Sitting of 27 October 1999

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

International Criminal Court
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Vaz.]
9.33 am
Ms Oona King: I am immensely honoured to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on the International Criminal Court, which represents nothing less than mankind's efforts to outlaw gross atrocities: crimes against humanity. It also represents 150 years of evolution in international humanitarian law. Above all, it represents the recognition that having laws alone is just not good enough: we must have the means of enforcing those laws.
So far, 89 countries have signed the statute of the International Criminal Court, which was passed on 17 July 1998 in Rome. As soon as 60 of those countries have ratified the treaty, the ICC will be established. It will be the first permanent institution dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law. However, to understand the ICC's significance, we have to understand the context in which it has developed. I should therefore like briefly to mention some of the milestones preceding its establishment.
The first real codification of war crimes was the 1864 Geneva convention on care of the wounded. From about 1900, international humanitarian law evolved more quickly, especially with the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions on the laws and customs of war on land. The customs of war have changed, and the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, has published several reports on that. It is increasingly civilians who are wounded, and often in internal, not external, acts of aggression.
The horrors of the first world war led to new treaties on wounded soldiers and on the use of gas and bacteriological weapons. The first attempts to establish an International Criminal Court were also made in that period, but they were stillborn. International humanitarian law began to gain ground after the second world war, when there was a groundswell of opinion favouring prosecution of the leaders of the defeated powers. The charter of the international military tribunal of 1945 represents the establishment of the first temporary international criminal court.
The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried three classes of crime: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The genocide convention, in 1948, was
930
the first of the post-war conventions on international humanitarian law, and defined genocide as an attempt to destroy
"in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such".
The genocide convention also gave a name to what Churchill described, in this Chamber, as a "crime with no name".
The 1949 Geneva conventions on conduct of armed conflict, with additional protocols in 1972, codified war crimes and specified that, for the first time, internal as well as international and external conflicts were covered by law. Crimes against humanity were defined under separate conventions, such as the torture convention of 1984.
All those conventions have universal jurisdiction, which is a central point in the argument that has, finally, ensured establishment of the International Criminal Court. Universal jurisdiction acknowledges the fact that such crimes are so grave that their commission may be tried in any country, regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or where the crimes are committed. As the Pinochet case has shown, not even sovereign immunity overrides the principle of universal jurisdiction. There must be no hiding place, no safe haven, for anyone who has committed crimes against humanity.
I have repeated the words "crimes against humanity" several times already in my speech, and hope that hon. Members will consider what they mean when they are translated into action. I shall detain the House with no more than one brief description.
I shall never forget going to E1 Salvador in 1986, at the height of its civil war, and hearing of one of the crimes against humanity being perpetrated there, involving pregnant women, rats and metal boxes. A rat was place on a pregnant woman's stomach inside a metal box, which was heated from above. When the heat became so intense that the rat was forced to try to burrow out of the box, it did so through the pregnant woman's stomach.
I have described that crime in a little detail because words can be very dry and may not convey the horror of the crimes that they describe. I am certain that there would be no controversy on either side of the House about the need to ensure that we do not allow people responsible for such crimes to escape.
Despite the large body of existing humanitarian law, the 1990s have seen continued breaches, including ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. However, those atrocities have coincided with an unprecedented willingness at international level to bring people to justice and a dawning realisation that it is possible to do so. The first step was the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague. Next came the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. Switzerland, which is often ahead of the game, has tried and convicted a Rwandan citizen for crimes committed in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994.
However, the successful prosecutions are the exceptions that prove the rule, which, thus far, has been that international humanitarian law is not enforced. Thousands of crimes have been committed and many of the criminals are now in third countries, including here in Britain. I know of people thought to be guilty of such

931
crimes. In my constituency, I have taken an interest in cases involving alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Bangladesh during the war of independence and in Rwanda.
Under universal jurisdiction, third countries, including Britain, should be trying such cases, but that is not happening. There has been only one trial under the War Crimes Act 1991, which refers specifically to crimes committed during the second world war. That has been the only trial in this country for grave breaches of international humanitarian law, although there is little doubt that such criminals have been, and continue to be, in this country.
That failure on our part is reflected throughout the world, but it does not square with an ethical foreign policy. However, under the current Government, Britain has been one of the most proactive states in trying to establish the International Criminal Court. Respect and praise are due for that.
The need for an International Criminal Court remains, because we have to bridge the gap between what a state promises that it will do and what it practises. The law exists, but it is not used. We can see that with the genocide convention, which took almost 50 years to the day to have its first success.
Under the principle of complementarity, which is central to the ICC, the primary responsibility for prosecution of breaches of international humanitarian law remains with the state parties. I must underline that, because some commentators and critics of the concept of an International Criminal Court have said that they worry that it might erode sovereignty. One of the most important points is that the ICC will be able to take on a case only if a state has been unable or unwilling to take it on itself and is already in breach of laws that it has signed up to. The ICC will not be rifling through the files of the Ministry of Defence or demanding the indictment of Cabinet Ministers and senior officers. It is not an international FBI.
By the same token, the ICC will not, unfortunately, be able to catch, try and convict every war criminal, torturer or genocidaire in the world—not even a significant minority of them. Let us be realistic about that. However, it will be able to oversee the development of international humanitarian law, try cases that come its way and add another hurdle in the path of criminals who have all too often felt that they can act with impunity despite—and sometimes because of—the magnitude of their crimes.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Lady leaves this part of her excellent speech, will she agree to add a further item to the list of benefits of an International Criminal Court? Any such trials that have taken place, from Nuremberg onwards, have shown beyond peradventure that the war crimes were carried out, so that subsequent revisionists cannot get away with claiming that the acts never happened.
Ms King: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has not been lost on the House, where we recently remembered holocaust day. One reason why we have got to this stage is the Nuremberg trials. I entirely agree with him.
932
Because we have not yet ratified the ICC treaty, we might be letting slip some of the good progress that we have made. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom was at the forefront of negotiations in Rome and UK negotiators were instrumental in ensuring—this is an important point—that mass rape and other forced sexual crimes were included in the statute's definitions of crimes against humanity. The British Government are also credited with helping to secure compromises on some of the more esoteric but no less important matters of jurisdiction or definition. UK negotiators remain active in the preparatory committees now considering the rules of evidence for the court and the definition of the crime of aggression.
The Government have made several statements to the effect that we intend and hope to be among the first 60 states to sign. Four have already done so, including Italy, and many of our European partners are expected to do so soon. I hope that we shall not miss a chance to show our European partner France that we shall be quicker than them in upholding international law. If we fail to be among the first 60, we will lose influence over the critical early functioning of the administration of the court, including its financial administration. It would also be a poor indication of the seriousness with which we take our obligations under the international humanitarian law conventions that we have already signed.
The international community requires moral leadership on the issue, and I expect our Labour Government to show it. I shall be bitterly disappointed if we do not. I do not expect to be disappointed, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister—I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation—and other Foreign Office Ministers take their obligations seriously. I understand that it is impossible to say exactly when a Bill will reach the House, particularly when it includes such major legal issues. However, I should like two reassurances from my hon. Friend.
First, I hope that the Government will not seek either of the opt-outs available under the statute. Article 124 says that a state can opt out of jurisdiction for seven years and article 98 leaves the door open for bilateral agreements allowing individuals to evade extradition. I would welcome reassurance about those opt-outs.
Secondly, I would welcome an indication of the date by which the Government intend to publish draft legislation and of the manner in which they intend to consult on the issue. If the Government could speed up the process, other countries might be prompted to ratify quickly and hence remove boltholes for today's and tomorrow's criminals.
My penultimate point relates to cost. Of course the court involves cost which, given America's intransigence on the issue, must be taken into account. It will be financed from three sources: assessed contributions by state parties, United Nations contributions approved by the General Assembly and voluntary contributions. Cost represents a reason to ratify sooner rather than later so that an undue burden does not fall upon the states that have ratified. Costs are attached to any legal system because the rule of law always has a price tag, but it is a price that any democrat should be prepared to pay. Ultimately, it is a bargain because we spend more on trying to clear up the mess caused by the people who will be brought into the dock than on ensuring that justice is done.

933
Finally, I am disappointed that the court will not be functioning in time for the millennium, but I am delighted that the Government have been so proactive. I hope that they continue to take a proactive approach. We should recognise that early ratification by ourselves and others will make sure that the court is the first international institution to be born in the new millennium. What better gift could today's politicians bequeath tomorrow's generation?
9.52 am
Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her good fortune in being selected to initiate today's debate on the International Criminal Court. It is a timely debate and I hope that the Minister and the Government were listening carefully. It is more than 51 years since the idea was first discussed in the United Nations Assembly, which passed resolution 260 in December 1948, but we are not very much nearer the establishment of such a court. In the intervening time, there have been various committees and courts of the International Legal Commission, all of which have produced reports and ideas of fine words and sentiments, but until November 1998, no concrete proposals were forthcoming.
From time to time, there have been ad hoc international criminal tribunals. The hon. Lady mentioned the most recent ones, which were set up in The Hague to deal with the problems in the former Yugoslavia and the horrific activities in Rwanda. Those ad hoc bodies are fine as far as they go, but one has only to consider the Rwanda case to see their limitations. The Rwanda tribunal can deal only with offences committed in 1994. Other offences were committed in Rwanda outside that 12-month period, and the court can do nothing about them.
I do not wish to belittle the work of the ad hoc tribunals as they have done a great deal and there is still much to do. I should also praise the work of the Bar of England and Wales, which has sent British barristers to work as prosecutors and to train lawyers in Africa and has trained those appearing in The Hague in the work that is so necessary to achieve justice. However, I urge the Government to get their skates on and do something more than simply signing the statute of Rome, as they did last year.
Throughout history, most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity have gone unpunished. Despite the military tribunals following the second world war and the two recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the same holds true for this century. Most perpetrators of atrocities on a national or international scale clearly believed that their crimes would go unpunished, and they have largely been correct. Very few criminals of that calibre have ever been brought to justice. One has only to think of Cambodia, where Pol Pot died in his bed and not in prison. There are criticisms that the Nuremberg trials that took place after the second world war were selective justice and there will no doubt be similar criticisms of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. To return to my example of Cambodia, unless we have a permanent International Criminal Court, the criticism of selective justice will continue to be made.
I know that criticisms have been made of the stand taken by the United States in relation to signing the statute and its lack of support for the establishment of an
934
International Criminal Court. However, being rude about the United States will not achieve much. Instead of allowing their supporters and others to be rude about the United States, the Government should take the initiative.
I hope that I am establishing for the record what the Conservative party believes by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she questioned the Foreign Secretary when he made a statement on the International Criminal Court. She said:
"By creating an International Criminal Court, we hope that we can move towards a more humane and peaceful world in which there is no sanctuary for the despot, the dictator, or the depraved."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 806.]
She was right then and the Government would be right now if they did a little more to push for the ratification of the statute.
The Government should not allow themselves to be drawn into a sense of complacency and self-satisfaction. We are one of the first nations to have signed the statute, but only four countries have ratified it. The hon. Lady mentioned Italy. The other three are no doubt worthy nations, but they are not in the first rank of international power. I urge the Government to get on and lead by example. Unless we do, all sorts of other less powerful and influential states that look to the permanent five will also lag behind.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a two-track strategy whereby we speed up ratification but also put polite pressure on larger powers to ratify would be appropriate?
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that it would. I am not suggesting that we should not put diplomatic or other pressure on China, for example, which sent its president here last week. I sincerely hope that our Prime Minister, when he was not entertaining the President of China, found an opportunity to remind him of the need for it to become one of the signatories to—not to mention ratifiers of—the statute of Rome. I trust that we have a sufficiently good relationship with the United States under this and any future presidency for the Government and their successors to be able to put pressure on the US to sign and ratify the statute; but unless we get on and do it ourselves, our arguments will have less force.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. and learned Friend is making. Does he agree that it is a great shame that, in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try to assuage the fears of the USA—and the document that was produced consequently contained substantial legal flaws—the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up? Should not the Government make every effort on every occasion to meet US officials and try to persuade them that their fears can be accommodated so that they can be brought within the ambit of the statute? Without the USA, Israel, China and India, the job will not be done.
Mr. Garnier: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I did when she asked the Foreign Secretary a question in response to his statement in July 1998. I urge the Government to listen carefully to her, as I have done.
There is certainly a general feeling of warmth towards the establishment of an International Criminal Court, but the problem is how to translate that warmth into activity.

935
Only seven of the 127 countries represented in Rome voted against the establishment of the ICC. China and the United States were two among them. The US based its decision on its fears that US service personnel stationed abroad might be subject to malicious prosecution. Our service personnel are often stationed abroad—indeed, about half our armed forces are overseas at any one time—as are those of other NATO countries, but the United States is the only NATO state that failed to sign the statute. Strong diplomatic pressure is required.
My main concern about the statute and the thinking behind it is that, while 60 countries will have to ratify before the court can be established, only four have so far done so, and our Government say that they cannot tell us when the necessary legislation will be introduced because it is terribly complicated. Legislation is frequently complicated but Governments have not always used that as an excuse for not introducing it. Reform of the House of Lords is complicated but that is being pushed through, as other Labour Government legislation has been that could easily be described as complicated. If the Government had the will, the complications could be dealt with.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to column 805 in the written answers in yesterday's Hansard, where the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) says that the problem is parliamentary time? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could have a word with his colleagues in the other place so that we get more parliamentary time and can ratify as soon as possible.
Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman can save the House parliamentary time by not supporting a Bill to ban fox hunting, we will no doubt have plenty of time to deal with more serious matters.
Mrs. Gillan: Has my hon. and learned Friend had a chance to look at some of the papers before the preparatory committee? I came across the disturbing information that for the statute to come into force the number of ratifications required, previously five to 65, had moved to 25 to 90. Has he any comment on that moving of the goalposts and the barriers that are being put in the way of the court at every stage?
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. It underlines the point that, if our Government lead by example, others may follow.
It is not only Conservative Members who are urging the Government to press ahead with the legislation. The Foreign Affairs Committee did so in its first report. The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said:
"We intend that the UK should be among the first sixty States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Legislation will be necessary before we can proceed to ratification. We will introduce such legislation as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 418.]
I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that another answer has been published today; one appeared on 20 October from the
936
new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), saying that legislation would be introduced as soon as time allows. It is for the Government to control their own programme. They know how to make the time. The Queen's Speech is on 17 November, and I sincerely hope that we shall find reference in it to the relevant legislation.
Mr. Douglas Alexander: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the challenge of ratification extends beyond this country, as only four other countries plan to ratify within their coming parliamentary years?
Mr. Garnier: I would not disagree with that for a moment. I repeat my mantra: the sooner we do it, the sooner others may do it as well.
I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new position. It is always a joy to see one's parliamentary neighbours getting on in the world. I sincerely hope, in the nicest possible way, that his new job in the Foreign Office keeps him a long way from Leicester and Leicestershire for most of the parliamentary year. No doubt he will receive the typical Leicester welcome when he gets back to his constituency from time to time.
Niceties apart, I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so, especially as it is more than a year since the Foreign Secretary said that ratification would not be a swift or fast-track process and that the legislation would be complex. All legislation has the capacity to be complex and I wish that we could get on with it more speedily.
The Minister will be aware of the consensus that it is most important that the major states, and especially the permanent members of the Security Council, show their support for the court. Will he comment on the most effective means by which we can put pressure on the United States to participate? There must be some easy way of assuaging its fears about malicious prosecution of its service personnel.
Does the Minister agree that, given that 60 states have to ratify before the court can be set up and that there has been so little progress so far, the likely timetable for establishment is about 50 years? I will be long dead by then, and I—and, I hope, the Minister—would like to be alive when the court is established. I look forward to an encouraging response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate is very short and that short speeches would be appreciated. That will allow more Members to speak.
10.10 am
Mr. Tony Colman: I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a member of the drafting committee of Charter 99, the charter for global democracy that was launched on United Nations day, last Sunday.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on obtaining this debate, which is extremely fortuitous in reminding Ministers of the

937
importance of the ratification of the statute in this coming Session. My hon. Friend said that France is due to ratify the statute this week, and I understand that Germany will ratify it before the end of the year. I heard this morning that, during the past few days, President Clinton has made a positive speech about ratification. I urge all hon. Members with influence in Congress to use it, perhaps through the British-American parliamentary group seeking a meeting with Trent Lott, so that he can take the matter forward on the Republican side in the United States.
My hon. Friend mentioned the antecedents of the work in Rome last year. I wish to refer also to the Commission on Global Governance, which was set up by Willy Brandt and was co-chaired by the ex-Commonwealth Secretary-General Sonny Ramphal. It met between 1992 and 1995 and had wide membership, including, from this country, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the noble Lord Judd and Brian Urquhart.
"Our Global Neighbourhood" was published in 1995 and contained strong recommendations that supported the International Criminal Court. This September, Patsy Robertson—who is in charge of taking forward the work of the commission—met with Titus Alexander of the Westminster UNA, Peter Luff of the Royal Commonwealth Society and others, including Anthony Barnett, of Charter 88, to take forward the agenda of ratification of the statute.
Last Sunday—UN day—saw the launch of Charter 99. I urge all hon. Members who have not obtained copies nor signed the document to support it. It is an extremely important initiative, and one of the 12 points aimed at taking the agenda forward is the ratification of the statute.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggested other areas of influence. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting takes places in about four weeks' time in Durban. I hope that the Minister will be able to support the idea that, within the discussion of the review of the Harare declaration—which concerns crimes against humanity—ratification of the statute could be taken forward. The work done by our parliamentary counsel and in the preparatory committee could be shared with our Commonwealth partners.
I am proud of the Government's ethical foreign policy, and I believe strongly that ratification in the coming Session is a key part of that policy. I suggest that the millennium United Nations General Assembly next September would be a good point to ensure ratification, so that we can announce to the people of the world that this country has ratified early and has led the way in ensuring that the International Criminal Court can come into existence for the year 2000.
10.14 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for her initiative in proposing this important debate. She will not like everything I say, but not everyone always does.
I had not expected to be a witness to war crimes and genocide in my time and in my continent. I was, and that left a deep impression on me. From that, I came to the conclusion that there surely had to be just such a jurisdiction and mechanism as we are discussing here.
I know the nature of modern warfare, which is to involve and to target civilians; it is to breach the Geneva conventions almost every day. I know that the leaders of
938
people, armies and paramilitaries have become aware of this final sanction which might be used against them. I know that, in some cases, this has moderated their behaviour.
However, if the new court is to continue on the lines of the existing court at The Hague, I have grave doubts about it. That is from personal experience. I was the only journalist who agreed to testify to the court in the case of Blaskic. Most of the suspects who came before that court dealing with the former Yugoslavia were small fry, but Blaskic was not. He was the commander of the Bosnian Croat forces in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia in the bitter side war between Muslims and Croats, which started in April 1993 and continued to the ceasefire in February 1994.
Blaskic was arrested in the spring of 1996 and brought to The Hague. I believe that he has been subject to certain injustices which give me grave misgivings about the court that is now being proposed. He was held for more than a year before the trial began in June 1997. That trial went on until the end of July 1999—more than 25 months. As we stand here in this Chamber now, there still has been no decision from the judges. That means that, without a conviction, 10 per cent. of that young man's life has been spent in jail. That has to be unjust.
The procedures of the court are extremely dilatory. There were 158 witnesses and 3,000 pages of evidence, and the court sat for three days a week. The judges came in late on Monday and went early on Thursday. I calculated that Blaskic must have spent six days of his life in jail because of the judge's tea breaks. These courts are supposed to bear in mind the facts of the case, and not the comfort and convenience of the judges. If we are to set up a new system, it has to be run on different lines.
I am not sure that I am happy with the idea of a prosecutors court, which would be under political pressure to convict. If five cases come before that court in The Hague, and there are five acquittals, pressure will grow on the court. People will ask, "What is wrong? Why are you not convicting?" It may be because there has been insufficient evidence in those five cases. That is very important.
There is a risk when an individual—usually quite a prominent individual who represents a people—is arrested. He then develops a kind of iconic significance and is held responsible for the actions of some individuals in that group to which he belongs. The English language has a word for that—it is "scapegoat".
By all means, let us have a system of international justice in which there is no refuge for the guilty—however, let us above all have a system in which there is no injustice for the innocent.
10.17 am
Mr. Desmond Browne: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing this debate and on generating an opportunity to contribute to this important subject. I congratulate her also on so clearly and succinctly setting out the history and development of the International Criminal Court and on identifying the key issues in the debate.
I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on his promotion, and I wish him well.

939
It is not possible to overestimate the significance of the adoption in Rome in July 1998 of the statutes of the permanent International Criminal Court. Consequent on that historic decision, for the first time a truly independent international court with an independent prosecutor and with the power to try crimes committed in internal conflicts will have jurisdiction to try those charged with war crimes, acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, and—when the issues of definition are resolved—acts of aggression.
At the ceremony celebrating the adoption in Rome in July of the statute of the International Criminal Court, Kofi Annan said:
"By adopting this statute, participants in the conference have overcome many legal and political problems which kept this question on the United Nations agenda almost throughout the organisation's history. No doubt many of us would have liked the court vested with even more far-reaching powers, but that should not lead us to minimise the breakthrough you have achieved. It is an achievement which, only a few years ago, nobody would have thought possible."
The following day, in a statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
"It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for their crimes against humanity. It will also offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 803.]
However, the political success of the adoption of the statute of the court is only a partial victory, as has already been pointed out. The permanent court will not be established until at least 60 states have ratified the Rome statute. So that as many states as possible will do so by the end of 2000, and so that the court may commence its activities no later than that date, it is necessary to mobilise an international movement towards ratification. The United Kingdom, which played a leading role in brokering a consensus at Rome, must now play a leading role in achieving the necessary number of ratifying states.
Delay is unthinkable. It would deprive the international community of a fundamental instrument in the defence of human rights by allowing the prosecution of those responsible for the most atrocious crimes, and it would have a number of other negative repercussions. While great progress has been made in the past 20 years to foster an effective system of international criminal justice, in particular through the creation of the two international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, it cannot be emphasised enough that that effort must be constantly consolidated.
Consolidation is imperative when one considers how many acts of genocide and violations of human rights go unpunished. In the past 50 years, there have been countless instances of crimes against humanity, including war crimes, for which no individual has been held accountable. Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador and Liberia have seen horrifying loss of civilian life, including many millions of unarmed women and children. In Algeria and the Great Lakes area of Africa, massacres of civilians continue and, over the past year, one need only contemplate the actions of war criminals in Kosovo and
940
East Timor to see that respect for international law desperately needs reinforcement. We cannot hope to generate that respect for international law unless we establish the principle of individual criminal accountability for all who commit such acts and unless we tackle impunity.
Without justice, many countries have no hope of lasting peace. To neglect or delay ratification of the International Criminal Court would send a negative message to the international community, at precisely the time that we should reinforce the progress made so far. Furthermore, the longer it takes the court to begin its work, the more chance its opponents have to mount a negative campaign against it. Therefore, we must build on the enthusiasm and momentum generated in Rome before it is dissipated. To do that, it is essential that countries in favour of the court, such as the United Kingdom, proceed with ratification immediately.
In the unlikely event that my hon. Friend the Minister has not had his mind concentrated on the important issues raised by this debate, I have several questions for him. Can he provide any information on the progress of ratification in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us in broad terms when the Bill for ratification will be voted on in this Parliament? I accept that the process of ratification is complicated, but can he give us some indication of what adaptation of the criminal law of the United Kingdom will be necessary to facilitate that ratification? In order to speed up the process, will he consider separating the ratification procedure from the adaptation of our legislation? Given that we have two distinct criminal law systems in these islands, can my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with the Minister for Justice of the Scottish Executive about the adaptation of Scots law in anticipation of ratification?
10.25 am
Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members have a chance to contribute. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), although I will probably damn her future political prospects by saying that I agree with almost every word that she said. I intend to refer briefly to two points—verification and enforcement. As I pointed out in the intervention that the hon. Lady kindly allowed me to make, the value of an International Criminal Court is that it allows not only the possibility of retribution and deterrence, but verification that the atrocities have indeed occurred.
The searing experience of the Nuremberg trials set on record more than 20 volumes of evidence of bestial depravity committed by the Nazi regime. I will never forget seeing a short film, "A Painful Reminder", which I commend to hon. Members, made by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock when the concentration camps were opened. They went to the camps and made a filmed record of what they saw. They even anticipated that, one day, people would deny that those horrors had taken place. Shortly before he died, Lord Bernstein gave an interview in which he explained that they had thought ahead and filmed with the widest angle camera shots they could, to make it as difficult as possible for the people who would one day wish to commit those crimes again to deny that their political allies had committed them in the past. That was before we had the obscenity of neo-Nazi historians such as David Irving in this country,

941
Ernst Zündel in Canada and Fred Leuchter in the United States of America trying to deny the holocaust. Verification is extremely important.
Enforcement is also important. It may cause some problems, but they should not prevent us from proceeding. The first problem is that of the criminal who is so strong that no one dares try him. It was argued at Nuremberg that the trials were "victors' justice". People still ask today how it was fair that the Soviets could sit in judgment when their regime was responsible for as many deaths and murders as the Nazi regime. We have recently had the visit of the Chinese President. One day, when those people are no longer in power, they may find themselves in the dock. My answer to that point is that being unable to bring everyone to justice does not mean that no one should be brought to justice.
The second problem is if the criminal is protected locally. Walter Rauff lived out his days in south America, even though he invented the vans which served as mobile gas chambers. People knew where he was and he was even interviewed for magazines, but he was never brought to justice. Mladic and Karadzic are still in Bosnia and nobody has yet sought to arrest them, presumably for political reasons rather than issues of justice. Aloïs Brunner, whom I have mentioned several times in the Chamber with a nil response from the Foreign Secretary on each occasion, was the man who assisted Eichmann in the holocaust in France—and he is still believed to be living in Syria under his pseudonym of Georg Fischer. Nothing is being done.
Finally, there is the problem that a criminal in government may be deterred from standing down if he does not feel he will get an amnesty if he ceases to be in government. My answer to that is simple: he should stay at home. General Pinochet might have found it useful to follow that advice. If this court is going to be made to work—as it can and must be made to work—it must be even-handed in the application of its practice, and dictators of left and right with blood on their hands must be brought to account impartially.
10.29 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I shall begin by adding my congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment. I am especially delighted as he is a former constituent of mine, and I like to see my boys doing well.
My main interest in terms of human rights has always been to examine the factors that lead to the abuse of those rights, and to crimes against humanity. My aim is to find ways to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. The task is awesome and involves many factors, such as relief of poverty, conflict prevention and fair trade conditions.
In the past two and a half years, I and other members of the Select Committee on International Development have travelled extensively. There is not time for all the stories that I could tell: suffice it to say that the blood-curdling and heart-rending stories from Rwanda, southern Sudan and Kosovo were enough to make me realise that, as well as trying to find ways to prevent such crimes against humanity, we must ensure justice for the victims and make certain that the aggressors are brought to justice.
That is why we Liberal Democrats were delighted that, after much pushing and prodding—and despite rumours that the United States was trying to stop us—the United Kingdom eventually signed up to the ICC in Rome last
942
year. The treaty is probably imperfect, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, but it contains safeguards against malicious prosecution. There is provision for a pre-trial chamber that is independent of the prosecutor, and other safeguards will govern the length of time for which a person can be held. The sooner we ratify the treaty and begin the discussions on how it will work, the sooner we will be able to iron out the problems.
I am reminded very much of the problems that we had with the ratification of the land mine treaty. Many rumours circulated at that time to the effect that the US was trying to prevent us signing. In the end, I suspect that the United Kingdom signed up to that treaty because the French bounced us into it. Perish the thought that that should happen this time.
Must we experience the same delay with the ICC? Many agencies accuse the Government of being influenced by the United States. Other countries are not ratifying the treaty because we have not ratified it. That is a chicken-and-egg problem that we must get to grips with—once Britain ratifies the treaty, other countries will follow.
As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, we must be among the first 60 states to ratify the treaty so that we will belong to the assembly of state parties that will draw up the rules of procedure and evidence about which the hon. Member for Tatton is so worried. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, we must ratify the treaty to set an example to next month's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Will the Minister tell the House what line the Government intend to take with the United States? That country's refusal to sign the treaties on nuclear test bans and land mines shows that it will not sign any international treaty at present. The cold war is over, but the United States does not know how to behave in the new world. Its excuse in this case is that there would be malicious prosecution of its military personnel, but safeguards against that are built into the treaty. For example, the UN Security Council has the power to halt any prosecution indefinitely. Moreover, if the US prosecuted one of its own nationals, the ICC would have no jurisdiction anyway, so what is the problem?
We have received many assurances from the Foreign Secretary that we will ratify this treaty, but the time for such assurances is over. We must ratify the treaty, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House that proposals to that effect will be included in the Queen's Speech.
10.34 am
Mr. Mike Gapes: I shall be very brief, as I have only one substantive point to make. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to the dangers of selective justice, and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) mentioned the dangers of creating scapegoats. I believe that another danger exists, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) alluded. That is that, in any conflict, there is always the risk that those on the winning side will determine the rules of the continuation of the conflict by other means.
I am worried by what the proceedings in the tribunal in The Hague have revealed. Reference was made to an apparent injustice suffered by a Croat who allegedly carried out war crime against Muslims. However,

