribed.").
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) "The local authority concerned" has such meaning as may be prescribed.").
Page 132, line 20, leave out ("and (5)").
Page 132, line 24, leave out ("a destitute") and insert ("an eligible").
Page 132, line 27, at end insert ("; or

( ) must or may be suspended or discontinued.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(" . The regulations may include provision—

(a) as to the level of support that is to be provided;

(b) for support to he provided subject to conditions;

(c) requiring any such conditions to be set out in writing;

(d) requiring a copy of any such conditions to be given to such person as may be prescribed.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(". The regulations may make provision that, in providing support, a local authority—

(a) are to have regard to such matters as may be prescribed;

(b) are not to have regard to such matters as may be prescribed.").

Page 132, line 30, at end insert—
(". The regulations may include provision—

(a) prescribing particular areas, or descriptions of area, (which may include a locality within their own area) in which a local authority may not place asylum seekers while providing support for them;

(b) prescribing circumstances in which a particular area, or description of area, (which may include a locality within their own area) is to be one in which a local authority may not place asylum seekers while providing support for them;

(c) as to the circumstances (if any) in which any such provision is not to apply.").

Page 132, line 31, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
("6. —(1) The regulations may make provision for the determination by the Secretary of State—

(a) for local authorities generally,

(b) for prescribed descriptions of local authority, or

(c) for particular local authorities,

of the maximum number of asylum-seekers, or the maximum number of eligible persons, for whom the authorities or authority are required under the regulations to provide support.
(2) The regulations may make provision for the referral by one local authority to another of a claim for support made under the regulations if the local authority to whom the claim is made consider that it is not manifestly unfounded but—

(a) they are providing support for a number of asylum-seekers equal to, or greater than, the prescribed maximum number of asylum-seekers applicable to them; or

(b) they are providing support for a number of eligible persons equal to, or greater than, the prescribed maximum number of eligible persons applicable to them.

(3) The regulations may provide that a referral may not be made—

(a) to a prescribed local authority;

(b) to local authorities of a prescribed description; or

(c) in prescribed circumstances.

(4) The regulations may make provision for the payment by a local authority of any reasonable travel or subsistence expenses incurred as a result of a referral made by them.
(5) The regulations may make provision for the transfer of a claim for support, or responsibility for providing support, under the regulations from one local authority to another on such terms as may be agreed between them.
(6) In exercising any power under the regulations to refer or transfer, a local authority must have regard to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State with respect to the exercise of the power.").
Page 132, line 38, leave out ("a claim") and insert ("claims").
Page 132, line 39, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 40 and insert ("prescribed local authorities or local authorities of a prescribed description.").
Page 132, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 133, line 6, leave out ("a person") and insert ("an asylum-seeker or a dependant of an asylum-seeker").
Page 133, line 7, after ("receiving,") insert ("any prescribed description of).
Page 133, line 7, leave out ("under any other prescribed enactment").
Page 133, line 10, leave out ("claim").
Page 133, line 11, leave out ("claim support under any other prescribed enactment") and insert ("any prescribed description of support, except to such extent (if any) as may be prescribed").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 133, line 13, leave out paragraphs 12 and 13 and insert—
(". "The interim period" means the period—

(a) beginning on such day as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; and

(b) ending on such day as may be so prescribed.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Ways in which support may be provided]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 61, line 32, at end insert—

("( ) to enable dependants of the asylum seeker to attend bail proceedings in connection with his detention under any provision of the Immigration Acts; or

( ) to enable the asylum-seeker and his dependants to attend bail proceedings in connection with the detention of a dependant of his under any such provision.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 not moved.]
Clause 92 [Supplemental]:
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 62, line 18, leave out from ("order") to end of line 19 and insert ("repeal all or any of the following—

(a) subsection (1)(a);

(b) subsection (1)(b);

(c) subsection (2)(a).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Secretary of State's scheme]:
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 1.57:
Page 63, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the work of charities, churches, faith groups or religious organisations shall not be regarded as support and assets which arc or might reasonably be expected to be available to the person concerned or his dependants.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to return to Amendment No. 157. I am sorry to delay your Lordships longer because I know that we want to get

1213
through much other business. However, it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that there is much feeling on this issue in the House. I suspect that there is much feeling among Members who are not in the Chamber at present. We have had a full debate and I cannot prolong it except to say to the noble and learned Lord that I understand his point about the Home Office funded organisations but I think that we are talking from opposite ends of the spectrum. I know that he is a reasonable man. I believe that he felt this was a reasonable amendment, as I still believe. It is on that basis that I wish to test the opinion of the House this evening. I beg to move.
10.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 157) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hylton, L.

Astor, V.

Iveagh, E.

Attlee, E.

Jopling, L.

Avebury, L.

Kintore, E.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Lichfield, Bp.

Brentford, V.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Carlisle, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Courtown, E.

Northbourne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Eccles, V.

Patel, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rowallan, L.

Fookes, B.

Russell, E.

Glanusk, L.

Sandwich, E. [Teller]

Glenarthur, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray, L.

Tebbit, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Alli, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Dubs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Bragg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brett, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Filkin, L.

Brookman, L.

Gale, B.

Burlison, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Chandos, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Christopher, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Goudie, B.

Crawley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

David, B.

Grenfell, L.

1214

Hacking, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Monkswell, L.

Hayman, B.

Nicol, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Simon, V.

Privy Seal)

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thornton, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

Lipsey, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

[Teller]

Winston, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.17 p.m.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 95 [Provision of support by local authorities]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 64, line 8, leave out ("supported persons") and insert ("asylum-seekers").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 to 167, 168, 169, 170, 176 to 180. This group is concerned with the role of local authorities. As we discussed earlier, particularly on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, some local authorities have considerable amounts of spare housing stock available. We very much hope that they will make some of that available for use by the directorate in accommodating asylum seekers. I am happy to reaffirm that we are in active discussion with local authorities on this point, and we are hopeful of reaching acceptable arrangements with them.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 provide the necessary basis for local authorities to enter into contractual arrangements with the Secretary of State. It is possible that some local authorities may be reluctant to come forward with spare and unused housing stock. Clause 97 therefore provides a reserve power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction. The government amendments to Clause 97 are all designed to give proper safeguards to local authorities which might be the object of such a direction. They reflect discussions we have had with local authorities, local authority associations and of course colleagues in other government departments.
Amendment No. 161, together with Amendments Nos. 167 and 170 provide that a direction under Clause 97 must be made by reference to specific criteria. Before setting out these criteria in the order—I hope that noble Lords will approve of this—the

1215
Secretary of State must consult the bodies mentioned in subsections (9) and (10). This will ensure that the principles underlying the act of issuing a direction are clearly understood. In the case of a direction issued to a Scottish local authority, the confirmation of Scottish Ministers, who will have the best appreciation of local circumstances, that the designation criteria are met is required.
Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 make provision for a direction to require minor works to be done and to allocate responsibility for dealing with costs. The general assumption is that the costs would fall to the Secretary of State. There may be circumstances where that would not occur.
Amendment No. 163 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 166 provides for a dispute resolution procedure. It provides a resolution by an independent third party. Amendment No. 164 provides that regulations may be made establishing the condition in which a property is to be returned to the local authority at the end of the period of a direction. Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make payments to local authorities and local authority associations for Part VI services. Amendment No. 178 places the Secretary of State under an explicit duty to make payments for accommodation provided to him as a result of the direction.
I hope that it will never be necessary to use the powers in Clause 97 to direct a local authority. Voluntary arrangements are infinitely preferable. However, we need a back-stop. These general amendments meet the purposes I have described. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Amendment No. 168 is grouped with the amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has just spoken. Subsection (7) of the clause states:
"The Secretary of State must make regulations with respect to the general management of any housing accommodation for which a direction under subsection (3) is, for the time being, in force".
My amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities about subsection (7) in terms of making regulations. Earlier in Clause 97 there are powers for the Secretary of State to consult. We wonder why there is no such power in subsection (7). There may be an obvious explanation. It seems to us that there should be a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can do this. I shall be interested in the noble and learned Lord's answer.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 169. We had a useful discussion relating to a similar matter on the provision of services for people who are tortured. My amendment seeks to ensure that information collected by the Legal Aid Board on the number of solicitors' offices and other organisations which have bid for a legal aid contract under the immigration and asylum category can be taken into account in designating the areas in which asylum seekers will be dispersed.
1216
I say that because past experience has always indicated that specialist advice on complex issues of immigration and asylum is available in fairly limited areas. If asylum seekers are to be put in areas where such advice is not available, they will be at a disadvantage. I know that we have spoken about this matter on similar lines. I hope that the Government will take the amendment into account.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. In subsection (9) there is an obligation to consult before the designation of reception zones. But, more fundamentally, subsections (11) and (12) require consultation. I think that the noble Viscount and I are of the same view. We did not think that it was necessary to set out the requirement more fully. We believe that it is fully dealt with by the present scheme of the Bill.
Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I are in general agreement about what we want. His point is very well taken. We are discussing with the Legal Aid Board what steps might be taken to ensure that the new contracting arrangements take account of the need for asylum seekers to have access to practitioners skilled in immigration law. He and I are absolutely at one. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said the same earlier. We thought that the best thing for us to do was to continue our consultations with the Legal Aid Board. I repeat: there are settled communities with access to appropriate advice. I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising these questions. I hope that have been able to satisfy them respectively on Amendments Nos. 168 and 169.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I understand the points about subsections (10) and (11). My point was that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations in respect of the general management of the housing accommodation, as opposed to merely the reception zones, he should consult. I take it from the Minister's reply that that would be part of the consultation process. If that is correct, I am happy to accept his explanation.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before we conclude this group of amendments perhaps I may ask a couple of questions. One concerns Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. Would the "minor work'' referred to include, for example, such matters as taking the boards off a house that had been closed down? Would it also include the minor work necessary to make habitable a house that might have been empty for some time?
On a related point, the provision in Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 for disputes to be dealt with by a dispute resolution procedure strikes us as rather odd, as one of the parties to that dispute procedure would presumably be the Home Office. It seems to us, on the basis of most arbitration and conciliation procedures, that the appropriate body to set up a dispute procedure would not be one of those specifically involved in the disputes. We wonder, therefore,

1217
whether the Government have given any thought to the idea of passing such a dispute procedure under the eyes of a body with experience of such procedures other than the Government; otherwise, there will be an element of interest in the outcome because one has an interest in one side of the dispute procedure. I hope that the noble and learned Lord follows my no doubt convoluted question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not convoluted in the slightest. The Secretary of State is entitled to make regulations for the dispute resolution machinery. It would have to be fair and perfectly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The whole point of this is to avoid—I am about to be disbarred! —legalistic and expensive proceedings.
If there are to be disputes, one wants a simple dispute resolution procedure. Such a procedure is well known. It would involve, for instance, the nomination of an independent mediator, arbitrator or conciliator, who could, for instance, be from a panel maintained by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. There is nothing unusual about this. We are not trying to load the dice. We are simply saying, "If we cannot resolve disputes, here is a simple, easy, non-legalistic and inexpensive way of doing it".
"Minor work" could certainly mean putting property back into good repair, and might well include unboarding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I am conscious that your Lordships do not wish the occupant of the Woolsack, or indeed the Chair, to venture into matters of order. But if I may be of some help to the House, I would indicate that it is customary, and in accordance with the procedure of this House on Report, for no interventions to take place—unless it is an intervention in the middle of the replying Minister's speech—after the Minister has sat down. It would be in accordance with the procedure of the House if any interventions by any noble Lords took place before the Minister's reply. I hope that that is not in any way infringing your Lordships' wish about the conduct of order in this House. I hope only that my intervention will be of some help.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 64, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority may incur reasonable expenditure in connection with the preparation of proposals for entering into arrangements under section 90.
( ) The powers conferred on a local authority by this section include power to—

(a) provide services outside their area,

(b) provide services jointly with one or more bodies who are not local authorities;

(c) form a company for the purpose of providing services;

(d) tender for contracts (whether alone or with any other person).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Reception zones]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 161 to 167:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State's power to give a direction under subsection (3) in respect of a particular reception zone must be exercised by reference to criteria specified for the purposes of this subsection in the order designating that zone.
( ) The Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (3) in respect of a local authority in Scotland unless the Scottish Ministers have confirmed to him that the criteria specified in the designation order concerned are in their opinion met in relation to that authority.").
Page 65, line 30, at end insert
("( ) If housing accommodation for which a direction under this section is, for the time being, in force—

(a) is not appropriate for the accommodation of persons supported under this Part, but

(b) is capable of being made so with minor work,

the direction may require the body to whom it is given to secure that that work is done without delay.").
Page 65, line 35, leave out ("for the calculation of") and insert ("as to the method to be used in determining").
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) with respect to the condition in which the accommodation is to be returned when the direction ceases to have effect.").
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("(8A) Regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) for the cost, or part of the cost, of minor work required by a direction under this section to be met by the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances;

(b) as to the maximum amount of expenditure which a body may be required to incur as a result of a direction under this section.").

Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("(8B) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision ("the dispute resolution procedure") for resolving disputes arising in connection with the operation of any regulations made under subsection (7).
(8C) Regulations under subsection (8B) must include provision—

(a) requiring a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedure;

(b) requiring the parties to a dispute to comply with obligations imposed on them by the procedure; and

(c) for the decision of the person resolving a dispute in accordance with the procedure to be final and binding on the parties.").

Page 65, line 43, after ("Britain") insert—

("(b) determining the criteria to be included in the order designating the zone, or

(c) making regulations under subsection (8B),").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 66, line 1, after ("zone") insert (", or

(b) determining the criteria to be included in the order designating Northern Ireland,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 99 [Appeals]:
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 66, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State provides or offers to provide support which the applicant contends is not adequate for his needs and the needs of his dependants (if any), the applicant may appeal to an adjudicator.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will recall that in Committee we had a debate about exactly the same amendment. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to rehearse the arguments again at length this evening, but other noble Lords and I indicated then that we would return to the question on Report.
The amendment provides for a right of appeal against the offer of inadequate or unsuitable support. Rather than using the judges dealing with the Crown Office, and those hearing judicial reviews, the amendment instead seeks to utilise the asylum support adjudicators. It seems to me on the face of it a more sensible and efficient configuration of duties.
Without the amendment, there are likely to be many more judicial reviews, something the Government say they hope that their legislation will prevent in the future. However, I suspect that there will be more judicial reviews on issues such as levels of support.
Where people are housed in unsuitable or unsafe accommodation or where there are special needs—for example, those relating to disability, an issue we have discussed at some length tonight—or where they have not been adequately provided for, it will be unsafe for them to continue being supported at the inadequate level
I recognise that in Amendment No. 175 which is grouped with this, the Government have tried to come some way in our direction. It would be churlish not to recognise that and not to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord. I know that he was receptive to the arguments when we discussed them in Committee.
The amendment provides for the possibility of extending the adjudicator's jurisdiction, specifically only on the issue of location. I do not believe location is the only issue at stake here. The Government have taken powers to extend the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, presumably in response to the debate in your Lordships' House, and to prevent a deluge of judicial reviews on the subject. They have not extended it outright. It seems to me that it would be sensible for them to take powers at the least to enable them to extend the provision further in the future, if they thought it appropriate. The judicial reviews might turn out to be less about location and far more about levels of support.
My amendment, therefore, provides for the appeal process, if extended, to he modified in the future on the basis of experience. Rights in connection with such reviews need to cover matters such as the equality of the parties, rights to a hearing and other fundamental issues.
When we considered the detailed schedules to the Bill devoted to the asylum support adjudication process, we could see how flawed the process was and the need to ensure that there are proper systems of appeal for those who might feel that they have been hardly done by. The matter should at the least be considered by the Delegated Powers Select Committee. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply to the debate he will consider that point. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is an excellent amendment. I support what was clearly stated by my noble friend. We all know that the new system will be based on a whole array of central government regulations, most of which are not yet even in draft. We cannot, in the nature of things, be certain that the new system will be adequate to meet all needs.
It is also reasonably certain that there will be the widest possible variety of different circumstances applying to different single individuals and different families dispersed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. On those grounds, I am pleased to support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I believe that this is an important amendment, particularly in relation to the needs of families with children, for two reasons. First, it is possible that the needs of particular dependent children may not be sufficiently comprehended for them to be adequately met in the initial provision of support for such children. Surely, it is important that there should be grounds for appeal to an adjudicator in such circumstances in order to prevent any harm coming to the child.
Secondly, we all know that the needs of children change over time, sometimes quite dramatically. The Government's objectives to reduce the time taken for asylum claims and appeals to be determined are welcome, but they may not be met as early as intended. Even if they are, the needs of a child can change significantly in the course of six months. I strongly support the amendment and hope that the Government will give it favourable consideration.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to relate Amendment No. 171 to Amendment No. 175. I strongly support the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hylton, on Amendment No. 171. However, we also recognise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that Amendment No. 175 goes some way to meet the point, and for that we are grateful. Having been up to now rather sceptical about regulations, this is perhaps one of the few areas of the Bill in which I believe it would be very helpful if regulations could be made as quickly as possible in order that the adjudicator could deal with the issues relevant to Amendment No. 175. That would go some way to meeting the concerns of noble Lords in relation to Amendment No. 171. With those few words, I give my support to the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, HIV and AIDS organisations are greatly concerned that people