943
although leading members of the Bosnian Serb side have been indicted, either in public or in secret, the commander-in-chief of the Croatian forces responsible for atrocities against Serbs and Muslims is lauded around the world.
That commander is Mr. Franjo Tudjman, who visited this country for the VE day celebrations, and other purposes. As far as I know, no country in western Europe has tried to bring a war crimes action against him, even though he is implicated in the atrocities carried out in Bosnia in that period almost as much—or as much—as many of the other senior figures. I am a strong advocate of the International Criminal Court, and I want the Government to ratify the treaty as soon as possible, but we must look with honesty at the way in which the process has been handled over recent years.
It is good that Croatia's courts have now prosecuted Dinko Sadjik, the former commandant of the Jasenovac concentration camp. That came about as a result of international pressure. In order to get into the Council of Europe, among other things, Croatia had to be seen to do something about a man who went back to Croatia and said that it represented the flowering of the Ustasa state that he had supported and worked for in the 1940s.
I believe that we must start asking questions about the atrocities committed by the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims, as well as by the Bosnian Serbs. We must ask those questions in an even-handed way, or the ICC will be seen—as The Hague tribunal is already seen by some people—to be the plaything of one side in the conflict.
10.34 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: At the instigation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), we have had an extremely interesting debate on the International Criminal Court, and I am sure that the House, and a wider audience outside, will be grateful to her. Last year, the Foreign Secretary announced with great fanfare that the ICC was going to come into effect soon, but nothing has happened since.
I should also like to welcome the Minister on his first outing in his new post. I wish him great happiness and hope that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors. He is fortunate in that there is clearly a consensus in the Chamber today. There have been interesting and helpful contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) shared his experiences with us today, and I am grateful for the views expressed by the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Putney (Mr. Colman), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made a very sound contribution, but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be welcomed with open arms in America after her remarks.
I shall be brief, as I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. My views about the International Criminal Court can easily be summarised. Only four countries have ratified the court so far, and it has been noted that major countries such as India, Israel, China and the United States have not signed up to it. I believe that compromises in the negotiations have left
944
the treaty with fundamental flaws, and the United Kingdom has made no progress towards ratification. In addition, the efficacy and cost of the final outcome remain to be explored in detail.
The Foreign Secretary promised us ratification, and the will of the House is to seek ratification. The Foreign Secretary said that that would be difficult and complex, and that he did not want to rush it through in a single day as was done with the land mines legislation. We are willing to give the process time, but the Minister must realise that the Government are in charge of business—only they can make the time for this important move. The House expects the Minister to give us good news today; indeed, if he fails to do so, he will show that our greatest fears have been realised and that the Government are merely pandering to soundbite politics by making something look good, but failing to come through on it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough reminded us that the process has been going on for decades. An international tribunal with universal jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity has been at the top of the agenda since resolution 260 was passed in 1948. Yet there is still no permanent International Criminal Court. The ad hoc tribunals set up to deal with Rwanda and Yugoslavia were set up at the express instruction of the United Nations Security Council and were never intended to be permanent. Indeed, the efficacy of those institutions has been called into question many times.
The establishment of an international court probably remains many years away. The Foreign Secretary's initial enthusiasm was misleading because it is hard to envisage the success of an institution that seven nations opposed and on which 21 nations abstained. The countries that I have mentioned are a massive concentration of people and world power. What have the Government done since Rome to persuade those countries towards the perspective of the countries that ratified the treaty? If the Minister cannot answer now, I hope that he will write to me.
Closer examination of the treaty reveals some serious difficulties. Speakers have alluded to its necessary adoption by 60 states if it is to come into force. I have been told that, on the preparatory commission—PrepCom—that target has moved. Is that so, and what does the Minister propose to do about it? There are plenty of anomalies in the treaty: acts of terrorism will fall outside the court's jurisdiction, as will the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The use of poisoned weapons will constitute a war crime, so that the court would have jurisdiction if someone killed a single civilian with a poisoned arrow or dumdum bullet, but would not be able to act if the person concerned had killed hundreds of thousands of people with a biological or nuclear weapon. It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on those anomalies.
Costs and efficacy are important matters. The hon. Member for Tatton used his personal experience of the Yugoslavian tribunal to refer to a detainee who is awaiting sentence. However, the facts and figures relating to that tribunal are frightening. What is the Minister doing about the problems highlighted by that tribunal, and what lessons have been learned from it that may be carried over to the International Criminal Court?
The tribunal was established in May 1993. It has 778 members of staff from 63 countries. To date, it has cost more than $279 million. Yet the net result is that just

945
one person—currently serving a sentence in Norway—has been convicted. Some 91 people have been publicly indicted: six have died; 18 have had the charges dropped; 33 remain at large; 31 are in custody; and two have been released pending appeals. We must query the spending of $279 million on putting one person in custody. What lessons is the Minister learning from the tribunals? What contribution is the UK making towards ensuring that PrepCom meetings and planning meetings on the court will rid us of the worst excesses of tribunals of this type? We must ensure that we achieve an effective vehicle for international justice.
I have mentioned our broad support for the court, a support the Conservative party has offered for decades. We have always supported the principle, and shall continue to do so by helping the Minister in any way that we can. I therefore hope that he will tell us that the Queen's Speech will contain a relevant measure.
Foreign policy today is not conducted as the Conservative party would like. It seems to be based on saying one thing and doing another. It is to be commended that Amnesty International is working within the Foreign Office, but less so that it is left to the President of China rather than our Prime Minister to raise human rights during the President's recent visit. The Foreign Secretary will not even sign a condemnation of China's human rights records, as the Conservatives did successively. I hold out little hope for Labour's ethical and moral foreign policy, which seems to have two faces.
I also have little hope that the Minister will tell me that the ratification of the International Criminal Court will be contained in the Queen's Speech. If he cannot tell us that—I can see from the expression on his face that he cannot—he has already failed. Perhaps instead I could ask for this commitment to the House and to those who wish to see the court's creation: will the Foreign Office give us regular progress reports and details of discussions that Ministers are holding with their opposite numbers in China, the USA, Israel, India and other countries that have not supported the treaty? I want to see letters and correspondence that prove that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is by pursuing a moral and ethical foreign policy.
At present, the Foreign Office tries to sound good and look good, but does nothing. No progress has been made since the Foreign Secretary announced to the House with a great fanfare the signing of the treaty in Rome. The House demands action.
10.47 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for raising this important matter. Until the final remarks of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), an excellent consensus had been found, and I have rarely attended a foreign policy debate in which there have been so many expressions of support for the principle of what the Government propose. I am grateful for that support to the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I thank, too, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough
946
(Mr. Garnier) for his kind comments, but must add that, although I am the Minister for Europe, Leicester remains in Europe—
Mr. Garnier: But not run by Europe.
Mr. Vaz: Nor, fortunately, is it run by the Conservative party. I shall continue to make my constituency duties a priority.
I was delighted that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) called me one of her boys, and shall refer to her from now on as "Mummy".
The Government are absolutely committed to the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Recent events in Kosovo and East Timor have only served to strengthen our resolve. The court will be able to tackle the culture of impunity, and to put an end to the dreadful paradox of the 20th century that those guilty of killing one man, woman or child are more likely to be brought to justice than those guilty of killing thousands. It will put dictators and potential dictators on notice that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated. We are determined that the International Criminal Court should be an effective means of securing justice for victims of heinous crimes. We hope that the knowledge that those who have committed atrocities will be brought to justice will help their victims and their victims' families to put the past behind them and participate in a process of reconciliation and reconstruction.
As many hon. Members have noted in the debate, the Rome statute was a huge achievement. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called it a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. I am glad to report that the United Kingdom has played an impressive part in that achievement. We were, and remain, part of the like-minded group of states that formed in Rome to throw their collective weight behind the court.
We are proud of our achievements during the Rome negotiations. The United Kingdom took the lead in introducing important elements such as ensuring that the court covered internal conflicts, the question of child soldiers, reparations for victims, the appropriate qualifications for judges and the important question of court procedures. That work continues at the preparatory commission meetings at which our delegates continue to contribute in preparing rules of procedure and evidence of crimes, and the work is proceeding well. The next meeting of the preparatory commission will be held in New York on 29 November.
As many hon. Members have said, 89 countries have signed the Rome statute and four have ratified it. That level of support proves how seriously the international community views these crimes and demonstrates global revulsion at genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the work is not over yet. We want many more countries to sign the statute and we have encouraged all Commonwealth members to sign and ratify it. We raise the issue of the court in bilateral contacts with countries around the world as well as in multilateral forums and we have supported activities to promote awareness of the court and ratification.
Mrs. Gillan: Did the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of the ICC directly with President Jiang during the Chinese president's visit last week?
Mr. Vaz: We raised many issues with the president of China. It is important that all such questions are raised whenever we meet Prime Ministers and other heads of state.
We have provided funding to the NGO coalition for an International Criminal Court and helped to fund the South African development community conference on ratification. We have offered support to countries that require technical assistance with ratification, and I repeat that offer today. We share the widespread hope that the United States will sign the Rome statute of the court. The Americans are concerned that their service men operating overseas could be subject to unjustified, politically motivated accusations, but we and our other NATO allies disagree.
We believe that the Rome statute contains sufficient safeguards to protect service men, the most important of which is the complementarity principle that allows domestic jurisdictions the right to try their own people. If serious allegations were made in good faith against British citizens, we are confident that we could demonstrate that there was a remedy in British justice. The same argument would apply to the United States of America.
We regularly make the case for the International Criminal Court with the Americans: it is no secret that we want them on board. The court will be much stronger if the United States is a party to it. The Foreign Secretary has urged Mrs. Albright, the American Secretary of State, to support the court—most recently when they met at the United Nations in September. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that there is no question of our being rude to the United States—that is not the Foreign Secretary's style. My right hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to ensure that the matter is raised constructively.
The Americans have said that they would like to move towards signing the statute, and we hope that a way can be found to address their concerns. I assure the House that we are very clear on one point: any solution to the United States question or any other problem must not undermine the integrity of the statute that was agreed in Rome or reduce the effectiveness of the court. The Government believe in a strong International Criminal Court as negotiated in Rome.
It is too early to predict when the court will come into being. It will happen when 60 states ratify the statute. I must inform the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it is not possible to alter that figure because it is set in statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Committee cannot change it. It is obviously too early to predict when every state will ratify the statute so that we achieve the necessary 60 signatures. Some states can ratify before passing implementing legislation—which is what the four signatories to the treaty have done—but many others, like the United Kingdom, will have to make legislative provisions first and some countries will need to change their constitutions.
948
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun who raised this point, let me say that it is important that we keep in touch with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive about this issue. Several matters of concern to the ICC are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which will be clearly consulted before the Bill comes to Westminster. We will have to alter our criminal law before we can introduce implementing legislation, so we will need to make changes before the Bill comes before the House.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried gently to persuade me to reveal the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I do not propose to do so on the Floor of the House because I do not know what is in it and I cannot comment on such matters. Hon. Members are quite passionate about this issue—as are the Government—and they want to know whether legislation will come before the next Session of Parliament. It remains our firm intention to be one of the first 60 states to ratify the statute because that is an important demonstration of our support for the court. I cannot say what will be in the legislative programme but we hope that, if we make our intentions clear, others will take our lead and begin the process of ratification.
It is important for the United Kingdom to ratify early so that we can be a founder member of the court. We want to be part of the decision-making process at the first assembly of states. However, I cannot look into the future and predict accurately how soon the statute will come into force. Officials in my Department are already working hard preparing for a Bill. It will be detailed and complex legislation involving several Government Departments and will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
The Bill will set out the practical operation of our relationship with the ICC. It will enable our law enforcement authorities to fulfil our obligation to co-operate with the court in matters such as the arrest and transfer of suspects, handing over information and conducting searches and seizures. The legislation will also give effect to the fines and forfeitures ordered by the ICC and incorporate into British law crimes that are within the court's jurisdiction. That will allow British courts to prosecute those crimes when they occur in our jurisdiction, something that we believe is very important. The primary right and responsibility to prosecute such crimes will continue to fall to the states, and the International Criminal Court will act only when states are unable or unwilling to do so. The Security Council will also be able to refer cases to the court in accordance with its responsibilities for international peace and security.
I hope that the very existence of the court will reduce the number of future crimes of this kind. However, we must be realistic: the International Criminal Court will be needed and it will require our support, politically and financially. I was pleased to witness cross-party support for the ICC this morning, and I trust that it will be borne in mind when the Bill passes smoothly through the House.

Climate Change
11 am
Mr. Tom Brake: Climate change has been discussed many times in the House and we are well versed in the arguments, but I make no apology for returning to the subject and what the UK Government's response to it should be.
The global impact of climate change has never been so apparent. The Red Cross said that last year's natural disasters were the most damaging on record and predicted that catastrophes would become more widespread and devastating as climate change takes hold. Unveiling the organisation's 1999 report, the president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said:
"Climate change is no longer a doomsday prophecy, it is a reality … Changing climate means changing disaster patterns."
According to the report, more natural disasters occurred in 1998 than in any other year on record. The report noted that climate change has made the consequences of disasters more complex.
In 1998, global mean surface temperature was the highest since records began. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that to avert the worst impacts of climate change, cuts of 60 per cent. in carbon dioxide emissions must be achieved by 2050. In the UK, climate change could lead to an increase in the frequency of extreme weather conditions. Average wind speeds could rise, resulting in 30 per cent. more gales in Wales and southern England during the winter, thus increasing the risk of hurricanes.
Global climate change is a reality; its global impact is undeniable. What are we doing about it? We all know that the UK has a legal obligation to reduce by 12.5 per cent. its output of six greenhouse gases between 2008 and 2012—the Kyoto target. However, before the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, the Labour party, in opposition, pledged to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. from their 1990 levels by 2010. That was a welcome commitment, but it seems as though the Government have lost their momentum on climate change. Perhaps discussion of the climate change levy disguises the real issues and problems that the Government need to address.
The fifth conference of the parties to the climate change convention began this week. The UK must play an important role there, in keeping alive the Kyoto protocol with its binding obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. The Government must act globally. However, action to prevent irreversible change to our climate must also be taken at home, so the Government must act locally.
Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. However, I draw his attention to a problem in my industrial constituency. I led a deputation to the Treasury complaining of the severity of its proposed measures. My constituency is based on steel, and steel workers are concerned that the levy will lead to job losses. Since our deputation to the Treasury, British Steel has merged with a Dutch company and the loss of jobs is one of our
950
worries. In that context, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the local consequences if Her Majesty's Government impose too great a tax?
Mr. Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I understand his concern. I welcome the fact that the Government are holding consultations on the climate change levy. However, I hope that, at the end of that process, they will not tear the guts out of the climate change levy so that its environmental impact is reduced to nothing. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point later.
We need to take action locally to prevent climate change. What the Government achieve at home is a key litmus test. A failure to act nationally will affect the UK's international reputation on environmental matters. The Government must maintain the lead in those matters, and the 20 per cent. target must be achieved.
I am not the only Member who is concerned that the Government might fail to achieve their 20 per cent. target commitment. It is interesting to note how the Government's language on this matter has changed since 1997. In 1997, Labour's election manifesto gave a clear commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. That was stated throughout 1997, and repeated to the House by the Prime Minister. By 1998, the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto figure was described as a target; the 20 per cent. target became a domestic aim.
In their consultation paper on climate change, the Government stated that they intended to move beyond the legally binding target towards a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. However, they did not state which policies they would implement to achieve that target. Regrettably, the Chancellor failed to mention the 20 per cent. target in his Budget speech, although he did mention the Kyoto target. More recently, the 20 per cent. target was described as a "domestic goal" in the Government's annual report, but it was not listed as one of their 177 commitments.
Unfortunately, in 1999, the situation has worsened. It seems that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister continue to forget the 20 per cent. reduction pledge in their manifesto; they refer only to the Kyoto target. The 20 per cent. target has now been relegated to something that the Government will "move towards". When the Minister responds, I hope that he will reassure us that the Government still intend to hit that 20 per cent. target and that it is not merely something that they will be moving towards.
Mr. David Chaytor: I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Will he pay tribute to the Government for the work that is already being done towards the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions? I am thinking especially of the introduction of the fuel duty escalator. Does his party support the fuel duty escalator in all parts of the United Kingdom? My experience is that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the escalator in certain parts of the country, because they—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. When the Deputy Speaker stands, the hon. Gentleman should sit down. He must remain seated because his intervention is far too long.
Mr. Brake: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Liberal Democrats support the

951
fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government and maintained by the Labour Government. However, the hon. Gentleman will surely agree with me about the importance of a clear link between the revenue that is raised from the escalator and the environment. If there is no clear link and the money is seen merely to be going into the Treasury coffers, problems will arise.
Will the Government attempt to achieve the 20 per cent. target? I hope that they will. The Minister for the Environment said that there will be benefits if we achieve the 20 per cent. target, so what measures are the Government implementing to that end? If they drop one of their key manifesto pledges, their environmental rhetoric will be seen as nothing more than greenwash.
Concern about the Government's changing position was highlighted recently in a letter to the Prime Minister from four organisations—Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—which urged the Government to stick to Labour's manifesto pledge. They feared that the 20 per cent. target is becoming merely "an aspirational aim" and that the Government will not deliver on it. I share their fear.
However, to have a target is not enough; we need a strategy to achieve it. We are now more than halfway through this Parliament, and we have seen no climate change strategy with the necessary framework for action. The Government took 17 months to produce the consultation paper on climate change. Now, a year later, in October 1999, we are arguing the case for the protection of the global climate in Bonn. That is good, but we have failed to take substantive action at home, whereas countries such as Germany, Austria and Denmark have not only produced strategies to fight climate change but have implemented those strategies and review them regularly. The Minister for the Environment told the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that he hoped to publish a draft strategy towards the end of this year, but, given the importance of the matter, the Under-Secretary of State should tell us today the deadline for the production of the strategy.
The strategy must list the measures needed to achieve the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)indicated assent.
Mr. Brake: I see the Minister nod; I hope he also agrees that the strategy should list the measures needed to achieve the 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction target and set out the long-term policies that will set Britain on the path to climate-friendly energy production and use.
We need a huge increase in energy efficiency, a reduction in overall traffic volumes and a substantial shift from fossil fuels to renewables and combined heat and power. Energy efficiency will play a crucial part in our response to climate change. It will reduce fossil fuel use, help to end what the Environmental Audit Committee described as the "continuing national scandal" of fuel poverty and create jobs in employment black spots.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for putting greater resources into
952
the renovation of the nation's housing stock, to install double glazing and take other measures to improve fuel efficiency, reduce poverty, contribute to energy saving and prevent needless waste of energy?
Mr. Brake: I do agree, as would hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is noticeable that the Government have failed to address the discrepancy between VAT charged on new homes and VAT charged on renovation works. It is high time that they dealt with that issue.
Many excellent ideas on energy efficiency have been proposed to the House, including cutting VAT on energy-saving materials, involving health authorities and local authorities in the fight against fuel poverty and requiring mortgage surveys to include an energy efficiency survey, but the Government's response has been disappointing. The Government have cut VAT but only on materials bought under Government schemes, rather than on private householder purchases of insulation materials. They promised to seek a further reduction in negotiations with our European Union partners, but when the EU gave us the chance to make a reduction such as has been made in France and Italy, the Government decided against it.
The Government opposed the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), although I am pleased to hear that they have now relented and intend to include my hon. Friend's ideas in their guidance to health authorities. Similarly, the Fuel Poverty and Energy Conservation Bill was opposed, but the Government relented under pressure and will now alter Government advice on that subject. The Government could have done more to ensure that Bills they supported—the Energy Efficiency Bill and the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill—were enacted. I understand that a requirement for an energy efficiency survey was not referred to in the latest press release on the new system for buying and selling homes; that is an ominous omission.
I am aware of the role played by a small number of Conservative Members in blocking several of those private Members' Bills, but the Government cannot escape all blame. They failed to support amendments to the Local Government Act 1999 which might have implemented some of the proposed energy policies and they failed to accept the Liberal Democrats' offer of a Supply day to consider such matters. The Government must do more than passively support such measures; they must use Government time to force them through. I hope that the Queen's Speech will announce that similar measures are to be included in proposed Government Bills on housing or local government.
Transport policy should form a key part of the Government's strategy to reduce carbon dioxide levels by 20 per cent. by 2010. It is unlikely that that target will be met without reducing the number of car journeys. Both before and after the election, Labour promised to act on that question, but now the Government's commitment appears to be to reduce traffic growth, even though a continuing increase in traffic is likely to lead to higher emissions.
A reduction in the use of fossil fuels and an increase in the energy derived from renewable sources and combined heat and power is also required if the Government are to

953
hit their target. The Government recognise that and are consulting on a climate change levy. Although a carbon tax would have been preferable on environmental grounds and should still be pursued at EU level, a climate change levy will help to reduce fossil fuel use. However, as I said earlier, the Government's consultation process must not be allowed to lead to the emasculation of the levy.
Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those companies that are energy efficient should not be penalised simply because they are high energy users? Dow Corning Ltd. in my constituency has created a heat and power plant and strives to derive maximum energy use from that unit. The company is rightly concerned that the levy will be based on energy use rather than energy efficiency.
Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and understand his point. The Government should consider a measure that has been adopted in other countries, whereby if a company can demonstrate that it uses the best possible technology to reduce energy use, the climate change levy might not be applicable to that company. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The Government recognise the importance of renewables and CHP and have ambitious targets for their use: 10 per cent. of UK electricity to be generated using renewable sources and 12 per cent. using CHP to be achieved over the next 10 years. However, Government policies are hurting those sectors. As we know, CHP is not exempt from the climate change levy, nor is electricity generated from renewable sources. Bryan Bateman, the Paper Federation of Great Britain's director of business and environment, says of CHP and the climate change levy:
"The UK paper industry is very energy intensive. CHP is crucial to the process in maintaining cost effectiveness as well the achievement of our climate change targets. It should, in our view, be exempted from the climate change levy."
The Government are not following the lead provided by other Governments in investing in sunrise energies, providing tax breaks and incentives, developing those technologies and creating export opportunities in a growing overseas market. They are missing opportunities to help developing countries. Dr. Leggett, an expert on solar energy who headed up an industry solar task force supported by the Government and including BP, Eastern Electricity and NatWest, is disappointed with Government progress on solar energy. He said today:
"It is bewildering how the DTI can stand by watching the Germans and the Japanese race ahead with the development of a market which many now believe will equal, if not exceed, the micro-technology market."
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The long-term answer to global warming is solar energy, as that is the only infinitely renewable resource. Is it not extremely disappointing that our efforts, both internationally and domestically, over the decades to harness solar energy have been so incredibly feeble?
Mr. Brake: I agree with that helpful intervention, although I would add that wind power is also infinitely renewable. It is true that if we had solar photovoltaic roofs
954
on every house in this country, we would do away with the need for power stations—indeed, an energy surplus would be generated.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: All renewables except the tides are solar. That is not a correction but a helpful comment. The source of wind is solar. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great problems in the expansion of renewables is the planning framework, which is leading time and again to objections and obstacles to their development. The Government will have to address this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that there is an increasing incidence of wind farms coming up against planning objections. We need to sell much harder the environmental benefits of such projects, and compare them with, for example, the proliferation of electricity pylons across the country. More can be done and we need a Government commitment to renewable wind power, whether or not wind power is solar.
Dr. Leggett and other experts in renewables are extremely concerned about the distinct lack of joined-up government between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry. The DETR is actively promoting renewables and solar power, and the DTI is actively pouring cold water on them.
To assist the Minister in responding to the debate, I shall summarise my concerns in a series of brief questions of which he has had notice. I hope that he will give the House an informed and detailed response.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend keeping to their 20 per cent. CO2 target? When will the Government be producing the climate change strategy document? Will it contain the measures necessary to hit not only the 12.5 per cent. Kyoto target but the 20 per cent. target? Does the Minister agree with me that the imposition of the climate change levy on electricity from renewables and CHP is completely nonsensical, and what will he do to address that problem?
Will the Minister make it absolutely clear to the Treasury that the climate change levy, in the absence of something like a carbon tax, is key to meeting the Government's CO2 reduction target? Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed, as part of their strategy, to reducing the overall level of traffic? Will he try to convince the Government and their partners within the EU to ratify the Kyoto protocol early, regardless of what the Americans decide to do? Will the Minister proactively provide technical advice and assistance to developing countries to help them reduce their CO2 emissions? Will he be working with his EU partners to consider the possibility of implementing a Europewide carbon tax?
Finally, will the Minister and the Secretary of State be resigning if they fail to hit their 20 per cent. reduction target? I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has offered to resign if his targets are not hit. I would expect nothing less from the Minister and his Secretary of State.
Mr. Damian Green: Not only the Secretary of State for Education and Employment but his entire ministerial team have promised to resign if they do not hit their targets. I feel that this is a good example.
Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am pleased that the whole team will have to resign so that there will be lots of vacancies on the Government Front Bench in a couple of years' time.
The Minister's response will confirm whether the Government are serious about tackling the global impact of climate change or whether they are content to rest on their rhetorical laurels while the earth burns.
11.24 am
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on initiating this debate. The topic is infinitely important. On the issue of whether the entire ministerial team should resign if the 20 per cent. target is not achieved, I would point out that the targets are set for 2010. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is confident about the return and re-return of this extremely environmentally sensitive and aware Labour Government.
I am a scientist by background and I was formerly a lecturer in environmental science. I have spent the past 20 years reviewing environmental problems. I am delighted that progress has been made in many areas, such as acid rain. I am delighted that nuclear power is being phased out. I am delighted also that on genetically modified foods the Government are steering slightly away from their earlier position. However, the problems of global warming are of a dimension that goes beyond those in other areas. It is the most intractable of all environmental problems. In developing countries and in our own pre-history, the use of timber has produced and continues to produce carbon dioxide. The use of timber leads to deforestation. Britain is the least-forested country in the world—only 5 per cent. of our land is covered by woodland.
The march of civilisation makes us increasingly energy intensive. All our energy has come from timber, coal, oil and gas, which all produce carbon dioxide. There is no sink for that carbon dioxide, and it just increases and increases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased measurably in the past century. From memory, it has increased from about 280 parts to 340 parts per million. If carbon dioxide was inert in the atmosphere, like nitrogen, perhaps there would be no problem. Unfortunately, it absorbs the infra-red or the radiation out into space from the earth. Increasing carbon dioxide levels therefore mean increased temperatures for the earth. That was a scientific theory in the 1960s and the 1970s, but it has become demonstrably the case in the past 10 or 20 years.
One of the great advances stemming from the Kyoto summit in particular, and from the work that led up to it over the previous 10 or 15 years, is that there is now widespread recognition in all the advanced and developing countries that we have a major environmental problem with carbon dioxide that must be tackled. The only ignorant places are parts of the United States and the OPEC countries. Unfortunately, the solution is politically extremely difficult. It requires political will of a dimension that goes beyond any democracy because of
956
the importance of the motor car, our central heating systems and our standard of living. Everything that we aspire to and ask people to vote us into Parliament for depends on carbon dioxide emissions. In tackling the problem, we are attacking the very foundation or style of our society.
The danger has been and still is that politicians say, "The problem is too difficult to solve. It will not give us any returns over a five-year Parliament or even over 10 or 20 years. The less we do about it, the better it is for us politically." However, the problem is with us, and the evidence accumulates. It is very difficult to say that this year the world climate has been warmer, but there is an accumulation of evidence. Almost every week we hear of horrible floods, a hurricane or forest fires. I read in The Mirror last week about an iceberg that measures 40 miles across that is drifting towards Argentina. I dare say that icebergs have always drifted from the polar caps, but not icebergs of such a size and not with such frequency. Problems involving the north and south poles illustrate how challenging the overall problem is.
There has been no energy production at the poles—problems have been exported to the poles by the rest of the world. The great problem is that the ice cover is diminishing because huge chunks are being knocked off the ice caps and are melting, and the earth's temperature then rises for two reasons. The first is the amount of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, and the second is that if polar caps melt at a significant rate, the amount of sunlight that they reflect diminishes.
I remember reading in the 1970s about the runaway effect whereby a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, which then begins to boil carbon dioxide out of the world's oceans. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is 60 times that in the atmosphere, and as temperatures rise, that carbon dioxide drifts into the atmosphere. The runaway effect will eventually cause our planet to have an atmosphere somewhat like that of Venus, which is shrouded in cloud.
Any damage to the polar caps is even more serious than the weather that afflicts Britain or the United States. The article in The Mirror says:
"Temperatures in the Antarctic have been steadily rising and are now 2.5C higher than at the end of World War II."
I do not vouch for the accuracy of our tabloids, although The Mirror is one of the best, but a rise of 2.5 deg C at the polar caps in the past 50 years is deeply serious.
As I said earlier, the Kyoto summit is an important part of tackling the problem because it gives it worldwide recognition. Our Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the summits leading up to Kyoto, and by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment at Kyoto, worked towards achieving the first agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions and cut them by 5.5 per cent. by 2010. That does not solve the problem, but it is an acceptance that there is a big problem, and if we can achieve that target, it will be the first, small step towards a solution. I am proud of the cuts that Britain has achieved. The dash for gas is largely responsible for those—the energy policy that has produced the cuts is not very clever, but we lead the world in limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out that those are just the first steps and that we need cuts of 60 per cent. by the middle of the next