1221
may be moved to parts of the country where there is inadequate support. Perhaps the Minister has received notification of that concern. I should be grateful to receive some assurance from the noble and learned Lord. Further, in the light of the increase in cases of tuberculosis, particularly among refugees, it is important that these people are given adequate and correct treatment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the concerns expressed go to the fairness of the procedure and its appropriate flexibility. I do not believe Amendment No. 171 to be the correct way forward because it goes to those cases where people have applied for support, have been assessed as entitled to it and have been offered specific support, and the only quarrel is about the amount being offered. To deal with that situation we are establishing a full and formal review process within the asylum support directorate. The amendment proposes that there should be a right of appeal on the amount of support. I am bound to say that I believe adjudicators' time would be better spent directing attention to those who have been refused support and will get nothing and whose appeal is on the basis that they are in serious danger of being left utterly destitute. That kind of error could be extremely serious. However, I take the points that have been raised. I assure noble Lords that the review procedure will be rigorous.
I turn the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. I respectfully agree with him that circumstances can change, even within a period of six months. There will be scope for application to be made to vary the support that is offered where there is evidence that the support is inadequate, which I hope chimes in with his thoughts. We intend to keep the review procedure itself under review, and if there are any shortcomings they can be corrected as quickly as possible. I believe that that is why the interests of the asylum seeker are better served by what I have outlined than the formalistic remedy offered in Amendment No. 171.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about geographic location. In Amendment No. 175 we are empowered to provide by regulations to be laid before Parliament for appeals to be heard against decisions on location. We cannot be certain of the adjudicators' workload and do not propose to exercise the power immediately, but we do not want to leave the Bill so inflexible that the remedy to which the noble Baroness spoke cannot be achieved. I hope that I have been able to satisfy her.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I ask the Minister to give way in order to ask a question. One of the points made was that there is a likelihood of increased reliance on the process of appeal, which could make it more difficult for the Government as well as asylum seekers. Within the considerations of the review to which the Minister referred, will he bear that point in mind too?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what my noble friend says is very much to the point. I am grateful
1222
because he has jogged my mind. With his experience, he knows the nature of judicial review. Judicial review goes essentially to procedure not merit, as he implies. If we find that the mechanism is not working properly and that judicial review becomes even more overburdened, his point is well made and I am happy to take it on board.
Amendments Nos. 172, 173 and 174 are drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 292 and 313 are technical amendments to update the disqualification reference—as I am sure noble Lords will have recognized—in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I commend them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, during the course of his remarks in reply to the debate, the Minister assured the House that the process will be kept under review. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remarked, there is a danger that we shall see an increase in the number of challenges, resort to judicial review and the appeal processes. Therefore the whole process may come under some strain.
If that were to occur, we now have the Minister's assurance that the position can be re-examined in the future. Amendment No. 175 deals with location, and I am grateful for that. With reference to the old adage that half a loaf is better than none, and considering the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 175:
Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("; or

(c) dismiss the appeal.").

Page 66, line 29, leave out ("determined against the appellant") and insert ("dismissed").
Page 66, line 30, leave out ("from him") and insert ("by the appellant").
Page 66, line 32, at end insert—
("(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for decisions as to where support provided under section 90 is to be provided to be appealable to an adjudicator under this Part.
(6B) Regulations under subsection (6A) may provide for any provision of this section to have effect, in relation to an appeal brought by virtue of the regulations, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 106 [Payments to local authorities]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 180:
Page 69, line 13, after ("authority") insert ("or Northern Ireland authority").
Page 69, line 16, at end insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may from time to time pay to any—

(a) local authority,

(b) local authority association, or

1223

(c) Northern Ireland authority,

such sums as he considers appropriate in respect of services provided by the authority or association in connection with the discharge of functions under this Part.").
Page 69, line 22, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State must pay to a directed body sums determined to be payable in relation to accommodation made available by that body under section 97(3)(a).
(3B) The Secretary of State may pay to a directed body sums determined to be payable in relation to accommodation made available by that body under section 97(3)(b).
(3C) In subsections (3A) and (3B)—

"determined" means determined in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (8)(a) of section 97, and

"directed body" means a body to which a direction under subsection (3) of section 97 is given.").

Page 69, line 23, after ("(1)") insert (", (1A)").
Page 69, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) "Northern Ireland authority" means—

(a) the Executive; or

(b) a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Overpayments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 71, line 3, at end insert ("or 94").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Exclusion from benefits]:
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 71, line 27, leave out ("subject to immigration control") and insert ("to whom this section applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the ninth group is a quite substantial group in terms of number. Perhaps I should go through a number of the amendments to indicate which of them should not be moved because of the agreement to which we have come.
If I have the numbers correctly, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 187, 188, 191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 207 and 208. The reason that I have sought to honour the bargain (as it were) is that they all contain references to government Amendment No. 124, which was not moved. I refer to the short dialogue the noble Baroness and I had, which I think met with general agreement. We need to retable for Third Reading.
I believe that I gave the wrong reference by saying that I would not move Amendment No. 199. Amendment No. 199 is one of those curious little beasts that is capable of being moved in this group. Therefore, group nine of the amendments has become a little shorter. I daresay that I shall have to correct myself as I go along. Amendments Nos. 182 and 185 are essentially drafting amendments. The phrase,
"person subject to immigration control".
1224
is defined in subsection (4) of Clause 111, applied in subsection (3) and not needed in subsections (1) and (2). It should be replaced by the revised phrase,
"A person to whom this section applies".
It will be an occasion of lasting distress that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not here. If he had a hat, he would have thrown it into the air on realising that the Government were at last coming round to the correct way of thinking as regards drafting.
I shall be moving Amendment No. 186, which is a tidying up amendment. Family credits are giving way to working families' tax credit, disability working allowances and the disabled person's tax credit. Amendment No. 186 therefore brings in the Treasury as the relevant department.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 are in purdah. Amendments Nos. 190 to 194 are necessary to ensure that Clause 113 has the effect which we intend it should have, applying only to those who should have no entitlement to the benefit of these arrangement. Amendments Nos. 190 and 193 are purely technical clarifying phraseology. Amendment No. 192 refines the exclusion we have made so that it affects only those whose recourse to these provisions comes about solely on account of destitution. I am omitting Amendment No. 194.
The next series of amendments includes Amendment No. 197. I am omitting Amendments Nos. 198, 200, 202 and 203, which are drafting improvements. When one looks at them they tend to speak for themselves. I believe that I have already explained the Government's general thinking to your Lordships as regards the amendments to Clause 113. The group of amendments takes account of amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, at Committee stage as regards arrangements made under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Therefore, if a person is destitute, but there is an additional factor like mental illness or mental handicap, the person will still be eligible for the full range of services which a local authority is authorised to provide under Sections 7 and 8 of that Act.
Amendment No. 204 achieves in the Northern Ireland context what earlier amendments did for England, Wales and Scotland. I do not deal with Amendment No. 205 for the reasons I have given. Amendment No. 206 is a minor change extending the application of Clause 90(4).
I omit Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 for the reasons given. Amendments Nos. 209 to 217 have been drafted to ensure that the relevant provisions associated with the welfare of children will apply properly in Northern Ireland. The amendments themselves are relatively technical. Amendment No. 211 is consequential. Amendment No. 212 encompasses Northern Ireland authorities within the relevant authority. Amendment No. 213 paves the way for Amendments Nos. 214 to 217. It sets out whether the Secretary of State or the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland makes the relevant regulations.
Amendments Nos. 294 and 296 to 300 inclusive make minor technical drafting changes. Amendment No. 305A extends the provision of free school meals under the Education Act 1996 to the children of asylum seekers who are being supported under Part VI of the Bill. I hope that that meets with the approval of the right reverend Prelate who introduced the very important observation that we want the children of asylum seekers to be in mainstream education and therefore will need to benefit in appropriate cases by what I have just said. Amendment No. 310 has been drafted to cope with the possibility that certain clauses may be brought into force earlier than others although there may be definitions in the clauses which technically refer to clauses not yet in force. The amendment deems that Clause 111 shall be for the purposes of Clauses 112 and 116, where those definitions are cross-referred, treated as though it were in force even if it has not formally been commenced.
Within the group we find Amendment No. 189, which has given us a deal of cause for thought. Having listened to all the arguments, we have inserted the limitations in Amendments Nos. 191 and 194. I indicated that because I remind your Lordships and myself that I said I would not move those amendments and I believe that your Lordships are entitled to that explanation.
Amendment No. 200A would have the effect of restoring the access to support under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Your Lordships will have seen Amendments Nos. 198 to 200 which restrict the exclusions to those cases where the sole basis for recourse to relief is on the grounds of destitution. Where there are other genuine reasons for need, the exclusions will not apply and access to these provisions will continue to apply.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 212A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am obliged to the noble Lord, and not for the first time, for raising the matter. We have looked at it and are satisfied that there may well be a role for the inspectorate to play in monitoring the operation of our provisions relating to support for children under the Bill. We intend to pursue this, probably by way of establishing an informal bilateral arrangement. This would be very much along the lines of that which exists between the inspectorate and the Prison Service Agency, for instance, with regard to mother and baby units in women's prisons. I am told—and my recent experience as Prisons Minister underlined it—that the arrangement is seen as being very successful in practical application. We therefore hope to be able to achieve a similar mutually supportive exercise.
I repeat that I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for raising the issue. It enabled us to focus on it and I hope that what I have said will reassure him that his amendment will not be needed, but it had value. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I have taken note of what the Minister said on this group of
1226
amendments. I also recognise that what he said about a number of amendments going back to the Select Committee on delegated legislation is most welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and to us on these Benches. Therefore, perhaps I may briefly address the one part of the gutted group that is of great importance.
I hope that I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly. I shall be addressing Amendment No. 189. I want to do so briefly and no doubt one of the right reverend Prelates will speak for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Perhaps I may underline the reasons why, without question, we would have divided the House on this matter had we not heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say about Amendment No. 191. I appreciate that we are all in difficulty because that is now "going off" to be further considered. I can only hope that when it comes back from further consideration the Government will bear in mind what I am saying as well as the recommendations of the Select Committee.
I have considerable respect for the ability and farsightedness of this Government. It was therefore with some surprise that I read the original Clause 113, which Amendment No. 189 seeks to alter, because I thought that it was, to put it bluntly, both mean and foolish. It is difficult to combine those two aspects.
I thought it was mean because it seemed astonishing to exclude from two of the crucial provisions of the National Health Service the provision for the care of elderly people and, secondly, the provision for preventive healthcare and assistance with mental health, when one might say directly that in these three areas there is every reason to show compassion and understanding for the situation of our fellow human beings. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that asylum seekers more than most would be in need of such care because of the often terrible situations they have passed through. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and Members on our Benches were united in the feeling that this provision could not stand part of the Bill.
I shall mention one other point briefly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. In particular, to exclude any group of people from preventive health and public health provisions is quite straightforwardly completely daft, not least because, quite apart from other diseases, refugees often suffer seriously from TB.
One characteristic of TB, especially of the new forms of TB which are highly resistant to conventional drugs, is that, unless people are persuaded to take the drugs they are offered, the TB comes back in a more virulent form. If it then escapes, it could in fact infect a great many British citizens, who would then find that the antibiotics normally used, such as BCG and so on, were no longer effective.
Therefore, it simply makes no sense at all to exclude refugees and asylum seekers from preventive health measures and from measures concerned with epidemic diseases. I cannot believe, with great respect, that Home Office civil servants really consulted with the Department of Health on that matter, or they would never have included this provision.

1227
It is therefore comforting to know that the Government have, I hope, gone some way in Amendment No. 191 to mitigating it.
I confess that I found the amendment very difficult to understand, despite the fact that I showed it to some of my colleagues with legal experience. They also found it very difficult to understand, but I trust the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General when he tells me that Amendment No. 191 means that normal asylum seekers would no longer be excluded from those services. However, we still feel great concern that, as we understand it, those who are destitute will be excluded from such services.
I may have misunderstood. I do not wish to press unreasonably, but surely the destitute are the most likely to suffer from such conditions as TB, which is common among destitute people. If the noble and learned Lord has seen, for example, any of the studies on destitution and homelessness in New York, he will know that one of the things which has recurred most seriously in the past few years has been this precise form of drug-resistant TB, which is now raging among the poor and destitute of New York, and which one would certainly not want to see in this country.
Without wishing to waste the time of the House, we are grateful for what we understand may be in Amendment No. 191 and hope that Ministers can assure us that the fact that it has now gone off for scrutiny will not preclude the concession from being made. If Ministers say so, we trust and believe them, but we would finally plead with them to look again at the situation of the destitute, particularly with regard to preventive health, because, I repeat—although I do not wish to keep saying it over and over again—that in the particular case of TB, there must be a regime which is completed. If that regime is not completed, the bug comes back in a far more dangerous and sometimes lethal form. I do not have medical knowledge but I am sure that there are other Members of the House who will bear out that what I am saying is absolutely true and that Ministers must take it extremely seriously.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that this is a substantial group of amendments. It certainly is; there are over 50 amendments in one group. To begin, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendments regarding Scotland which he tabled, which take account of the commitments made in Committee. We are extremely grateful on this side of the House for that.
Among the myriad amendments to which he spoke initially, the noble and learned Lord referred to my Amendment No. 200A, but did not at that stage offer any arguments about it. Perhaps it would be helpful if I said something about the amendment now.
As I understand from reading the Bill, as currently drafted it removes the obligation on local authorities to provide residential accommodation and aftercare services for those subject to immigration control who have been suffering from a mental disorder. The effect of such a proposal has consequences more far-reaching than those immediately apparent for the
1228
individual concerned. To leave an immigrant suffering from a mental disorder without access to residential accommodation and aftercare services will have profound public policy implications. The adoption of such a policy must raise concerns for the safety of the community as a whole.
I am advised by my colleagues in Scotland that mental health has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and is currently being reviewed by the Scottish executive. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. I wonder how those changes sit with the fact that it is devolved; that there is a review; and how the changes implied by the Bill sit within that process.
11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has been extremely helpful, as, usual, in responding to a number of these matters. However, in general terms, I wish to advert to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Notwithstanding the assertions made by my noble and learned friend, I believe that anomalies may well persist. I am not sure about that but I have a feeling that they will. Consequently, I look to my noble and learned friend at least to assert this evening that he will look very carefully at those points. It would not be helpful to have those anomalies, which may be practical in their implications, on the face of the Bill as it emerges. Notwithstanding the fact that my noble and learned friend will have ameliorated the position by virtue of the amendments which he proposes to bring forward, it would be unhelpful from a practical point of view if those serious matters were still to apply. Therefore, I look to my noble and learned friend to give an assurance to the House this evening that, in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, he will examine those matters extremely carefully.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his extreme: y helpful remarks in relation to Amendment No. 212A on Clause 218. In the circumstances, I do not wish to press that amendment.
I discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the possibility of taking Amendment No. 238 with Amendment No. 212A in order to deal together with the inspection amendments. Is it possible to do that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is most generous and I am sure that the House would find that convenient.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I add one line of thanks to the Minister for his reply on Amendment No. 212A.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in that case, I shall deal now with Amendment No. 238, which is to Clause 136. Neither in that clause nor in Part VIII is there any mention of children. If the noble and learned Lord were to give an assurance that children would not under any