957
century. If we want sustainable development—the key term used by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis)—we need carbon dioxide emissions to be in balance with the world's capacity to absorb them. That would require a tenfold cut in present emissions which, politically, we cannot imagine unless we move away from fossil fuels. During the next 50 to 100 years, we must almost completely stop using them, which is why solar energy is so important.
I return now to the present target of a 20 per cent. cut in emissions. The Government have a series of policies, several of which have already been implemented, that will help to tackle the problem. I shall review each of them briefly, but critically. We have made good progress on energy efficiency. An extra £150 million has been allocated to the home energy efficiency scheme, and young, unemployed people are being recruited to the environmental task force to work on the homes of the elderly and the poorest people. The scheme cares for the elderly and provides employment and it is good socialism—[Interruption.] Yes, I used the word "socialism". If hon. Members prefer, I will say that it is good social justice. I do not think that they would disagree with that, even if they puff at the term "socialism". I am delighted that we are allocating substantially higher sums to the scheme.
Our combined heat and power targets for 2010 are sensible and, I hope, achievable. We aim for CHP to provide 12 per cent. of our electricity by 2010.
Mr. Brake: How helpful in achieving the 12 per cent. target does the hon. Gentleman think that applying the climate change levy to CHP will be?
Mr. Williams: It will be not at all helpful, but I point out in passing that in Wales the Baglan bay energy park scheme for energy generation will, when it is completed in three to five years, be an outstanding example of the efficient use of CHP energy by industry in this country.
On renewable energy, I said earlier that I am very disappointed by Britain's record over the past 30 years. In the 1970s, we realised that oil prices were a problem and that we needed to develop more sophisticated energy sources, and renewable energy suddenly acquired importance. However, over the past 20 years, we have always had a target of achieving 10 per cent. of power from renewable sources by the end of each decade, so the present target is 10 per cent. by 2010.
The record of achievement on renewable energy in the European Union reveals that we are 15th out of 15—a sorry bottom of the league. Yet our potential to harness wind, wave and tidal energy is greater than that of any European country. It makes no sense that Germany produces three times as much wind electricity as Britain. We have high environmental standards and planning regulations, but we are timid in our work on renewable energy.
Solar energy has to be the long-term answer. Britain is not sunny, compared to California, Italy or Spain, but in 100 years we will have to be producing most of our power from solar energy. The countries that are doing the basic scientific groundwork and adapting technologies to harness those energy sources are those that will have the industries to export that energy in 20 or 30 years. Our efforts to harness solar energy should be dramatically greater than they are.
958
The fuel duty escalator obviously is a politically difficult policy. Sadly, we need cross-party co-operation on difficult policies for environmentally achievable goals. We are not getting as much support as is needed—certainly not from the Conservative party, which introduced the fuel duty escalator and has now made a complete U-turn and is hostile to that policy.
I turn now to the climate change levy. I support a carbon tax or energy tax, and I always have done. The price of coal, gas and oil has dropped over the past 15 years. The price of oil is now $22 a barrel and has peaked at between $35 and $40. Coal prices have collapsed and gas is getting cheaper, so I cannot understand industry squealing about the introduction of an energy tax.
I attended the debate on the climate change levy last July. The levy should raise £1.7 billion, which will be reimbursed in national insurance contributions, so it is revenue neutral and will create employment. However, it will save only 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year, which, frankly, is trivial. That works out at £1,000 per tonne of carbon saved, when coal is about £50 a tonne. The punishment does not fit the crime; it is at least 10 times the cost of the energy. Therefore, the levy is very inefficient. Although I support it—the broad-brush approach of any punitive tax will act as a disincentive to use energy and so will surely have some effect—if all that it will save is 1.5 million tonnes, perhaps we should consider it a little further.
Finally, on tree planting, there was some discussion at Kyoto about emissions trading between countries, which has to be a large part of the long-term answer. Australia suggested plantations. It has large areas of land on which it wants to plant trees, which would help to absorb carbon dioxide. If it did, should it not get privileged treatment because it can set off its carbon dioxide emissions against those plantations?
The same goes for Britain. Let us consider the problems in our agricultural industry which, given the price of lamb, beef, milk and so forth, faces a real crisis. We must ask ourselves whether we are making the best use of our land. We want to use it for tourism and for environmental purposes as well as for food production. Originally, the land was covered in trees, which absorbed carbon dioxide. As the going rate—the climate change levy rate—is £1,000 per tonne, if we paid every farmer that sum for all the carbon that his trees can absorb, we would have millionaire farmers throughout Britain.
Tree planting must form a part of our carbon dioxide strategy. The highlands of Scotland and the mountains of north Wales used to be covered by trees. I read yesterday that Sussex was 95 per cent. woodland in Tudor times. We must consider tree planting as part of our rural and agricultural diversification policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I propose to take the winding-up speeches at 12.10 pm. Four Back Benchers still want to speak, so hon. Members can do their own calculations. I call the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis).
11.42 am
Mr. Cynog Dafis: First, there is no more important issue than the impact of climate change, and the fact that we again have time to consider it is welcome.

959
Secondly, I repeat what I said earlier about the planning framework, which is vital—and not merely for wind generation. There have been planning objections to important biomass proposals. In one case in Wales, the Newbridge-on-Wye combined sawmill and biomass plant was turned down on planning grounds. We must overcome that sort of obstacle to get the growth that we want, and to allow the redistribution of economic activity on a dispersed basis that goes with it. Such redistribution is an important side effect of moving into renewables. We are talking about decentralisation, embedded generation, small-scale power stations and so forth.
Briefly, on the climate change levy, there is no doubt that to reach the sustainability that we need, we have to use economic instruments to create a dynamic towards that goal. There is no doubt that if one uses such a policy, its effects will be far reaching, and there will be winners and losers. Overall, the planet must be the winner, but some sectors will certainly decline and there will be losers in the process.
A fundamental principle of the shift towards sustainable development is what is called the internalisation of external costs—of environmental costs. That process must happen gradually if we are to create the dynamic towards sustainability that is essential, and it implies a shift in the burden of taxation. To their credit, the Government have begun to embark upon the shift from what are popularly called environmental bads to environmental goods. We must tax those things that are harmful and reward those that are beneficial, which implies a significant change in the pattern of taxation.
The climate change levy is one example of that change and, on that basis, there is no way that it can be opposed in principle, although I agree with the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who said that he would have preferred a carbon tax, which would target carbon more effectively. I add one plea: we must be aware when imposing such a levy of its distributional effects. I hope that I do not sound guilty of special pleading, but the reality is that there is a great danger that the levy, if bluntly applied, will redistribute resources in the United Kingdom from areas that are suffering economic decline to those that are enjoying enormous economic growth—I mean the south-east of England, where there are high concentrations of service-based industries with proportionately low energy costs.
Such a redistribution must be a consideration, and we certainly need compensatory mechanisms. Bluntly applied, the levy could damage the economy of large parts of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. It could damage manufacturing—steel has been mentioned—and energy-intensive sectors as well as agriculture, which is under enormous pressure and could be further harmed. It should not be beyond the wit of man to design a system to redistribute the revenue from the climate change levy to favour the areas that need support and that are being disadvantaged.
For example, it would be ironic if areas of Wales that have been allocated objective 1 funding, because they are performing badly economically and have very low average gross domestic product with all the associated problems, received European money—we hope that they
960
will receive it—to provide the opportunity for sustainable economic development, but at the same time the climate change levy was sucking resources out of those areas.
I appeal to the Government to bear that in mind. One way to ensure that the effect of the levy is mitigated is to ensure that European funds for objective 1 and other structural fund programmes are additional. At the moment, there is no indication that they are likely to be additional to the existing Welsh block. I appeal for that additionality and sensitivity to the effects of the levy.
11.48 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate. He raised several important points and put forward a coherent argument to assist the Government in preparing their climate change programme later this year.
I think that this is the third Adjournment debate on climate change in the past 15 months, which is a measure of the growing interest in the subject among all Members of the House. It should also be a sign that it is time for the Government to arrange a debate on climate change in their time. The launch of the climate change strategy document towards the end of 1999 will, hopefully, be the time for such a debate.
It is interesting to see how the discussion has moved on during those debates—I have been present for all three—from the principle and the broad-brush arguments about climate change, and even whether it exists, to the detail. During the first debate, some Opposition Members made a significant attempt to deny the existence of climate change. During the second debate, they made a slightly less vociferous attempt to do so. Today, I do not hear anyone denying its existence. We are now focusing on what to do about it, and particularly on the details of the climate change levy. There are many details that need to be resolved quickly, if the Government have not already taken decisions on them.
There are serious issues concerning, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, the distributional effects from manufacturing to services, and from the north of the country to the south. It should be within the bounds of possibility to construct a scheme allowing for that. Another issue is the impact on renewables and combined heat and power, and it is critical that they should be exempt. It would be utterly self-defeating if the levy were introduced without such exemptions.
I recently visited two companies in my constituency, which I shall not name for reasons of confidentiality. It is interesting to observe the way in which some companies have responded to the proposed introduction of the levy. These two companies are traditional, well-established and well-managed companies, operating in old premises. They have calculated that they will be between £20,000 and £50,000 a year worse off as a result of the climate levy as currently proposed.
It struck me that the management of the companies accepted the need for the levy, and certainly accepted the existence of climate change. Management's concern was about the immediate impact on the company, and the broader impact on manufacturing. In my discussions with the two companies, it occurred to me, first, that they were the only two companies in my constituency that had contacted me, which is a significant indication that the

961
principle is broadly established. Three years ago, that was not the case, so opinion within industry seems to have shifted substantially.
I was struck, secondly, by the two companies' apparent lack of appreciation of the extra help that they could get, both from the £50 million allocated under the levy, and through other sources, for energy efficiency. The Government must do a great deal more work to publicise and promote the assistance that is available for energy efficiency, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises. The larger companies know what is available, because they have the specialist staff to do the necessary work, or if they do not have the expertise in-house, they know how to buy it in. For small and medium-sized companies, there is much work to be done to promote the concept of energy efficiency and provide advice to them.
We should not focus entirely on the climate change levy. The Government have a much broader programme for responding to climate change. The fuel duty escalator is part of that, and I hope that the Government will stick by the escalator as the years go by—not necessarily at exactly the same percentage, but as an important principle. It should be emphasised that the fuel duty escalator is a fair and progressive tax, because by and large, distance travelled by car closely equates to level of affluence. The Government have already made major strides in tackling fuel poverty, and have significantly increased the investment in assistance for energy efficiency.
If we focus entirely on the details, we are in danger of missing the big picture. My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) accurately painted the big picture, which we cannot ignore. In all our efforts to construct a climate change levy that is workable and that does not damage manufacturing industry excessively, we must realise that if we do not act, and if the levy and other policies are not introduced, in 20 or 30 years it will be extremely difficult to sustain any kind of manufacturing industry. The latest information suggests that we should not aim for reductions in CO2 of only 12.5 per cent. or even 20 per cent., but that within a generation, reductions of 50 per cent. will be necessary.
The strongest argument for the Government to act now is not just that it was a manifesto commitment to move to a 20 per cent. reduction, and not simply that our environmental leadership is part of our international credibility—we cannot over-emphasise the prestige that the United Kingdom has gained on the international stage because of its willingness to lead from the front in the Kyoto negotiations and on environmental policy generally—but that if we do not act now, in 10, 20 or 30 years the challenges facing us will be even greater.
Our future choice is represented by one of two scenarios. Either we must move as quickly as possible to an economy based largely on renewable forms of energy, and a reduction in the burning of hydrocarbon fuels is an essential stage towards that, or in the early years of the next century, we and other western nations will be engaged in an almost permanent series of wars with countries in the middle east that control the last remaining oil reserves. The prospect of permanent war with Iraq over the dwindling oil reserves on the planet is not a viable scenario or one that many people in this country want to envisage.
962
There is, therefore, an urgent need to tackle climate change and to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. The climate change levy is an important part of that. I hope that the Government will stick not only to our legally binding target of 12.5 per cent., but to our manifesto commitment of 20 per cent.
11.56 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I echo the closing comments of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and appeal to the Government to stick to their 20 per cent. target.
I shall not rehearse the arguments for tackling climate change or the evidence for the process of catastrophic climate change that we face. Time is short, so I shall concentrate on practicalities, not least for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury, North—the reality of climate change is widely accepted, except by a tiny minority in the House and outside.
I shall focus on the process of introducing environmental taxes, and the series of mistakes made by Governments that have brought that process into question politically. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) highlighted the political difficulties in tackling the issue. We must change ways of life and ways of doing things, though perhaps not as much as people imagine. There are alternative ways that need not make us poorer, but may protect our environment. Nevertheless, these are politically contentious issues.
The way in which Governments have gone about introducing the three significant environmental tax changes that have been introduced during my time in the House has considerably undermined the process. The first was the claim by the previous Conservative Government that VAT on fuel, which they introduced contrary to the promises in their general election manifesto, was an environmental tax measure. That caused serious problems in making the case.
First, the tax was not well directed at the issue, and it was not a carbon tax—it applied to all fuel and was particularly burdensome on the domestic sector. Secondly, it was contrary to a manifesto promise, so no attempt had been made to establish the basis for it. Thirdly and most significantly, it was a means of raising tax, and was never intended as an environmental tax. By dressing up a tax grab as an environmental tax change, the Conservative Government undermined the case for environmental taxes.
To win the case for environmental taxes, there must be a tax shift, not a tax increase. Why should people accept the need to pay ever more tax by the back door, simply because it is dressed up in a green way? That is no more likely to be popular than any other tax increase. However, if there is a tax shift—if there is a clear cut in other taxes—it can be popular.
The second environmental tax that was introduced, the fuel escalator, had greater success in its early life, partly because the need for it was better understood and, more importantly, because it had broad cross-party support in the House. Both the then Labour Opposition and we Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to stir up opposition to it, because it was a tax increase and failed on that score again, but that opportunity was not taken. Of course, we had points of disagreement on the basis on which it was introduced.

963
We believe that the fuel duty escalator should have been used to cut other taxes directly, most significantly by abolishing vehicle excise duty—the annual car tax—for most car owners. Something should have come back to people, which would have left many poorer drivers, including those in rural areas, better off as a result. Nevertheless, it was introduced as a necessary measure without coming under the sort of attacks that the Conservative party is making in opposition. Those attacks are particularly disreputable, because it is seeking to wipe out history—it introduced the measure in the first place—even though the escalator was introduced for important environmental reasons which have since become more important.
The fuel duty escalator was not an easy tax to introduce, and it had a more direct impact at the petrol pump and became a significant political issue when oil prices rose. I would have understood if Conservative spokespersons had wanted to review it in the circumstances, but they effectively deny their part in the process. However, the fundamental problem has been that people have received nothing in return: taxes have not been cut, at least not explicitly, nor has there been direct investment in improved public transport, which people might have considered to be an alternative.
Mr. Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on any political party that proposes abolition of the fuel duty escalator to say where it will get the extra tax take from?
Mr. Taylor: That will certainly come up in the Budget should such a move be made. It could be one use for the election war chest, but I would rather see investment in education and health.
The climate change levy succeeds in one key area in which the other two measures did not: there is an explicit link to a tax cut—national insurance. We will reduce taxes on a good—jobs—and instead put a tax on a bad—pollution. Although the Treasury has accepted that argument, the problem is that the tax is not well tuned to environmental issues because the process has been Treasury rather than environment led. The measure is undermining its own case once again and, therefore, the case for other environmental taxes.
The climate change levy is not a carbon tax and goes across the board on fuels, including renewable energy and combined heat and power schemes. As long as that is the case, it cannot credibly be argued that it is an effective environmental tax because we will be taxing the very things to which we want people to switch. If we simply wanted people to use less energy, that would be correct, but we do not want that. There is nothing wrong with using energy and the goods it provides; the use of carbon fuels is the problem.
The measure is being introduced in one go, but the Liberal Democrats propose that a carbon tax should be introduced gradually at about 1 per cent. per annum to stabilise the fall in fuel prices and to give a clear indication that, in the long term, there will be a gradual pick-up. That would be a signal to business to change its capital investment priorities so that higher priority was given to fuel saving, and it would allow it to engage in a
964
process of change. Introducing the measure in one go simply tells business that it will be paying for its past decisions and that there will be no way out until that process of capital renewal takes place over the longer term. That has fundamentally undermined the tax with industry.
As a result, industry is mounting a campaign effectively to emasculate the tax so that it will have no real impact where it could be of most use in reducing energy consumption and is asking for all sorts of cuts, discounts and exemptions. The measure was badly designed for the purpose it was meant to serve and, if recent newspaper reports are to be believed, the fear is that that may lead to the virtual emasculation of the levy. If that were to happen, for the third time in a row, bad tax design would have undermined the principle of environmental taxes, which I very strongly support.
12.4 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on initiating a further debate on this important issue. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the general intention behind the climate change levy and what the Government are seeking to achieve, but can my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the way in which the Government put these proposals into practice does not inadvertently discriminate against manufacturing industry in general and those manufacturers who have invested heavily in recent years in reducing emissions in particular? The Government's stated aim of achieving revenue neutrality across the economy could, I fear, inadvertently lead to precisely such discrimination and imbalance.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) highlighted exactly that point and considered the measure geographically, from area to area. I agree with what he said, but I am sure that he agrees that we must also consider its impact from sector to sector. It could mean—and, if crudely interpreted, it will mean—that service industries such as banks, insurance companies, shops, hotels and offices in general will benefit in relation to manufacturing industry. That cannot be the Government's intention and is surely the wrong approach. Indeed, it would damage manufacturing industry, and so jobs and exporters, all over the country.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), I have been approached by companies in my constituency—almost every ceramics company, for example, and other large manufacturers such as Michelin. That may not come as a surprise to him, but, like him, I have been impressed that companies have recognised that the overall intention is virtuous. I have also been impressed by the way in which so many companies—famous names such as Wedgwood, Royal Doulton, Spode, Dudsons, Steelite, Portmeirion, H. and R. Johnson and Gerald Tams, which are the cream of our ceramics industry—have made huge efforts to invest in energy-saving techniques over the past 10 years. They have done so for their own benefit and for their own profits, but also to try to save jobs and ensure the continuity of their industry, so it would be perverse if their good work was not taken into account.
However, precisely because those companies invested in the past, the easy pickings of savings over the next few years will not be available to them as they will be to less

965
responsible manufacturers, who will easily be able to achieve substantial savings when the levy is introduced. I cannot believe that the Government want to introduce a levy that would benefit irresponsible manufacturers over responsible manufacturers who have so invested.
There are further hidden problems. How will companies such as Acme Marls in Stoke-on-Trent, which makes kiln furniture, be treated? It has been developing a new generation of kiln furniture that will conduct energy more efficiently and reduce the energy needs of its customers. Producing that furniture is more energy expensive and, perversely, it will be increasing its energy costs in order to pass on to its customers techniques that will reduce energy consumption considerably. What it is achieving overall is virtuous, but there is a danger that it will be penalised because its energy costs will increase in order for it to save energy for other people.
Those examples show that implementing the measure will be a great deal more difficult than it appears to be at first, and I welcome the discussions that the Government have been having with manufacturing industry in general, in which the British Ceramic Confederation has been taking part. I hope that that suggests that they recognise the importance of manufacturing industry. We are not a service industry economy; manufacturing industry employs more than 4 million people and still accounts for 60 per cent. of our exports. We must listen to its concerns, particularly the concerns of responsible manufacturers.
I hope that the Government will take those points on board when the discussions with manufacturing industry come to fruition and that they find a way of implementing this important levy in a way that benefits manufacturing and encourages it to invest in energy-saving techniques. They should not penalise the most responsible manufacturers.
12.10 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who deserves our thanks for allowing us to debate the important issue of climate change. I am also happy to assure hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), that Conservative Members take climate change seriously. Although there is still some scientific controversy about whether climate change is caused entirely by human activity or by a curious cyclical pattern that we do not yet understand, I certainly feel that the precautionary principle should apply, and that we should not take the risk with our planet of not doing something about such change.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that the Government have more to do at Bonn, and I entirely agree with him. Moreover, quite apart from Ministers' own activities—which I shall deal with in a moment—one might wish that they would be more persuasive than they have been to date in persuading the United States Government to sign up to the international commitments on climate change, as that would send the most important signal in persuading other countries to fall into line.
Many hon. Members have dealt with the fuel duty escalator. It is absurd for Liberal Democrat Members to advance the proposition that, once a tax has been introduced, it should not only continue for ever, but be
966
increased for ever. That seemed to be the position that they were expressing in this debate. I remind the House that the tax was introduced as an escalator. What does one do when reaching the top of an escalator? One gets off it. One does not say, "We are staying on the escalator, and we shall make it even steeper."
We have all read leaked reports that the Chancellor has listened to focus groups and is planning either to drop the escalator entirely or to modify it. I therefore caution those Labour Members who have spoken so strongly in favour of the escalator that they may be going off message.
Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me or my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) express the view on taxes that he attributed to Liberal Democrat Members. The fuel duty escalator can, of course, be revisited. The official Opposition should perhaps also revisit their own budgetary figures, which still include the fuel duty escalator.
Mr. Green: I am happy to receive the usual confirmation that the Liberal Democrats are capable of changing policy in the course of a one and a half hour debate.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) made a very important point on forestry and the use of trees as a counter-balance to CO2 emissions. I entirely support him on that important initiative, and urge him and other hon. Members to act strongly against the type of planning proposals made in the past few weeks by planning inspectors, particularly in the south-east of England, which would entail concreting over large green areas and, inevitably, the loss of much tree cover. Giving effect to such proposals would be extremely dangerous.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr specifically mentioned various parts of the country that once had many trees. Our remaining areas covered by trees are precisely those that the Department's own planning inspectors are advising should be concreted over. [Interruption.] I am fascinated that Labour Members find that amusing, but suspect that their constituents might take a different view on the matter.
At Bonn, Ministers will have to defend their record. Before the general election, they set their sights very high, claiming to be the first truly green Government whom Britain had ever had. Only Labour Members who are very deluded or very desperate for office could believe that that promise is being met. However, those who are most concerned about the environment in the United Kingdom certainly do not believe that it is being met.
The head of policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the Prime Minister
"is not interested in the environment and he has surrounded himself with advisers who are not interested either."
Friends of the Earth, commenting on the so-called green taxes in the most recent Budget, said that the Chancellor's
"so-called 'green' Budget measures are just tokenistic. They will not combat climate change."
Rebellion is mounting even inside the Labour camp. In the past couple of weeks, the general secretary of the

967
Fabian Society—which is possibly not often quoted by Conservative spokesmen—has published a pamphlet stating:
"It's evident that new Labour is not comfortable on this territory. Labour does not perceive environmental issues to be major priorities for ordinary voters. In fact they tend to see them as positively anti-voter."
I could not have put that better. The Fabian Society believes that the Government are not interested in environmental measures, but actively hostile to many environmental policies.
Before the general election, the Government not only wished to sign up to the Kyoto commitments, as they eventually emerged, but set themselves an extra, voluntary hurdle. Subsequently, we have seen the Government consistently slithering around on the issue, consistently softening their language, so that a commitment has become an "aim", a "target" and a "goal". One thing that the Minister could do today is to give the House a firm assurance that the Government's commitment on the more stringent target is not being watered down.
I shall not enter a debate on whether and how many Ministers should resign if the commitment has not been met because, as has already been observed today, it is not due to be met until 2010, and, very possibly, we may all be occupying different Benches by then. Nevertheless, the commitment is important, and I hope that the Government will stick to it.
What have Ministers done to combat climate change? The answer is, not much. Their first act was to change the planning system for power generation, to make it easier to build coal-fired power stations and to impose a moratorium on the use of gas, which is much cleaner. Although we all know the political reasons why the Government made the change, it would be hypocritical for any Government to make such a change and still to claim environmental credentials. Such a policy is simply not consonant with good environmental practice.
The Government's record on renewable energy has been equally bad. Solar energy has been mentioned often today, but hon. Members should be aware that solar energy is taken much more seriously in other countries. The German Government, for example, have established an explicit target of fitting 100,000 homes with solar panels. Japan's target is 70,000 homes. However, the British Government—who came to power claiming that they would be the greenest Government in history—have established a target of precisely 100 homes. I hope that the Minister will be able to express some contrition about that.
Environmental groups have noticed the Government's record on renewable energy. The RSPB has said that the Government's renewable electricity generation target is not clear and unambiguous—which, perhaps, it should be.
One thing that the Government can do is to set an example—which, in words, they certainly do. There is a fascinating document, entitled the "DETR Greening Operations Policy Statement", which is available on the DETR website and includes as part of the Department's own targets the reduction
"of greenhouse gas emissions by controlling, where feasible, other gaseous and non-gaseous pollutants which contribute to climate change. For example by switching where possible from HFCs used as refrigerants and in fire extinguishing systems to environmentally preferable substitutes".
968
In July, in a parliamentary question, I asked a previous DETR Minister what percentage of the Department's refrigerators used hydrofluorocarbons, to which he replied:
"Decisions on the purchase of refrigerators are for the Department's local property centres and details are not recorded centrally."—[Official Report, 12 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 12.]
The Government have set their Departments a specific target on how to deal with what they acknowledge to be a very important matter, but they do not collect centrally details on achieving that target. Perhaps the Government's target was, appropriately enough, simply hot air. If they will not set themselves targets or collect information on them, they are simply not taking the matter seriously.
I cannot improve on the arguments that have been made against the climate levy by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Government think that the levy is an appropriate green tax, they are simply wrong. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, the levy would be perversely redistributive. Subsequently, some hon. Members discussed how to establish new and complex distributive mechanisms, whereby the tax would be taken from companies in one part of the United Kingdom, distributed to companies in another area—where they may not deserve it—but then taken back by the Government, to be redistributed to more deserving areas. The levy will not be an effective brake on carbon emissions and the need to devise elaborate redistribution mechanisms shows that the Government should do more than the softening that one assumes that they will announce next week. They should scrap the levy so that they can start again with something more appropriate.
The Minister should go to Bonn with a deep sense of humility. Britain's contribution to combating global warming under this Government has been profoundly inadequate. Hon. Members on both sides must hope that Ministers will do better on that vital issue in the second half of this Parliament.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing a debate on one of the most important environmental challenges facing the world. He raised several important issues during his interesting speech. I shall deal with them at various points in my reply. I thank him for his courtesy in having given me notice of his main areas of concern.
The debate has been notable for the high level of participation by representatives of the Principality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is always a powerful advocate of the steel industry. He referred to the climate change levy, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis). We have also heard exceptionally well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), as well as a thought-provoking contribution from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). I am also grateful for the highly environmental contribution of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who represents, if I may say so, the green wing of the Conservative Front-Bench environment and transport team. I hope that he is not too isolated there.