1229
circumstances be detained in detention centres, I need not bother the House further with my peroration on the subject. Is that the case or will children be involved?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must not simply have a private conversation with the noble Lord. In deference to the House, I shall deal briefly with Amendment No. 238. It is to insert the words,
"where a child is detained in a detention centre under Part VIII of this Act, the Secretary of State shall arrange for the detention centre to be inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate as often as he deems to be necessary and in any case not less than once in each period of 24 months".
I understand the concerns in that regard. Detention centre rules to be made under Clause 149 will set out detailed provisions about accommodation of and facilities to be provided for detained families and children. Separate living accommodation will be required. Staff coming into contact with children will need to have received basic childcare training. All staff must be checked against the paedophile registers. One of the key functions of visiting committees, which must be appointed by the Secretary of State for every detention centre in Clause 148, will be to monitor and report on the proper implementation of the rules.
Clause 148 also makes provision for the inspection of all detention centres by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. His office will have a statutory duty to report on the treatment of all detainees, including families, together with the conditions of detention at detention centres. It is open to him to call on expert help from outside his department whenever he feels it necessary. From my own experience of working closely with Sir David over the past year, I know that he has never been reluctant to bring in outside expert assistance. I am sure that the chief inspector will ask for the assistance of the social services directorate when inspecting a centre that holds families with children when he deems it necessary to do so.
I believe that these measures will provide for the independent scrutiny of detention centres and a proper level of statutory regulation where children or families are detained. At the moment there is only one discrete facility for the detention of families. It was designed and developed in consultation with a local child protection officer. I believe that this shows our earnest intention and good will. I can undertake that the Secretary of State will continue to have regard to the views of the local authority child protection officers in respect of any future provision of family accommodation. I have deliberately answered as fully as I can to meet the concerns raised by the noble Lord.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, at this stage is the noble and learned Lord to answer the point on Amendment No. 200A or is the noble and learned Lord finally sitting down?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the concept of "finally sitting down" is not well known to me in the context of this Bill! The noble Lord, Lord
1230
Northbourne, raised a particular point. It deserved an answer that was full and attended to his question. Like the Windmill Theatre, I never close, and I shall now deal with the noble Viscount's question.
The noble Viscount is quite right that mental health is a devolved matter. However—the most appalling word in the English language—immigration, including asylum seeker support, is a reserved matter. That covers the point about Scotland.
I turn to the serious point raised by the noble Baroness and others. I take all points on board and I always pay close attention to what my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis says because he rarely intervenes, but when he does he is brief and to the point. Of course, we shall bear in mind the points raised by the noble Baroness and my noble friend. Those who are destitute are excluded only in respect of destitution needs. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness entirely. Those destitution needs can be met by Part VI of the Bill, but they are not excluded in respect of—I take her examples—mental health needs or tuberculosis needs or general health needs. I hope that I have been able to give her and my noble friend the undertaking and the reassurance which they sought.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Oxford, I warmly associate myself with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said apropos Amendment No. 189.
I have two questions concerning Amendment No. 212A. I ask the noble and learned Lord for clarification regarding the role of the social services inspectorate in developing and implementing the comprehensive inspection programme in accordance with the Minister's commitments. I also seek clarification regarding proposed local authority arrangements to monitor support arrangements for families with children in cluster areas to ensure that the welfare of children is maintained. As families will now be systematically dispersed to cluster areas around the country, it is essential that data is collected and analysed to ensure that the needs of the children are met and that their welfare is sustained as the new practice is implemented. Therefore, I ask for clarification on both those areas—inspection and monitoring—through the interim support arrangements from November 1999 to April 2000 and thereafter when the new support arrangements set out under Part VI come into force.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to my amendment and said, entirely correctly, that immigration is not a matter that is devolved. I understand that. However, will someone who is subject to immigration control and who suffers from a mental disorder have access to residential accommodation or aftercare services, or will he fall through the gap? Where does the responsibility lie for his care?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the best course for me to follow in the area of devolved matters is to

1231
write to the noble Viscount, if he finds that acceptable. The reason is that, although when we were all first joined together in considering this Bill I was a Home Office Minister, I now have different work to do which involves giving advice on devolution matters. They are not always straightforward and it is not appropriate for me to give an off-the-cuff answer in respect of a Bill which is a Home Office Bill when I might have to advise the Government generally on a devolution matter. I shall therefore write to the noble Viscount and., as always, put a copy in the Library.
In response to the right reverend Prelate, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We are looking to an informal, bilateral arrangement along the lines of the arrangement between the inspectorate and the Prison Service agency. Local authorities will be involved in the development of clusters. They will still owe the normal social service duties to all families—I am happy to make that plain.
I believe I have now dealt with all the matters that have been raised and I shall finally sit down.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have been waiting to follow my noble friend Lord Northbourne in his amendments and should like the opportunity quickly to ask the Minister what will be the inspecting and official visiting facilities in detention centres, not only relating to children but also to adults. Will there be a board of visitors? It is important that when people are incarcerated in any institution that they have the right to access to an independent body. Will that independent body, as a board of visitors in a prison has, have direct access to the Home Secretary?
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I should like to add that drug-resistant tuberculosis is a real killer. So serious is this problem that the Government should set up screening facilities at all places of entry for refugees.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can deal in a little detail with the question of the noble Baroness. The answer to her first concerns is found in Clause 148. I shall read it quickly, if that is of assistance. It says:
"The Secretary of State must appoint a committee (to be known as the Visiting Committee) for each detention centre. The functions … are to be such as may be prescribed by the detention centre rules".
Subsection (3) relates to the important matter the noble Baroness raised, and states:
"Those rules may, in particular, require members of the Visiting Committee for a detention centre (a) to pay frequent visits to the centre"—
that is more frequently than at least once every two years, as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—
"(b) to hear complaints made by persons detained in the centre"—
the specific point of the noble Baroness; and then the overarch:
"to report to the Secretary of State any matter which they consider it expedient to report".
1232
The clause goes even further than that:
"Every member of the Visiting Committee for a detention centre may at any time enter the centre and have free access to every part of it and to every person detained there".
I do not believe one could have a more rigorous inspection machinery, nor a freer one in the interests of those detained, than the one to be found in Clause 148. I shall now sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 71, line 27, at end insert —
("( ) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (d) and (g) above do not apply to a person seeking asylum in the United Kingdom or a spouse or dependant of such a person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment 118 to which your Lordships agreed on a Division. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 was agreed to on a Division. However, it was part of a disparate group. I hope that I am not taking the noble Lord by surprise when I say that the conclusion of your Lordships on Amendment No. 118 was not taken to apply to the other matters in that group. Therefore, if the noble Lord wants to take the opinion of the House, he may want either to address your Lordships again or to take his chance as may be. I hope that that does not sound discourteous. We have covered a lot of work this evening. It seemed to me that Amendment No. 118 was different from the rest of the group. The other amendments in the grouping—Amendments Nos. 149, 150, 151, 183 and 184—were not subsumed in that vote.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have never thought the noble and learned Lord to be discourteous; indeed, he is one of the politest Members of a very polite House. I am taken a little by surprise by the noble and learned Lord because, when a Division is held on the first amendment in a group, it is normal for all the others to go with it—in other words, they fall or they stand with it. I am also rather surprised because the noble and learned Lord hung his argument on his amendment, Amendment No. 124, which, subsequently, he did not move. Therefore, as I see it, there is no provision in the Bill at present to protect vulnerable disabled people and to make certain that they have the allowances which I, and others, feel that they need to ensure that their disability is ameliorated to some effect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I hope that he does not feel legitimately aggrieved. I have tried to honour the bargain struck as fully as possible; in fact, I have been pro-active in saying that I will not move amendments, even when noble Lords have not raised the question. The noble Lord may remember that the reason I did not move Amendment No. 124 was because the noble

1233
Baroness, Lady Williams, raised a serious question on that amendment and Amendment No. 123 as to whether they were within the scope of the agreement which was outlined by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I thought that she was right and I said so immediately. Therefore, I was disabled from arguing Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 because we had all agreed that that issue would be considered by the relevant committee and that we would have the benefit of its advice before returning to the matter.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. Normally, if one has a headline clause and the other amendments in the group are consequential upon it, everything goes together. However, I do not see his amendment as consequential. It is possible that your Lordships think that the other items in the third group on the list, starting with Amendment No. 118 and including Amendment No. 183, might simply not be moved this evening, so that we can return to them at an appropriate time. By that time I will have deployed, or, preferably—I say this sotto voce, in case he is listening—my noble friend Lord Bassam will have deployed, the arguments on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. As always, I am in your Lordships' hands.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I had always understood that such amendments did follow. However, I, too, am in the hands of your Lordships. This subject was not in fact raised in Committee. If this amendment had been discussed entirely on its own, it was never my intention to press it to a Division. I shall withdraw it this evening, but I advise the Government that I feel perfectly free to return to the subject on Third Reading, depending on what the noble and learned Lord tables in the way of amendments to help disabled asylum seekers. They do need help; indeed, very considerable help. In the light of what has been said, I shall withdraw the amendment tonight but may well return with a similar amendment on Third Reading.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the graceful way in which the noble Lord responded to my suggestion. I am saying specifically that I entirely accept his entitlement to raise this matter in an amendment on Third Reading, so that in no way is his point being shut out.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 71, line 34, leave out ("subject to immigration control") and insert ("to whom this section applies").
Page 71, line 37, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may provide for a person to be treated for prescribed purposes only as not being a person to whom this section applies.
1234
(3B) In relation to the benefits mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g), "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.
(3C) In relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (except so far as it relates to the benefits mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g)), "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Department.
(3D) Section 175(3) to (5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (supplemental powers in relation to regulations) applies to regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury under subsection (3) as it applies to regulations made under that Act.
(3E) Sections 133(2), 171(2) and 172(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 apply to regulations made by the Department under subsection (3) as they apply to regulations made by the Department under that Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 112 [Amendment of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Other restrictions on assistance: England and Wales]:
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 72, line 25, leave out ("made in respect of persons") and insert ("given effect to in relation to a person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 192 and 193:
Page 72, line 29, after ("illness") insert ("and for care and after-care").
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("made in respect of persons") and insert ("given effect to in relation to a person").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Clause 116 [Other restrictions on assistance: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 74, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 28 and insert (""(4) No arrangements under subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 74, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 33 and insert (""(3) No arrangements under subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 200A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 74, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 38 and insert (""(3) No arrangements under paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (1) above may be given effect to in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.]
Clause 117 [Other restrictions on assistance: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 75, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("person") in line 7 and insert (""(3) No arrangements made under paragraph (1) may be given effect in relation to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("and (5)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Support for children]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 209 to 212:
Page 75, line 40, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 43 and insert ("any of the child welfare provisions").
Page 76, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) "The child welfare provisions" means—

(a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families);

(b) section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (equivalent provision for Scotland): and

(c) Article 18 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (equivalent provision for Northern Ireland).").

Page 76, line 11, leave out from ("under") to ("in") in line 12 and insert ("any of the child welfare provisions").
Page 76, line 14, after ("means") insert ("—

(a) in relation to Northern Ireland, the authority within whose area the withdrawn accommodation was provided;

(b) in any other case,")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 212A not moved.]
Clause 119 [Back-dating of benefits where person recorded as refugee]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 213 to 217:
Page 76, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("provide") and insert ("Regulations may").
Page 77, line 8, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
Page 77, line 11, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Department").
Page 77, line 14, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
Page 77, line 17, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Department").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 218:
After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
("PART VIA
IMMIGRATION SERVICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
IMMIGRATION SERVICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
.—(1) There shall be an authority to be known as the "Immigration Service Complaints Authority", hereinafter referred to as the "Authority".
(2) The Authority shall be comprised of members appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, from a panel comprised of individuals with proven experience in the community, local government or academia of monitoring and investigating the use or abuse (or both) of coercive powers.
(3) The Authority shall appoint officers, who will monitor and investigate complaints about the use of powers contained in this Act or the Immigration Act 1971.
(4) The authority shall devise and issue a handbook outlining the procedures to be followed when making a complaint and the steps which will be taken to investigate such a complaint, after consultation with all relevant organisations and individuals.
(5) The authority shall recommend disciplinary or criminal action against immigration officers against whom complaints are upheld, where appropriate.
(6) The Authority shall publish an annual report on its activities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I raised this issue during the Committee stage. I am fortunate that on this amendment I have the backing of other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. He was present tonight for some considerable time but he has an important engagement and has asked me to say that he would like the House to know that he supports the principle of this amendment. Most of your Lordships will know that the noble Lord was at one time Home Secretary. I am also very fortunate to have the backing of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was at one time the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.
I was delighted with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, sent to the noble Lord, Lord Cope., of which I have a copy. Under paragraphs 29 to 36, the letter dealt with the issue of complaints made against immigration and entry clearance officers. However, the noble Lord's reply does not address the perceived need for independent scrutiny of complaints made against immigration officers, who are being provided by the Bill with the kind of coercive powers usually reserved for police officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is proposing to continue the present system, instituted to deal with complaints about officers with largely administrative powers, whereby complaints about immigration officers are sent to a complaints office within the Immigration and Nationality Department. These complaints are then investigated by officers who are also within the Immigration and Nationality Department. The results of their investigations are

1237
then monitored by a two- or three-person complaints audit committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for the Immigration and Nationality Department. The committee then reports back—not to the wider public or to Parliament but to the Secretary of State.
This may well be an example of good management practice and be designed to ensure that the Secretary of State monitors the performance of his immigration officers, but it does not provide the public scrutiny necessary when immigration officers have been provided with powers to enter and search individuals' homes, deprive them of their liberty and subject them to body or strip searches. Such powers are contained in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, appears to believe that publicising the present system and giving the complaints audit committee a more proactive but unspecified role will provide the necessary safeguards to ensure that immigration officers do not misuse their new powers. However, these measures do not address the basic shortcomings of the present system. First, the system contains no element of direct public accountability and will not necessarily be perceived to be fair and unbiased; nor will it be trusted by the diverse communities which will be subject to these new powers. Secondly, it is not transparent; the whole process is internal to the Home Office.
Furthermore, if there is a perception that there will be no effective redress should the new powers not be exercised lawfully, the immigration officers charged with exercising these powers will be deprived of the community support which could assist them to fulfil their duties in the most effective manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has failed to address the fact that the investigation of an allegation of unlawful detention or illegal entry of property demands different skills and training from the investigation of incidents of rudeness or inefficiency. If the complaints investigation unit and the complaints audit committee were to take on this new role, they would have to be radically restructured and new staff brought in. That would involve financial implications and yet it would not necessarily command the necessary public confidence because it will still be identified as part of the department employing the very officers about whom the complaints are being made. It would seem better value for money for the Government to provide funding for an independent immigration service complaints authority.
We believe that when a group of civil servants and others are given such wide-ranging powers as those contained in the Bill—which threaten to breach basic rights to privacy and liberty and the right to a fair hearing of any immigration or asylum appeal—it is imperative to ensure the widest possible public scrutiny of the exercise of those powers. We believe that that is achievable only if an independent complaints authority is established. The authority should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Secretary of State for the Home Office; it should
1238
be empowered to carry out its investigations using only its own staff; and it should report directly to Parliament.
We also believe that the present system whereby a complaints audit committee of two or three people appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Office monitors the effectiveness of internal immigration service complaints procedures and reports back to him on an annual basis is at best an example of departmental self-appraisal.
I make no criticism of individuals involved in immigration audit. In fact, they perform a very useful task. However, I shall explain why that particular procedure is not appropriate. It lacks the capability and objectivity to investigate sensitive complaints against immigration service staff and to institute swift action to eradicate malpractice before it takes root. Moreover it is not of sufficient weight to counterbalance the inroads into civil liberties being introduced by Part VII of the Bill.
I believe that the existing Complaints Audit Committee is limited in its scope for investigating complaints arising out of powers contained in Part VII of the Bill. When the independent audit committee was established, Mr Charles Wardle, the Under-Secretary of State at that time, said in another place,
"The Committee's remit will be to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints".
That is what he is talking about here—looking at the effectiveness of the procedures. I repeat, it is not about the procedures for investigating complaints, nor the investigation itself, but,
"to draw … management's attention to any weaknesses".
That was the basic purpose underlying the establishment of that particular body. The total number of complaints must be a matter of concern in view of the millions of passengers who are now dealt with at airports, including those who claim asylum status.
It may be interesting to examine the similarity with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act regarding provision for complaints against police officers. Let us remember that in many cases in the Bill before us we have given immigration officers powers similar to those of police officers. The present Home Secretary, when dealing with the matter of police complaints, spoke clearly of the need to introduce an independent element into the police complaints machinery.
The Macpherson Report on the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence refers to the need for some independent element in the complaints procedure. It is right and proper that there should be an independent complaints committee which can examine complaints against immigration officers.
I believe that at this stage we have a golden opportunity to set up an authority of this kind. The success of our immigration policy depends on the confidence the public will have in the way we operate the system. Transparency is vital and the Government

1239
must provide it. I hope that they will accept the amendment and take the necessary action to establish such an authority. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what a relief to speak to one amendment in one group! I have to say to the Minister that we are delighted to support the Government in grouping as much as we can, but they should realise that occasionally that requires verbal and physical dexterity to deal with all the issues. We are extremely grateful to both noble Lords.
I can be very brief. We support the principle of the amendment, but we view it with an entirely open mind. We look forward to the Minister's reply.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, at this late hour I too shall be brief. The arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Dholakia deserve careful consideration, and I wish to adduce only two further arguments to add to those he has already made.
The powers given to immigration officers under the Bill are sweeping. They include powers to arrest without warrant, even when no offence has been committed in cases where the immigration authorities have reason to suspect that someone may be using fraudulent documents or may have tried to escape his conditions of bail, and so forth. Any form of arrest without warrant is extremely troubling in a society such as ours where the whole system of law has been consistently constrained by the need to secure a warrant before arresting someone living in this country. It is clearly a major responsibility of Parliament to look carefully if powers are ever given to arrest without warrant.
In this situation such powers may be justified because in some cases people may be trying to leave rapidly from the attempt to scrutinise their reasons for being here. Having said that, if one cannot take the measures to prevent any arrest without warrant, it is all the more important to have a system of clear accountability. The Government may respond that they have a system of accountability by extension with the PACE codes which apply to police complaints. Our argument would be that that really will not do. The powers of immigration officers are not the same as those of police officers. Their training is not the same; the job they have to do is not the same; and, unlike police officers, in many cases they will have to deal with people whose language and culture are very far removed from those of the people with whom most police constables have to deal most of the time.
In this situation there ought to be a separate complaints authority. It ought to be staffed in a different way from the Police Complaints Authority and it ought to have on it people who have knowledge of how to deal with immigration problems, who have an understanding of other countries and know
1240
something of their cultures. With great respect, none of that is met by the proposal simply to extend the scope of the Police Complaints Authority.
We ask the Government to think carefully about this amendment. I adduce one final argument in favour of it. It is crucial that people have trust in the good faith of immigration officers. Over many years the trust in the good faith of police officers has been built up, although I think Ministers would agree that, from time to time, even that has been shaken and they have then responded most vigorously and quickly to the kind of concerns to which cases such as the Lawrence case lead. In this case there could be more complaints because the business of the job that immigration officers have to do is frankly even more difficult than that of the police, and there are not quite so many cases where the public are only too happy to welcome their intervention.
So simply on the ground that it is critical that the immigration authorities retain the trust not only of the British community but also of those who come into this country seeking refuge, there should be a system of accountability. We on these Benches are not wholly satisfied that that has been met by the present arrangements. We are grateful for the support in principle of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, when speaking to an earlier amendment I referred to the fact that my law firm is deeply involved in immigration and asylum issues. From a severely practical point of view, there is one overwhelming virtue in the amendment. I refer to the independence that it will bestow on the complaints authority. This Government have shown a remarkably committed wish to improve race relations in this country. It is an extremely fraught area of our national life. It is full of difficulties and it is desperately difficult for all concerned to get right. Immigration and asylum are aspects of race relations which are even more difficult than the average.
I commend the Government on what they are trying to do in the Bill. However, I find it a little perplexing that there is resistance to the notion of an independent complaints authority, because the independence of a complaints authority will be of most benefit to the Immigration Service itself. I suspect that, as vas found to be the case with the police, the lack of independence of the old regime was a perpetual problem, try as they would to deal fairly with the public.
I add my voice to those of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lady Williams. I hope that the Government will see that the issue of independence is crucial. It is crucial for the complainant; it is no less crucial for the immigration authorities; and, in a sense, it is no less crucial for the Government, because in the end it is the Government who have to pick up the mess that can be created by a general miasma of suspicion. Non-independent complaints arrangements are in a sense self-defeating.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully understand and support the reasoning behind this proposed new clause. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for their comments. They spoke of "sweeping powers", a requirement for "independence", "transparency" and "objectivity", and said that the Government should demonstrate an understanding of the reasons for independence in a complex field of race relations and its interplay with immigration and asylum matters. We are well aware of, and alive to, the issues raised.
I fully recognise that immigration officers must be clearly accountable for their actions when exercising their powers and that an effective complaints system is vital to maintaining confidence in how they operate.
Yes, we need a system that is independent and objectively monitored. Yes, we need a system that can take quick action to eradicate malpractice. There is no argument about that. Yes, we need a system which is flexible enough to respond to different types of complaint. And yes, we need a system which is understood by those who may wish to use it. But the system needs to be proportionate to the problems that complainants typically bring forward. That is what we are looking at here.
I believe that creating a rigid, inflexible, statutory system would be a serious mistake. The framework for an administrative system in which the public can have confidence already exists, and we intend to enhance and strengthen it to ensure that it is more accessible and to ensure the proper handling of complaints arising out of the exercising of the powers contained in Part VII of the Bill. I do not believe that legislation would provide a greater degree of protection, scrutiny or transparency than already exists.
I intend to deal with the concerns about the accountability of those who operate the immigration control, which I recognise as the primary motivation behind this new clause. However, before I do so, I intend to deal with some of the serious practical difficulties that it causes.
The clause seeks to establish a complaints authority which would oversee and investigate complaints about the use of powers contained in this Bill or the 1971 Act. The exercising of powers under the Bill and the 1971 Act involves a range of persons both inside and outside the Home Office. The clause would bring police constables who exercise powers under Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act within the auspices of the immigration complaints authority. It would also include superintendent registrars exercising powers under Clause 157 of the Bill. Would its jurisdiction also extend to local authority staff involved in providing asylum support? It risks introducing a labyrinthine bureaucracy which would invariably slow down the process and delay any remedial action being taken.
1242
Statutory systems can be rigid, hard to change, impersonal and remote and too lengthy in their response times. An unwieldy system is to the benefit of no one except those who would gain advantage from delay. We all accept that there are those who would gain such advantage in this field.
I agree entirely that the system needs to be independently and objectively monitored. An independent body, the Complaints Audit Committee, was established in 1994 to monitor the investigation of complaints against immigration officers. Members of the committee are appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and must meet certain criteria, such as that outlined in the proposed new clause: experience in race relations, community relations, immigration law, customer relations and local or central government.
Members of the committee are given unfettered access to all complaint investigations and are able to make critical comment on the quality of the investigation and its conclusions. They have access to Ministers. They are required to produce an annual report for the Secretary of State. The Home Office is required to respond to the committee's recommendations and criticisms. Changes can be introduced urgently without the need for amending legislation. I do not accept that the objectivity of the Complaints Audit Committee is impaired simply because it is appointed by the Home Secretary rather than a body outside the Home office. As noble Lords are aware, the Home Office covers a wide portfolio, from race relations to immigration control and I can assure noble Lords that there is no conflict of interest.
In its last report, produced in April 1999, the committee commented favourably on the health of the immigration complaints system as audited against the headings of the Citizen's Charter and Complaints Task Force check list. It might be helpful also if I were to provide the House with figures about the current system. In 1998, only 369 complaints were lodged against the Immigration Service. Nearly 90 per cent were quality of service issues. They concerned rudeness or inefficiency of an administrative nature. As I argued earlier, we must try to keep the potential problem in proportion.
Of the 369 complaints, 30 per cent were found to be wholly or partially substantiated. That does not indicate a system which is failing to work. Rather it indicates an organisation which approaches this difficult area with openness and objectivity. Complainants are seen personally and, if appropriate, their concerns are listened to. It is a human system where wrongs can be righted quickly. I wish to make it clear that any complaint which alleges criminal activity by a member of the Immigration Service will be investigated independently by the police.
The level of complaints might appear to raise questions about the visibility of the current system. But it is worth pointing out that the Police Complaints Authority receives one complaint for every seven police officers. The Immigration Service receives one

1243
for every eight officers. But this is an area where we can and will make improvements; we are committed to that. One of the key requirements of the Citizen's Charter is that information on how to complain should be easily accessible in appropriate languages. That is being systematically introduced. Notices will be placed in police stations and enforcement offices and no doubt in other appropriate locations.
Immigration officers will be given new powers of entry, search and seizure as a result of Part VII of the Bill. However, we intend to exercise caution in introducing the powers. Only a limited number, around 20, will be initially authorised to test and use the new powers. They will be given extensive training, with the emphasis being placed on conflict resolution and the use of interpersonal skills to diffuse difficult situations. They will only target cases where the risk is anticipated to be low. This modus operandi should help further to reduce the potential for complaints. They will be accountable in the exercise of their powers. Powers of entry, search and seizure are limited by the provisions contained in the Bill. They will be required to have regard to the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice when exercising the new powers.
The codes not only govern the exercise of statutory powers; they also serve to regulate the manner in which officers conduct their duties. Immigration officers will be no different. If they break operational guidelines, they will be accountable and properly disciplined.
A paper which details our existing complaints procedures and outlines the further measures we intend to take to strengthen them was placed in the Libraries of both Houses in May this year. Briefly, we shall treat complaints arising from the exercise of the new powers separately from others. They will be investigated by a small team of specially trained officers who will have knowledge of enforcement law and practice and the PACE codes. The Complaints Audit Committee will have sight of each complaint as soon as possible after receipt in order to monitor progress and ensure that investigation of the complaint is receiving the right degree of attention and priority. The procedures will be reviewed after one year to ensure that they are working satisfactorily. If they need strengthening, we can do it without legal constraint.
It is in everyone's interests, not least the immigration officers themselves, that their powers are underpinned with the proper levels of accountability and control. The codes of practice, when taken alongside the safeguards written into the legislation, the enhanced complaints procedures and the comprehensive training programme that those officers exercising the new powers will be required to undertake, provide a level of accountability which is both workable and proportionate. It protects those against whom the new powers are to be used while providing the Immigration Service with a clear and explicit framework within which to operate.
1244
I suggest that this clause, though well meaning in intention, is not required to ensure its objective. It would be a mistake to introduce it and I cannot, therefore, invite your Lordships to support it.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and before he nails his colours to the mast on that reply, I ask him to study the remarks of his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on Amendment No. 115 about the inconvenience caused to the Home Office by repeated applications for judicial review. I ask him to consider whether this alternative may be preferable to that one.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, observations, guidance and good advice. The noble Earl refers to nailing one's colours to the mast. We believe that the system that we have in place is robust. I outlined in my earlier comments ways in which we shall keep it under careful review and monitor and strengthen it. There is a need for a system of complaints auditing that is proportionate to the size of the problem, and I believe that I have argued that case well.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having gone to such trouble to give his explanation. I remain to be convinced by the arguments that he advanced. I can also produce figures, but I shall resist that temptation at 10 minutes to midnight. Needless to say, I shall study his reply very carefully and return to this matter at Third Reading. Having worked with the Commission for Racial Equality and been a member of the Police Complaints Authority, I know that if there is no independent mechanism, at some stage one must be invented. This is the opportunity to do so. I shall return to this matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 [Arrest without warrant]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 80, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (3)(b), (4)(b) and (5), it is immaterial that no offence has been committed.
( ) In Scotland the powers conferred by subsections (3), (4) and (5) may also be exercised by a constable." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this grouping, one finds Amendments Nos. 218A., 218B to 218D, 229 and 290A. I deal first with the Government's amendments. Amendment No. 218A is in two parts. The first clarifies the position when an arrest is made on reasonable suspicion of an offence of facilitation, harbouring or obstruction. This makes it plain that, if the immigration officer can demonstrate

1245
that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, the arrest will be lawful even if it transpires later that no offence actually took place. Not to clarify the position would make the power of arrest unworkable.
The second part of this amendment rectifies a defect in Clause 124 as it applies to Scotland. Powers of arrest for offences of facilitation, harbouring and obstruction are provided in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 124. Police constables are not specified. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the police already have parallel powers of arrest under PACE, but PACE does not extend to Scotland. This amendment addresses the anomaly in the clause and ensures that constables in Scotland have the same powers of arrest as immigration officers and police officers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 290A is technical. Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act provides immigration officers with powers to arrest those persons liable to be detained under Schedule 2. This includes illegal entrants and those who are refused leave to enter. This power of arrest is extended to Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act to allow those liable to detention under that schedule also to be arrested. Clauses 128, 130, 131, 132 and 135 insert new paragraphs into Schedule 2 to provide immigration officers with powers of search, seizure and retention when conducting arrests under that schedule. This amendment clarifies that those powers can be used when the arrest is effected under Schedule 3.
I turn next to the opposition amendments (if I may so describe them). Amendments Nos. 218B to 218D would remove the power of a justice of the peace in Scotland to issue warrants authorising immigration or police officers to enter and search specifically identified premises to carry out an arrest or to search for evidence. The granting of warrants is a core function of justices of the peace in Scotland and something that is done routinely. They already grant warrants under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to allow police constables to enter, search and arrest for immigration offences. Clauses 125 and 127, to which these amendments refer, will allow immigration officers as well as constables to execute warrants. I would not have thought that that would significantly impact on the consideration of applications for warrants by justices of the peace in Scotland.
Justices in Scotland grant warrants to agencies other than the police; for example, the utility services and HM Customs and Excise. They are given guidance and training that covers all of their duties, and I am not aware of any operational difficulties associated with their grant of warrants. Indeed, the local nature of justices of the peace means that they are more accessible outside routine hours and, therefore, give valuable assistance when warrants are urgently required. I cannot see any reason to differ from the existing and accepted practices in relation to warrants for entry, search and arrest when dealing with the immigration offences detailed in this Bill.
The effect of Amendment No. 229 would be to restrict the use of reasonable force by an immigration officer to the powers contained in Part VII. As drafted, Clause 142 allows the use of reasonable force, where necessary, in the exercise of any power in this Bill or the 1971 Act.
What we seek to do—I think that we have succeeded—is to give a proper, legal framework for immigration officers to work in. Reasonable force in a particular circumstance is, of course, a matter for the courts, depending on the particular circumstances and the power being exercised. It may be helpful if I explain that enhanced training in the legal concept of reasonable force and its practical consequences will be given to immigration officers.
This is not a new area. Police officers derive their powers from common law, from the Criminal Law Act 1967 and from Section 117 of PACE. Immigration officers also derive their powers from the common law and from the Criminal Law Act. Restricting the explicit use of force only to Part VII of the Bill I think would cause mischief which is unintended. I cannot support the amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for dealing with Amendments Nos. 218B to 218D. The amendments were tabled after concerns were expressed by the Law Society of Scotland. Thinking of his previous incarnation, the Minister will know that when one receives a concern from a law society one takes it with all due seriousness.
The concerns were twofold: that the justice of the peace may not be legally qualified and may be unfamiliar with the criteria needed to grant a warrant. The remarks of the noble and learned Lord about training are helpful. It is a concern of the Law Society that this matter should remain within the sole ambit of the sheriff. I shall study with care the Minister's remarks. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will also consider the Law Society's point about whether a justice of the peace is legally qualified.
I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. In the light of that I shall not move the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Search and arrest by warrant]:
[Amendments Nos. 218B and 218C not moved.]
Clause 127 [Entry and search of premises]:
[Amendment No. 218D not moved.]
Clause 136 [Detention of persons liable to examination or removal]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 93, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, at the beginning there is inserted—
"(A1) Persons may be detained under paragraph 16(1) above for a period not exceeding 48 hours in such places as the Secretary of State may direct, and after that in a detention centre as defined in section 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corresponds closely with one which was spoken to in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, replied to it a t col. 1623 of the Official Report of 28th July.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that where a person having arrived in the United Kingdom has to be detained, he can be held initially only for 48 hours in a place other than a detention centre. At the end of that period he must be transferred to a detention centre. The Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper, is to detain people at the beginning of the application process for asylum in a limited number of cases where doubt arises as to the applicant's identity. One hopes that the vast majority of those people who need to be detained are held at the end of the process when they have been through the mechanism of appeal and are on the way to being sent back to their country of origin having failed in their applications. Under those circumstances we accept that it is frequently necessary to detain; otherwise the person has no incentive to report when he is required to present himself for removal.
At the beginning of the process it is a different matter. We hope that the proportion of those having to be detained on arrival will be very much lower although when one looks at the figures, one sees that that is still not the case. We are still seeing a preponderance of those being detained held on arrival and therefore the criteria set out in the White Paper are not being observed.
As we are having to detain quite a large number of people on arrival, we want to make sure that they are held in proper facilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted that that was a desirable objective. He made the point that it was frequently impossible to find a detention centre within the 24-hour limit. Therefore, we have tried to make it easier for the Government by extending the period to 48 hours.
This is a very simple amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be disposed to accept it. It would mean that the number of people sent immediately to prison on arrival would be enormously reduced. They are sent to prison all too frequently at the moment. I very much regret the fact that people have to be accommodated in Rochester and Haslar, which are prison establishments, and not in detention centres which are designed for the purpose.
As the Minister knows, the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended as long ago as 1997 that people should be held only in detention centres. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention came here to look at the way we deal with asylum. It echoed the recommendation of the chief inspector. The Government have accepted that we should work towards that objective. The only reason why they cannot accept that it should be done immediately is simply because of the problem of providing the bricks and mortar. Aldington will not be in operation until the year 2001. There is a new special purpose detention centre being developed in the North. There are
1248
indications that the Government may wish I o convert Haslar from a prison establishment into a detention centre. It will be useful if the Minister can say whether that is a fixed policy or whether it is still a possibility in the Government's mind.
I very much hope that this opportunity will be taken by the Government to reaffirm that it is their objective to move towards a situation where we do not need to detain people in prison except in a very limited set of circumstances such as when they have committed a criminal offence and when, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, mentioned in an earlier debate, they exhibit violence on arrival. That is practically the whole list of circumstances under which it would be necessary to put someone in prison. I know that the Government are of the same mind in that we object very strenuously to the idea that people who have committed no criminal offence should find themselves in the prison system. This amendment is designed to work towards that position. I hope that the Government accept it. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I speak also to Amendment No. 230, which comes before Clause 143 and provides for a maximum length of administrative detention. Only this morning I received a letter from a Roman Catholic religious Sister. She writes,
"After working with detainees over the last five years, I believe the considerable majority to be genuine asylum seekers".
Another wrote to me from Surrey, stating:
"I have been visiting Tinsley House near Gatwick for the last five years. I have watched detainees' health and morale deteriorate as detention persists from month to month. They suffer depression, anxiety and insomnia. Everything is uncertain. They are a very vulnerable group.".
A letter to me from a man in Brighton states:
"I have been visiting detainees for three years and have seen the terrible effects that detention has on many detainees. They are estranged from home, family, culture and country.".
I have quoted from independent eye witnesses who have been going into detention centres over a long period of time, particularly under two different governments. Their observations are confirmed by a study on the mental health of detainees conducted by Dr. Pourgidez, of which I am sure the Home Office has a copy.
For a long time, many of us have been asking for a time limit on the detention of people whose asylum or immigration cases have not yet been determined. We are regularly told that this is not possible and the departmental refrain goes something as follows: individual cases are regularly reviewed at progressively higher levels. I think that the word processors must be getting weary of churning that out, but the fact remains that individuals languish in custody, sometimes in prison, always in limbo, and sometimes for longer than six months.
In seeking to set a maximum length of six months, I have deliberately chosen this period because it coincides exactly with the target set by the