969
The debate is timely, coinciding with the fifth conference of the parties to the UN framework convention of climate change in Bonn. If climate change is allowed to proceed in the absence of policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, serious damage is expected, threatening global food production, leading to the loss of ecosystems and forcing millions of people to move from our coastal communities. To improve our understanding of such dangerous levels of climate change, last week we published a report on the global impacts of climate change. Compiled by the Hadley centre and other researchers, the report explores the impacts that we might expect if levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were stabilised at 550 parts per million and 750 parts per million—in other words at about twice pre-industrial and present day levels respectively. To reach those levels, global emissions of greenhouse gases would have to be cut significantly. This is the first time that climate predictions from such action have been used to assess global impacts and vulnerability.
The results make worrying reading. Without limits on emissions of greenhouse gases, many parts of the world will suffer severe consequences during the next century. As is often the case, the poorest and least developed countries will be the most vulnerable and the least able to respond. Climate change will add to the problems that many countries already face, such as flooding, hunger and water shortages.
Despite those stark projections, the research shows that there is still time to act. If we can limit emissions, we can slow the rate of change and minimise many of the worst impacts. By stabilising carbon dioxide at 550 parts per million—the level proposed by the European Union to guide emissions reduction efforts—we can limit future temperature rise to an additional 2 deg C, avoid the loss of tropical forests in northern Brazil, prevent 2 billion people experiencing increased water shortages by the 2080s and reduce by about 75 million the number of people flooded each year.
The message from the research is clear: we must take early action if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change and buy time to adapt. However, without early action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, the rate of change will increase throughout the next century. Those changes will impact on society in unprecedented ways. Fortunately, the international community has begun to respond to the threats.
The UK has been at the forefront of international negotiations on climate change. We were instrumental in securing the deal at Kyoto in 1997. That was a truly historic step, when, for the first time, developed countries committed themselves to reducing their combined greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The European Union agreed to reduce emissions by 8 per cent. and the subsequent redistribution of the Kyoto target in the EU was agreed under the UK's presidency. Under that agreement, the UK's target is a 12.5 per cent. cut. We have gone further by setting ourselves a challenging domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Our immediate priority is to make Kyoto work. Last year in Buenos Aires, we agreed an ambitious work
970
programme that set the sixth conference of the parties—COP 6—as the deadline for reaching decisions on many of the outstanding issues including the Kyoto mechanisms. COP 6 is not far away. It will be held at the end of 2000 or early in 2001. There is still a lot of work to be completed if we are to meet the deadline.
Over the next week or so, COP 5 will concentrate on making as much technical progress as possible. My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment are attending the ministerial segment in the middle of COP 5, which is intended to review progress and help give a renewed political impetus to negotiations.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that the UK meets its climate change targets. We are developing a new climate change programme that will set out how we plan to meet our Kyoto target and move towards our domestic goal. We aim to publish our draft programme for consultation around the turn of the year and to have a final programme in place by mid-2000. The climate change levy will be one of the key elements of our draft programme. Details of the design of the levy are still under consideration following a period of consultation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make further announcements in the pre-Budget statement on 9 November. However, the House will be aware that the Government made it clear that we intend to negotiate agreements with energy-intensive sectors for reduced rates of the levy. At the same time we have said that an additional £50 million will be recycled from the proceeds of the levy to support renewables and energy efficiency.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hill: I regret that I cannot because I am so pressed for time.
I hope that the House agrees that we have adopted a properly balanced approach. We have been keen to stress that action to tackle climate change can bring gain, not pain. A more energy-efficient industry will be more competitive. A better transport system will be good for the economy and for society. Better insulated homes will be more comfortable and cheaper to live in. There are tremendous opportunities for business and for jobs in the traditional and emerging environmental technologies.
Actions speak louder than words. Policies already introduced show that we mean business. Our new integrated transport policy provides a framework for a range of measures that will deliver a better-quality transport system with lower CO2 emissions. Changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to transport taxation will cut emissions. The new climate change levy will encourage businesses to use energy more efficiently. In March this year, we published a consultation paper on "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the 21st Century", which outlines the options for providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies from renewable sources as soon as possible. We are working with business to develop a domestic emissions trading scheme which will give UK firms valuable experience in advance of the launch of an international scheme. We are committed to publishing our first report on whether to set a national road traffic reduction programme target by the end of this year.

971
Climate change is a multi-disciplinary issue which will impinge on all regions and sectors. It is a global problem which will ultimately require substantial global action to reduce emissions. However, we all have a part to play in raising awareness about climate change and tackling its causes. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this instructive and interesting debate.

Flu Vaccine (Southern Derbyshire)
12.30 pm
Liz Blackman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of flu vaccine, with particular reference to southern Derbyshire, especially in flu awareness week.
We have just returned from our summer recess, but October is nearly over and we must start to consider the risk to a certain percentage of the population who may well contact flu and other associated diseases during the coming months.
On an average winter day, family doctors will write more than 100,000 more prescriptions than they do in summer. In December alone, the national health service expects 15 per cent. more emergency hospital admissions than in August and local peaks can be much higher, especially when people stay at home longer and have increased close contact with family and friends over the winter holiday period. This year, the situation could well be compounded by the millennium celebrations.
The Government are to be congratulated on their winter pressures approach and the substantial extra resources they provided last winter. My local health authority received £40,000 to enable primary care groups to use nursing home beds and thus reduce in-patient admissions and care for people in the most appropriate setting. That was most welcome.
The winter pressures initiative has developed considerably since its inception. In southern Derbyshire, which includes my constituency, managers have been incredibly proactive in addressing the issue. The winter pressures plan, requested by the Department of Health, is a collaboration between social services acute trusts, local general practitioners and primary care groups to plan for increased demand over the winter period. Southern Derbyshire, along with every other health authority, has identified the need to be better prepared in light of the millennium. It has linked the millennium planning process with the public sector relations group, bringing together many agencies to combat the projected problems.
Southern Derbyshire health authority, along with the Department of Health, has identified that targeting flu vaccination is a vital strategy in alleviating winter pressures. The virus has the potential of presenting as lethargy, a cold, a sore throat or wheezing, requiring a visit to the GP or chemist. The results can vary from minor disruption at home or work to serious, life-threatening epidemics which can have disastrous effects on the NHS, which attempts to treat sufferers and prevent the disruption of other services. Even in a non-epidemic year, the sector of the population whose resistance is poor can suffer numerous deaths as a direct result of flu and related complications. Rightly, that sector has been divided into high-risk groups: people with heart disease, lung disease, asthma, diabetes and immunosuppression; those in long-stay residential care; and those aged 75 and over, who the Government identified as a risk category in 1998.
Why do we regard the vaccine as effective in reducing flu in those groups? It is designed using the strains of virus closely related to those expected to be circulating in any particular year. The World Health Organisation co-ordinates global surveillance, which means that in

973
most years there is a good match. The vaccines are 70 to 80 per cent. effective—they are not as effective as some, but they are pretty good.
It is also worth considering the cost of not vaccinating effectively. When I asked a parliamentary question last July, I learned that no figures relating to the cost of the flu epidemic last winter were available centrally. We must try to calculate the expenditure on treatment of this acute disease. We must consider the cost of suffering and lives when complications set in or flu exacerbates an underlying condition, and also the loss of wages and lifetime earnings due to morbidity and mortality.
So what is the cost of targeting groups at risk? Of course, there is the cost of the vaccine. According to the latest figures, it will cost between £5.07 and £5.70 per dose. There are also costs associated with administering the vaccine, treating any adverse effects and implementing the immunisation programme and health promotion. On Monday, at the press conference launching flu awareness week, an initiative sponsored by the Association for Influenza Monitoring, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Royal College of General Practitioners, the chief medical officer and the Minister agreed that immunisation of high-risk groups is their best defence against flu. So we are all saying that prevention is better than cure.
So is this effective measure a success? Apparently, the take-up is not as good as it could be. In southern Derbyshire, estimated target population figures for those in high-risk groups requiring the influenza vaccine have been set at 140,000, yet last winter just over half that number—73,000—were given or claimed the vaccine. However, it is impossible to say what percentage were in the high-risk group. According to Dr. Van Tam, a senior lecturer in public health medicine at Nottingham medical school, who is regarded as something of an expert, the figure could be as low as 12 per cent. or as high as 25 per cent. That is not particular to my area. An article by the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1997, which gave information on the uptake of the influenza vaccine in high-risk groups, noted that the overall uptake was estimated to be low—about 23 per cent.—and was particularly poor in younger members of the group. About 44 per cent. of those aged over 65 and 13 per cent. of those aged between 34 and 49 were estimated to have received the vaccine.
Since 1998, when those aged 75 and over were identified as a high-risk group, new figures should show a substantial increase in the uptake of the vaccine. However, many are still falling through the safety net of adequate preventive provision by way of a simple flu vaccine. The statistics are estimates as the data count the number of vaccinations given or claimed for. There is no routinely collected or available data showing which people in which risk group have been vaccinated.
Individual practices should keep details of who has been given the vaccine and when, but they are not required to report this information. Does the Minister agree that a more coherent and co-ordinated way of collecting, recording, analysing and reporting data would ensure a better understanding of the national picture. Could such a body as the Public Health Laboratory Service be resourced to monitor coverage and uptake of vaccines in risk groups?
974
Undoubtedly, however, the uptake of the flu vaccination by the target group could be improved. The Department of Health does not currently set targets for increasing the percentage of people in risk groups receiving influenza vaccinations because of the difficulty of accurately assessing denominators for the risk groups. Will the Minister look again at the issue of target setting and consider whether it is possible to set targets, especially in the 75-plus age group and for those in long-term care?
At the heart of flu awareness week is the crucial role that GPs and other health professionals are expected to play. That is the expectation of the chief medical officer, the Government and local health authorities and the overall message of the flu awareness campaign. They rightly focus on the key role of GPs because patient surveys show that the single most important factor affecting whether an individual is immunised or not is whether the doctor or nurse recommended it. However, practice in my constituency varies, as I am sure it does across the country.
Some GPs target the high-risk groups in a rigorous way, as they would if they were calling in women for smears. Others rely on posters or leaflets, or both. Some practices have the information technology and resources to identify the risk groups, but others appear not to have them. The ability of IT to identify and target risk groups is variable. Sometimes the data may be on the system, but not in a way that they can be used. There are also training needs to be considered.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister see any improvements that could be made to ensure a more consistent approach? There is no national target payment, although I understand that payments are made to GPs in some regions for giving out the flu vaccine. Would she consider incentivising GPs to vaccinate at-risk groups?
I noted that one London practice had a very good take-up rate because of a more co-ordinated approach by all the health professionals: doctors, nurses, health visitors and pharmacists. Is my hon. Friend aware of GP practices or health authorities that have a better success rate and would she consider disseminating their best practice?
Is there an opportunity, as the focus widens in health action zones, to incorporate some of those related issue into their remit? Health promotion is a vital part of increasing uptake, and there needs to be an on-going process. There is a timing factor involved in when the flu vaccine is administered, but the overall message about prevention and year-on-year uptake needs to be continually reinforced, as is done in child immunisation programmes.
I applaud the Government's tremendous efforts to be proactive with their winter pressures policy and their endorsement of flu awareness week. The local public health co-ordinator for southern Derbyshire has been publicly very positive about the campaign and the progress being made with the Government's support. I accept that much of the framework for monitoring, targeting and co-ordinating the flu vaccine is historic: we have inherited it.
Given the known effectiveness of the vaccine in the target groups, will my hon. Friend consider the issues that I have raised and whether there is any scope for reconsidering the rationale behind the 75-year-plus group? Will she consider the many countries that target people

975
over 65 on the basis that that broader group contains the majority of at-risk people? Risk groups overlap, especially in the higher age range. Perhaps she could consider the percentage of deaths attributed to influenza in that category.
The World Bank has described targeted immunisation as one of the most cost-effective public health interventions. Is there scope for further improvement in our approach in the United Kingdom? I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's views and thoughts.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) for her excellent timing in raising the topic of flu immunisation during flu awareness week and for her interesting speech and informed points. She is certainly right to say that there is scope for improvement.
This is the time of year, ahead of the winter, when those patients for whom flu can be a serious illness should be getting their jabs from GPs. For most people—those who are otherwise fit and healthy—flu is unpleasant but not serious. The doctor's advice is usually to stay home, stay warm, drink plenty of fluids and look after oneself. For others, however, it can be very serious. As many as 3,000 to 4,000 people, mainly elderly, are estimated to die from flu each year, even in years when flu has been relatively mild.
In the last severe epidemic, in 1989–90, as many as 26,000 deaths over and above those expected were recorded during the epidemic period. Flu is not a subject that we take lightly and it is important that we do everything that we can to prevent flu among those likely to suffer most.
The Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation identifies the risk groups as people with underlying diseases such as chronic respiratory disease, chronic heart or kidney disease or diabetes; and people whose immune systems are impaired by disease or through treatments such as cancer therapy or steroids. They have a higher risk that a bout of flu will lead to serious illness such as bronchitis or pneumonia.
Although the elderly are more at risk, people of any age with those conditions are at increased risk and that risk increases further when an individual has more than one of the underlying problems. The Department of Health recommends, on the basis of the committee's recommendations, that people in those circumstances should get a flu jab before the winter begins. The Department also recommends that people in long-stay residential accommodation should also be vaccinated, because flu, once introduced there, can spread very rapidly. From last year, everyone aged 75 or more has also been recommended to be immunised.
My hon. Friend asks whether we will consider extending that to everyone over 65. Further investigation and analysis are taking place. The Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation is examining the question and will make recommendations according to the evidence of what impact there will be on different groups.
As my hon. Friend says, we have increased the number of vaccinations in the past few years. Last year, more than 7 million doses were given, compared with only 6 million
976
doses three years ago. This year, we have more vaccine than ever available—more than 8.5 million doses; but she is absolutely right, we could do better. The most recent national data point to low uptake rates, especially among younger people in the risk groups. Ultimately, it is up to patients to decide for themselves whether they want to be vaccinated but we must ensure that they are fully aware of the options and the risks when they make that decision.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the data that we have are not adequate to tell us exactly what is going on and what we should be doing about it. I want to explain in some detail the data that we have at the moment and the direction in which I believe we should be moving. For a start, we know from the manufacturers how much vaccine will be available in advance of the flu immunisation programme. Manufacturers also give the Department of Health a weekly update at this time of year on the number of doses distributed and what is still available should there be additional need.
We have some idea of the use of vaccines by GPs. Like the analysis given by my hon. Friend today, we can use prescription data to show the number of vaccine doses that GPs are delivering, but she is absolutely right to say that they do not tell us whether an individual GP is targeting the vaccine to those most in need—those identified as belonging to high-risk groups.
Before last year, reliable national estimates of flu vaccine uptake in our targeted groups were not available. Last year, that gap was partly plugged. The Public Health Laboratory Service calculated the national uptake rates using the general practice research database: records from a representative sample of general practitioners throughout the country. That analysis has allowed us, for the first time, to make an assessment of the recent performance of the NHS in delivering flu vaccine policy, as it enables us to track the health condition of those who are vaccinated.
Only by using such analysis can accurate figures be produced for uptake of flu vaccine in the recommended groups. The latest figures from the database show that in the winter of 1996–97, 23 per cent. of the high-risk population were vaccinated and 44 per cent. of those over 75 with high-risk conditions. That was before the aim to include all people over 75 was introduced.
The figures also show that half the total vaccinations given went to people not considered to be at high risk. We plan to use that system from now on to monitor uptake regularly and as a basis for reviewing the implementation of the programme in future and determining what further improvements can be made. That is a major step forward, but we still lack any information on how individual GPs, rather than a sample of GPs throughout the country, are managing to reach their target groups.
The flu immunisation programme is delivered largely by general practitioners and practice nurses. GPs should identify their targeted population through whatever methods are available to them: most can do it through their computer systems; others have chronic disease registers or can identify patients through repeat prescriptions for particular medicines. GPs then need to order their vaccine early in the year so that supply can be assured.
Vaccine is delivered to practices in September to October, when patients need to be contacted to attend an immunisation session or other arrangements are made.

977
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have very limited information on how far individual GPs are achieving that and how wide the variations are across practices in different parts of the country.
Given the Department's commitment to reducing health inequalities and to making sure that people's treatment from the NHS is not dependent on where they live, we consider this matter to be important. However, we are putting in place changes which should make the process easier in future. We are developing standards for electronic patient records and we plan to have comprehensive coverage by the year 2002. This, together with new systems, should enable us to tie together the information available and to examine individual practice level data. It should give us considerable scope to identify best practice across the country, and give us the opportunity to spread that further in future.
The second important strand in my hon. Friend's argument concerns how we spread best practice. First, the Government are promoting immunisation policy at a national level. Tips on how to run a successful programme are published in the Department of Health's memorandum "Immunisation against infectious disease"—the GPs immunisation bible. In that advice—entitled "Increasing the uptake of influenza vaccine"—the memorandum points out clearly that
"the single most important factor in patients accepting influenza vaccine is that their doctor recommended it".
Doctors and nurses are encouraged to maintain registers of their patients who should be immunised. On top of this, the chief medical officer writes to GPs each year, reminding them further of the need to target the risk groups.
The Department of Health works closely with the Association for Influenza Monitoring and Surveillance in the build-up to flu awareness week. The purpose of the week is to get the message to the public that if they think that they may be in a risk group, they should see their doctor and arrange to be immunised. Flu awareness week is a highly successful campaign. It is launched through a press conference—chaired by the chief medical officer—to which my hon. Friend referred. Hon. Members may have heard the chief medical officer on "Today", ITN and other media on Friday promoting the message that flu vaccine can save the lives of those at risk.
Flu awareness week is supported by Help the Aged, the British Diabetic Association, the British Lung Foundation, the National Asthma Campaign, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing. Both Help the Aged and the British Lung Foundation have produced flu leaflets to help promote the uptake of immunisation in the risk groups.
Separately, the Department of Health and the NHS have this year run extra activities to raise public awareness of flu vaccine. In September this year—for the first time—as part of the winter planning round, health authorities were provided with a briefing pack, including a press release suitable for local use to support local activity around flu awareness week. The Department of Health has produced leaflets and posters which are available free.
Health authorities should be able to see whether an individual GP is prescribing broadly too little or too much vaccine, given the number of patients he has on his list.
978
GPs should be able to identify best practice locally. Using these data, health authorities should support those GPs who are not giving sufficient priority to the immunisation needs of their patients. They should encourage them up to the levels of the better GPs.
All practices should be able to identify risk groups and should be able to identify their own level of performance. Health authorities should be promoting good practice across their GPs. Prescribing advisers are employed by health authorities to help promote good prescribing practice, including flu immunisation.
The introduction of primary care groups should increase the peer pressure to follow better prescribing practices, and make the best use of resources to support the health needs of their populations. Clinical governance offers a framework within which primary care groups can work to improve and assure the quality of clinical services for all patients. In addition, we are currently looking at broader accountability and service issues within the GP contract, as is the General Medical Council. The GMC is looking to revalidate GPs and all doctors on the basis of the quality of service that they provide. Together, these new structures should provide a series of routes by which we should be able to increase the uptake of flu vaccine in recommended groups. However, we will continually monitor and examine this matter as progress is made.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked if we would consider introducing targets. I can tell her that I will certainly look closely at the points she makes. It is true that the Department does not at present set national targets for the uptake of flu vaccine. We have aimed at year-on-year increases. This has reflected the historical lack of good estimates of vaccine uptake. As I have mentioned, it is difficult to introduce targets when we do not have adequate information about who exactly is receiving the vaccine in the first place. However, we do now have estimates of flu vaccine uptake on a national level, and the equivalent data at a local level should be a matter for local planning.
Due to the difficulty in accurately estimating flu vaccine uptake, those health authorities which have looked at setting local targets on flu vaccination have focused on the percentage of over-75s being immunised. That is easier to quantify. Nevertheless, age on its own is not the most important risk factor. We must ensure that we do not divert attention from the need to maximise the uptake among everyone with these underlying risk conditions, whatever age they happen to be.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will now be looking carefully at how targets could be used in the future to ensure that we achieve higher uptake without distorting the priority groups. We will review the latest data in the light of additional information from the general practice research database, and we will look at the direction in which the figures are moving in the future.
I would like to thank my hon. Friend once more for raising this timely and important subject, and I commend her on providing the information on what southern Derbyshire is doing to improve flu vaccination and preventive measures. Obviously, the more we can do to prevent the serious nature of the disease, the better it would be, rather than to place additional burdens on the NHS. Delivering flu vaccine in such wide numbers is something that the NHS must plan around—it cannot be

979
delivered easily and quickly. Individual GP practices and health authorities should make adequate plans to make sure that they reach the target groups.
This is a vital public health measure. I will be looking to see what improvements we can make before next year's winter flu awareness week.

Pig Industry
12.58 pm
Mr. David Prior: I am delighted to introduce this debate on the crisis facing the pig industry. Many producers have left the industry, and many more are staring ruin in the face. Desperate farmers have remortgaged their houses, borrowed from their pension funds and built up unsustainable levels of overdraft.
Pig farmers are not subsidised; they do not receive one penny from Westminster or from Brussels. They tend to be small, specialist family concerns. They work 365 days and nights a year, often in conditions that many would find unacceptable. Above all, perhaps, farmers experience intense loneliness, and it is probably for that reason that suicide is so prevalent.
Robert Steven, one of my constituents, is the chairman of the Norfolk section of the National Farmers Union. He said recently:
"the position has been getting quite diabolical. While the countryside looks fresh and green, it hides an awful lot of troubles in the industry."
My constituent, Mr. Taylor from Ludham, writes that he has kept pigs since 1944. He says:
"I am sorry and sad that my son now has only 20 sows left and these will be gone in a few weeks."
Janet Mutimer—who is down here from Norfolk today—lives close to me in Norfolk. She writes:
"Thousands of breeding stock are being slaughtered, jobs on farms and in allied industries lost, our industry is being exported by the Government."
Ian Campbell, the regional chairman of the British Pig Industry Support Group, says that
"the industry is dying on its feet with the industry facing melt down."
My local newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, is leading a campaign
"to rescue an industry which is bleeding to death."
The paper says that
"if Nick Brown persists in the policy of delay and quietly doing nothing, there will be no trace left of the pig industry."
It is that serious.
Between 1998 and 1999, pig farmers' incomes have fallen by 174 per cent. and they will be in loss for 1999. The UK pig herd has contracted by 12 per cent., and the weekly kill rate has fallen from 330,000 to 260,000, which is the lowest level for 33 years, according to the Meat and Livestock Commission. The average all pig price is stuck at 75p per kilogram, which is 15p below break-even point for most farmers. Imports of pigmeat from the EU increased by nearly a third in the first half of 1999.
What more evidence do the Government need before they decide to take some action? One gets the impression that their policies are more informed by "The Archers" and "Cold Comfort Farm" than by real life, and that they have no concern about, knowledge of or interest in the British pig industry. It is almost as if the Government regard it as a virtual crisis, not a real one. At the MLC breakfast yesterday at which pig awards were given out, there was not a single Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food present.
The Government must and can take the following actions. First, they must stipulate that all local authorities and public bodies must buy meat that complies with the

981
British standard. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised to do that a year ago, but a survey to be published next week shows that more than half of all local authorities have made no change to their purchasing policies. It would seem that the Minister and MAFF do not even have the energy to ensure that bodies under their direct control support British farmers.
The chairman of the British Pig Association wrote to me in the following terms:
"The Minister should take a much more vigorous line with retailers and caterers in the private and public sector who undermine the UK pig industry by importing substandard foreign pigmeat and who do not specify the UK's high welfare and food production standards."
I hope today that the Minister will state categorically what she has done in that respect.
Secondly, labelling must be honest. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) have taken an especial interest in that point. Every consumer must know the origin of the meat that they purchase and the regime under which that meat is reared, fed, slaughtered and processed. Currently, under EU regulations, foreign-reared pigmeat that does not comply with UK welfare and safety standards can be imported, processed and then labelled as British bacon or ham. That is an outrageous situation.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies for the British pig industry is that it has met the highest standards, but ironically it is now being penalised for doing so? As far as its members can see, nothing has been done to address the situation for the past year, since the present Minister of Agriculture took office.
Mr. Prior: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the tragedies of the situation that this country has led the world in animal welfare. The British farmer, at a capital cost of more than £200 million and on-going operating costs of £2 per finished pig, has rightly abolished sow stalls and tethers. In Europe, sows are still tethered and still spend 275 days a year in a sow stall measuring less than 8 ft long and 2 ft wide. Some are even smaller. Those pigs cannot move or turn around. We have rightly outlawed that barbarous practice in this country.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said:
"The sharp rise in pigmeat imports into the UK this year is very bad news for animal welfare, since most of it will have been produced under conditions which are illegal in the UK. If retailers, caterers and the public fail to consider production methods and buy on price alone, they will undermine the advances in farm animal welfare the UK has achieved."
The campaign director of Compassion in World Farming has written to the Minister to say:
"I am concerned to learn that, according to recent Eurostat figures, the volume of pigmeat imports into the UK from the EU rose by 34 per cent. in the first five months of this year. Much of this imported pigmeat may have been produced using stall or tether systems in which sows cannot exercise or even turn round throughout their 16-week pregnancies."
The consumer must be given the opportunity to make an informed choice to support high welfare standards by buying home-grown and reared production. Many
982
consumers are buying pigmeat unwittingly, unaware that it has been produced in conditions rightly banned in this country.
Mr. Anthony Steen: How is that pigmeat coming into this country? I thought that the European Union set certain standards and if the meat is coming in from outside the EU, should not the Commission do something about that?
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Thirdly, the Minister should invoke article 36 of the treaty of Rome to ban meat imports that do not comply with our public health specifications. As long ago as April 1999—nearly six months—a French Government report, which has only just been released in public in the UK, stated:
"Residues from toilets, septic tanks and sludge from waste treatment factories are routinely used in the making of European animal feed."
It also reported cases in which meat and bonemeal had not been heated to the obligatory temperature for long enough and in which engine oil and heavy metal residues had been added to feedstuffs.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend mentioned the use of meat and bonemeal in feedstuff production, which is prohibited in British meat production. In my capacity as president of the British Pig Association, I remind the House that the Government were called upon 15 months ago to investigate the possibility of putting some value back into pig offals, but no progress has yet been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows a cavalier approach to the practical suggestions that have been made by the industry?
Mr. Prior: I agree that the Government have taken a wholly complacent and cavalier approach. If the recent revelations about EU feedstuffs are not a major public health issue, I do not know what is. Even the Minister of Agriculture has described the practice as
"horrible, revolting, unacceptable and illegal".
If the French can ban British beef, surely we have every right to protect our industry when faced with a flood of imports that pose a risk to public health and consumer confidence.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My hon. Friend has mentioned the recent revelations, but does he have any information about how long the Minister and MAFF have known about the addition of sludge to French animal feed? My investigations tell me that they knew as long ago as May last year, yet it was only last week that the British public were told.
Mr. Prior: I have seen in Reuters copies of the French Government report which was published as long ago as April this year. I was also horrified to hear on "Today" that the Minister of Agriculture has not been in touch with his French counterpart at all in the past week. One wonders whether the Minister realises that there is a crisis in public health in this country.
The Government have still not learned that it is possible to be pro-British without being anti-European and that respect is won by being tough, not by being weak.

983
This country is increasingly regarded as a bunch of patsies. It is time that we stopped being embarrassed about standing up for British interests. It is time that the Minister of Agriculture stood up for British farmers, not French farmers. It is ludicrous to say that it is safe to eat foreign meat fed on sewage sludge and engine oil, but not safe to eat British beef on the bone.
Fourthly, as the Eastern Daily Press put it,
"Mr Brown must remove the shackles of BSE controls from the pig sector."
The Meat and Livestock Commission, which is a statutory body, estimates that the cost of the controls amounts to some £5.26 per pig. That is mainly the direct result of not feeding meat and bonemeal to pigs and the ban on offal disposal, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The fact is that in single-species, dedicated pig abattoirs, porcine meat and bonemeal can be kept separate and its market value could be realised. The risk of cross-contamination can be eliminated, but the Minister has made no determined effort with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to achieve a exemption for dedicated abattoirs. The Minister does not seem to recognise the importance of getting value back into pig by-products.
More importantly, the Minister should note that as a result of the dioxin contamination in Belgium, Belgian pig farmers have received 80 per cent. grants from their Government as compensation towards their costs of production. That was agreed by the European Commission on the grounds that dioxin contamination was an extraordinary occurrence. Ironically, the Belgian Government cited BSE as an example of an extraordinary occurrence.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that the costs of dealing with a public health problem should fall entirely on the producers? I hope that the Minister agrees that it is. A public health problem is a matter of public interest, and the Government should take account of that.
Mr. Prior: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, and that was the approach adopted in connection with beef and, to some extent, with lamb. For some reason, the pig industry has not received similar treatment.
There is a compelling case for compensating pig farmers for the consequences of BSE. That disease was not of their making, but the Government continue to sit on their hands. It is hard not to agree with the chairman of the British Pig Association who has stated:
"The industry cannot understand why it has taken so long for the Minister to act more decisively to protect pig producers and pig industry jobs and to stop consumers from being misled by supermarkets and caterers about the production methods of the imported pork that they are eating … It is immoral for the Government to do so little to promote high welfare and food safety standards in the retail and catering sectors."
This is a story of complacency, incompetence, ignorance, misunderstanding and inaction. The Minister of Agriculture has shown himself to be a poodle with two masters—the Treasury and the European Commission. All he offers to British pig farmers is snake oil, sympathy and promises. The export of the British pig industry to
984
countries with inferior husbandry, welfare, hygiene, health and traceability standards is a national disgrace, and a personal tragedy for many pig farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture is supposed to be the Minister of British agriculture, not foreign agriculture. If he wishes to hand over to his successor any pig industry in this country, he has days—not weeks, or months—in which to act.
1.12 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) for the way in which he has introduced this debate. He has a clear passion for pigs, and I thank him for allowing me to say a few words, as I too want to stick up for the British pig industry.
The Government and public authorities could play a major part in helping our pig industry when it draws up food procurement contracts. I am advised that they could insert in those contracts an animal welfare clause that would mean that they were not legally obliged to accept the lowest tender. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could deal with that when she replies to the debate. Such a provision would mean that whenever local authorities and the Government take out food procurement contracts they could insist on high welfare standards and therefore specify the expected and required standard of animal welfare.
Inevitably, therefore, the lowest-priced contract would not include that higher welfare standard. Such an approach would ensure that the food contracted for would reach the required standard and would come from animals reared to the necessary welfare standards. Local authorities could implement such a clause in their contracts for school food and other food, and as a direct result ensure that British pork—and other British meat—was favoured. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk said, the standard of our pigs is the highest in Europe, if not in the world. It is wrong that our farmers should be penalised and discriminated against for setting that standard.
Public authorities in Britain could ensure that we support our own industry, because the welfare clause in food contracts would enable them to select British meat, rather than go on importing meat from other countries, let alone from mainland Europe. They could therefore help people to enjoy the delights of the pork, bacon and ham produced in this country.
I shall turn briefly to the matter of labelling. This afternoon and over the next few days, trading standards officers could be directed by the Minister to go out in force and visit supermarkets throughout the country. They could check that the pork labelled as British was indeed produced in Britain, rather than merely packed here.
The supermarkets could play a major part in putting the fun back into British pork. Misrepresentation through inaccurate labelling is widespread, and supermarkets should be marketing the higher welfare standards of the British pig industry. I am sure that the vast majority of people in my constituency would wish to buy British pork, especially if they knew that it came from happy pigs that had been reared properly and safely.
We can distinguish between battery range eggs and free range eggs, and that distinction is widely made throughout the country. Supermarkets could do the same for pork.