1249
Government for initial decisions in asylum cases and for consequential appeals. If it is going to be possible to deal with all new cases in that period, surely the much smaller number of detainees held at any one time can be processed and either released or deported within six months. I believe that such a time limit would concentrate official minds enormously.
I emphasise that we are talking about people who are charged with no offence. They are merely suspected of wishing to abscond or of some procedural irregularity. They should not be subject to indefinite detention.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment No. 221. Before doing so, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord and the department for amendments significantly to improve the situation in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking that the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service will carry out a joint review of future provision for detention facilities in Northern Ireland. Each year, 40 to 45 immigrants are detained in prison. At present, whether they be male or female, they are detained in prisons and in a situation where they are liable to be there not with the ordinary, average crook but with serious terrorists.
Furthermore, at least one of the prisons in which they are detained is about 80 miles from Belfast. The last time I looked, the average detention time was a minimum of one month and often six. I strongly make the point that special facilities are needed for such a situation. Because the numbers are not great, it works both ways. One might say that it is not serious; there are only 40 or 45 detainees. Equally, to provide the necessary facilities in a reasonable way is not too demanding.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the first thing that any normal prisoner does on finding himself in prison is to start counting the days until his release. It is often the mechanism which keeps a prisoner going until he comes out. If one has no stated time for release, one cannot do that. That is one reason why imprisonment without limit of time is more undermining to the character than any other form of normal imprisonment.
There is also the question of the arbitrariness of power. That is something which this House, over many centuries, has made considerable efforts to control. Short of arbitrary infliction of death without trial, arbitrary imprisonment without limit of time is one of the most arbitrary forms of power known. If we believe in a settled and known rule of law, that is not something that we in this House should encourage.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I may make a couple of comments on Amendment No. 230. In Committee I was pressing the Government to bring in the compulsory six-month period and I also asked the noble and learned Lord certain questions about that. I had the advantage of a letter from him subsequently,
1250
in which he made the point strongly that those detained for long periods are normally exposed to such detention as a result of their own action in making successive unmeritorious appeals and representations, renewing asylum claims or refusing to co-operate with applications for travel documents.
I can understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying here. I had previously assumed that that long delay was a problem at the Government's end, but the noble and learned Lord is making the point that the delays are often caused by the applicant. I wonder exactly what would happen if we brought in this six-month compulsory period, so that, if the matter was still proceeding and the asylum seeker had to be released from detention, where would he then go? Would he just disappear into the black market of the country, or would he have bail conditions to meet? I can see that there are problems.
Therefore I am not as strongly in favour of the six-month period as before. The noble and learned Lord told me that on 22nd July there were 120 people in detention who had been detained for six months or more. Is he able to give us an up-to-date figure and tell us whether that number is being reduced now, or whether it has increased or remained steady? I myself would no longer be able to support the compulsory six-month limit.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I also wonder whether the introduction of the general right to bail, which everyone has welcomed, has not actually strengthened his argument. We are now seeing more releases on bail and therefore one might well think of a guide time, even if it is not a statutory length of time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he agree that in all cases bail needs to be set at a reasonable amount?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish briefly to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, with respect to his own experience of visiting detention centres. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and I have also visited some detention centres and I should like to take this opportunity to put on record the huge debt that everyone in this House, in another place and in the Home Office owes to the scores of people who give up their time, as volunteers, to visit detainees, and often, I believe, keep them sane.
I believe that in many cases, without the support of volunteers, many people detained for any length of time—and, as my noble friend Lord Russell has pointed out, without any sense of when they may be released—would simply fall apart or suffer from nervous breakdowns. It is important that we in this House pay credit to that deeply dedicated group of people in all the detention centres around the country. Furthermore, it is not to be simply disregarded that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has singularly advocated the idea of a limit to the amount of time that people can normally spend in detention. UNHCR has a terrible job to do. What happens in an

1251
advanced country like Britain has a great deal of impact on what happens in other countries. When UNHCR calls for a limit to be set, there should be good reasons for saying why we cannot abide by that limit. I have not yet heard reasons which seem to me to be adequate.
Finally, I must say a few words of commendation for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is difficult to escape the irony that people now may be detained who have committed no crime other than to come to this country, usually fleeing from a despotic regime. One cannot help but occasionally compare that with the release system for people who have extremely serious crimes on their hands in Northern Ireland. We all understand why those releases take place but I conclude by saying that in the case of asylum seekers, perhaps the quality of mercy should not be utterly strained.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am looking ahead to our proceedings. Noble Lords may be interested in particular groups of amendments. Therefore, it may be helpful if I give a general indication in that regard. Amendments Nos. 269 and 273 have been tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. If we reach those amendments, I was proposing to offer to have full discussions with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in relation to them. The discussions will be with either myself or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Therefore, it may be that noble Lords interested in those amendments will not have to wait until we reach them.
The amendments in relation to ECHR statements are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Goodhart. That can be taken briefly because in that regard I shall be making concessions which are rather better than those asked for by the Select Committee. I shall not move Amendment No. 289. Therefore, I should tell any noble Lord who is interested in that amendment that I shall not be moving it. I hope that is helpful but I see there is no exodus.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what lies behind these amendments. We must bear in mind that incarceration, whether in detention or in prison, will bring about some of the consequences of which all noble Lords have spoken, perhaps most graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
We have publicised our commitment to reducing reliance on Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees. It is a priority to reduce the ad hoc use of prisons, though there will always be some need to detain people in prisons for reasons of geography, security or control.
I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his remarks. As he said, the numbers in Northern Ireland are extremely small. I cannot say conscientiously that we are persuaded that they justify the cost of a dedicated detention centre.
1252
The adoption of Amendment No. 219—and I entirely understand the reasons for it—would mean that detainees in Northern Ireland and Scotland would have to be moved to England. Therefore, it would not be easy for friends and family who want to visit or for representatives who may be unable to continue involvement in the case. It certainly would not be to the benefit of the detained person.
There are occasions when it may be scrupulously necessary to provide for detention in hospitals in the interests of the asylum seeker. The amendment would forbid that.
Amendment No. 220 does not seem to be consistent with the previous amendment because it would allow those detained under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to be detained in such places as the Secretary of State may direct without restriction. Therefore, the amendment should not be accepted for the reasons that I have given.
As I read it, Amendment No. 221 is intended to prevent the detention of individuals with convicted prisoners under Immigration Act powers in Northern Ireland. I believe that the amendment is defectively drafted as it does not refer to the relevant schedule which, we believe, is Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, but I entirely agree that that does not go to the paint of the noble Lord's remarks.
In addition to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, separate detention powers are also contained within paragraphs 2(1), 3(1), and 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act. Thus the amendment would create two classes of detainee in Northern Ireland: some who could be detained with convicted prisoners and others who could not.
The amendment makes no reference to Immigration Act detainees in England, Wales or Scotland. So we would still find ourselves able to detain people under the Immigration Act powers in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as some people in Northern Ireland, with convicted prisoners, but I believe that that is piling anomaly on anomaly.
I share the concern that we should not keep detainees with convicted prisoners. The free association at Magilligan prison means that immigration detainees are held in non-segregated conditions. Magilligan is currently the only adult prison in Northern Ireland which is suitable for the needs of male immigration detainees. For the reasons that I gave, I cannot honestly say that I can see any practical alternative, but we are conscious of the problem. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. I reiterate that we intend to undertake a joint review of future provision of detention facilities in Northern Ireland—that is, jointly between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
If we take away the option of keeping people in Magilligan, we are back to the problem or moving people to prisons in England, Scotland or Wales. I

1253
believe that that would be difficult for those in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I cannot accept that amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 222, we said that we would exercise particular care in deciding whether to detain those who were physically or mentally ill. That commitment remains. I entirely agree that those who are vulnerable in the category that I mentioned should, as far as possible, be cared for in the community or by appropriate authorities where some form of residential care is necessary. Some people have to be detained where there are strong grounds to believe that they will not comply with conditions for temporary release or bail.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 230 which proposes that there should be a maximum period of detention of six months. The Government have already made clear their commitment to keep the length of detention as short as possible. An important aspect of what we are doing is to be found in the bail rights: first, the entitlement to a bail hearing within a short period of time; secondly, a statement of reasons; and, thirdly, a general right to bail where the statutory exceptions are not to be found.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is quite right. If one has a six-month overall limit, many people—it is their right and I do not complain about it—will go through the appeal procedure and then try judicial review or ECHR proceedings. The system simply is not capable of coping to the extent that it could be guaranteed. Every conceivable avenue of appeal would have been explored and exhausted in the six-month period.
I remind noble Lords of the figures that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer gave this afternoon. From memory, there were 1,300 or so applications for judicial review with only 300 or so successful; over 1,000 failed to get over the elementary hurdle of showing a good arguable case.
We cannot accept six months as a limit that would be imposable or practical in all cases. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of arbitrary detention. If there are regular rights to bail application, if reasons are given and there is the presumption that bail will be given, subject to statutory exceptions, I do not believe that continued detention is arbitrary in the proper sense of the term because it is a conclusion arrived at judicially.
I recognise the concerns. The best we can do is to make the system quicker and more efficient, give decent facilities for bail applications and provide as good accommodation as we can in the mean time for some of those, whom I think everyone accepts, may have to be detained.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention looked at the circumstances in which people were detained in the United Kingdom and recommended that there should
1254
be a time limit. So, by inference, the United Nations working group sees detention beyond a certain point—it was not defined—as being arbitrary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was looking at a system which is not the system that this Bill is intended to provide.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it was still considering the periods for which people were detained. It was saying that beyond a certain point detention becomes arbitrary.
It is the duty of the Government to provide mechanisms which ensure that people get all the way through the appeal system and the legal processes within the period mentioned in Amendment No. 230. Six months is a perfectly acceptable time in which those procedures could be accomplished if we had an efficient system. If decisions were made promptly, and if when the decisions were adverse the decisions went before an adjudicator in rapid time, then six months would be a reasonable maximum.
When I consider the people who are held for longer than six months and the time it has taken for them to go through these processes, I see that as a result of government inefficiency. I do not blame the individuals for the actions they take in trying to pursue their cases. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned Tinsley House. Recently I had an appeal signed by five Cameroonians in Tinsley House. I looked into it because I was particularly interested in human rights in Cameroon. I looked also at the statement by one of the adjudicators in those cases. He said he did not know anything about an attempted coup in 1984 in Cameroon. He was not aware of any of the circumstances of recent years under the dictatorship of President Biya. He did not know, of course, about the 65 people who are awaiting treason charges in Cameroon and whose detention was said by Amnesty International to be arbitrary; and all that in spite of the fact that the Home Office now has country assessments which are supposed to be looked at by the adjudicators.
I wonder whether they do their homework properly. If that kind of decision is being made and people are being detained because adjudicators do not know the circumstances in the country of origin from which people come, it is no wonder the procedures take six months and that many of those who are aggrieved by the decisions of the appellate system go for judicial review.
I can see that we are not going to get anywhere with this appeal to the Minister in relation to the maximum period of detention. We shall therefore have to abandon our attempts for this evening. I do not feel either that we will make much progress on the first part of my argument regarding the period not exceeding 48 hours. I can see the arguments the Minister put regarding the necessity of transferring people to hospital in some cases. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Faulkner, on a previous occasion made a good argument about the necessity for keeping

1255
people in custody in prison when they became violent, though that could have been dealt with under the criminal law.
We are at a late hour. I shall not pursue these matters now. However, I reserve the right to return to them on Third Reading. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved. ]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 221:
Page 93, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In the 1971 Act, after paragraph 18(1) insert—
"(1A) A person detained in Northern Ireland under paragraph 16 shall not be held with convicted prisoners."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that with pressure from the noble and learned Lord and his department, when the Northern Ireland Prison Service does its review it will find a way to cope with the two or three immigrants who have to be detained. In the circumstances I shall not move Amendment No. 221.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved. ]
[Amendment No. 222 not moved. ]
12.30 a.m.
Clause 137 [Fingerprinting]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 95, line 15, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try to deal with this group of amendments as briefly as possible. This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 and 270 and relates to controls over fingerprinting. I shall quickly deal with the effect of these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are simply drafting amendments. Amendment No. 225 would make it mandatory for the authority of a chief immigration officer, or other designated persons of equivalent grade in the case of prison officers, constables and officers of the Secretary of State to be given before the fingerprints of a child under the age of 16 could be taken.
In addition, Amendment No. 225 makes it clear that the safeguards relating to the fingerprinting of children do not apply where a person authorised to take fingerprints reasonably believes that the individual whose fingerprints are to be taken is over the age of 16. This is necessary to prevent disputes arising about the age of an individual and whether the correct procedures were followed. The issue was debated in Committee. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams undertook to bring forward a government amendment to cover the point. Amendment No. 225 fulfils the undertaking that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 226, 227, 228 and 270 which deal with the destruction of fingerprints. Subsection (1) of Clause 139 provides that where an
1256
individual's fingerprints have not already been destroyed, they must be destroyed after 10 years. Amendment No. 226 provides a power to set a different period for this purpose. As a consequence of Amendment No. 270, this power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It provides us with flexibility so that we can, if necessary, take account of changing needs or circumstances in the future. For example, if there is evidence of systematic abuse, we may need to retain fingerprints for a longer period. If there is no such evidence, we will not need to retain fingerprints.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 270. Under Clause 139(2) of the Bill, where a person proves that he is a British citizen, any fingerprints that have been taken must be destroyed. This amendment has the effect of extending this provision to Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom under Section 2(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971. Under that section a Commonwealth citizen with a right of abode in the UK is deemed to be a British citizen for the purposes of the Act. We believe that it is only right, therefore, that such persons should, quite rightly, be treated in the same way as British citizens for the purposes of fingerprinting. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may add that we on these Benches are certainly grateful for Amendment No. 225 which the Government have tabled in response to amendments put forward in Committee by my noble friend Lord Cope. We are indeed grateful for the Government's response.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am afraid that, again, I cannot be quite as harmonious as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I have to express the great concern that we have on these Benches about Amendment No. 225 which allows the fingerprinting of children. It is perhaps a good thing that the right reverend Prelate, with his great concern for children, is with us tonight.
I shall be brief. I should like to begin by making the general point that there has to be an overwhelming argument for fingerprinting children under the age of 16, which is what this amendment makes possible. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me when I say that Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are a little more than drafting amendments because they deal with the issue of turning what was the word "shall" in subsection (10) of Clause 137 into the word "may"; in other words:
"No fingerprints shall be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse for the failure concerned",
now becomes:
"No fingerprints may be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse".
It means that even if the immigration officer thinks that the child, or "A"—who is defined as someone who has been required to produce a valid passport and has failed to do so—does not have a reasonable excuse for