985
British consumers should be able to differentiate between foreign pigs—fed on heaven knows what and kept tethered to stalls in mainland Europe—and British pigs that enjoy a healthy diet and good living accommodation.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) on securing this debate. The current crisis in the pig sector is an extremely important issue. He introduced the debate with much feeling, with which I totally associate myself. I have recently had discussions with some of the people to whom he referred. For example, I met Ian Campbell only a week or so ago to talk about those matters.
I also welcome the brief contribution from the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who made some constructive comments in a short time.
I reject the claim by the hon. Member for North Norfolk that the Government have been complacent and cavalier in their approach to the problem. I have been in my post for only a little time, but even my short experience of the great energy that the Ministry has devoted to this issue tells me that the hon. Gentleman gave a false caricature of the Government's attitude to this important industry.
Mr. Gill: I appreciate that the Minister is new to her job, but I assure her that the problems of the British pig industry have been flagged up in this House for a long time now. In my intervention earlier, I referred to a debate that took place 15 months ago, when various problems associated with the British pig industry—with which the Government could have dealt were they so minded—were raised. The fact is that those problems have not been dealt with. The Minister must understand that by the time she gets around to doing something about them, it will be too late for lots of pig farmers. They are going out of business as we speak. I have listened this morning—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is rather a long intervention.
Ms Quin: Given the length of that intervention, it is perhaps worth pointing out that, although this debate is important, there will be another opportunity to raise these and other matters in the House tomorrow, when there will be a debate on agriculture. I am sure that many of the points raised so far today will be picked up then.
It is true that I am new to the role of Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I assure the House that I have read the report on the pig industry prepared by the Select Committee on Agriculture. I am also aware of the Government's response and the action taken in various sectors at that time. Therefore, I maintain my strongly held view that charges of complacency and indifference are completely misplaced. It does no service to the hard-pressed people in the sector to distort the Government's attitude, or to misrepresent the action taken in the past and in hand at present.
Mr. Keith Simpson rose—
Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
Ms Quin: Given that this is a short debate, I simply cannot take many interventions.
Mr. Steen: The Minister should give way.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman has had the chance to speak, so he should allow me to choose which interventions to take. I give way to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the Minister, who referred to the Select Committee report. She will recall that that report suggested that complacency was also evident in the previous Conservative Government. I have spent much time in this House trying to persuade Conservative Members to make the points that they are making now.
However, I have a practical point to make. At the meeting with representatives of the pig sector on 5 October, there was a real attempt to identify whether a new set of support systems, within the context of the EU, could be put in place to deal with the public health issue referred to by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior). Will the Minister give the House a specific assurance that that matter is being examined urgently?
Ms Quin: I shall refer later to that meeting and some of the initiatives agreed at it. It is, of course, true that the problems did not appear as if by magic on 2 May 1997. The previous Government presided over the BSE crisis, so they should not advise us on how to handle agricultural issues. Nor am I prepared to take the advice offered by the hon. Member for North Norfolk when he said that being pro-British does not mean being anti-European; I have understood that point throughout my political life, and it is a strange message from someone in today's Conservative party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Quin: I shall take only one more intervention.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Putting aside party politics, the Minister must appreciate the desperation of pig farmers all over the country. Whether or not she thinks that they are wrong, she must accept that farmers perceive deep complacency in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They do not want sympathy, but action.
Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman should listen both to me today and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in tomorrow's agriculture debate. It is a little odd of him to suggest that we should put party politics to one side following the highly partisan approach that has been taken today. I accept that we have had accusations of many kinds levelled at us, including complacency, but Ministers have met many pig producers—our main concern today—who understand the complexities of the situation and who realise that, far from trying to run away from the issue, we are addressing it continuously and constantly. [Interruption.] May I be allowed to make my points? There are at least two former

987
Agriculture Ministers in the Chamber and the right hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) ought to know that some suggestions made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk are either impossible or illegal.
In 1995 and 1996, pig prices were exceptionally high, well above the costs of production. Prices were boosted by strong third-country demand and a shortage of pigmeat from the Netherlands because of an outbreak of classical swine fever. When BSE had its first impact, the initial effects on the pig sector were positive as people bought pork and pigmeat instead of beef. That stimulated a particularly big upswing in pigmeat production.
That was followed by a welcome return to confidence in the beef sector, but unfortunately there were also international events that had a negative impact on the pig industry. In particular, there was a sharp fall in third-country demand from Russia, south-east Asia and elsewhere. The result has been a sharp reduction in pigmeat prices in the UK, elsewhere in the European Union and in other countries. UK pig prices have been below the costs of production for more than 16 months. I do not disguise from the House the fact that there is a deep and sustained crisis. The pig cycle, with alternating high and low prices, is well known from the past, but the UK pig breeding herd continues to reduce because of the current serious crisis.
During the past two or three weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has had at least three long meetings with representatives of the UK pig industry to discuss in detail how best to tackle the problem. On Monday, I walked the pig chain in Yorkshire, meeting and talking with pig farmers and processors and visiting supermarkets to discuss the labelling issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). I emphasised the importance that we attach to the industry and the ways in which we are considering issues of concern. I know that Conservative Members do not like the fact that there are no easy, instant solutions. If there were, we should wish to adopt them.
Pigmeat is covered by a relatively light regime under the common agricultural policy. Few market management measures can therefore be taken. It is not true to say that the package announced by my right hon. Friend the
988
Minister of Agriculture a month ago contained nothing for pig producers. Areas of particular concern, such as red tape, the efficiency of the Meat Hygiene Service and the reduction of veterinary cover at low-throughput slaughterhouses, impact on all meat sectors, including the pig sector. However, money has been earmarked to improve marketing, collaboration and competitiveness, which we wish to direct in particular towards the pig sector.
The UK supported the European Commission over last year's major increase in export refunds and the introduction of a private storage aid scheme. We regretted the Commission's withdrawal in September of the private storage aid scheme and the special export refunds to Russia. Last week, as a result, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture wrote to Commissioner Fischler to press for reintroduction of the private storage aid scheme and for the restoration of the special export refunds to Russia.
Some points raised by Conservative Members—[Interruption.] They seem disinclined to listen to the response, but issues have been raised about the identity of British pigmeat and the high welfare and hygiene standards that it meets. Those standards—particularly on welfare—were introduced with substantial cross-party support. A private Member's initiative that had originated with the previous Government was supported strongly on both sides. A lengthy transition period was stipulated for the new regulations.
We want British consumers to understand those standards and benefit from the premium identity for British pork that they may create. The Meat and Livestock Commission's pork mark is an important unifying badge that offers assurances on methods of production and quality of product. We have been active on labelling, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made some statements at Question Time only last week. We have checked on the accuracy of labels in our shops. I raised the point at the event I attended on Monday, and was told by producers and supermarket representatives that the accuracy of labels has improved. However, we will not be content until loopholes have been properly closed to prevent consumers from being misled—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must end the debate and turn to the next one.

Landfill (Cornwall)
1.30 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to have secured this debate today. I understand that this is the first time that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has responded to an Adjournment debate since his elevation to high office, which I am sure we all celebrate. I know that my hon. Friend is keen to ensure that justice is done and, importantly, is seen to be done.
Sadly, I fear that, in this case, the demands of clearing up Cornwall's rubbish have ridden roughshod over my constituents' needs. The county of Cornwall has run out of landfill sites and my constituents are expected to pay the price.
One case that I shall bring to the Minister's attention concerns a company set up by a local authority that has persistently sought planning permission to extend a landfill site. The case suggests that the relationship between the company and the council is too cosy and that councillors are putting expediency before local needs. The councillors say that there is no alternative, but that is rubbish.
Much of my speech will reflect the anger and distress that my constituents feel about high-profile and much-opposed proposals for landfill sites in the area. I hope that their voices will be heard and that they will not be, literally, dumped upon by local authorities in Cornwall, which have a history of failure and questionable practice.
Two landfill developments are proposed for my constituency. The first, by Cornwall Environmental Services, CES, proposes to extend an existing site at United Downs that borders the villages of Carharrack, Gwennap and St. Day. The company has submitted repeated applications, which the local community has fought for nearly a decade. The latest application is a modified version of an application that was rejected last year following an intense campaign and is currently the subject of an appeal. The second development is the proposal for a landfill site at Carnsew quarry by the village of Mabe. Each proposal has prompted vociferous and informed local opposition and each has highlighted an alarming and unimaginative continuation of landfill as the primary method of waste management in Cornwall.
Furthermore, the way in which Cornwall county council has dealt with the applications raises questions about its methods of decision making. A shady and conspiratorial impression has been created that is undermining local people's faith in some of those elected to represent them on the councils that are responsible for the decisions. In the interests of brevity, I will not detail all the reasons why I have asked the Secretary of State to call in the proposal at United Downs, but I take this opportunity to repeat that request and to state that, if and when it is granted, I will make the same plea about the proposal at Carnsew quarry.
The objections fall into three familiar categories: the potential threats to the environment and to health and a seeming ignorance of local conditions. When considering the previous application at United Mines, the waste planning authority—Cornwall county council—ruled that
990
health risks were not deemed legitimate reasons for refusing planning permission. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is an unbelievable assertion and I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is hard to believe that health considerations are not deemed important enough to merit attention in this sensitive area and, if necessary, to cause the refusal of the applications.
Many local people live in properties close to the borders of the proposed site and the extension. One constituent at United Downs lives a mere 10 m from the site—for those who still struggle with metric measurements, that is less than the length of one cricket pitch. Given the recent suggestions of a link between birth defects and landfill sites, I defy anyone to say that he or she would not be worried, nay terrified, about the prospect of waste being dumped so close to his or her home.
Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to the Dolk report of last summer, which revealed that, on the basis of a good deal of epidemiological evidence, there is cause for concern. Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure that the Government have asked Imperial college to review the matter in more detail? Does she agree that Cornwall county council and other planning authorities should stay their hand until hard evidence is produced? It is a real cause for concern.
Ms Atherton: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has one of the best track records in the House for campaigning on the issue of landfill sites. I congratulate him on his good work.
A proposal for a council directive from the European Commission states that there should be a minimum distance of 500 m between dwellings and site boundaries. Given such guidelines, a distance of 10 m cannot fail to cause more than a little anxiety.
There are major environmental objections to the proposed United Downs site. A 1998 study conducted by Cornwall county council of an area only 200 m from the site states that it is home to protected breeds of butterflies and reptiles and provides possible homes for birds, badgers and protected species of bats. The applicant, CES, has not conducted a survey to assess the existence of, or the threat to, birds, bats or badgers. A request by a local parish council to initiate such a study was refused by the landowner. In addition, to my knowledge, there has been no detailed land instability study of the site. That is especially important in the light of the fact that, when walking in this area of Cornwall, one is never quite sure how many mine shafts are under one's feet.
Water pollution has caused the most alarm at Carnsew quarry. It is feared that landfill material may pollute the water table by seeping through "fractuated" granite rock and into a local reservoir that serves the nearby town of Falmouth. An alleged contravention of water resources legislation at the quarry is currently the subject of a prosecution by the Environment Agency and further contamination would significantly harm the local environment. Incredibly, the application states that the quarry will continue blasting while the landfill site is in operation—which, I suggest, might threaten the stability of that site.
The developers at Carnsew have possibly done more than their counterparts at United Downs to appear willing to answer local residents' questions. However, their

991
answers are not good enough for residents or for me. Further objections at United Downs concern the area's landscape and the lorries that will move to and from the site. The area is a unique and beautiful part of the county: a mix of countryside and striking examples of Cornwall's mining heritage. Some £8 million has been spent on reclaiming derelict land and on conservation initiatives in the area.
Work on the mines at United Downs has only just begun. The whole area is part of the Government's bid to make this part of Cornwall a world heritage site. Would we plan landfill at other world heritage sites such as the pyramids or the centre of Bath? I think not. I am glad to report that the bid is now with UNESCO and has the Government's support. It is sad that some in Cornwall apparently have so little regard for this unique heritage and plan instead to dump on it.
The fears about an increase in transport, especially heavy transport, are easy to justify in this landscape. Road is the only viable method of access, and I am sure that hon. Members can visualise with horror an increasing procession of HGVs winding through Cornish lanes, many of which are single track only and do not meet planning policy guidance issued by my hon. Friend's Department.
I applaud the Government's wish to make waste management strategy more sustainable and integrated by encouraging alternatives to road and by locating facilities appropriately—I just wish that that approach would be adopted in Cornwall. The parish councils and people from communities adjoining United Downs were under the impression that the current landfill would last for 10 years. People purchased their houses believing that there would come a time when the monster would stop. However, the company changed the ground rules every few years and people woke to find that yet another extension was planned and another fight had to be fought. The balance is always tipped in favour of the company: it can appeal if it does not like the decision, but the local community cannot.
My constituents have been told that the site will be active for another 10 years, which will consume more land, woodland and countryside. It seems that, after the planning applications are approved, everyone goes away and no one thinks about the problem until there is another application to extend the site. It is the lack of a renewable alternative strategy that has so infuriated my constituents and me.
A draft waste local plan is expected, but is on ice at present because a series of reports is being produced. One of those reports—commissioned by the county council—states how desirable it would be to have co-ordinated facilities that were sensibly located so as to ensure efficiency and minimal impact on the environment. I agree with that point, but unfortunately it is a little too late for my constituents. Such a strategy should have been in place many years ago.
Mr. Andrew George: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Atherton: No. I regret that, as I have already given way once, I cannot do so again. I am anxious that there should be time to hear the Minister's speech.
992
That strategy void is the reason for only 5 per cent. of Cornwall's waste being recycled; that figure is lower than the national average and is the lowest in the south-west. There is an alternative. Having won objective 1 funding, we are now able to explore waste-to-energy programmes close to local transport links. That will be good for the economy and for the environment. I am aware that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is extremely keen on the Hayle proposal, which I certainly supported. Unfortunately, that thinking is taking some time to pervade minds within the halls of the county council—despite the fact that the people of the county highlighted the importance of the environment during our massive objective 1 consultation earlier this year.
Throughout the various processes, the relevant local authorities' lack of forward thinking has not helped them in their appeal to local people. Public consultation has been minimal, so nothing has been done to build public confidence. We all know that such confidence is the key to proposals such as these; that confidence does not exist at present.
This dismal situation is made all the worse by serious questions about procedure. The applicant for the United Downs proposals—CES—is an arm's length company, set up by the county council to organise waste management in Cornwall. The company was formed in the early 1990s without competitive tendering. Senior council officers and councillors sit on its management body. Throughout its existence, CES has fought long, protracted planning battles with the local community—sometimes, I understand, receiving funding from the county council itself.
I am most concerned about when county councillors decide issues for which they have a statutory responsibility. To put it simply, the council has a responsibility for waste, and few ideas other than landfill to solve the problem; and the council makes the decisions. "Arm's length" CES may be, but is it not time for clear guidelines on how such bodies should work, and be worked with, in those circumstances?
Of further alarm is the fact that such applications seem, when before the relevant committees, to provide an occasion for the use of "substitutes", giving an extremely dubious impression to the local community. Members of the county planning committee leave the committee and are replaced—often at the eleventh hour—by colleagues who vote in their stead. It is not hard to guess what conversations might go on behind the scenes. That impression will always cause alarm to those affected by proposals—especially on matters as sensitive as those that we are discussing.
There is little case law on substitutes and councils organise such matters largely as they want, using their standing orders. I find that most disturbing; a system must be introduced that is transparent enough to restore people's faith in those whom they elect. Anyone who has served on a planning committee will know that it takes some time to understand the complexity of the structure plans with which they work. How can a substitute understand all the complexities in only a short time? It has also been suggested to me that different councillors trade votes on different applications. I allege that that is unhealthy.
In addition, there seems to be no small amount of inter-council power games. The two sites lie in different district councils, each of which is a statutory consultant

993
in the planning process. At the time of the previous application at United Downs, both district councils voted against the proposals. However, on another occasion, Kerrier district council, whose administrative area includes Carnsew quarry, approved the plans for United Mines. It has been suggested that that was to get the problem off its patch. A more serious allegation is that it was a ploy, hatched by the various parties—an implied threat—to push Kerrier district council towards supporting the United Downs application.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that makes a mockery of local democracy, and leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of the people affected by those decisions. Obviously, those working at the United Downs site are keen to ensure that their work continues—as are waste hauliers, who currently face severe restrictions in coping with reduced access to United Downs. I want a comprehensive waste-to-energy programme that will provide employment for those affected.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on the various issues that I have raised. I hope that what I have recounted today will lead to a re-think on the way in which issues affecting so many people are handled by local authorities. This saga is one of inaction and, consequently, an ill-thought-out panicked reaction that leaves my constituents picking up the pieces—and messy pieces they are too.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on securing this debate on a topic of fundamental and increasing national importance and of particular concern in Cornwall. It is good to see so many Members who represent Cornish constituencies in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend made a robust speech in which she raised some serious issues. I shall attempt to address them in the short time available, but we might also need to correspond on some matters.
Before replying to my hon. Friend, I should inform the House that, on Monday, Cornwall county council issued planning permission for one of the proposals that she mentioned—the United Mines extension. That was unexpected. The Government office for the south-west understood that the council had not intended to issue permission before today's debate, without prior notice. I am disappointed that it has gone ahead without waiting for today's debate to take place.
The Government knew of the application. However, as far as we were aware, it did not raise issues that justified the Secretary of State calling it in for his determination. None the less, I was prepared to come to this debate with an open mind—ready to respond to any important new issues. Unexpectedly, the county council has now taken the application out of our hands by exercising its responsibility to make the decision.
Cornwall faces a common problem—especially in the south of England. Existing landfill sites, on which we are currently heavily reliant, are filling up quickly, and better alternatives are needed. In England, we currently landfill more than 80 per cent. of our municipal waste, and about half our industrial and commercial waste. That has been
994
a favoured waste management option for rural and urban communities because of its low cost and the ready availability of old mines and quarries.
Before commenting on the problem in Cornwall, I shall make some points on the Government's draft waste strategy. Landfill is the least desirable means of managing waste; re-use of materials, recycling, composting and energy recovery from waste are usually preferable because landfill makes the least use of waste. We realise that landfill will continue to play a role in waste management in this country, but we must work together to reduce our traditional reliance on it. Those policies and aims are set out in the draft waste strategy, "A Way with Waste", which we published earlier this year.
My hon. Friend referred to the EC landfill directive. The Government are strongly committed to the safe management of waste facilities, including landfill sites. Waste management activities have been tightly regulated since a licensing system was introduced under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That system was replaced by the waste management licensing system now in force under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The purpose of the licensing system is to ensure that waste is managed in ways that protect the environment and human health.
The controls will be reinforced by the introduction of the EC landfill directive, which was adopted earlier this year. It will bring in much more rigorous controls for landfill across the EU, most of which are similar to those already in place in this country, and other member states will be brought up to our high standards.
Planning policy guidance note 10 was published in September. It provides advice on how the planning system should contribute to sustainable development through the provision of the required waste management facilities and on how that provision is regulated under the statutory planning and waste management systems. It sets out the general policy context and the criteria for siting facilities and advises waste planning authorities on the factors to be considered in relation to the range of waste management options available. The guidance should help in the preparation of local waste plans and in the determination of planning applications. However, it does not suggest which waste management options might be appropriate to any particular set of circumstances. That will be a matter for individual local authorities, informed by the national waste strategy.
One of the key aims of PPG10 is to strengthen the regional role in planning for waste management: therefore, it proposes the establishment of regional technical advisory bodies in each region. Those are important because local authorities should not consider the needs of their own area in isolation—waste management solutions may sometimes cross local or regional boundaries. The regional technical advisory bodies will assemble data and provide advice to the regional planning bodies on suitable options and strategies for dealing with waste in each region.
PPG10 also draws attention to factors that may be material to the consideration of proposed waste management facilities. For example, landfill operations can deal with a wide range of wastes and fluctuating amounts for disposal, and can provide a relatively clean source of fuel—methane—for heat and power generation. Landfill may also be the only practical way of finally disposing of some materials, such as incineration residues

995
and other inert materials that cannot be recycled or treated further. However, landfill does require large areas of land and, if degradable materials are involved, can lead to landfill gas and other hazards.
Many factors influence the location of new waste management facilities. Landfill is commonly used in quarry restoration, but there may be opportunities for other sorts of waste management facilities at some quarried sites. All locations and the choice between different options will be for the waste planning authority to decide. Such decisions should be based primarily on a consideration of the best practicable environmental option for a particular type of waste involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne suggested that the local authority had said that health risks were not deemed to be a reason for refusing an application. In fact, the position is slightly different from the one that she set out. It is true that where proper management of the site can eliminate the health risk—that is, where the health risk arises from the management of the site—that health risk is not a factor that must be taken into account when considering the application. It is a matter for the Environment Agency to investigate. However, if the location of the site makes it impossible to operate without health risks, that would be a planning ground to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend said that the EC landfill directive recommended that dwellings should be at least 500 m from a landfill site. Apparently, that provision was contained in an early draft, but was eliminated from later drafts. Therefore, the landfill directive makes no specific recommendation on distance. The proximity of dwellings is a factor to be taken into account by planning authorities, but there is no set distance to be observed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) referred to a possible link between birth defects and landfill sites that accept hazardous waste. A study reported in The Lancet, which formed the basis of media reports, did not establish cause and effect, but concluded only that there was a need for further study. The Government have commissioned a small programme of research into the subject, the initial findings of which should be available next summer.
Planning policies for waste development in Cornwall will be set out in the Cornwall waste local plan. Cornwall county council published a draft plan for consultation in March 1998. The key issues in west Cornwall were: the main landfill facility, at United Mines near St. Day, which was projected to be filled in 2002; the suggestion that recycling rates could be raised from 6 per cent. to 15 per cent. during the period of the plan, which runs to 2011; and the creation of a waste-to-energy plant, which would create new waste management capacity, but which could not hope to be commissioned before 2005.
The draft plan identified a gap between the filling of United Mines' facility and the commissioning of a long-term replacement. The draft plan suggested overcoming that gap, either by transporting waste to east
996
Cornwall or beyond, which would add to heavy traffic and would be contrary to the proximity principle, which states that waste should be disposed of as close as possible to its place of generation; or by finding additional landfill capacity in west Cornwall. The Government office for the south-west responded to the draft plan on the Secretary of State's behalf. The main points were that: the plan should embody national objectives for waste management set out in "Making Waste Work", now replaced by "A Way with Waste"; and, in particular, that it should reflect the proximity principle.
The plan seemed to treat landfill as a favoured option, rather than a last resort. The Government office suggested that, instead, the council should work towards the principles established in the national strategy, including reducing dependence on landfill. The plan should also outline the practical steps needed to put those principles into practice: for example, it did not state what mix of waste management methods was favoured for the long term, nor did it contain any specific development proposals or locational guidance.
Mr. Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so, but I have only three minutes left and I think that he will want to hear what I have to say about Cornwall.
It is important that the council confronts the issues quickly, especially as the plan showed that important choices will have to be implemented by about 2005. The plan should make those choices and propose the key investments to put them into practice. I understand that the county council intends to deposit its local waste plan formally in the spring. I also understand that the council now—perhaps belatedly—accepts that Cornwall's heavy dependence on landfill will have to change and that waste-to-energy technology will have to be developed. I welcome the county council's adoption of that forward-looking approach and I expect it to be reflected in the deposit draft of the local plan, both in the overall strategy and in the identification of actual sites. My officials will continue to work with the council, to encourage it positively to plan the necessary facilities.
Several planning applications related to the disposal of waste in Cornwall have come to my Department's attention in recent months. They include applications at Hernis farm landfill site for a weighbridge and recycling centre with a wood-burning unit; two applications by County Environmental Services Ltd. to extend the United Mines landfill site at St. Day, for which permission has just been issued; and an application by Aram Resources plc for the restoration of an existing quarry by landfill at Carnsew quarry near Mabe. I cannot comment on the merits of those proposals, since to do so could prejudice the Secretary of State's impartial role within the planning system. However, I can advise the House that the Hernis farm applications did not warrant our intervention. Local residents expressed concerns about the possibility of landfill development there in future, but any further proposals will have to be determined on their merits.

997
I have already said that permission for the United Mines extension has just been issued. We received several late representations asking that the application be called in by the Secretary of State. I should explain that the Government's policy is to leave planning decisions as far as possible in the hands of locally accountable planning authorities, so the Secretary of State is highly selective about calling in applications. In general, he will take that step only in cases where issues of more than local importance are raised, so only a small proportion of applications are called in each year. The Carnsew quarry application is in its early stages—
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

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited, or has been the subject of a Resolution of this House to dispense with Standing Order 171A within the present Session, or has been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Ministerial Liaison
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the arrangements for liaison and co-ordination between the First Secretary and himself. [94073]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have a formal meeting with the First Secretary every week and we often speak informally.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion and wish him well. As this is his first question, I shall lob him a full toss. Can he confirm to the House what will happen when the Assembly takes a decision that will involve additional public expenditure? Will it be met by the Treasury, will it come out of the Welsh Office budget—in which case, there would obviously have to be adjustments with a cut made elsewhere—or does the Assembly have no power, being only a talking shop?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks on my promotion, but less grateful for his other comments. Of course the Assembly is not a talking shop: it deals with £7.5 billion of expenditure. That has to be contained within the block that comes from this House.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: On co-ordination between this House and the Assembly, does my right hon. Friend agree that there could be confusion on health matters? We have a national health service, but we have devolved power to the Assembly. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Health announced that the new flu vaccine would not be available on the health service. A few days ago, there was an announcement appointing a national cancer director. There was some confusion about whether those initiatives apply to Wales; in the latter case, it is still not clear. Will my right hon. Friend consider the overlap between the two jurisdictions?
    Mr. Murphy: I shall be delighted to respond to my right hon. Friend's request. When I meet the First Secretary tomorrow, I shall put that point to him. On my hon. Friend's general point about announcements made by the United Kingdom Government, if additional expenditure is involved, consequential additional block grant is given to Wales. I take his general point and will be back in touch with him.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I be the first from the Plaid Cymru party officially to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment? What assurances can he, as the person responsible in the Cabinet for arguing the case for Wales, give the First Secretary
    1000
    that European funding for Wales will be additional to the block grant and will not be distributed to us under the Barnett formula?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and thank him and his colleagues. He was obviously referring to objective 1 funding. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in very strong terms in this Chamber a week ago that he would not let Wales down. That is the general situation as regards the Government's view. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, in the first year of the scheme, it is for the Assembly itself to decide how to deal with any match funding. The Assembly has addressed that, and I am assured that it can cope. The three years following are for the comprehensive spending review, and I shall play my part in ensuring that the case for Wales is made in the negotiations.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Should there not be a little humility among the nationalists about objective 1 status? They said that we could not change the map or alter the statistics for the valleys and west Wales, but we have done so. There should be no triumphalism about that, because objective 1 status merely reflects the comparative poverty of the valleys and west Wales. That is in part due to the pouring of funds by the Conservative Welsh Office into Cardiff bay at the expense of the rest of Wales.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for objective 1 status, which we would not have achieved in Wales if there had not been a need for it. That did not come from the moon; it resulted from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiating through the night in Berlin to get those funds. No one should suggest that, having successfully negotiated an objective 1 deal, they will let Wales down—they will not.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: In the Welsh Affairs Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the primary role for himself, the 32 people in his office and the £1 million that they cost each year is to ensure that the devolution process beds down and to liaise with the First Secretary. Would it be appropriate for that to be reviewed in two years, and who should carry out that review?
    Mr. Murphy: The most important review stems from the mandate that the people give us. In 1997, the people of Wales gave the House a mandate and a majority voted in the referendum for an Assembly in Cardiff that fitted in with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the devolution settlement; that is what I have to protect and that is what will be done. It is vital that hon. Members understand that Assembly Members are charged with the great responsibility of seeking jobs for the people of Wales and looking after their health and education. It is important also to understand that the mandate came from the people, and decisions must be made with the people.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the difficult job that he is undertaking in providing an interface between the Assembly and the Cabinet of which he is a member. However, he will have to be able to speak to Westminster

    1001
    Departments on equal terms. Is he satisfied that he has been given enough policy-level, analytical officials in his Department to enable him to carry out that responsibility?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I am. I have extremely assiduous, hard-working and eager people in my office who deal with the advice for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are responsible. Between us, we sit on 21 Cabinet Committees, in which it is of course important that we have sound advice. Obviously, I shall keep the situation under review, but I have no immediate plans to change the number of people who work in the Department. We shall have to wait and see.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: May I be the third person on this side of the House to congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales on his new role? The saying "three times for a Welshman" is true in this case. We shall certainly monitor the Secretary of State to ensure that he has a role. One of his responsibilities is to liaise with the First Secretary. What discussions will he have with the First Secretary about the dreadful plight of farming in Wales? Will not extra resources be necessary to assist Welsh farmers at this difficult time?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Over the past few weeks and months, I have of course been discussing the plight of Welsh farming with the First Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it was only at the end of September that the Minister of Agriculture said that there would be a substantial increase in the funds to help hill farmers in Wales, which amounted to between £15 million and £16 million for Welsh farming. In addition, during the past few weeks, I have met the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales, and I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State feel at all hampered in his discussions about extra funding for agriculture in Wales by the fact that the Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther, lost a vote of confidence in the Assembly but refuses to resign? Will the Secretary of State use his influence with the First Secretary to ensure that, if she will not resign, she will be sacked? It is either her job or those of farmers in Wales. Whose job is more important to the Secretary of State?
    Mr. John Bercow: Answer that one.
    Mr. Murphy: I have not started yet. The Agriculture Secretary in Cardiff did exactly what anyone else would have done: she explored every possible avenue by which funds could be obtained to help Welsh farmers. The vote of confidence is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Assembly and the First Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will understand that obviously I have discussed those issues, but I think that the Agriculture Secretary did her best.
    Mr. Llew Smith: I declare a non-financial interest in this question. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the First Secretary, will he share with him the disgust felt by the
    1002
    people of Gwent—and, I assume, by him—at the decision of the Welsh Arts Council to treat the opinions and support of the people of Gwent with disdain in refusing to allow Gwent theatre in education the resources to carry on the work that it has done for 23 years and instead to give it to a company in Cardiff that has no experience, no support and no excellence in the field? Will my right hon. Friend inform the First Secretary that, if the Welsh Arts Council refuses to reverse that decision, the people involved must resign?
    Mr. Murphy: I completely understand my hon. Friend's point. I have had representations from other Members who represent Gwent, and I am a Gwent Member of Parliament. I understand the good work that has been done by the group and I will certainly inform the First Secretary when I meet him tomorrow about the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and others.

    New Deal (Young People)
    Mr. John Bercow: What discussions he has had with his colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment about the impact on Wales of the new deal for young people. [94074]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have held several discussions with a range of organisations involved in the Government's welfare to work agenda in Wales and plan to meet my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities shortly.
    Mr. Bercow: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, wish him well in fulfilling his responsibilities and thank him for his initial answer. Given that the new deal for young people costs £11,333 per job, making it 25 times as expensive as previous job schemes, that three quarters of those who have joined the scheme in Wales since January 1998 have so far failed to find jobs and that unemployment in Wales has just risen by 10,000, what discussions does the hon. Gentleman intend to have about securing the better value for the money that the Secretary of State has begged his Cabinet colleagues to provide?
    Mr. Hanson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. This is a great opportunity for me to come back from the silence of the Whips Office to speak in the House. The hon. Gentleman is really saying that he does not approve of the new deal. I hope that he will come with me at the next opportunity to meet the 13,000 people in Wales who have received employment under the new deal to tell them that he intends to scrap that scheme. Some 9,400 people under 24 have secured jobs and there has been a 51 per cent. fall in 18-to-24-year-old unemployment since the new deal began. If he intends to scrap the scheme, he should be honest and say so. We believe in the scheme, and it is valuable for the people of Wales.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on leaving the Whips Office. One modest pleasure at the moment is that Labour Welsh Members are Whipless. I support my hon. Friend

    1003
    in his remarks about the new deal in our area. It has offered real opportunities in skills training and for jobs. The new deal should be supported by targeting directed money from objective 1 funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that objective 1 needs to be used to create sustainable employment and real training opportunities rather than, as we fear, being scattered to the four winds and chopped into little pieces? If that happens, the funding will not have the impact that we need it to have on the Welsh economy and our gross domestic product per capita.
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend made two valuable points. First, the new deal is about training and skill development, as well as job creation. It is valuable for people to have new skills and new development. The people whom I have seen on the new deal have benefited tremendously from those opportunities. The second point about objective 1 is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want the maximum use of that funding. We need to produce top-quality schemes that integrate Government programmes to ensure that we have wide-ranging skill development, long-term jobs and sustainable development for the valleys and for west Wales as a whole.

    Welsh Assembly Decisions
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What arrangements are in place for the reporting of the decisions and resolutions of the Welsh Assembly to the United Kingdom (a) Government and (b) Parliament. [94075]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): No such arrangements are required by the Government of Wales Act 1998. However, the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations provides for the exchange of information generally, and in particular for the devolved Administrations to notify legislative measures to the UK Government when they are proposed and when they are adopted.
    Mr. Hughes: The London Welsh team is happy to congratulate the new Government team, at the same time as it commiserates with the team on the pitch on Saturday.
    If the Welsh Assembly or any of its Committees made a decision or passed a resolution that the Government's failure to allocate British money to match objective 1 money was hindering private investment and therefore not achieving the best deal for the valleys and west Wales, what could Members of this House do to make sure that the Government deliver for Wales and its Assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: I begin my thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the Welsh rugby team. The House understands what a tremendous task it faced and how well the team did over the past few weeks.
    I assume that the hon. Gentleman's question is as much about objective 1 funding as about the arrangements in the House. I told the House a few minutes ago that the Prime Minister's statement was extremely important in setting the scene. There are opportunities in the House to discuss those matters as we go forward. With regard to the private sector, I have met the Confederation of British
    1004
    Industry in Wales, which is anxious to ensure that it takes part in the schemes that will start flowing next year, when the plan is approved by Brussels. As on many previous occasions, the private sector can start planning for that. The CBI has told me that it will do so, and I am sure that it will.
    Mr. Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key issues in Wales are jobs, objective 1, health and education, and that that agenda is being marginalised by the schoolboy antics of the Opposition parties in Wales, which tabled two censure motions in a four-week period, one of them dealing with what the Agriculture Minister in Wales puts into her digestive tract? Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps he is taking, in co-operation with the First Secretary, to get back to the real agenda in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend about the priorities in Wales. In my discussions with the First Secretary, we shall emphasise them. I also agree with my hon. Friend that, in a fledgling democracy, it is important to get people's confidence in the Assembly. I am not convinced that events over the past few weeks have succeeded in doing that.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Select Committee on Defence has just come back from Washington, where it is much easier to obtain information about the British Ministry of Defence than it is in London. That illustrates the point of my question. How can there be a satisfactory exchange of information between the Welsh Executive and the United Kingdom Government if there is no legal underpinning to the requirement of each for confidentiality?
    Mr. Murphy: There is plenty of opportunity for liaison between the UK Government and the Assembly. I said earlier that I regularly meet the First Secretary. There are provisions in the memorandum of understanding, which sets the scene, and in the accompanying concordats, to ensure that there are proper arrangements between the Assembly and the UK Government.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the pay, recruitment and retention of NHS dentists in Wales. [94076]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on those issues. When considering the annual pay settlements for NHS staff, the pay review bodies will take evidence from the Assembly, along with the Department of Health and other devolved Administrations.
    Mr. Jones: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that everyone in the UK will have access to NHS dentistry. Will my hon. Friend therefore meet his

    1005
    colleagues in the Department of Health and the Assembly, in order that my constituents can get access to NHS dental services as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hanson: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of greater access to dentists throughout the United Kingdom. I have had discussions with my colleagues in the Assembly, who are keen to take forward plans for improved dental services in Wales. That is in marked contrast to the failure of the previous Tory Government to provide adequate dental services throughout Wales and the United Kingdom. People in Wales will have access to NHS services, thanks to the Assembly and the support of central Government.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal problems with dentistry is the number of new dentists entering the service? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking in Wales, and what steps the Government are taking elsewhere, to encourage more people to enter the dental profession, and thus to serve the large number of people who do not have access to dentists?
    Mr. Hanson: The UK Government are taking steps to encourage the provision of additional dentists for the community at large. The Assembly is responsible for that matter in Wales and it has earmarked additional funds of £10 million to ensure that there is greater access to dental services. Under devolution, the situation is complicated: the Assembly is responsible for the day-to-day executive decisions and will take forward its own policies, and the UK Government seek to improve access to dental services as a matter of priority.

    Block Grant
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When he next plans to meet the Assembly First Secretary to discuss the block grant for 2000–02. [94077]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend make one of his first acts in office the achievement of the triple crown by Wales? We secured the first part by brilliant negotiations in Brussels to achieve objective 1 status in Wales and the second part with the provision of money in the first year to ensure that objective 1 status gets fully under way. The sooner the Opposition stop carping about that, the more the private sector in Wales can be confident of what we want to do. In carrying out the block grant negotiations, can he achieve the third part of the triple crown by ensuring that we have the additional funding necessary for objective 1 to continue right through its course to success in terms of jobs and prosperity for people in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I recently met my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss objective 1 and he is fully aware of the significance of such funding for
    1006
    Wales. He has instructed his officials to meet those of the National Assembly to start negotiations on those important issues.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wish the Secretary of State well in his work, but I must return to the question of the adequacy of matched funding for 2000–01. Does he accept that the budget for the coming year was set before there was any suggestion of European strategic funds becoming available? Therefore, if the matched funding of up to £180 million has to be met from within the Welsh block, there will be correspondingly less money available for health, education and the other services. He cannot have it both ways. If the money has to come from within the block, is he telling us that the people of Wales will have to pay in terms of health and education for taking up the money available from Europe?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's opening remark. No, I am not saying that. As he is a Member of the National Assembly, he will understand that it is for the Assembly to determine its budget, but it has assured me that the £75 million to which I referred earlier is made up of former European regional development fund moneys, overhang from those and end-of-year flexibility, and in other ways as well, and that it will not affect those services to which he referred.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the UK Treasury has a crucial role in relation to objective 1 funding, it is equally important at the moment to ensure that we have good-quality private-public partnerships in place to take full advantage of this excellent opportunity? Does he further agree that the constant and negative carping by opposition parties about the role of the UK Treasury can serve only to undermine the whole project?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to emphasise the positive aspects of obtaining objective 1 funding. We must ensure that it is used for jobs, to change the economy of Wales and to help our rural areas. It is important that we pull together as a team in Wales to ensure that we benefit from good, high-quality schemes. The more we concentrate on the positive aspects, the more important it will be for us to obtain that money.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: When the Secretary of State meets the First Secretary, will he discuss the funding of the arts in Wales? He will have heard the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) complaining about the treatment of Theatr Gwent. The same thing has happened to Theatr Powys and the result is underfunding of the arts in Wales. Will he please try to do something about that when he discusses block grant with the First Secretary?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I will.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the First Secretary the Government's major research report on disability in Great Britain? Will he

    1007
    particularly draw to the First Secretary's attention the finding that Wales has the highest incidence of disability in all of Great Britain? Will he also discuss with him the possibility of using objective 1 status for high-quality projects involving the disabled, both in the private and the public sectors?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, I will—I assure my hon. Friend that I will do precisely that. After today's events in the House, I shall have a very long discussion with the First Secretary. Like me, my hon. Friend represents a valley constituency that has been scheduled as an objective 1 area for precisely the reasons to which she referred, such as the number of disabled people and the deprivation levels that we face. That is why we have objective 1, and that is why we must not waste the opportunity of a lifetime.
    Mr. Robert Walter: I must continue to press the Secretary of State on the issue of objective 1 funding and the block grant. Although any discussions that he will have with the First Secretary will be dominated by the requirement to provide £885 million of Government money in the next seven years, objective 1 starts in Wales next year, whereas the block grant negotiated under the comprehensive spending review takes us through to 2002. The CSR does not contain any provision for objective 1 funding.
    Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the Welsh Affairs Committee that he was having discussions with the Chief Secretary. However, we do not know the outcome of those discussions. In the Assembly election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he would not let Wales down. The Secretary of State is committed to providing £374 million in the next two years. Where will the money come from?
    Mr. Murphy: The last people from whom I want lectures on public spending are Conservative Members. Almost everyone has mentioned the fact that no one expected us to obtain objective 1 status, but we did obtain it. We did so because of the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. Now that we have objective 1 status, it is very important for us to be able to use it properly. We have the money to ensure that the scheme flows next year. In the comprehensive spending review, we have the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he will not let Wales down.

    Welsh Assembly (Responsibilities)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What discussions he has had with other Ministers on the appropriate response to be made to representations from Members of the Welsh Assembly on matters for which the Assembly has no responsibility. [94080]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Under section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Assembly may consider and make representations on any matter affecting Wales. That
    1008
    covers a very large number of matters for which the Assembly has no responsibility. Such representations will be fully considered.
    Mr. Mackinlay: May we have an assurance that, in dealing with central Government, matters that are the competence of Members of the House of Commons—such as immigration and asylum—will be jealously guarded as matters exclusively for Members of the House of Commons, and not for Members of the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: Obviously, the House of Commons will guard its rights very jealously, and Madam Speaker will ensure that that is the case. However, I tell my hon. Friend that the whole purpose of devolution is to create a partnership between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the Assembly. By working together, we shall be able to ensure that the people of Wales will benefit from both.

    New Deal
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the efficacy of the new deal in Wales. [94081]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I have held several discussions with a range of organisations involved in the Government's welfare to work agenda in Wales, and plan soon to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities.
    Mr. Fabricant: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), will the Minister apologise to the various people with whom he has had meetings? Is it not the case that, of the 7,000 people who have gone on the new deal, less than 46 per cent. have consequently found jobs? Is that not both a Welsh national disgrace and a disgrace for the Department?
    Mr. Hanson: I take it from that question that Conservative Members are opposed to the new deal. I also take it that they are opposed to the 4,500 employers who have signed up to the new deal, and to the 13,000 people who have benefited from it in Wales, including 9,400 under-25s. I take it that, the next time I go to Wales to meet those young people, the hon. Gentleman will accompany me and tell them that they will have no opportunities or jobs under the Conservative party.
    Mr. John Smith: Since the new deal was introduced, unemployment in my constituency has fallen to its lowest level for 20 years. When my hon. Friend talks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, will he stress how important it is that objective 3 funding for skills and training should come to constituencies such as mine?
    Mr. Hanson: Since the introduction of the new deal in Wales, there has been a 51 per cent. fall in unemployment for the under-24s. I take on board my hon. Friend's points and I shall make representations accordingly.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. George Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 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 meetings later today.
    Dr. Turner: When it comes to dealing with the beef row, will the Prime Minister heed the advice of the National Farmers Union, which is strongly opposed to a tit-for-tat ban on French meat? Will he take advice from the UK scientists who are responsible for public health issues? Will the Government act with reason and within the law and ignore the Conservatives, who would have us sacrifice the true interests of agriculture for narrow party advantage—the party that gave us BSE?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly not engage in a tit-for-tat war. There is a £10 billion food and drink market for Britain in Europe, more than £1 billion of which is in France. The right approach is this:
    "We do not want a tit-for-tat war. We have right on our side; we have quality on our side; we have the law on our side. I think it is for the French to get their house in order and for us to promote what is best of our products."
    Those are not my words, but the words of the director general of the National Farmers Union. That is a better approach than the immature nonsense from the Opposition, who are advocating a trade war without the faintest clue as to its consequences.
    Mr. William Hague: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Ministers were aware on 10 June of the contamination of French animal feed and that the Government's food safety group concluded at the time
    "that the practice of using sewage sludge is both unacceptable from the consumer's point of view and illegal under European law"?
    That was four months ago. Does he not regret that the Government did nothing about that at the time?
    The Prime Minister: I am informed that it was in the newspapers at the time. The British Government made representations, as did the European Commission. The advice that we got from our scientists yesterday was:
    "There is no immediate health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban of French products at either a community level or unilaterally."
    The ban on French products that the right hon. Gentleman is calling for would be illegal. He is calling for an illegal ban on French products. That would start precisely the type of trade war that any sensible person would want to avoid.
    Mr. Hague: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has launched a personal boycott of all French
    1010
    products and the Prime Minister lectures other people about a trade war. Does he support the Minister of Agriculture's boycott?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we want people to eat good British beef, good British pork and good British lamb. That is a choice which British consumers are making. We do not want an illegal trade war. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Do not take my word for it; look at what the leader of the NFU in Scotland says:
    "I am not in favour of a tit-for-tat trade war. If this dispute escalates and other measures are taken it could spell absolute disaster for the sheep industry."
    Those are sensible words. They are the words of people with the interests of British farming at heart—unlike the Opposition, who want to whip up their normal anti-Europeanism. They have locked themselves into a stupid policy that would do enormous damage to this country. This country will never forget who gave us BSE in the first place.
    Mr. Hague: What all that waffle means is that the Prime Minister does not support the boycott by the Agriculture Minister, who presumably will be running for Mayor of London very soon. Does he recall on 16 June my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asking him about the cross-contamination of animal feed in France and urging him to ban the use of bonemeal throughout Europe and imports of meat and poultry produced by that method? Does he recall replying:
    "Of course we are trying to do something about it"?—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 392.]
    Was that not one of those meaningless and empty answers that the Prime Minister gives and then goes on to do nothing whatsoever about? What effective action did the Government take after he said that?
    The Prime Minister: The very action that I described to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The issue is how best to deal with the French action that is itself unlawful. What is the best way to deal with it? We say that the best way is to play it straight by the rules to make sure that we have the law, quality and science on our side. That is the sensible way to approach it. The right hon. Gentleman's approach, which I notice he has not repeated today, is a ban on all French products. It is now clear that such a ban would be unlawful. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's position or not?
    Mr. Hague: For months it has been known to the Government that French animal feeds are contaminated with waste from septic tanks, water from washing lorries, and human sewage. How safe does that sound to the Prime Minister? Professor Pennington, who headed a Government inquiry on meat hygiene, says:
    "there is a potentially grave danger in eating animals that have been fed on treated sewage"
    and that he will not be eating French beef in future. Is that not common sense? Is it not time to introduce under article 36 a precautionary ban on French imports?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, under article 36 that can be done only in circumstances where there is a serious and demonstrable threat to human or animal health, and on the advice of the

    1011
    relevant scientific committee which advises us that there is no such risk. So there is no doubt—the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from it—that he is asking us to impose an illegal ban.
    Let me point out that £320 million worth of British goods go into the European market every day—that is £100 billion worth of trade every year, £10 billion of which is in food and drink. That is why it would be stupid to impose an unlawful, unilateral trade ban. The sensible approach is not to revisit the old beef war which some of us remember under the Tories, but having got the beef ban lifted by playing by the rules, to carry on doing so.
    Mr. Hague: No one would think that this was the Government whose Ministers have launched a boycott of all French products. No one would think that this was the Government whose chairman of the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs says that one does not have to have a scientific interpretation to know that it is not good to put material contaminated by human sewage back into the food chain. That is what the Prime Minister's own advisory committee says.
    We now have the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food boycotting French food and the Prime Minister not supporting him; we have the Government saying that they are doing all they can, but no one has even spoken to the French Minister on the telephone; we have the Prime Minister saying that meat fed on human sewage is safe, but that British T-bone steaks are lethal; we have British lorries being broken into and barricades on fire and no effective action being taken. Is it not clear when we look at Ministers that it is not just the dead cows that have had their spines taken out?
    The Prime Minister: So that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Let us get it right: he would ban all French beef, poultry, pork and lamb. To start such a trade war is a foolish, irresponsible act. Perhaps he should learn the difference between an easy headline and a good policy. He wants to start a trade war. Having given us BSE and the beef war, the Conservatives now want a trade war. That is not a sensible policy. Listen to the words of the National Farmers Union today. Ben Gill said:
    "I actually feel let down by those politicians who seek to make … cheap political gain at my and my members' expenses."
    [Interruption.] Just listen to this. Conservative Members do not want to hear it. Mr. Gill went on to say:
    "I want to resolve this issue in a positive way without a full blown trade war."
    The right hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wants to carry on advocating a policy that would be suicidal for British commercial interests in Europe or to adopt a sensible policy that—[Interruption.] Conservative Members keep going on about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that British consumers buy British beef and pork and other British products. That is wholly different from the right hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to suggest that we ban French products coming into this country. That would not be the right policy. He and his party can whip up as much anti-European feeling as they like—and get support in parts of the media for it—but I will ensure that we do the right thing by this country, as we are doing.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what can only be
    1012
    described as a bitter injustice? I refer to the situation of the widows and families of soldiers who serve in the Gurkha regiments and the fact that they receive much less in benefit than those of British soldiers in our Army. Does he agree that the Gurkhas are well respected throughout the United Kingdom and the world? They are currently serving as a peace force in Kosovo and East Timor.
    A few months ago, we heard the report about two soldiers who were killed in Kosovo: one a Gurkha and one a British soldier. The Gurkha's widow will receive much less than the other widow. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that justice is done to Gurkhas' widows? My question is heightened by the fact that the British Inter-Parliamentary Union is welcoming a delegation from Nepal. The Speaker and representatives of both Houses in Nepal are visiting. It is their sons who are recruited to the Gurkhas.
    Will my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that the injustice is corrected?
    The Prime Minister: For nearly 200 years, Gurkhas have served Britain loyally in conflicts throughout the world. They are a unique fighting force with a real place in the hearts and affections of all people in this country. I am pleased to announce that the first stage in the examination of the arrangements for death in service and pensions has now been completed and that gratuities payable in respect of death attributable to service for Gurkhas will be brought into line with those for their British counterparts. These new payments will take effect from 26 May this year, and so will apply to the widow of Staff Sergeant Balaram Rai.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The entire House and the entire country agree that the French authorities are acting unlawfully on beef importation, but will the Prime Minister none the less acknowledge that if history teaches this country, and others, anything, it is that a trade war—a descent into protectionism—is counterproductive, self-defeating and, frankly, the height of political and parliamentary irresponsibility?
    The Prime Minister: That is of course right, and it is the Conservative party's position. That party's position is driven because it has become a single-issue pressure group on Europe, and its anti-Europeanism governs the entirety of its policy. That policy is not in the interests of this country, and I shall not follow it.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister also acknowledge that, given the extent of the crisis in British agriculture generally, it is unfortunate that, apart from one illegal suggestion, the leader of the Conservative party does not have one positive proposal to make? That is what the farming community wants—solutions and proposals.
    Also, at a time when farm incomes are plummeting, farmers are receiving a pittance in terms of their prices, and yet the supermarkets are not reflecting that. Is it not high time that the Government got serious and urgent with the supermarkets, as well as with France?
    The Prime Minister: We have been in discussion with the supermarkets, which are making their own

    1013
    arrangements. What the farming industry needs at the moment is tiding over this period of extreme difficulty. That is why we have put together three special aid packages worth more than £700 million. Some £5 billion of support is going to farmers. However, we understand that their industry is in severe difficulty and crisis. That is why we are discussing with farmers union leaders and others exactly how we can ameliorate the situation.
    To those Conservative Members who have been shouting out, I have to say there is no doubt as to why the farming industry is in this position—it is because of the BSE crisis, which was a result of the previous Government ignoring proper scientific evidence. We do not intend to do the same ourselves.
    Shona McIsaac: What is the Government's view on the rather noble antics of Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk, the Earl of Burford, who seems to think that he has a divine right to rule simply because he is descended from Nell Gwynne? Does my right hon. Friend believe, like the Earl of Burford, that abolishing the voting rights of hereditary peers is an act of treason; or was it a great day for democracy and another manifesto pledge fulfilled?
    The Prime Minister: There are two simple reasons for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords. First, it is wrong in this day and age—whatever the Conservatives think—that, by birth, people can make laws. Secondly, it gave the Conservatives an in-built majority of three or four to one in perpetuity, no matter who won the general election. I hope that everyone saw those antics yesterday. They showed exactly why we were right to pursue this policy. We should never expect the Tories to be ready for the 21st century, but I thought at least that they might have left the 17th.
    Q.4 [94106] Mr. Norman Baker: Is the Prime Minister aware of the disastrous recommendations of the regional planning guidance panel for 1 million more houses in the south-east? Does he accept that building on that scale would cause immense damage to the local environment, and major infrastructure problems? Will he now publicly disown those recommendations, undertake that they will not be implemented and make sure that he has a regional policy in place to stop overheating in the south-east?
    The Prime Minister: There is a specified process and time for such reports to be considered, and we should go through that process in the normal way. This was not, of course, a Government report. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased the amount of building that has to be on brown-field sites from the poor figure under the previous Government to 60 per cent. now. We are trying to address the issues.
    Obviously, there is a lot more to do, and we will do our best to reflect on the plan that has been put to us. We will publish our deliberations in due course. We are well aware that we must balance properly the need for people to live in decent housing with the needs of the environment—which is why, since we came to power, we have increased the amount of green-belt land.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend delay any
    1014
    plans he has to visit my constituency until June next year, when he will be able to see the results of a £1 million lottery grant, every penny of which has been spent on the refurbishment of our magnificent Saltburn pier?
    The Prime Minister: The refurbishment of Saltburn pier is a marvellous project and I wish it the best of luck. I also look forward to visiting it in due course with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I have already written to the Prime Minister about the matter that I wish to raise with him today.
    Last Friday, the board of my NHS trust considered a report by its director of finance which forecast a £3 million deficit at the end of this year. The report proposed ways to balance the budget that would have severe a impact on patient care. Indeed, it became apparent that the measures would inflict severe pressure on the accident and emergency department this winter. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Government's priority is? Is it to bring down financial deficits that are a result of the underfunding of the NHS, or is it to protect front-line services that my constituents require, such as A and E?
    The Prime Minister: Deficits have been coming down. As the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of the point he wished to raise, I can tell him that there are no plans to close the accident and emergency department at either hospital within the Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust, and £3 million has already been invested in upgrading the accident and emergency department at St. Helier. Phase one will be open for Christmas, and funding of £1.4 million has now been agreed from the accident and emergency modernisation fund for new facilities at Epsom. I can also tell him that no medical or elderly beds will be closed during the winter period.
    The deficits will come down over time and have already come down from the levels we inherited, but it is important at the same time to get more money into accident and emergency departments. The hon. Gentleman will find as a result that the acute beds situation at his hospital is better, not worse.
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: May I thank the Prime Minister for the outline he has given of the Government's efforts on behalf of UK farmers, which will be very important for farmers in my constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire? Will he join me in congratulating the French rugby team who, at a recent world cup dinner, demanded British beef? It is nice to know that the French rugby team at least is prepared to play by the rules, even if its Government are not.
    The Prime Minister: Those are good sentiments because our quarrel is not with the French people. We have a dispute with the French Government and we should resolve it in a sensible, mature and adult way. That is what we intend to do and, whatever the Conservatives think, that is in the interests of both countries. I repeat that with £10 billion worth of food and drink going from this country to Europe, an illegal trade war would not be sensible.
    Mr. Bob Russell: When will the Government return to the people of St. Helena the British citizenship that was so wickedly taken from them in 1981 by the Thatcher Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of British citizenship for citizens of overseas territories was addressed in our White Paper on overseas territories, published in March. We will bring forward measures to award British citizenship to holders of British dependent territories citizenship. The withdrawal of British citizenship from the people of St. Helena caused great unhappiness at the time, and when we make our proposals after the consultation period in the White Paper has ended I hope very much that he finds the results that he wishes to see. I know of his interest in this matter, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I know also of the great concern in St. Helena.
    Mr. Martin Caton: Although older women are more likely to suffer from breast cancer, many women over 65 are not aware of their right to screening under the NHS. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Age Concern and the UK National Breast Cancer Coalition on the work that they are doing to make women aware of their right to self-referral? Will he also say whether the Government are considering extending automatic invitations to women over 65 for screening in the future?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment, we are conducting pilots covering people under 65. Based on the results of those schemes, we hope very much to extend the provision to those over 65. As a result of the new cancer proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, there is a new target to cut death rates from cancer by one fifth, which will mean 100,000 fewer deaths over 10 years. A total of £70 million extra is going into improving treatment for breast, lung and colorectal services, and about £93 million from the national lottery will be used to purchase more than 400 necessary items of modern equipment.
    In addition, we will in time roll out across the country a complete overhaul of the delivery of cancer care so that there can be on-the-spot booking—at first for 14 million people, but we hope to extend that opportunity even further. The result will be that people will get fast diagnosis and treatment. If surgery is needed, that will be done quickly as well. That is an excellent example of the type of new service that we are trying to introduce in the health service today.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: May I draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a letter from the chief constable of Staffordshire police? In his final paragraph, he states:
    "I do think it is outrageous for Ministers to say in Parliament that police officer numbers are a matter for Chief Constables alone … I do object when they seek to shift the blame onto me."
    The Staffordshire force has announced that the number of officers is to be reduced by 240. Will the Prime Minister intervene personally to prevent that decimation of the Staffordshire police force?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of what has been announced in the comprehensive spending review, police numbers are going to rise. However, it is correct that there was a fall in the first two years, in Staffordshire and elsewhere, because the review was based on the Conservative spending plans that this Government inherited. Conservative Members may not like to remember the fact, but police numbers fell in the five years of the previous, Conservative Government.
    However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a matter for chief constables alone. It also depends on Government spending, which is why we are committed to spending more money. That spending is opposed by the Conservative party. In case anyone thinks that I am talking about a position that the Opposition adopted last year and have since changed, let me remind the House of what the shadow Chancellor said only last week. He said:
    "Gordon Brown must not start on another spending spree."
    He also called the spending plans "reckless and irresponsible". The Conservatives are therefore not entitled to complain about schools, hospitals, police numbers or anything else because they are committed to cutting spending in all those areas. Having said that, however, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of the extra money being made available, in Staffordshire and elsewhere, we are able to recruit more police officers.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the negotiations in which he has been involved to secure a three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops? I hope that the whole House realises that this is an important step in delivering Labour's conference commitment to set our people free from the foods that they do not wish to eat.
    However, will my right hon. Friend pay attention to two specific points? First, will he ensure that the moratorium does not allow commercial approvals issued in the EU to bypass the UK moratorium and scrutiny process? Secondly, if he feels the need for extra legislative powers to hold producers liable for the genetic pollution that they create, will he feel free to draw on my Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill for inclusion in the Queen's Speech?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations, which are all the more welcome for being somewhat unusual.
    Before we came to office, there were no proper rules in relation to labelling and genetically modified foods. We have tightened the whole regulatory framework. On commercial approvals, European Union single market rules apply. We have made it clear in the agreements that we have entered into that we will not have products on the market until there has been proper testing and rigorous trials. Contrary to the Conservatives, our view is that as a country at the leading edge of the science of genetics and biotechnology, we should take a responsible and sensible position. We must not send an anti-science or anti-biotechnology signal and we must proceed on the basis of the science, albeit with great care and a tight regulatory system. We will not act in a foolish way.