1257
such failure, he or she will be fingerprinted under the changes to be made by the Government in these amendments.
In addition, as it quite well known, the fingerprinting would be able to take place for a child without the permission of parents and in some cases that would apply to an unaccompanied child. I believe that that would frighten almost any child. One would not like to see that practice indulged in unless there is an absolutely essential reason for doing so. We notice that there is a safeguard as regards a chief immigration officer having to agree to that procedure.
Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what kind of assumptions he is making about the test that would be applied by the chief immigration officer, and does he see this as a largely exceptional procedure? Has the Minister given any thought to the fact—I am sure he has—that in some cultures passports are always kept by the father? This is particularly true of Muslim cultures. Therefore if a child from a Muslim culture comes to this country whose father has been lost on the way or has perhaps never made it, that child will almost certainly have some probably adult papers. Will the Minister bear in mind the effects of fingerprinting on unaccompanied children under 16? Can he assure the House that chief immigration officers will bear this in mind in making any decision that allows fingerprinting to take place? I must reiterate that we believe that the fingerprinting of children should never be done unless there are extreme reasons for doing so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his kind words relating to Amendment No. 225. I refer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as regards the fingerprinting of children. It will clearly be the practice that we shall take fingerprints only when absolutely necessary. It is for that very reason that we have inserted the extra safeguard that such fingerprinting will have to be done with the authority of a chief immigration officer or another designated person of the equivalent grade. I am sure that they will take great care and give considerable thought to the way in which that power is exercised. Of course it will be done only in exceptional circumstances.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are purely drafting amendments and that the word "shall" does not appear elsewhere in the Bill. In the interests of consistency it was replaced by the word "may". I hope that with those assurances your Lordships will feel able to support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 224 and 225:
Page 95, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
Page 95, line 18, at end insert—
("(11 A) An authorised person may not take fingerprints from a person under the age of sixteen unless his decision to take them has been confirmed—

(a) if he is a constable, by a person designated for the purpose by the chief constable of his police force;

(b) if he is a person mentioned in subsection (5)(b) or (e), by a chief immigration officer;

(c) if he is a prison officer, by a person designated for the purpose by the governor of the prison;

(d) if he is an officer of the Secretary of State, by a person designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

(11 B) Neither subsection (3) nor subsection (11A) prevents an authorised person from taking fingerprints if he reasonably believes that the person from whom they are to be taken is aged sixteen or over.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 139 [Destruction of fingerprints]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 226 to 228:
Page 96, line 2, leave out ("period of ten years") and insert ("specified period").
Page 96, line 5, after ("citizen") insert (", or
(b) a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom as a result of section 2(1)(b) of the 1971 Act,")
Page 96, line 41, at end insert—
("(15) "Specified period" means—

(a) such period as the Secretary of State may specify by order;

(b) if no period is so specified, ten years.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [Use of force]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved. ]
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 230:
Before Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
MAXIMUM PERIOD OF DETENTION
(" .—(1) The maximum period for which a person detained in accordance with Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may be held in a place of detention as specified in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to that Act must not in any event exceed six calendar months.
(2) For the purposes of calculating whether the maximum period of detention has been reached each and every period for which a detained person has been held in a detention centre or prison, whether or not the detention has been continuous, shall be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even though the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is not present, I wish to say that I appreciate the care with which he responded to the general thrust of my amendment. It seems to me that the most unsatisfactory thing about the current practice of detention is the uncertainty as to its duration. Between now and the next stage of this Bill I wonder whether the Government will consider whether—perhaps in conjunction with written reasons for detention—some kind of indication could be given as to at least the

1259
Government's intentions on the likely length of detention in the case of particular individuals. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall reply briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, makes a perfectly reasonable request. As it is a perfectly reasonable request I shall, perfectly reasonably, take it away and we shall consider the matter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 [Interpretation of Part VIII]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 97, line 32, at end insert—
(""certified prisoner custody officer" means a prisoner custody officer certified under section 89 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, or section 114 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to perform custodial duties;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now turn to the government amendments to Part VIII and Schedules 10, 11 and 12. As your Lordships will know, these amendments concern detention and related matters. There are two consequential amendments in Schedule 13. The amendments are mostly technical and I shall deal with each clause and schedule as it arises.
Clause 143 lists definitions of various terms used in Part VIII. Amendment No. 231 defines "certified prisoner custody officer", which is a term used in Part VIII to cover those prisoner custody officers who are performing custodial duties. They must be certified under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to perform such duties. This differentiates them from those prisoner custody officers who may perform escorting duties, where the training and certification requirement is different. Amendment No. 233 provides a definition of "prisoner custody officer" for Northern Ireland so as to reflect the relevant provision of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Amendment No. 232 amends the definition of "detention centre" to enable a prison to be used exclusively for immigration detainees without losing its status as a prison and without it having to be reclassified as a detention centre.
Clause 146 authorises the Secretary of State to enter into a contract with another person to provide detainee custody officers or prisoner custody officers to perform custodial duties at a directly managed detention centre. Amendment No. 234 is consequential to Amendment No. 231 and ensures that only prisoner custody officers who have been certified to carry out custodial duties may be engaged under this clause. Amendment No. 235 deletes text from Clause 146 which Amendment No. 231 renders unnecessary.
The objective of Clause 148 is to ensure that visiting committees are appointed to each detention centre and to ensure that rules will be made to set out their functions. Amendment No. 236 ensures, as promised
1260
in another place, that the core duties of visiting committees of making frequent visits, hearing complaints and reporting matters to the Secretary of State are a mandatory part of detention centre rules.
Clause 149 requires the Secretary of State to make detention centre rules. Amendment No. 237 deletes subsection (3), which refers to short-term holding facilities, as this is superseded by the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 255, to which I shall return later.
Clause 150 makes provision about certification of detainee custody officers. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to use prison officers in place of detainee custody officers if he decides it is necessary and appropriate. Amendment No. 239 clarifies that where they are engaged in this context, prison officers continue to enjoy the powers, protection and privileges of a constable, just as they do in relation to their ordinary duties.
Clause 151 specifies who may carry out custodial duties at detention centres. Amendments Nos. 242 and 265, which are consequential to Amendment No. 231, ensure that only a prison custody officer who has been certified to carry out custodial duties may be so employed. Subsection (2) introduces Schedule 11, which makes provision with respect to discipline and other matters at detention centres. Amendment No. 243 adds reference in Clause 151 to short-term holding facilities as a consequence of various amendments made to Schedule 11, which extend that schedule to such facilities.
Clause 152 authorises the Secretary of State to make arrangements for escorting and related custodial functions and allows him to enter contracts for them to be performed by suitably certified detainee custody officers and prisoner custody officers. Amendment No. 253 inserts reference to the relevant section of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 under which prisoner custody officers are certified to perform escort duties. Amendment No. 254 adds reference to the Northern Irish provision of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 under which prisoner custody officers may be certified to perform escort functions in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 255 inserts a new clause after Clause 152 which allows for the extension of any provision of Part VIII, to the extent not already so extended, to short-term holding facilities. Clause 146 already extends to short-term holding facilities and is therefore excluded. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the regulation and management of short-term holding facilities. This will allow short-term holding facilities to be better regulated and more accountable than they are currently. This makes Clause 149(3) unnecessary.
Clause 153 creates an offence of wrongful disclosure of information by a detainee custody officer or prisoner custody officer. Amendment No. 265 is technical and clarifies the definition in subsection (3) of "contracted out functions" which indicates that only detainee custody officers and certified prisoner custody officers may be employed in contracts made under Clause 146.
Schedule 10 deals with the powers and duties of detainee custody officers and creates the offences of assault and obstruction of a detainee custody officer while he or she is performing his or her duties. Amendment No. 240 rectifies the omission of functions of a custodial nature at short-term holding facilities from the assaulting offence so as to bring it in line with the obstructing offence. Amendment No. 241 deletes sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) from the assaulting offence as they are made unnecessary by Amendments Nos. 281 and 295. Those amendments deal with the more serious offence of carrying out an assault while in possession of a firearm. I shall return to those amendments later.
Schedule 11 makes provision for discipline and other matters at detention centres. Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 add short-term holding facilities to the offences of aiding a person to escape either directly or by conveying, sending or placing a thing in or outside a place of detention with the intention of facilitating escape. As a consequence of Amendment No. 245, Amendments Nos. 246, 247 and 248 are necessary to provide for both detention centres and short-term holding facilities in paragraphs 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) which each relate to the facilitation offence.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 places a responsibility on the contractor in a contracted-out detention centre, or the Secretary of State in a directly managed detention centre, to display a notice, known as a "penalty notice", setting out the penalties to which a person may be liable for committing offences under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the schedule. Amendments Nos. 249, 250 and 251 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 252 is required as a consequence of Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 and ensures that a "penalty notice" will be displayed outside a short-term holding facility so as to reflect the extension which is proposed to the paragraph 4 offence.
Paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 12 specifies the duties of the escort monitor, who will be responsible for monitoring escort arrangements. One of those duties is to investigate and report to the Secretary of State on any allegations made against detainee custody officers in respect of their behaviour while conducting escort-related duties. This should sensibly extend to investigating the behaviour of prisoner custody officers who are engaged in escort duties. Amendment No. 256 rectifies this omission and makes appropriate provision for this purpose. Amendment No. 257 has been added to ensure that a prisoner custody officer is not investigated simultaneously by the escort monitor and prisoner escort monitor where the investigation falls to be conducted by the latter under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 deals with breaches of discipline by those under escort and specifies that any adjudication should be carried out by the responsible person in the institution to which the alleged offender is being escorted. In the case of a contracted-out detention centre, this would generally be the contract monitor; in a directly managed detention centre, the
1262
manager; in a contracted-out prison, the controller; and in a directly managed prison, the governor. Amendments Nos. 258, 259, 260, 261 and 262 ensure that no matter whether the escort is being carried out by a detainee custody officer or prisoner custody officer, the disciplinary procedures of detention centre rules apply when the person is being escorted to a detention centre and that prison rules apply when the escort is to a prison. Amendment No. 263 ensures that a person cannot be punished under prison rules for anything for which he or she has already been punished by a court just as it already does in relation to detention centre rules. Amendment No. 264 defines "Prison rules" for the purpose of the paragraph.
Schedule 13 deals with consequential amendments and, as I have previously mentioned, Amendments Nos. 281 and 295 amend the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms and Northern Ireland Order 1981, so that the more serious offence of assaulting a detainee custody officer while in possession of a firearm is dealt with under those two pieces of legislation.
I have covered many amendments. In the main, they are technical and straightforward provisions. Generally speaking, they do not alter the substance of Part VIII. I hope therefore that noble Lords will feel able to agree to them. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this is a fairly enormous list of amendments for us to consider at five to one in the morning. However, I believe that there are many important issues that we should look at in some detail.
Can the noble Lord say a few words as regards the new provisions for visiting committees at detention centres? As the wording stands in Clause 148, the rules make provision for the visiting committee to,
"report to the Secretary of State any matter which they consider it expedient to report".
That wording closely follows that for boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons. The boards are entitled to make reports to the Secretary of State on any matter which they consider it expedient to report. However, Amendment No. 236 would replace the wording in the Bill with a provision that is less specific. It says simply that visiting committees are required to make reports to the Secretary of State, although not on any matter which they consider to be expedient.
Will the visiting committees have powers equivalent to those of boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons? Is there any reason why the wording in this statute should be different here from that which applies to boards of visitors in prisons? Does the Minister agree that the tasks and duties of the visiting committees at detention centres should be on all fours with those of boards of visitors in Her Majesty's prisons? If not, what are the reasons for such differences in the responsibilities and duties of one as compared with the other?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions, and I hope that my response will make the point clear. As I understand it, the rules will ensure that the visiting committees will

1263
have powers equivalent to those of boards of visitors to report to the Secretary of State on any matter they deem expedient.
The committees have a broad canvas, and we are not seeking in the new wording to narrow their ability to report on anything they wish. I hope that, with those comments, the noble Lord will be satisfied with what we are trying to achieve with these amendments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as regards annual reports by visiting committees, there has been some controversy over such reports from boards of visitors as to whether they should be obliged to publish them. Not so long ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he was in charge of prisons, undertook a consultation with the boards of visitors to establish whether any of them objected to the compulsory publication of their annual reports. Most of them accepted that, but a few preferred to keep them secret. I am not sure of the final result of that consultation, but I believe that it is important from the public interest point of view that reports from both prison boards of visitors and the new visiting committees for detention centres should be made available to members of the public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. We require transparency in such situations, and we have attempted to achieve that with the boards of visitors. The noble Lord has acknowledged that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams gave a commitment to review the matter. There is no reason why there should not be consultation with the visiting committees to establish the way in which their annual reports should be published. My understanding is that we shall be consulting them in some detail in the next month. With that, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand the importance of the amendments that we are bringing before the House and will readily support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 232 and 233:
Page 98, line 4, after ("facility") insert (", a prison").
Page 98, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given in section 122(1) of that Act of 1994;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 146 [Contracted out functions at directly managed detention centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 234 and 235:
Page 100, line 9, after ("by") insert ("certified").
Page 100, line 10, leave out from ("person") to end of line 12.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 148 [Visiting Committees and inspections]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 101, line 7, leave out from ("rules") to end of line 12 and insert ("must include provision—

(a) as to the making of visits to the centre by members of the Visiting Committee;

(b) for the hearing of complaints made by persons detained in the centre;

(c) requiring the making of reports by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Detention centre rules]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 101, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved. ]
Clause 150 [Detainee custody officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 102, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) A prison officer acting under arrangements made under subsection (5) has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Detainee Custody Officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 240 and 241:
Page 135, line 13, at end insert (", or
( ) performing functions of a custodial nature at a short-term holding facility.").
Page 135, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 151 [Custodial functions and discipline etc. at detention centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 242 and 243:
Page 102, line 15, after ("or") insert ("a certified").
Page 102, line 22, at end insert ("and short-term holding facilities").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Discipline etc at Detention Centres]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 244 to 252:
Page 137, line 23, after ("centre") insert ("or short-term holding facility").
Page 137, line 25, at end insert ("or short-term holding facility").
Page 137, line 26, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 137, line 27, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 137, line 29, leave out ("detention centre") and insert ("centre or facility").
Page 138, line 17, leave out ("penalty notice") and insert ("notice setting out the penalty to which a person committing an offence under paragraph 4, 5 or 6 is liable").
Page 138, line 18, leave out ("a penalty") and insert ("such a").
Page 138, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 138, line 20, at end insert—
(".—(1) In the case of a contracted out short-term holding facility, the contractor must cause a notice setting out the penalty to which a person committing an offence under paragraph 4 is liable to be fixed outside the facility in a conspicuous place.
(2) In the case of any other short-term holding facility, the Secretary of State must cause such a notice to be fixed outside the facility in a conspicuous place.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 152 [Arrangements for the provision of escorts and custody]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 253 and 254:
Page 102, line 42, after ("under") insert ("section 89 of").
Page 102, line 43, after ("114") insert ("or 122").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 255:
After Clause 152, insert the following new clause—
SHORT-TERM HOLDING FACILITIES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend any provision made by or under this Part in relation to detention centres (other than one mentioned in subsection (2)) to short-term holding facilities.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 146.
(3) The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of short-term holding facilities.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Escort Arrangements]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 256 to 264:
Page 138, line 35, after ("officer") insert ("or prisoner custody officer").
Page 138, line 38, at end insert ("; or
(b) an act or omission of a prisoner custody officer so far as it falls to be investigated by a prisoner escort monitor under section 81 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or under section 103 or 119 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.").
Page 139, line 19, leave out ("detainee custody officer") and insert ("person ("A")").
Page 139, line 20, leave out ("place of detention") and insert ("detention centre").
Page 139, line 23, leave out ("the detainee custody officer") and insert ("A").
Page 139, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) Sub-paragraph (2B) applies if a detained person for whose delivery or custody a person ("B") has been responsible in accordance with escort arrangements is delivered to a prison.
(2B) The detained person is to be treated, for the purposes of such prison rules as relate to disciplinary offences, as if he had been in the custody of the governor or controller of the prison at all times while B was so responsible.").
Page 139, leave out line 32.
Page 139, line 34, after ("rules") insert ("or prison rules").
Page 139, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) "Prison rules" means—