  Building Regulation
  Madam Speaker: Would hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly and quickly so that we can get on with the business? Please hurry along, as a Member is waiting to move his Bill.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the building industry; and to provide for adjudication in disputes involving domestic building contracts.
  The Register of Members' Interests shows that I have a number of interests relating to the construction industry and that I undertake construction law at the Bar. The Bill, however, is not for the benefit of lawyers or the construction industry, as it would benefit consumers. The Bill is intended to tackle cowboy builders and to give statutory strength to measures to outlaw them.
  The latest annual figures from the Office of Fair Trading, compiled from the case loads of trading standards officers, show that complaints relating to home repair and maintenance have become the fastest growing source of consumer complaint. All hon. Members could give instances from their surgeries or postbags of people who have been ripped off by cowboy builders. Sadly, those people are often among the most vulnerable in the community who can least afford to be cheated.
  Some time ago, the Government established a working group to consider the problem of cowboy builders. The group recommended the establishment of a nationwide register of quality marked builders, backed by a mandatory warranty to cover all building work. The Government accepted the recommendation on the quality mark scheme for construction. But the major drawback to the initiative is that the scheme will be voluntary.
  Voluntary schemes, not backed by the force of law, present several difficulties. Consumers will have to come to terms with yet another identification mark, of which a plethora already exist in the construction industry. It will take some time before a voluntary quality mark achieves the sort of recognition necessary among consumers to ensure that those who have become sufficiently competent to acquire it are seen as such by consumers.
  When people take a package holiday or book airline tickets, they almost certainly do so through agents that have an air travel organisers' licence, which is a legal requirement. Every gas installer is obliged by law to be registered by CORGI—the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for maintaining a register of approved and qualified gas installers. What logic can underlie giving consumers legal protection against travel agents or statutory protection against a gas fitter but offering no protection when they get involved with builders or repairs on their homes?
  In survey after survey, consumers have made it clear that they want a Government-sponsored approach to cowboy builders. The Bill seeks to build on the Government's existing proposals, combating cowboy builders through statutory regulation. It would use the Building Act 1984 to extend the building regulations and establish a new category of minor works. That would
  1018
  provide a framework for the regulation of builders and would be linked to membership of a professional body or trade association and third party inspection.
  The approach is amazingly simple and straightforward. Work currently controlled in the construction of new buildings would also be controlled when carried out for repair, maintenance or improvement to existing homes. There would be no need or requirement for work carried out by quality mark registered builders to be notified. There would likewise be no requirement for notification of work carried out by the owner of the house, so those involved in DIY would not be caught out. However, work carried out by anyone who did not have a quality mark would require notification under the building regulations, and would be subject to building control either by the local authority or by approved inspectors.
  That approach gives clear statutory underpinning to any quality mark scheme and provides a clear incentive to those within the construction industry to achieve quality mark status. It also places the onus on local authorities to police the activities of unqualified builders more effectively. It sends the clearest possible signal to the consumer as to who are and who are not quality mark registered builders and will ensure that any building repairs undertaken by those who have not obtained quality mark status are checked by the local authority or another party.
  The final report of the working group on combating cowboy builders recommended:
  "that DETR continue to consider how amendments to the building regulations including their extension to the repair and maintenance sector could be effected to reflect and complement the objectives of the quality mark.
  It is understood that following the earlier consultation on a proposed new system of Competent Persons in 1997, DETR now expects to consult further on the proposals to develop classes of competent enterprises and individuals authorised to certify that work of defined types carried out by them comprise of relevant parts of the Building Regulations."
  That is what the Bill seeks to do: it takes forward precisely that recommendation.
  The Government published this month a consultation paper on the Building Act 1984, which acknowledges that central to the effort to tackle cowboy builders should be the development of a quality mark scheme identifying competent building firms. The DETR's new consultation document acknowledges that there are parallels with the competent enterprise proposals presented in relation to the building regulations and that, where possible, the construction quality mark and the building regulations should complement each other. That is exactly what my Bill seeks to do, and the DETR's latest consultation paper states:
  "by having such powers at its disposal, the department may be able to introduce new regulations in response to changing national requirements without these becoming an onerous burden either on business, the householder or third party building control."
  In other words, the DETR readily acknowledges that it would be possible to give statutory underpinning to a quality mark scheme for construction to protect consumers without that statutory underpinning placing any particular burden on the construction business, the consumer or local authorities. Moreover, the consultation document that was published this month—after I had served notice of my intention to introduce this Bill—makes clear the exact statutory provisions under which

  1019
  there could be legal underpinning of a quality mark scheme: the Department could use the powers given to it in paragraph 4(a) of schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984.
  It may be that this Bill, which enjoys all-party support, is pushing at an open door. I note that the editor of Building magazine, when commenting on the Labour party conference, said that the Government are considering changes to the building regulations in order to give reputable builders an edge over the cowboys. The Minister for Housing and Planning disclosed last week that he is examining proposals to relax the regulations, to allow registered contractors to self-certify when they carry out home improvements. Those without a quality mark will need local authority approval—which is exactly what the Bill seeks to introduce. I hope that the Government will support the Bill and that, if their voluntary scheme does not succeed, they will take up this simple statutory proposal.
  The second part of the Bill deals with adjudication. By seeking to extend the statutory right to adjudication as provided for by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Bill will include the domestic sector. That would offer consumers a quicker and less expensive method of resolving disputes than having to go to the county court. If the Government's voluntary scheme for beating cowboy builders does not work, I hope that they will feel able to pick up this simple statutory measure—not least because it is on all fours with existing Government policy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. John Butterfill, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Bill O'Brien and Mr. Bill Olner

  BUILDING REGULATION
  Mr. Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the building industry; and to provide for adjudication in disputes involving domestic building contracts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Parliamentary Privilege
[Relevant document: The Report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, Session 1998–99 (HC 214-I, II and III).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
3.40 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We are taking this opportunity to debate the work of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. That Committee was established by both Houses, and the proposal to set it up was sufficiently uncontroversial that it was agreed to, without debate, in July 1997.
The purpose of the Committee was to identify—separately from the continuing work of the Select Committee on Modernisation, but, in the context of privilege—the rights and duties that we need as a modern Parliament. The Joint Committee reported on 30 March this year. Today, the Government thought it right that the House should have the opportunity to give its views on the report.
First, I thank the members of the Joint Committee for all their endeavours. The Chairman, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, is a distinguished Law Lord, who devoted considerable time and effort to producing a most thorough report. Most of the Lords who were members of the Committee are respected and experienced former Members of this House—although we do not recognise them so readily from their new titles. They included two former Law Officers, one from each side of the House: Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Mayhew of Twysden. There were two former Home Secretaries: Lord Merlyn Rees and Lord Waddington, one from each side of the House. Furthermore, Lord Wigoder played an important part; he is a lawyer of great distinction, and helped to chair the Committee.
Distinguished Members of the House of Commons served on the Committee: my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), and the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who apologises for being unable to attend the debate this afternoon, was a member of the Committee in her then capacity as Leader of the House.
That collection of experience and wisdom produced the most extensive survey of parliamentary privilege in more than 30 years. The Committee distilled evidence from lawyers and parliamentarians from throughout the Commonwealth. The report is thorough; it was pursued diligently and is well produced. Apart from our focus on the report, it is also receiving much attention in Commonwealth Parliaments—especially in those of the southern hemisphere.
One of the problems that the Committee was unable to resolve related to the term "privilege" itself. The word has connotations of benefit or advantage which are not related to public need or duty. In 1967, when that subject was previously examined, it was recommended that the term be changed to "rights and immunities"—a term which

1021
is currently more familiar. However, although the recommendation was made in 1967, it was not pursued and the Joint Committee advises us—correctly—that to use a different term, rather than one that has been used for such a long time, would have little benefit and might cause more confusion. It would seem as though we were making a fundamental change, whereas in fact we are not. However, if anyone feels moved by the spirit of imagination to come up with a different phrase, they can use this opportunity to do so.
The Committee tried to examine what legal protection a modern Parliament really needs. The bottom line of the approach that is needed in these Houses of Parliament is freedom of speech. The great merit of the report is that it focuses attention on that key requirement, and clarifies what it ought to be, but gets rid of much unnecessary extra baggage.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend rightly points out that the Committee had to examine what a modern Parliament really needs. Was it, therefore, sensible that a Law Lord should have been the Chairman of such a Committee? I have nothing against the noble Lord; he is a most able and distinguished person, but was he a suitable choice?
Mrs. Beckett: I can say, with hand on heart, that I had no connection with that matter at the time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has no intention of impugning the capacity and the work of Lord Nicholls. His question is a legitimate one, but not one which I am in a position to answer.
Mr. Alan Williams: I was a member of the Joint Committee. I fully understand the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), with whom I have served on the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have to tell him that, during the 15 months of the Committee's deliberations, we could not have got through the legalistic maze that faced us, or dealt with the matter in an appropriate and logical fashion, had it not been for the work put in by Lord Nicholls. I have great admiration for him and think that he did a great job—indeed, the Committee would still be sitting and floundering had he not been there to guide us. He did not influence our decision, but helped us to see our way through.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and take his point that the combination of someone with legal expertise and experienced parliamentarians gave us the best of both worlds.
Mr. Eric Forth: Before the Leader of the House leaves it, may I pursue the point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)? The report states:
"Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs, free from intervention by the government or the courts."
The cause of concern is that an over-legalistic approach—one driven by legal niceties rather than a profound appreciation of the broader role of Parliament—might have given rise to some difficulties, and, to that extent, I can understand the point raised by the right hon.
1022
Gentleman. Does the Leader of the House have any sympathy with the argument that that might have biased the approach expressed in the report?
Mrs. Beckett: It is not a question whether I have sympathy with that point, which is a perfectly legitimate theoretical point. However, I think that that argument would arise only if one were dissatisfied to a significant extent with the terms of the report. I am not dissatisfied with it; if the right hon. Gentleman is, I am sure it will emerge during our debate.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Alan Williams: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will forgive me, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West first.
Mr. Williams: Even had the Joint Committee not been set up when it was, it would soon have had to be set up because of the European convention on human rights. The so-called legal niceties have to be observed if we are to conform with that convention, so it was a dominant element in our discussion and Lord Nicholls' guidance helped us in that respect.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the Leader of the House to respond to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) before taking another intervention.
Mrs. Beckett: I apologise, Madam Speaker—I was trying to help the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I do not dissent from it.
Mr. Hawkins: Without wanting to overelaborate, does the Leader of the House agree that the balance in the Joint Committee's work mentioned by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West is between the sanctity of parliamentary privilege and Parliament's governance of its own affairs and the fact that parliamentary privilege is, of itself, a legal concept? It is because of the legal protection that all of us have as Members of Parliament that the experienced chairmanship of Lord Nicholls was needed.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. However, I should add that, although the understanding and expectations of parliamentary privilege of those outside this place tend, perfectly naturally, to focus on the freedom of speech that it affords to Members of Parliament, it also gives protection to witnesses who come to give evidence to Parliament—for example, to Select Committees—and enables them to give their evidence without fear or intimidation from those who might dislike what they have to say. The freedom of speech that lies at the heart of parliamentary privilege is not for Members of Parliament alone, but extends to those who inform our discussions.

1023
The principle that underlies that is enshrined in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which states:
"freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
The Joint Committee has recommended that that article, which is a powerful protection, should be confined to activities that justify so high a degree of protection and that the boundaries within which it can be exercised should be made clear. That would involve new statutory definitions of "proceedings in Parliament" and "place out of Parliament". It also recommended that section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, which enables an individual Member of Parliament to waive privilege, should be repealed so that it can be replaced by a provision for the House to waive privilege in cases where there is no risk of legal liability for someone who makes a statement in Parliament.
Mr. Graham Brady: That point troubled me when I looked at the report. If the House chose to waive privilege in respect of something that a Member had said which, at that point, would not give rise to any legal liability, does it remain possible that the material to which the removed privilege applied could subsequently become subject to a court action?
Mrs. Beckett: That is certainly not impossible. The hon. Gentleman may later wish to discuss the issues raised with some of those, of whom sadly I was not one, who served on the Committee. I understand that the issues were exhaustively thrashed out and that the Committee tried to come to the right balance and achieve a proper degree of protection.
Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I see that the hon. Gentleman, who was on the Committee, is nodding. The Committee wanted proper protection, but wanted it to be exercised by the House as a whole.
The second core principle underlying the principle of privilege has been the right of Parliament to control its own affairs. The Joint Committee has proposed—and I think that all hon. Members will agree—that the right of each House to administer its own affairs within its own precincts should be confined to activities that are directly and closely related to proceedings in Parliament. The corollary is that Parliament should not, as has been the case in the past, be a statute-free zone on matters such as health and safety. That will be recognised and welcomed by many hon. Members. The Committee also recommends that while the House should retain its jurisdiction over its own Members, its power to punish non-Members for contempt should be transferred to the courts.
Among the privileges that we have all, at least in theory, enjoyed for several years, although mostly without exercising them, are freedom from arrest in civil cases and protection from the service of civil writs by post. In the Lords, there has been similar provision under privilege of peerage. There has also been a lack of clarity about whether peers unfortunate enough to be detained under
1024
mental health legislation are thereby disqualified from sitting and voting. The Joint Committee has done us all a useful service in identifying the fact that many of those provisions have fallen into desuetude, are no longer necessary and need not be preserved in our rules and proceedings.
I am on slightly delicate territory because I was not a member of the Committee and because it reported to Parliament, rather than to the Government. I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me to give an idea of the approach that the Government are minded to take to the report before I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate. Because it is addressed to Parliament rather than the Government, I propose not to go into detailed, line by line comment, but to summarise the Government's approach to the report with which, I am happy to say, we broadly agree.
The report's 39 recommendations cover a range of issues, including freedom of speech, bribery, control of Parliament's own affairs, disciplinary powers and the handling of parliamentary papers. The Government broadly concur with the vast majority of the recommendations.
There are just two small proposals by the proposals of the Joint Committee that might need a little closer examination and to which we hope that the House will give further thought. The Joint Committee's logic on both issues is clear; I do not quarrel with that. The issue is whether it is necessary in practice to go quite as far as it suggests.
The first proposal is that the power to imprison Members, which has been long unused, should be replaced by a power to fine. That is set out in paragraphs 276 to 279 of the report. The House is well aware that the suspension of a Member now carries an automatic loss of salary for the period concerned. That was not, I think, the case and was not so fresh in Members' minds when the Joint Committee undertook its consideration. Of course, the punishments of admonishment or, ultimately, even of expulsion remain. I admit that I am not certain that we also need, in those circumstances, a power to fine Members of Parliament for misconduct over and above the financial penalty that suspension carries.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I explain our thinking? It is not correct to suggest that the Joint Committee was not aware of that point, because we considered the existing position in detail. However, we felt that the suspension of a Member also punished his constituents, who would be deprived of his or her services in the House. On other occasions, suspension may not be relevant. We have a limited range of penalties available to us. As the current Chairman and other members—myself included—of the Joint Committee will, I hope, tell my right hon. Friend, we find it difficult to find appropriate gradations for the penalties. We are trying to be fairer, not more draconian.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's point. I apologise, because I did not think that the Committee had considered the matter so recently that it would be, as I said, fresh in its members' minds. I understand that there are a variety of circumstances; no doubt other Members may touch on this issue during the debate.

1025
I take my right hon. Friend's point that there is a distinction between the financial penalty to Members and their opportunity to serve their constituents. However, I find it a little hard to envisage the circumstances in which the House might wish to fine a Member without considering the option of suspension. I flag up that point, because the Committee has done a thorough job of clearing away powers that are thought to be no longer necessary. Although I accept that the Joint Committee considered this issue at some length, the question is whether the power is needed. That is a matter for the House to consider.
The second issue that I wish to flag up is the recommendation in paragraph 267, which suggests that the breach of an embargo on the publication of a Committee report should be treated as a contempt. Again, we have seen Standards and Privileges Committee reports directed precisely at such matters in the recent past, and I am sure that such an approach will have a strong deterrent effect. I am not entirely sure that much more can be achieved by seeking further to punish those who publish leaks. Indeed, I would be a little nervous of venturing into this territory, but, again, it is a matter that may be raised in the debate.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry to intervene again, but I would like to clarify the matter. We spent 15 months considering the issues, so my memory may be at fault. However, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) may recollect what happened. I believe that this particular provision was imported from the Scotland Act 1998.
Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess to my right hon. Friend that not every word of the Scotland Act is etched on my memory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a shameful thing to admit, but I thought that I had better do so.
Mr. John Bercow: It is not a sackable offence.
Mrs. Beckett: That is just as well. However, my right hon. Friend may be right. If he is, that will emerge in the course of this or other discussions.
One of the main reasons for setting up the Joint Committee was for Parliament to produce a response to proposals by the Home Office for a new law dealing with corruption. The issue there was how the rare cases—they are rare indeed—of bribery involving Members of Parliament or peers should be dealt with because of the unsatisfactory state of the current law. The Joint Committee recommended—the Government entirely agree—that Members of Parliament and peers should be treated in the same way as other citizens and should be subject to a new corruption statute. The Law Commission has produced a draft Bill on the matter and the Government will obviously look to introduce it when legislative time permits.
The Joint Committee acknowledged—it is right and important that it did—the difficulties that are faced by people involved in public life and the fact that they are more vulnerable to mistaken or malicious allegation. It was against the background of that recognition that
1026
the Joint Committee nevertheless recommended that Members be brought within the scope of the statute law on bribery. That has to be the correct judgment.
I welcome, however, the further safeguard that the Joint Committee recommended that consent for prosecutions under the new legislation should require the consent of the Attorney-General. The Government accept that recommendation. Obviously, we all expect and hope that such cases will be few and far between. Indeed, let us hope that, in the years to come, that is another aspect of our safeguards and provisions which will wither away and will no longer be needed. When corruption legislation can be introduced, we anticipate that it will contain such a safeguard.
The report recommends that we have a parliamentary privileges Act. Some of the recommendations made could be implemented in other legislation or, indeed, not necessarily in primary legislation but by resolutions of the House or by administrative action. However, it seems to the Government that the bulk of the reforms proposed could not be put in place fully without a new Bill.
Equally, however, such a Bill has to compete with other priorities for legislative time, and I cannot at this stage promise the House early action. Obviously, the Government will consider how such legislation might be introduced. Perhaps this is just such an issue on which a draft Bill might well be prepared. It is exactly the sort of matter that might well benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny.
This is a further good example of recognising the importance to the smooth working of Parliament of ensuring that our fundamental rules on rights and duties, as well as other aspects of our work, are kept up to date to meet modern needs. The Joint Committee has given us a thorough and incisive report. This is the first opportunity for the House to express its views. Although I have given a preliminary indication of the Government's reaction to the report and what it proposes, I obviously undertake that we will take into account what is said in this debate before work continues to implement it.
4.2 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the President of the Council and Leader of the House for what she said and for the tone of her remarks. I also thank her for finding this opportunity to debate this important report before the end of the Session and for responding positively to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
It would be very wrong not to pay a tribute at the outset to the right hon. Lady's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is now the Patronage Secretary. The Joint Committee was set up on her initiative. She was a most diligent attender at our meetings and she played a full part in our discussions not as Leader of the House, or subsequently as Patronage Secretary, but as a parliamentarian. Everyone who was present on the Committee appreciated that.
As the President of the Council and Leader of the House said, the Joint Committee first met on 20 November 1997. We had about 33 formal meetings and various informal meetings. We met for the last time on 23 February. To take up a point made in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), all of us on the Joint Committee, without

1027
exception, felt that we were fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of Lord Nicholls, who chaired our deliberations with good humour.
It would be dishonest to pretend that there was not, on occasion, a degree of creative tension between the parliamentarians and the Law Lords, but, nevertheless, it was a constructive tension and we came up with a report to which we were all glad to sign our names. It would be wrong not to thank Lord Nicholls, not only for the manner in which he chaired the Joint Committee, but for the enormous amount of time that he put into it, both at meetings and between meetings.
As the Leader of the House said, this is, first and last, a parliamentary matter. When the House finally comes to decide on the Committee's recommendations, it will do so on the basis of free votes. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree with that. It was therefore right that party politics should play no part in the Committee's deliberations, and they certainly did not. I should be surprised if they did in this debate.
Although I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I was also a member of the Committee, I have a personal interest in the implementation of the report, and I hope that a report that was agreed to unanimously by a Committee of both Houses will commend itself to the majority of colleagues in this House.
The Leader of the House implied a positive response. It would have been rather embarrassing for the current Patronage Secretary had she said otherwise. I am delighted that the Leader of the House said what she said, and I welcome in particular her suggestion that we should have a draft Bill. If any subject lends itself to consideration in that way, it is this one. Her reservations seemed to be mainly on points of detail. I understand that, and I shall deal with some of them.
It is good to have a positive response from the Government, especially as so many of the changes require legislation. Other changes do not, and I shall touch on some of them.
The right hon. Lady said that the subject aroused interest far beyond this Parliament. Apart from our 14 sessions of oral evidence, when we had some Commonwealth witnesses, we received a great deal of written material, much of it from Commonwealth Parliaments, mainly in Australia. Their wealth of experience was valuable to us as we came to formulate our recommendations, because a number of those Parliaments have a system similar to our own. The Australian Federal Parliament has already enacted a modern Parliamentary Privileges Act, which we considered, and two Australian states—Western Australia and Queensland—still derive their privileges directly from the privileges of this Parliament.
Mr. Sheldon: With reference to Western Australia, I had the advantage of meeting not only the officers of the Western Australian Parliament, but some of the Members. There were grave misgivings about the work that has been done so far by Lord Nicholls's Committee.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, will acquaint us with some of those misgivings during the debate.
1028
I shall listen, as I know the right hon. Lady and others will, with particular care to what he says. No one would pretend that the report is perfect; no report ever is. However, for reasons that I shall explain, I believe that it is a good and positive report. It makes proposals that the House would do well to consider carefully.
There has been great interest throughout the Commonwealth since the report was published. It is slightly disappointing that not much attention has been focused on it in the House or among those who comment on the affairs of this place and who study our proceedings.
The report deals with some of the fundamental constitutional issues that concern, or ought to concern, every hon. Member: the proper relationship between Parliament and the courts; the extent to which Members of Parliament need immunity from the law to fulfil their duties to their constituents; and the reconciling of the rights of the individual citizen with the collective interest of the nation in having a free and effective Parliament. Perhaps as we begin our debate on these issues, those who are truly interested in a vigorous and free Parliament and a free nation will comment on these matters.
At the beginning of the Committee's inquiry, there might have been some who were tempted to throw away a system so dependent on ancient statute and practice, and to start again. However, the moment one looks at the matter closely, the more clearly one realises that the core privileges of Parliament are as central to our constitution today as they ever were. An attempt to invent a new set of powers would create much constitutional and legal uncertainty. I agree with those who say that there is some dead wood to be got rid of, but the essentials of what we have are vital to democracy and to parliamentary sovereignty. As the report says:
"Parliamentary privilege is founded on the principle that the proper conduct of Parliamentary business without fear or favour, let of hindrance, requires that Parliament shall be answerable for the conduct of its affairs to the public as a whole, and specifically in the case of the House of Commons, to the electorate. It must be free from, and protected from, outside intervention. Parliament is sovereign over its own business."
The Committee strongly endorses that view. Tradition is important. We should take what is tried and tested and build from there. That is what the Committee sought to do.
The Leader of the House quoted article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which encapsulates the privilege of freedom of speech—our fundamental freedom. Many Members have long supported a new statutory definition that would give both Parliament and the courts detailed guidance on what is included in the term "proceedings in Parliament". That was a recommendation of the 1967 House of Commons Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and several other Select Committees have since made similar recommendations, but the traditional parliamentary view has been that broader legislation would ossify privilege and involve the courts increasingly in dealing with privilege matters. I am bound to say that listening to the evidence caused us to modify that view.
The courts are constantly reinterpreting privilege in one context or another and the development of judicial review over the past decade has been rapid. Rightly or wrongly, Ministers no longer simply have to answer to this place for their decisions, but are subject to judicial review. Appreciable inroads have been made into the traditional interpretation of article 9, which tells the courts not to

1029
impeach or question what is done in Parliament. Sometimes judicial interpretation of ancient statute might be a good thing. It is easy to contend, for instance, that the Lords decision in Pepper v. Hart, which permitted the courts to look at our debates when interpreting statute, furthers Parliament's intentions. It may be that, to give justice to the individual, the courts need to use parliamentary proceedings more, but, crucially, those developments should not undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend perhaps reserve his judgment in the case of Pepper v. Hart, which leads a number of disputed issues into the long grass of legal research? As two litigants shape up to each other, each has to comb through every parliamentary stage of every relevant statute to see what Ministers said in aid of the interpretation of that statute. Is not Pepper v. Hart a burden on the public good will?
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a valid point of view, but we have had the Pepper v. Hart decision in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson made the point that what they were seeking to do would not in any sense erode parliamentary privilege. Rather, they were trying to establish what Parliament intended and whether it had been carried out. I made my remarks in that context alone. Perhaps many people wish that Pepper v. Hart had never happened.
Mr. Taylor: I may be entirely on my own in the House in wishing that that result had not come about, but I happen to think that English statute should be interpreted at face value—on what the words mean rather than what Parliament intended. The pursuit of what Parliament intended could be endless—it is labyrinthine. Would it not be simpler for our citizens, particularly our litigating citizens, to look at the statute and say, "What do these words mean?" instead of, "What on earth was Parliament thinking of?"
Sir Patrick Cormack: As I said, my hon. Friend has a point. However, we cannot put the clock back: we have had Pepper v. Hart, and we are where we are. The Committee had to recognise that fact.
Mr. Bill Michie: I think that the judgment was right. In future, Ministers will have to do their homework correctly and ensure that what they are saying in the Chamber is what will appear in statute. Surely that is a good thing.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I think that we could all say amen to that.
Mr. Sheldon: Before the hon. Gentleman says amen to that, I should tell him that I was involved in the beginning of Pepper v. Hart, as one of my interventions, in a debate on a Finance Bill, led to the case. The then Opposition had perhaps the most talented Front-Bench line-up that we have ever known—most of them were subsequently appointed to Cabinet—and by whom I was being pursued for my interpretation. Being a reasonable person—happy to help in any way that I could—I gave them my interpretation. The matter was pursued again and again, and, finally, led to Pepper v. Hart.
1030
As soon as I heard about the case, I scrambled to see what it was that I had said, and, luckily, found that it was justifiable. However, the consequence has been that Ministers should be very careful about what they say, and may not be quite so helpful in the future as a Minister was able to be in the past.
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a very important point, which was recognised by all Committee members, and on which we had a long discussion.
Hon. Members must control the way in which we conduct our business. This House must be the place where the Government are called to account on behalf of those whom we represent. The courts must not take over Parliament's role. To ensure that that happens, we believe that a firmer and clearer boundary must be drawn. However, there is no guarantee that the courts would take any notice of the resolutions of the House. We do not lock up judges any more. I therefore welcome the Government's recognition that the Committee was right when we suggested that a new statute is needed to address the issue.
If the courts need to be restrained in any drift towards becoming legislators, we in Parliament must realise that modern standards of fairness, including the fundamental right to a fair trial, mean that the House is not entirely suited to a judicial role in dealing with serious contempts of Parliament.
Mr. Bercow: To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that the aspiration that he has just expressed, that judicial interference should be prevented or minimised, has been compromised by passage of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend tempts me down a long and circuitous road. I am—as I said very clearly in Committee—one of those who are not at all happy about the Act's implications. Again, however, we have to face the realities as they are. Much as I personally regret it—I am speaking personally, and only personally—the Act is there, and we have to recognise that fact.
Mr. Forth: Until we can change it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, but that will not be for a year or two yet.
Much is often made of Parliament's ancient power to commit anyone to prison for a serious contempt. However, that has not happened since 1880. Does anyone seriously contemplate that the House, without due process of law, would do it now? [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may wish that we could. However, in the unlikely circumstances that it should ever be necessary, surely it would be better done through the judicial process.
Statute law may even have a part to play in making our own proceedings effective. One of the most important developments in the past 20 years has been the use of Select Committees to scrutinise Government and to examine issues of public interest. Yet the ancient power to send for persons, papers and records is uncertain in scope and effect. The new delegated legislatures in Scotland and Wales, which we have created, have been