(a) rules made under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952;

(b) rules made under section 19 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;

(c) rules made under section 13 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 153 [Wrongful disclosure of information]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 103, line 32, after ("or") insert ("certified").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 266:
Before Clause 159, insert the following new clause—
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(" . It is unlawful to do any act which constitutes racial discrimination when exercising any powers under this Act or any other of the Immigration Acts.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, perhaps I may say how grateful I was to have the opportunity to meet the Minister and his advisers and to be able to talk about the contents of this amendment and Amendment No. 293, to which I shall also speak.
The purpose of my amendment is to follow up the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Jack Straw, who, when responding to questions about his response to the recommendations made in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, agreed to amend the Race Relations Act to make it applicable to immigration officers.
Our main concern has been a cautious government response to the proposals that have been forwarded to the Home Office by the Commission for Racial Equality. Therefore, it was right and proper that we should try to incorporate some of the amendments in the existing legislation.
There are a number of governmental functions that are outside the scope of race relations legislation in this country. For example, if I am discriminated against in the field of employment, I can go to the tribunal. If I am discriminated against in the provision of housing, I can go to the county court to seek remedy. But if I am discriminated against by an immigration officer in the provision of services, I have no recourse whatsoever. It was therefore essential to try to bring immigration officers within the scope of the race relations legislation.
That is where a difficulty arises. Immigration law, by its very nature, incorporates some of the areas that are considered discriminatory within the scope of the definition of discrimination, both direct and indirect. I have in mind matters of ethnicity and national origin, which are some of the issues that complicate the amendment that we propose.
Therefore, on the basis of my discussion with the Minister, I believe it is much better to suggest that he may wish to examine the amendment and consider the best way to proceed to incorporate our suggestion in

1267
some form of government legislation at some stage in the future. I do not even ask for a government response by Third Reading. However, I hope that there will be a holistic approach to this proposal in terms of the race relations legislation which the Government have taken on hoard. I should be grateful for the Minister's response. Then we shall see where we go from here.
Earl Russell: My Lords, some provision along the lines of this amendment is necessary. I spoke recently to a colleague who is a member of the Committee of the Regions, who recently returned to Waterloo on Eurostar and observed who was detained by immigration on arrival. Every single one of those people happened by coincidence to be black. That kind of story causes no surprise. I wish that it did.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I merely want to add one other example to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Russell. I make it a habit on my rather frequent trips in and out of Heathrow to watch and see who is detained as we go through the process. It is correct that the number of people who are detained who appear to come from African or Asian countries seems very much higher than the number of those who come from other non-EU countries. That is just an observation. I am a very frequent traveller and it disturbs me somewhat. It is important to ascertain for certain that when people are detained it is not on racial grounds, but simply on the genuine grounds that there are reasons for being suspicious of a particular person. That is reasonable. The Government have an excellent record in race relations and I hope they will consider my noble friend's proposal.
1 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, although I accept the principle behind the amendment, it gives us concern. It seems to me that by its very nature, immigration into this country at airports will be of people from those countries where one could say that detention was racial discrimination when it was not. It is a fact of geography. We do not want that being used in any way to fetter the good and fair job done by immigration officers. We shall be interested in the Minister's reply, but would be concerned if anything happened that caused any immigration officers to think twice before carrying out part of their proper duties.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Lester, for bringing the issue to the House for us to consider. It is an important and interesting area.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 266 and 293 would be to apply the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to acts carried out under the Immigration Act 1971 as amended, including by the current Bill.
As I explained to the noble Lords when we met in the House last night to discuss the issues, the Government are sympathetic to the principle of extending race relations provisions to cover the immigration system
1268
and those who operate it. We are sympathetic to the principle and understand the point of the arguments made.
On 24th February this year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in a Statement in another place on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report that the Government will,
"extend the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to cover the police, as the report recommends, but to cover all the public services. That means in the civil service, the immigration service and the national health service, for example, the law will back those who have been the subject of discrimination".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99; col. 392.]
Any individual members of the Immigration Service must act in accordance with those requirements in handling individual cases and applications. The Government are committed to that and we have made it clear that we shall introduce suitable legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
However, I am afraid that the noble Lords' amendments, while representing an important recognition of our commitment, are flawed, regrettable though that is, and would pre-empt our own detailed consideration of how the provisions of the Race Relations Act should be extended to cover the uniquely sensitive and difficult area of immigration. For example, the amendments might, if adopted, prevent the Home Office from carrying out special exercises aimed at providing protection to particular ethnic groups seeking shelter in the United Kingdom, such as the many Kosovans who were granted exceptional leave to remain during the recent crisis in the Balkans. They would also impact on the ability of the department to differentiate between different nationalities and different ethnic groups when dealing with asylum applications. That is the point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
The ability of the Immigration Service to carry out special exercises would be affected when we are confronted by immediate operational pressures of the kind we have seen recently at Dover. Those operations could be seriously impaired. That is just a flavour of the difficulties which would arise from too great haste in approaching those complex and difficult issues.
I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments in the light of that. We shall, of course, continue to develop policy in this area so that we give suitable effect to my right honourable friend's commitment. However, we do that while recognising that the operation of the immigration, asylum and nationality arrangements necessarily and legitimately entails some discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origins. We simply seek to introduce legislation that is coherent, all-embracing and covers the various service areas that it needs to cover. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will feel able to withdraw his amendment, which all noble Lords accept is tabled with integrity and in the spirit in which government policy is directed.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We have always believed

1269
that certain exceptions will be necessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, quite rightly pointed out some of the difficulties in legislation of this nature. But I believe that this gives the Home Office the opportunity at the appropriate time to introduce legislation that provides the appropriate exceptions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 267:
After Clause 159, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO APPLICATIONS
(" . In the 1971 Act, after section 31, insert—
"Procedural requirement as to applications.
31A.—(1) If a form is prescribed for a particular kind of application under this Act, any application of that kind must be made in the prescribed form.
(2) If procedural or other steps are prescribed in relation to a particular kind of application under this Act, those steps must be taken in respect of any application of that kind.
(3) "Prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(5) Any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 267 is a straightforward amendment which has the effect of making it compulsory that applications on a particular basis, to be defined by way of regulations, must be made on a prescribed form. In addition, the amendment provides that the Secretary of State can prescribe any particular procedure or other steps that must be followed. The provision of a photograph is perhaps one such example.
Since November 1996, all applications, with the exception of those from asylum seekers, work permit holders and EEA nationals, for a variation of leave have to be made on an application form. Applications made in any other way, or on incomplete application forms, are rejected as invalid. This amendment simply puts the status of application forms and the conditions attached to their completion on a statutory footing in primary legislation. I beg to move Amendment No. 267 and commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 108, line 22, at end insert—
("( )section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention)(11),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 269:
Page 108, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
("(d) Part VI, (e) paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the very helpful offer by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to hold talks with my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I believe that in this matter I can speak for the noble Baroness—I do not intend to move either Amendment No. 269 or Amendment No. 273.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 108, line 25, after ("92(3),") insert—
("( ) section 139(15),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 271:
Page 108, line 27, after ("unless") insert ("a Minister has certified that the proposed order is compatible with the Human Rights Convention and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in view of the forecast of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, of a helpful response to Amendment No. 271, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 108, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) section (Applications for bail in immigration cases);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 273 to 275 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 108, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Any statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument laid before either House of Parliament under this Act must be accompanied by a certificate by the Minister in charge of the instrument to the effect that he is satisfied that the instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have been asked to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It relates to the question of certification of regulations under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I mention two factors. As the House well knows, we are now committed to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. This Bill has major impacts on human rights. It is therefore appropriate that we should be careful in considering its relationship to the European convention on two points: under Article 3 on the issue of families and freedom of movement and Article 8 on issues of privacy. Many aspects of the Bill bite on those and other articles in the European convention.
Throughout the Bill, the Opposition parties have shown great sensitivity to the recommendations of the Select Committee on delegated legislation. The Government have responded generously to our concerns. They have borne in mind the strictures of the

1271
Select Committee. But nowhere in the Bill has the Select. Committee made its position clearer than with regard to the necessity for statutory instruments and draft statutory instruments to carry the statement that they are believed to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as is the whole Bill.
The Bill carries a statement of its compatibility with the European convention. However, as the Select Committee pointed out, under its aegis a great many regulation powers exist. The power to make secondary legislation exists in point after point throughout the Bill. Therefore, for very good reason the Select Committee said:
"We invite the House to consider whether the subject matter of these provisions requires Parliament to ensure that the powers are exercised only in ways compatible with Convention rights. We believe that this leads to the conclusion not only that affirmative procedure is needed for a significant number of these powers but also that there should be a specific ECHR safeguard".
I am sure that the Government have listened closely to what the Select Committee said. I am sure they also recognise their major part in making the European convention a part of British law by incorporating it. Therefore I do not need to spend more of the time of the House in making clear the position that we, and I believe the Official Opposition, take: that there should be a specific ECHR safeguard on every statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument produced as a result of this Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we entirely support the noble Baroness's comments on the question of human rights. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will address the point, as he forecast earlier today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment was originally grouped with Amendments Nos. 271 and 274 which have now been withdrawn. They would require a statement of ECHR compatibility—that is what the Select Committee recommended—whether on the face of the Bill or at least by means of an undertaking by Parliament about the approach to be adopted. We feel that Amendment No. 276 goes further by requiring all secondary legislation to be accompanied by a statement of ECHR compatibility.
The committee's recommendation—it was confined to secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure— has wider implications for secondary legislation. I am content to leave my noble and learned friend Lord Williams to deal with the matter at a later stage. I respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate at this stage for Amendment No. 276 to be withdrawn so that those further discussions can take place.
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I point out that the Select Committee said that at the very least an undertaking was required. It made it quite plain that it would much prefer there to be the rather more sweeping
1272
commitment for which we have been pressing. At this late stage, I shall not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 164 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 277:
Page 110, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 111 come into force on the day on which the first regulations made under Schedule (Provision of Support: Regulations) come into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with a number of largely technical amendments to Clause 164 and Schedules 13 and 14. This amendment should be withdrawn as it is subject to our earlier agreements.
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 110, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

(a) section (Accommodation centres for those temporarily admitted or released from detention);

(b) section 7;

(c) section (Protection of claimants from removal or deportation);

(d) section (Charges: travel documents);

(e) section (Defences based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention);

(f) section 89;

(g) section 90(12);

(h) sections 101 to 105;

(i) section 106(1), (1A) and (4) (so far as relating to subsections (1) and (1A));

(j) section 107;

(k) section 120;

(l) section 136;

(m) section 141;

(n) section 142(1);

(o) section 160 to 162;

(p) this section;

(q) Schedule 8;

(r) paragraphs 57(2), 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77 and 90A of Schedule 13;

(s) paragraph 6 of Schedule 14.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rest of the government amendments in this grouping relate to commencement. They cover a number of largely technical amendments to Clause 164 and Schedules 13 and 14 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 concern Clause 164 of the Bill which relates to the short title, commencement and extent. This is a straightforward consequential amendment arising from government amendments to Part VI and the insertion of a new schedule on regulations regarding the provision of support to asylum seekers.
Government Amendment No. 278 sets out the provisions of the Bill which will enter into force on Royal Assent. These are that the new clause on

1273
accommodation centres for those temporarily admitted or released from detention will enable us to place residence restrictions on persons granted temporary admission to help to alleviate pressure in London and the south-east. Clause 7 makes special provision for certain overstayers. This will enable us to prescribe the regularisation period and to publicise the provision to those affected.
The new clause on the protection of claimants from removal or deportation will allow the Home Office to serve refusal and removal notices at the same time. The new clause on charges for travel documents will provide the Home Office with a proper statutory basis for charging. The new clause provides for defences based on Article 31 of the refugee convention and various provisions regarding regulations or interim provisions for asylum support.
All the powers listed in Amendment No. 278 are required to be available at the earliest opportunity to help to deliver the fairer, faster and firmer system of immigration and asylum to which we are committed. Those relating to asylum support are essential to place on a proper footing the interim provisions before the main provisions enter into force next year.
Other provisions in the Bill not listed in Amendment No. 278 will come into effect in accordance with the commencement orders. Timing will depend on the making of any necessary regulations or orders and the necessary administrative and practical steps necessary to put the provisions into operation.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to confirm that, subject to Parliament's further consideration of the Bill, the Government attach a high priority to implementation of the new civil penalty for carrying clandestines which Part II of the Bill provides.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 will be to extend the grounds on which an immigration officer may examine a person who has arrived with extant leave to enter and those on which he may cancel that leave. Under the provisions contained in Clause 1 of the Bill, people will arrive in the UK with extant leave. The Bill also provides through Schedule 13 for those persons to be examined by an immigration officer and their leave cancelled where false information has been provided, material facts not disclosed, or where there has been a change of circumstances since leave was given.
Those provisions are drawn from paragraph 3(2)(1) of the current Immigration Rules which concern the refusal of leave to enter of persons in possession of an entry clearance. That paragraph of the rules also provides for refusal if justified on the grounds of restricted returnability, on medical grounds, on grounds of criminal record, because the person seeking leave to enter is the subject of a deportation order, or because exclusion would be conducive to the public good.
As the essence of the new scheme is that a person will have been granted leave after all appropriate checks have been made, cancellation of leave on most of those additional grounds would be covered by two
1274
provisions contained in Schedule 13. However, legal advice suggests that it will not be possible to rely on those provisions in certain circumstances where there are medical or non-conducive grounds for reexamination and cancellation of the leave to enter.
Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 are designed to deal with this flaw and to bring Schedule 13 more into line with existing powers. Amendment No. 288 is a simple but necessary amendment which provides an in-country right of appeal for those people who arrive in the United Kingdom with leave to enter which has been granted before their arrival and where that leave to enter is then cancelled by an immigration officer. That amendment will safeguard the position of persons who would have travelled here with a reasonable expectation of relying on their leave to enter.
Finally, we come to a number of technical amendments to Schedules 13 and 14. The effect of Amendment No. 284 is to extend the provisions of Section 32 of the Immigration Act 1971 to clarify the legal position of orders, notices, directions and certificates issued under the Immigration Act 1988; the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996; and the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The amendment ensures that such orders, notices, directions and certificates have the same evidential status as those made under the 1971 Act. In addition, this amendment extends Section 32(2) of the 1971 Act to cover certificates issued by IND caseworkers and immigration officers on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 309 is an example of the draftsman's art being overtaken by the legislators. The provision, which we now seek to delete, was framed to act as an interim provision pending the coming into force of the Tax Credits Act 1999. As that Act is now in force—as family credit has been replaced by working families' tax credit and disability allowance by disabled person's tax credit—the interim provision is no longer required.
Amendment No. 311 is a drafting amendment consequential on amendments made on the first day of Report to Clause 7. As now amended, Clause 7 allows the last day of the regularisation period during which overstayers may apply for leave to remain and retain their existing appeal rights to be as prescribed by the regulations or, if later, on the day before Section 59 comes into force. Technically speaking, therefore, the day may not necessarily be "prescribed". "Fixed" covers either means by which it may be set. I invite your Lordships to accept all of these largely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 110, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A day for the entry into force of Part VI of this Act in Northern Ireland shall not be appointed until an assessment has been carried out under section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and the provision so extending it would be followed by my amendment, if passed. It provides that the provisions in Part VI of the Bill will not come into force in Northern Ireland until an assessment has been carried out under Section 75 and Schedule 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The amendment is designed to cope with the different situation in Northern Ireland arising from the 11998 Act. Section 75 provides that:
"A public authority shall, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group",
and so forth. Public authority is defined in subsection (3) as:
"any department, corporation or body listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State".
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as I understand it, has consulted the United Kingdom departments to establish whether they have any objection to being designated under Section 75. The reply from the Home Secretary is still, awaited, so we do not know whether the arrangements to be made under Part VI of the Bill will be subject to scrutiny under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. If they are, Schedule 9 to the Act states that,
"The public authority to which this sub-paragraph applies shall submit a scheme to the Commission"—
that is, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland,
"and that scheme shall state in particular the authority's arrangements for assessing compliance with its duties under Section 75, and for consulting on matters to which the duty under that section is likely to be relevant, and for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of equality of opportunity".
Therefore, what I am saying in this amendment is that the provisions for support under Part VI of the Bill will not come into effect until that assessment, mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act, has been carried out in relation to the Home Secretary.
It would be useful if the Minister could tell us what the situation is regarding the views of the Home Secretary in respect of designation because the time does not allow for much further delay. I say that because the provisions of Section 75 are for it to come into force in Northern Ireland on 1st January 2000. Therefore the decision has to be made and the assessment be under way by the end of this year. Time is therefore very short for the arrangements to be put in place for the assessment to be conducted.
I believe that noble Lords would agree that it is reasonable, if the Secretary of State is going to be subject to arrangements under Section 75, that those should have been completed before that part of the Act comes into force in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for decoupling his
1276
amendment so that we can spend just a few moments longer giving it fair and reasonable consideration. The amendment suggests that we should not bring the new arrangements into play in Northern Ireland until an equal opportunities assessment has been carried out. That opens up the rather bizarre prospect of a different timescale for the implementation of Part VI in Northern Ireland.
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 imposes certain statutory obligations on public authorities carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland. They must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in terms of a number of categories, including racial groups. Without prejudice to that obligation, they must also have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act sets out a framework for implementing those obligations.
In particular, it requires public authorities to submit equality schemes to the new Equality Commission for Northern Ireland within six months of the schedule coming into operation. Those equality schemes will include the public authority's arrangement for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies on the promotion of equality of opportunity.
The Equality Commission, as the noble Lord is aware, took up its duties on 1st October, but the statutory obligation under Section 75 will not take effect until 1st January 2000. The Act lays out a system for complaints about the implementation of equality schemes to be considered by the Equality Commission.
The noble Lord's amendment does not indicate who should carry out an impact assessment of Part VI of the Bill. It is not clear whether that would be required from Northern Ireland public authorities, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, or whether the Home Office would be required to carry it out.
There is provision in the Northern Ireland Act for Section 75 to apply to UK departments but only if they have been designated by order. No final decisions have yet been made as to which departments will be so designated. In the light of that and the practical concerns and considerations which I have put forward in this short discussion, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is rather extraordinary that the Minister cannot tell us whether the Home Office will be subject to the provisions of Section 75. That is a vital piece of information to which your Lordships are entitled. If the Home Office agrees to be designated—and I cannot see any reason why it should not—then ultimately it would have to conduct the impact assessment mentioned in the amendment. That is shorthand for the assessment mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 9, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks.

1277
We need to know whether, in implementing the arrangements for support in Northern Ireland, they will be subject to an assessment of the kind that is required in that schedule. If we do not know that, it creates all sorts of difficulties for those who are concerned with racial equality in Northern Ireland. However, I can see that the Minister is not going to reply this evening. Perhaps he did not fully understand the way in which this will affect the question of racial equality in Northern Ireland and how Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act is to be implemented.
Having given the Minister an explanation of the amendment, I shall leave him with time to reflect on the matter and perhaps we can return to it on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 280 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 281 to 288:
Page 143, line 16, at end insert—
("The Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
. The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
. In Schedule 1 (offences for which there is an additional penalty if committed when in possession of a firearm), after paragraph 5B insert—
".5C. An offence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)."
. In Schedule 2 (which lists corresponding Scottish offences), after paragraph 13A insert—
"13B. An offence under paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)." ").
Page 144, line 19, at end insert—
(" . In section 11(1) (entry to the United Kingdom), at the end insert "or by Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999".").
Page 144, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
(".—(1) Section 27 (offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (a)(ii), after "Schedule 2 or 3" insert "or under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999".
(3) In paragraph (b)(iii)—

(a) after "arrangements for" insert "or in connection with"; and

(b) at the end insert "or under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or").

Page 144, line 27, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 32 (proof of documents) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and

(b) after second "by him" insert "or on his behalf".

(3) In subsection (3), for "proceedings under Part II of this Act" substitute "other proceedings under the Immigration Acts".
(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) for first "this Act" substitute "the Immigration Acts"; and

(b) for "proceedings under Part II of this Act" substitute "other proceedings under the Immigration Acts".

(5) After subsection (4) insert—
"(5) "Immigration Acts" has the same meaning as in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."
(6) The amendments made by sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (5) apply whenever the document in question was made or issued.").
Page 144, line 30, after ("determined") insert ("—

( ) in relation to an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in accordance with section 7A of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;

( ) in any other case,").

Page 145, line 2, at end insert ("; or

(c) whether there are medical grounds on which that leave should be cancelled.").

Page 145, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) He may also be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of determining whether it would be conducive to the public good for that leave to be cancelled.").
Page 145, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("and Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 146, line 8, leave out from ("2") to ("sub-paragraph") in line 11 and insert ("paragraph 21 (temporary admission of persons liable to detention) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) The provisions that may be included in restrictions as to residence imposed under sub-paragraph (2) above include provisions of such a description as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2B) Regulations made under sub-paragraph (2A) may provide that a particular prescribed description of provision may be imposed only for prescribed purposes.
(2C) The regulations may, among other things, provide for the inclusion of provisions—

(a) prohibiting residence in a particular description of accommodation;

(b) prohibiting residence in one or more particular areas;

(c) requiring the person concerned to reside in accommodation provided under section (Accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or in such other description of accommodation as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(d) prohibiting the person concerned from being absent from his accommodation except in accordance with the restrictions imposed on him.

(2D) The power to make regulations conferred by this paragraph is exercisable by statutory instrument and includes a power to make different provision for different cases.
(2E) Any such statutory instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(3) In sub-paragraph (3), after "2" insert "or 2A".
(4) In").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we indicated earlier that we wished to leave this amendment to one side.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may explain why we are concerned about Amendment No. 289. We are concerned about the extremely wide powers which the amendment proposes which are prescribed by regulations. For example, it seems that someone may be obliged to live in particular accommodation provided by the Secretary of State and may be forbidden to leave it. We are concerned that that comes near to the definition of an open prison whereas in fact the person is in that accommodation because he has been released from detention.
I ask the Minister to consider this matter before Third Reading. Perhaps we may have sight of the draft regulations. However, I leave this matter for the Minister's consideration and perhaps he will write to us about it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, that was my understanding. I understand why the noble Viscount has moved this, but I thought that this was caught within the understanding between both sides of the House and that this was one of those matters that was subject to consideration by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I hope that we can leave this until those discussions take place before Third Reading.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness are quite right. As I indicated, we had not intended to move this amendment this evening. We shall endeavour to describe further how we see these regulations working. If I am pressed I shall be happy to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on the matter. No doubt all will be made clear as the Select Committee looks in detail at this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 290 to 292:
Page 146, line 28, after ("53,") insert (" 59,").
Page 146, line 33, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 3, in paragraph 2(4) (application of certain provisions if person detained under Schedule 3), for "and 18" substitute ", 18 and 25A to 25E".").
Page 146, line 39, at end insert—
(" . In Schedule 4 (integration of United Kingdom and Islands immigration law), for paragraph 3 (deportation) substitute—
"3.—(1) This Act has effect in relation to a person who is subject to an Islands deportation order as if the order were a deportation order made against him under this Act.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the person concerned is—

(a) a British citizen;

(b) an EEA national;

(c) a member of the family of an EEA national; or

(d) a member of the family of a British citizen who is neither such a citizen nor an EEA national.

(3) The Secretary of State does not, as a result of sub-paragraph (1), have power to revoke an Islands deportation order.
(4) In any particular case, the Secretary of State may direct that paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (2) is not to apply in relation to the Islands deportation order.
(5) Nothing in this paragraph makes it unlawful for a person in respect of whom an Islands deportation order is in force in any of the Islands to enter the United Kingdom on his way from that island to a place outside the United Kingdom.
(6) "Islands deportation order" means an order made under the immigration laws of any of the Islands under which a person is, or has been, ordered to leave the island and forbidden to return.
(7) Subsections (9) and (10) to (12) of section 75 of The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section."'').
Page 146, line 39, at end insert—
("The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices)—

(a) omit—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971"; and.

(b) at the appropriate places, insert—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999"; and

"Asylum Support Adjudicator".

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (e. 25)
. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices)—

(a) omit

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971"; and.

(b) at the appropriate places, insert—

"Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999"; and

"Asylum Support Adjudicator.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 294 to 307:
Page 146, line 44, leave out ("for an asylum-seeker")
Page 146, line 45, at end insert—
("The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 198i (S.I 1981/155 (N.I. 2))
. In Schedule 1 to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1931 (offences for which there is an additional penalty if committed when in possession of a firearm), after paragraph 4 insert—
"4A. An offence under paragraph 4 to Schedule 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (assaulting a detainee custody officer)." ").
Page 147, line 15, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 16 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 2, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 3 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 11, leave out from ("in") to ("to") in line 12 and insert ("order").
Page 148, line 27, leave out ("section 90") and insert (" Part VI").
Page 148, line 35, leave out ("section 90") and insert ("Part VI").
Page 149, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 11 (judges etc barred from legal practice), in the entry relating to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, omit "appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971" and after that entry insert—
"Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)"").
Page 150, line 14, leave out (""Immigration Adjudicator"") and insert ("Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)"").
Page 150, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 5 (relevant offices in relation to the retirement provisions), for "Immigration Adjudicator" substitute insert "Adjudicator for the purposes of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (other than Asylum Support Adjudicator)".").
Page 150, line 21, at end insert—
("90A.—(1) Omit section 6 (protection of asylum claimants from deportation etc.).
(2) This paragraph is to be treated as having come into force on 26th July 1993.").
Page 150, line 28, leave out (", under paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to that Act").
Page 151, line 5, at end insert—
("The Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
. In section 512(3) of the Education Act 1996 (requirement to provide school meals)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "a", where it occurs for the second time, substitute

"(3) Subsection (3A) applies in relation to a pupil

(a) whose parents are in receipt of—

(i) income support;

(ii) an income-based jobseeker's allowance (payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995); or

(iii) support provided under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or

(b) who is himself in receipt of income support or an income-based jobseeker's allowance.

(3A) A": and.

(b) in paragraph (a), for "him" substitute "the pupil".").

Page 152, line 3, at end insert—
(" . After section 7, insert—
"Pending appeals.
7A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, an appeal to the Commission is to be treated as pending during the period beginning when notice of appeal is given and ending when the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(2) An appeal is not to be treated as finally determined while a further appeal may be brought.
(3) If a further appeal is brought, the original appeal is not to be treated as finally determined until the further appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(4) A pending appeal to the Commission is to be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the United Kingdom.
(5) A pending appeal to the Commission is to be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(6) But subsection (5) does not apply to an appeal brought under section 2(1) as a result of section 64(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
(7) A pending appeal brought under section 2(1) as a result of section 56(3) of that Act is to be treated as abandoned if a deportation order is made against the appellant."").
Page 153, line 12, at end insert—
("Appeals under section 2A
3G.—(1) A person is not to be required to leave, or be removed from, the United Kingdom if an appeal under section 2A is pending against the decision on which that requirement or removal would otherwise be based.
(2) That does not prevent—

(a) directions for his removal being given during that period;

(b) a deportation order being made against him during that period.

(3) But no such direction or order is to have effect during that period."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 308 to 312A:
Page 153, line 29, at end insert—
("Adjudicators and the Tribunal
.—(1) Each existing member of the Tribunal is to continue as a member of the Tribunal as if he had been duly appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 2.
(2) Each existing adjudicator is to continue as an adjudicator as if he had been duly appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Schedule 3.
(3) The terms and conditions for a person to whom subparagraph (1) or (2) applies remain those on which he held office immediately before the appropriate date.
(4) The provisions of Schedule 7 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (transitional provisions for retirement dates), so far as applicable in relation to an existing member or adjudicator immediately before the appropriate date, continue to have effect.
(5) The repeal by this Act of Schedule 5 to the 1971 Act (provisions with respect to adjudicators and the Tribunal) does not affect any entitlement which an existing member or adjudicator had immediately before the appropriate date as a result of a determination made under paragraph 3(1)(b) or 9(1)(b) of that Schedule.
(6) "The appropriate date" means—

(a) in relation to existing members of the Tribunal, the date on which section 50 comes into force; and

(b) in relation to existing adjudicators, the date on which section 51 comes into force.

(7) "Existing member" means a person who is a member of the Tribunal immediately before the appropriate date.
(8) "Existing adjudicator" means a person who is an adjudicator immediately before the appropriate date.").
Page 154, line 1, leave out paragraph 3.
Page 154, line 5, at end insert—
("Duties under National Assistance Act 1948
. Section 112 has effect, in relation to any time before section 111 is brought into force, as if section 111 came into force on the passing of this Act.
Duties under Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
. Section 116(1) has effect, in relation to any time before section 111 is brought into force, as if section 111 came into force on the passing of this Act.").
Page 154, line 16, leave out ("prescribed under") and insert ("fixed by").
Page 154, line 20, at end insert—
("Assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996
6.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness) to have effect in relation to section 185(2) persons, during the interim period, with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular, include provision—

(a) for the referral of section 185(2) persons by one local housing authority to another by agreement between the authorities;

(b) as to the suitability of accommodation for such persons;

(c) as to out-of-area placements of such persons.

(3) "Interim period" means the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending on the coming into force of the repeal of section 186 of the Act of 1996 (asylum-seekers and their dependants) by this Act (as to which see section 113(5)).
(4) "Local housing authority" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1996.
15) "Section 185(2) person" means a person who—

(a) is eligible for housing assistance under Part VII of the Act of 1996 as a result of regulations made under section 185(2) of that Act; and

(b) is not made ineligible by section 186 (or any other provision) of that Act.

(6) The fact that an order may be made under this paragraph only in respect of the interim period does not prevent it front containing provisions of a kind authorised under section 160(3)(a) which are to have continuing effect after the end of that period.").
Page 154, line 20, at end insert—
("Provision of support
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, by directions given to a local authority to whom Schedule 8 applies, require the authority to treat the interim period fixed for the purposes of that Schedule as coming to an end—

(a) for specified purposes,

(b) in relation to a specified area or locality, or

(c) in relation to persons of a specified description, on such earlier day as may be specified.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by directions given to an authority to whom any provision amended by section 116 or 117 applies, provide for specified descriptions of person to be treated—
1284

(a) for specified purposes. or

(b) in relation to a specified area or locality,

as being persons to whom section III applies during such period as may be specified.
(3) Directions given under this paragraph may—

(a) make such consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case.

(4) "Specified" means specified in the directions.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 313 to 315:

Page 155, line 55, at end insert—

("1975 c. 24

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

In Schedule 1, in Part III, "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971".

1975 c. 25.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

In Schedule 1, in Part 111, "Adjudicator appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971".")

Page 156, line 6, at end insert—

("1990 c. 41.

The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

In Schedule 10, paragraph 34.

In Schedule 11, in the entry relating to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, "appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971".")

Page 156, line 18, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 6.")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before two o'clock.

  Working Families' Tax Credit
  Working Families' Tax Credit
  EMU
  EMU
  Benefits System Reform: Secretary of State's Speech
  Benefits System Reform: Secretary of State's Speech
  Young First-time Offenders, Scotland
  Young First-time Offenders, Scotland
  House of Lords Car Park
  House of Lords Car Park