1031
given statutory powers by this House to require the production of persons and papers. Those powers are supported by procedures of enforcement by the courts. That seemed to the Joint Committee to be a suitable model for the United Kingdom Parliament to copy.
Transferring disciplinary powers over its own members to courts would undermine the House's authority and create the risk of undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. That is one area which must be for Parliament alone. I share some of the reservations of the Leader of the House about giving the House power to fine its Members. The subject occupied us for long debates in Committee. The Committee intended the provision as a substitute for the power to imprison, which some would be surprised to know that we can still claim to have. I very much doubt whether either power is really needed. I understand and, to an extent, share the right hon. Lady's reservations.
Mr. Bill Michie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes when Members of Parliament have to be disciplined, it is better to hit their pocket than to give them a day off?
Sir Patrick Cormack: That is a valid point of view and we discussed it in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I subscribe to the report, but, as he knows, I had reservations on that issue, as did some others. When a Committee seeks to arrive at a generally accepted conclusion there are always some aspects of the report with which individuals agree more strongly than others. I was merely picking up the point made by the Leader of the House and saying that I understand her reservation and, to an extent, I share it.
I am surprised that the Bill to reform the law of corruption appears to have been put on the back burner. The Home Secretary strongly pressed the Committee to hurry its findings. Perhaps the Leader of the House or the Minister who winds up will tell us whether the final version of the Bill has been drafted. The Law Commission produced a draft Bill at the beginning of last year—indeed, we included it in the report. Where do we stand now? The report accepts that in cases of alleged bribery it is appropriate that Members should not have the benefit of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I am glad that the Leader of the House accepts the Committee's unanimous recommendation that in such cases the Attorney-General's consent must be given before a prosecution can be brought. The Committee, which included two former Attorneys-General and two former Home Secretaries, came to its view, conscious of the fact that Members of Parliament are vulnerable to malicious or misguided allegations.
A key recommendation of the report, to which the right hon. Lady referred, is the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 and its replacement with a broader power of waiver to be exercised by the Speaker, advised by a small Committee of senior Members. To recommend the repeal of a provision so recently enacted requires justification. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) expressed some concern about that. I shall try to explain why the Committee came to its view.
1032
The intention of section 13 is to remedy an accepted unsatisfactory situation. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents a court from examining those actions that form part of proceedings in Parliament—speeches, questions, motions and investigations of Select Committees. Before section 13 was enacted, article 9 prevented a Member from calling evidence about proceedings to demonstrate that an alleged libel had been committed and prevented a defendant from calling evidence about proceedings to prove that his allegations were true. Where a case was dependent on such evidence, either the parties did not proceed, or if they did, the judge stayed the proceedings of the court. That has always been so, but, in this litigious and media-dominated age, that has rightly been perceived to be intolerable.
Section 13 was intended to allow an hon. Member to waive part of the House's protection from the scrutiny of proceedings by the courts to allow proceedings relating to him to be examined in court in a libel action. However, section 13 was drafted and enacted quickly in the charged atmosphere of a particular case. The House will know the history and it is summarised in the report from paragraph 60 onwards.
I am tempted to quote the aphorism, "Hard cases make bad law", but I am not concerned with the Hamilton v. Al Fayed action. If I were, you would doubtless stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the case is set to begin on 15 November and our own current sub judice rule prevents us from discussing it today. I am concerned not with that case, but with section 13 itself.
The section has a number of defects. It does not extend just to present or past Members of either House. It could be used by a witness, a petitioner, an Officer of either House, the adviser to a Select Committee or perhaps a lobbyist—any of them could in certain circumstances waive his privilege in a libel action without the House having any opportunity to judge whether Parliament would be damaged by the case continuing. Section 13, therefore, undermines the very concept of parliamentary privilege, which belongs not to any one of us, but collectively to the House. Our privileges have grown up on the basis that they are collective; they are the privileges of Parliament and not the perquisite of individual Members. It is also anomalous, as the report points out in paragraph 61, that under section 13 a waiver applies simply to defamation and to nothing else.
The Committee sought an alternative that would maintain the merits of section 13, but present fewer legal difficulties and would ensure that the privilege that belongs to Parliament is controlled by Parliament. We therefore recommended that section 13 should be replaced by a power for each House to waive article 9 for the purpose of any court proceedings, and not simply for defamation, where the words spoken or acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the act to legal liability. That was a key point.
In order to keep decisions outside the political arena, the Joint Committee recommended the appropriate machinery for determining whether a waiver should be given might in this House be the Speaker assisted by the advice of a small Committee. It suggested that the Committee might include the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and one or more representatives of other parties with the

1033
power to co-opt Members either generally or for a particular case. The presumption would be that a waiver would be granted unless there were overriding parliamentary reason for not so doing and some examples of where a waiver might be refused are set out in paragraph 80 of the report.
I emphasise that a waiver is not a total waiver of article 9 any more than section 13 is. There would be no question of legal liability for anyone for what he said or did in Parliament. The only exception where the operation of article 9 would be totally removed would be on a criminal charge of bribery under the proposed corruption Bill to which I referred a few moments ago.
The report contains many detailed recommendations. I shall deal with just two and then briefly summarise some of the rest. There is a good case to be made in principle for defining proceedings in Parliament in a statute to include Members' correspondence with Ministers and constituents. Previous Committees, including the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1967 and the Privileges Committee in 1977 recommended such a change.
The issue is difficult, and the reasons for the Joint Committee's rejection of the idea are set out in the report. We were impressed by evidence on the extent to which the development of qualified privilege in law protects hon. Members who are acting without malice pursuant to their parliamentary duty.
There are certainly strong arguments in favour of absolute protection. We should take careful note of the subject in this debate and those that may follow. I would be interested to hear whether colleagues think that we have got it right or that privilege should be extended.
I was concerned by the Committee's conclusions on subpoenas and I needed a great deal of persuasion before I accepted them. The recommendation is that the two Houses should no longer claim the absolute right to refuse to answer a subpoena, but that subpoenas should not be issued without a judge's consent. Again, the case is carefully set out in the report, but, again, I would be interested to hear what both Government and Opposition Members have to say about the proposal.
Mrs. Beckett: I did not flag up the matter in particular in my speech, but let me return the hon. Gentleman's earlier courtesy by saying that I have some sympathy with his observations. I well recall occasions in recent years when members of the previous Government were threatened with being called to give evidence in various cases. I do not recall the individual circumstances, but it was clearly a ploy. I recognise that the Committee has made the important safeguard that a judge would have to agree, but—I hope that I am not in breach of any of the obligations of the House in saying this—I am not as confident as I would like to be that every judge would see things in quite the way that we do here.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for reinforcing my reservations.
The Leader of the House referred to future legislation, but there are many recommendations that do not involve legislation. This is a matter for the House, as she rightly said, but I should be grateful if she or the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office would tell us whether the
1034
Government are prepared to find time for those recommendations to be debated or are sympathetic to them.
Paragraph 14 is concerned with ensuring that
"rules and conventions concerning standards of conduct are in readily accessible form capable of being understood"
by the public.
Paragraph 15 is concerned with the implementation of a new sub judice rule as set out in paragraph 202. That is a very important matter. I do not in any way challenge the Chair, but, time and again over the past year, the Speaker has felt obliged to prevent our discussing a long-running case because of our current sub judice rule. I should be interested to hear the Government's reaction to the possibility of a change.
Paragraph 18 advocates the production of advisory guides for Members of both Houses on the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech. We have had some worrying examples of hon. Members perhaps too lightly using the freedom that the Chamber gives them to make all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations to which people can have no adequate and proper response. The report dismisses the idea of giving some sort of reply via Hansard. We did not think that that was practical or sensible, but we believe that the onus is therefore all the greater on the Member to realise just what a privilege freedom of speech is. We hope that that recommendation will find favour.
Paragraph 20 says that it should be made clear in every new statute that it applies to Parliament unless Parliament has been specifically excluded.
Paragraph 22 calls for the drawing up of a clear statement of parliamentary rights and powers, and urges that this, together with a statement of their own rights, should be given to all potential witnesses coming before parliamentary Committees. Paragraph 23 asks the Procedure Committee to examine and report on the desirability of maintaining the conventions that one House cannot compel the attendance of a Member of the other.
Paragraph 28 is concerned with the disciplinary powers of the House over its Members, and with the exercise of those powers by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is such a distinguished Chairman. His views on that matter will be particularly interesting.
We made a clear recommendation on leaks, to which the Leader of the House referred. Here is the one occasion when I cannot find myself able to applaud what she said, as I believe that our recommendation is particularly pertinent in light of recent events. Some of us will have found her reply not only disappointing but, frankly, inadequate. I hope that she will think again, and that the Minister will deal with the subject when he replies to the debate.
One final legislative point has urgency. One consequence of the two Houses taking charge of their own affairs was the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, establishing the Clerks of the two Houses as corporate officers to make contracts on behalf of the two Houses. Circumstances could well arise—and, in one recent case, very nearly did—where, because the relevant proceedings on contracts are sometimes considered in domestic Committees, which are Select Committees, article 9 of

1035
the Bill of Rights prevents the court from considering the Committee's proceedings. This could seriously prejudice the case put by the House, and could be financially costly in some cases. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government plan any action to remedy this situation by accepting our recommendations.
The report is the fullest examination of the issue of parliamentary privilege for many years. I believe that it makes sensible and, in some cases, far-reaching recommendations which will modernise and safeguard parliamentary privilege for the new century. I am sorry if I have gone on rather long, but this is an important matter which should concern every Member of Parliament. I hope that this will be the first of many debates as we proceed to discuss in detail the Committee's recommendations and, where appropriate, to legislate upon them.
I hope that all Members will agree that the report illustrates the value of Joint Committees of both Houses looking in detail and in depth over a long period at important subjects.
4.37 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I intend to be brief, as the key points have been touched on and I wish to amplify only one or two.
I have already paid my respects to the noble Lord Nicholls for his admirable work in chairing the Committee, and I associate myself with the thanks expressed by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Patronage Secretary, who was fully committed to the work of the Committee.
May I also—if it does not embarrass him—congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire? We did not always agree, but we always argued constructively and amicably. Both of us recognised that the other was trying to argue in the best interests of this House, and that no party politics were involved.
Privilege was a mishmash and a mess. Much of it was out of date and irrelevant, and it was time to try to clear things up. That is why we needed the help of the noble Lord. Throughout our work, our overriding consideration was that freedom of speech in the House is inviolate and must be protected at all costs.
I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Having committed about 15 months to the work of the Committee, it is gratifying that, whatever the House may decide, the Government can go along with 37 of our 39 proposals. There is one "maybe" and another recommendation on which the Government will, I hope, check the Scotland Act 1998 before the Minister replies. They will then find what we said about Parliament's recent decision on the Scottish Parliament, and whether we said that we could not have less defence for our own privileges in this House.
I shall first consider the issue of penalties. In addressing our discussions in the Standards and Privileges Committee, I have tried to draw on my experience of the old-style Committee in the previous Parliament and of the new Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He can speak for the Committee better
1036
than I can, but we have been constrained in imposing penalties after we have found that an offence has been committed.
If we suspend a Member for a week, that leads to a £900 fine. We might feel that a £900 fine is enough in itself. Why should not we be able to impose such a fine and allow a Member of Parliament to continue to go about his work in the House? For more serious offences, we could impose a suspension, which of course would incorporate the fine. We do not request more draconian powers, and the House could impose limits on the level of fines. All we suggest is a change that would make it easier for the Committee to reach conclusions when dealing with individual cases, which all have different niceties and qualifying factors. The present system does not allow us to take those into account, which is why I support the proposal for fines.
Mr. Brady: Did the Committee consider the fact that a sum may have different value to different Members of Parliament, but a suspension from the House is an equal punishment for all Members?
Mr. Williams: It is also a punishment for constituents. We still have to work on the standard of living value of the fine, although perhaps we are being over-generous to Opposition Members, most of whom would probably find the fines less onerous than most Labour Members. However, it would be dangerous to apply subjective evaluations in that case.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), a former Attorney-General, is in his place. He will remember, as do I, the cash for questions case in the previous Parliament. I still look back on that session of the Committee with no pride. Suspension can become a political punishment. Over the past 30 years, we have had Governments with small or non-existent majorities. In such cases, suspension may become a politicised punishment. Many of my hon. Friends who have served on the Committee may disagree with me, but I look back on the cash for questions case with a degree of shame—not because of the decision that we made, but because of the incredible and unjustifiable time that we kept the hon. Members involved hanging around while the two sides of the Committee sparred before reaching a decision. The fact that the decision was being made in the run-up to an election, and might have involved suspensions, coloured the thinking. I may be doing an injustice to hon. Members, but I think that we were unfair to two of our colleagues, even though our decision about the penalty was fair.
In the same way, I think that the House should be able to look after its own affairs. I hope that the distinction does not sound trivial, but we must distinguish between the club rules that, any organisation might have, and the criminal activity that, in other circumstances, could lead to imprisonment. Members of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege work according to the tribunal criteria, under which guilt is assessed according to the balance of evidence. We do not use the far tighter criminal requirement that guilt be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

1037
I was involved in the Hamilton case, in which I consider that the Committee reached the correct conclusion. The Committee's ruling made it clear that the conclusion had been reached on the lesser criteria of the balance of the evidence received.
Although I pay tribute to the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I recognise the constraints within which she has to operate. Even with the commissioner, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege does not have the investigative capability to investigate more serious offences, such as corruption, which attract much more serious consequences.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will remember, the previous commissioner had advice from a solicitor. In evidence, that solicitor said that he was struck by the fact that the Committee's investigative capability was far below that of the police. For that reason, I had no trouble in concluding that the more serious matters, such as corruption, should go before the courts.
I do not regard membership of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege as a privilege. Judging colleagues is no fun. One makes friends among hon. Members of all parties, with whom one has to mix for several years. Given that one has to deal with people whom one has known for many years, there is a risk that one's judgment might be coloured. That is only human, although I think that the Committee is, in fact, incredibly objective. People would be made to stand down from a jury if they had the same relationship with a defendant as we have with the people who appear before us.
The Government asked for our opinion on corruption and bribery. I believe that we should make such serious offences matters for the courts. It would be a pity if that recommendation were to be sidelined, but we shall have to await confirmation of that.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I apologise to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for not being present to hear much of their speeches.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has touched on the question of bribery and corruption. I quite agree that Members of Parliament of either House should be exposed to prosecution for such offences, if there is a proper case to answer. However, does he share my recognition that the question of what is said in either House—the question of freedom of speech—raises very difficult and important issues indeed? If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to be able to describe them in more detail later.
Mr. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct and the House must consider those matters.
I recall that a former distinguished Member of this House—Lord Merlyn-Rees—asked throughout the Committee's 15 months of investigation: "Tell me, Mr. Chairman, as I look back over all my years in the House of Commons, why on earth would it have been
1038
worth anyone's while to bribe me?" There is a myth about the power exercised by the ordinary Member of Parliament.
Mr. Bill Michie: We might describe that as a trades descriptions problem.
Mr. Williams: Indeed.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has accepted our recommendation that the House should no longer be exempt from health and safety requirements and other such matters. Exemption has presented problems for officials in the House taking legal action over contracts. It has also come close to costing Members dear. When the Public Accounts Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, it examined fire risk in public buildings and the absence of fire licences in some Whitehall buildings, including, most interestingly, the part of the Home Office that then housed those responsible for licensing.
I discovered that the House had no licence, and I met the newly appointed fire officer, who told me the likely consequences. I shall not go into them in detail because they might make some Members uncomfortable about being in their offices. The officer told me that in one part of the building, if a fire blocked the single stairway, the escape route involved going out of a window on to a parapet, edging along it and climbing on to a neighbouring roof. Hon. Members may note around the building previously bricked-up doors that have since been opened to gain us a lower grade of fire licence.
The situation was absurd. People who worked here were not given the legal protection to which they were entitled. Nor was the House as safe a place as it should be in which to work or—as we virtually do—to live.
4.53 pm
Sir Peter Emery: It is with great pleasure that I say that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has done a very thorough and complete job and we would all wish to thank hon. Members on both sides for their work.
I did not entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when he said that he thought that privilege had been a mishmash. That was not so, and nor is it so now. In fact, the greatest of our privileges is freedom of speech, which has been guaranteed since 1689 when article 9 of the Bill of Rights made it absolutely clear, in words that bear repeating, that
"freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament".
That absolute privilege is of the greatest importance in a democracy. In many nations, autocratic and dictatorial regimes make it clear that any major criticism of them—in Parliament or not—will get people quickly into prison. Members of Parliament have the right of freedom of speech, which, incidentally and rather amusingly, was secured mainly through the work of our forebears and the pressure applied by peers in another place. However, we will not go into that in this debate.
I shall raise four specific points. When I was Chairman of the Procedure Committee—I held the post for 14 years—these matters arose more frequently than any other, so we must try to rectify any problems now or in

1039
the draft Bill. I refer hon. Members to the sub judice rule, which will always be a point of contention. Page 52 of the report states clearly that the sub judice rule is reasonable and proper. The rule provides that
matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward
when it would make it more difficult for justice to be served. However, paragraph 191 states:
"On the other hand, Parliament has a constitutional right to discuss any matters it pleases."
The limitations imposed by the sub judice rule is, and can be, damaging. It is not unreasonable to refer in this context to the Pinochet case, which has been much on our minds of late. It is madness that, although all the media and every man, woman and child can debate that case time and again, the sub judice rule prevents Members of Parliament even from considering it. I do not believe that that is right in today's world.
It is immensely difficult—as I am sure the Leader of the House will acknowledge—to attempt to put into words exactly how the sub judice rule must work in every case. However, Madam Speaker has the power to make that decision and I suggest—if I may be so bold—that she should enforce the sub judice rule much more leniently than she has done recently.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 202—which I mentioned briefly in passing—in which he will see that the Committee has attempted to frame a resolution that addresses the points of concern that he and I share.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend should not think that I have not looked at paragraphs 202 and 200, which are the key to the recommendations. However, as it is so difficult to describe the rule, its interpretation will rest with Madam Speaker. I urge her to be—I will not say more modern as that is perhaps unkind—slightly more pliable in her application of that rule. Perhaps we might even go further. Although it might be right to make such a ruling initially, if a matter continues for a long time and there is wider discussion, Madam Speaker might feel it right to give way on that initial judgment.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties with the sub judice rule—especially in the Pinochet case—is that the House might want to explore matters related to the exercise of ministerial discretion rather than the actions of the court? However, by virtue of the blanket operation of the rule, we are prevented from exploring those matters.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, although I do not want to enter into debate on that subject as it might seem that I am criticising the Chair, which I would not do at any time.
Mr. Bill Michie: The Committee examined that matter time after time. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we can stop abuse in this place if there is no sub judice rule, or if it is relaxed? That could be quite damaging. We are not editorials in a tabloid newspaper; we are the House
1040
of Commons—the high court. We must have a discipline; we may not like the idea that we are restricted, but surely that is for the benefit of justice, rather than for instant television from the House when someone is being judged by their peers.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point. The only counter to it is that the media are limited in that they cannot make any comment that is prejudicial to a trial. Perhaps we should consider that point more than we have in the past, to examine how prejudicial any possible debate in the House could be. If a Member were to make a speech that appeared to the Chair to be prejudicial, we might have to give powers to the Chair such that the Member could be brought to order. Surely we must have some discipline in our House for our procedure in such matters.
In relation to bribery, it is extremely sensible that there should be a draft Bill—as the Leader of the House pointed out. I fully welcome the fact that we shall make it clear that the offences of procuring a corrupt act and of performing a corrupt act should be hit equally hard. In the most recent case of cash for questions, it seemed wrong that Members of the House were hit time and again, yet the corruptor—the person who gave the bribes—apparently got off scot free. There is something wrong in that sort of justice—it needs to be rectified.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I quite understand what my right hon. Friend is getting at, but does he agree that to suggest that our colleagues and our former colleagues, who were rightly disciplined by the House, were guilty of accepting bribes is perhaps to go beyond the conduct of which they were accused? Does he share my view that it is unlikely that any court would have convicted them of corruption? They were guilty of a breach of the required standards in this House. Is not that an important distinction?
Sir Peter Emery: I understand that. However, it seems to me that the suggestions in the recommendations go further than the implications made by my right hon. and learned Friend. I want to make certain that any condemnation should be equal on both sides. That has not been true so far. I feel strongly about that matter.
It is strange, but the interests of protection of privilege go to all aspects of proceedings in Parliament, and it is to the definition of those proceedings that I now turn. All the work of Select Committees is dealt with under the aspects of privilege pertaining to the House of Commons—with one exception: when a Committee presents its report to the country through a press conference held in a Committee Room, Members of Parliament attending the press conference are told that it is not considered a proceeding in Parliament and that there is no privilege. If an accusation is made there, it is no different from one made in the street.
It has been said that, unlike proceedings of Parliament, no record is made of such conferences, so one could not be certain of what was said. I understand that, but privilege is granted to private sittings of Select Committees, of which there is no record. Therefore,

1041
I believe that occasions such as I have described, which occur about 30 or 40 times a year, should attract privilege as part of the proceedings in Parliament.
Mr. Sheldon: I see no problem. At a press conference, one is limited by the report and one can quote freely from it to explain one's arguments. If one wants to go beyond that, there are clear dangers, of which a wise Chairman or any Member of Parliament attending such a press conference will be aware.
Sir Peter Emery: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, I have attended many such events over the years and, time and again, heard the Clerk remind hon. Members attending the press conference that privilege does not apply to the meeting. It should be considered part of proceedings in Parliament when Committees present a report at such conferences; I see no reason why they should not be covered by privilege.
I was sorry to hear the Leader of the House speak about leaked documents. I consider the Committee's recommendations on leaked documents, set out on pages 71 and 72 of the report, to be extremely sensible. Paragraph 266 states:
"The media are not, and should not be, exempt from punishment for contempt when publication substantially interferes with the work of a House or one of its committees."
That is preceded by the assertion that:
"The primary responsibility, and therefore the more serious contempt, rests upon the person who leaked the document."
That is right, but members of the press appear to be able to get away with the publication of documents that they have acquired by one means or another—they take the "publish and be damned" approach. The report recommends that the House of Commons should pass
"a resolution which applies to reports at any time prior to publication and to the unauthorised use of committee material, and that the House of Lords should pass a similar resolution"
condemning such actions.
We should hold responsible not only the reporter who writes the article but the editor and the proprietor who are responsible for the management of the newspaper in which it is published. If we ensured that they were held responsible for such breaches of principle and returned to bringing them to the Bar of the House, the practice would stop overnight.
I have purposely brought Hansard of 24 January 1957, when the last person to be brought before the House was Mr. John Junor, the editor of the Sunday Express. He was lectured and had to apologise to the House. He said afterwards that it was the most worrying, unpleasant day that he ever had to suffer in his life. It is not fines, however large, that will bring about what we want but the fact—the disgrace, perhaps—of being summoned here to apologise.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Most journalists whom I know would welcome the prospect of coming before the House in that way. The right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his proposition.
Sir Peter Emery: That was not the case with Mr. John Junor. That is why I say that we should go for the proprietor, who would not wish it, as well the hon. Gentleman knows.
1042
There are difficulties and complications in preserving the rights of Parliament. There is no doubt that we may often be open to much criticism in trying to preserve our privileges, but we have in Britain the fairest and, I think, the finest Parliament anywhere in the world. We are lucky to be part of it and, at all costs, it must be preserved.
5.12 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made a useful and instructive speech. I am not sure that his solution to the problem of leaks is right. The privileges part of the Standards and Privileges Committee dealt with one aspect of leaks from Select Committees. It was important because there was a leak direct from a Select Committee to the Department concerned. That is a very serious matter because the Department could have interfered with the Committee's draft report. I am not so worried about final reports being leaked before publication because they are settled and cannot be interfered with. It is serious leaks before reports are finalised that trouble me. Departments involving themselves in the preparation of reports is serious. It is not that which occurred in this case, but there was a possibility that it could happen in future. We have dealt firmly with that.
I shall make a few brief comments. The first concerns the point that the shadow Leader of the House rightly made about Parliament's sovereignty over its own business. He pointed to the creative tension between the lawyers and the parliamentarians on the Joint Committee. Creative tension can be of value, but why did we have to have a lawyer as Chairman? We had an ex-Home Secretary on the Committee, and I should have thought that the balance should have been on the parliamentary side. The Chairman is a very able man of great distinction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), for whom I have great respect, has great admiration for him and that is fully justified. I was prompted to intervene on this point by the views of the Officers and Members of the Western Australian Parliament. They felt that this approach was far too legalistic and that there was far too much involvement of lawyers. I share their view. The lawyers should, as they say, be on tap but not on top. They were certainly needed, but why was the process so legalistic? Why are there legalisms throughout so much of the report?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not think that the lawyers came out on top. They made a valuable contribution to our discussions. I must be honest. I have not said this before anywhere, in public or in private, but, at the beginning, I shared the right hon. Gentleman's prejudice against having a Law Lord in the Chair. However, I became convinced that it was the right decision, not only because of the Chairman's intrinsic quality but because of the qualities that he was able to bring to the chairmanship. Although we dealt with the matter in a wholly bipartisan, non-party political manner, he was so removed from the field that it was a positive help to us all in Committee. Although I understand why the right

1043
hon. Gentleman takes the line that he does, I suspect that, had he been on the Committee, he would have been likewise persuaded.
Mr. Sheldon: I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to be the Chairman. This is not a lawyers' do but a parliamentary one, and we should have had parliamentary people in charge. By all means, let us get as much expertise as we can, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if we have ever again have to deal with such matters—in which case these debates may be examined—to ensure that parliamentary representation is predominant.
Mr. Alan Williams: The Chairman was not in charge and nor were the lawyers. The Committee was in charge and did the voting.
Mr. Sheldon: I am very much aware of that. I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view, but to have a Chairman from the legal side when it is a parliamentary matter is wrong. I felt that I should say so because my view is shared by those from whom I heard in Western Australia.
My next point concerns the interpretation of privilege by the courts. The courts have undoubtedly been encroaching on privilege for a long time. That is mentioned in paragraph 381. I want it stopped or, if anything, reversed. We have run our own affairs very well for hundreds of years. I see no particular advantage in the courts involving themselves more than is absolutely necessary. I understand that some of the report's points are valuable, but I shall not refer to them all.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that we cannot turn back the clock. Surely we could do precisely that if it were the will of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we thought that on any of these matters the courts had got it wrong, had encroached on or diminished in any way what we thought correctly and appropriately a matter of privilege, it is the right and obligation of the House to take the appropriate legislative action to correct what the courts may have done in error?
Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman has always had much praise from me for being the one reactionary to whom I listen with respect, but I am not prepared to follow him in many of the matters that he raises. Clearly, we have gone too far. It is time to take account of that in any changes that we make.
I shall deal briefly with the internet. I put the matter to Lord Nicholls personally. The House must excuse me for pursuing my hobby horse, but it is one that many people will be able to ride. The reports and activities of Select Committees must find a suitable place on the internet. For example, this morning I searched the internet to find out what the Home Secretary had said to a Select Committee. His evidence was not there. That matter is enormously important to the House. One could normally look up such evidence on the internet in a matter of seconds instead of going to read it in the Library, which may not even have it. That evidence could have been a matter for discussion
1044
or it could have come up in Prime Minister's Question Time, but it was not on the internet and Lord Nicholls's Committee did not want it there.
I have been able to persuade the House of Commons Commission of my case, at least in part. It has accepted that a Select Committee may put certain evidence on the internet, but only in the case of ministerial interviews. That would have applied to the Home Secretary's evidence. From the beginning of the next Session, we will be able, on the morning after a Committee sitting, to look up on the internet ministerial statements and answers if the Select Committee so decides.
I want that provision to be extended, but the Joint Committee did not want that. It said, comparing such evidence to Hansard:
"Corrections to the 'Daily Part' are few … In one respect immediate publication of committee transcripts would conflict with the Joint Committee's report. Earlier in this report we stressed the importance of fairness to witnesses."
It is undoubtedly right that we must be fair to witnesses. However, there is nothing to stop any journalist writing down what is being said in the Committee and putting it in the following morning's paper. Despite that, we cannot get that evidence on the internet.
One of our advantages is that we can put the evidence on the internet, state clearly that it is only uncorrected evidence and that the final evidence will contain any correction. Making that evidence available would not, therefore, affect the final outcome of the investigation, and that would be clear. The sooner we realise that we are living at the end of the 20th century, the sooner we can make that information available at a level that is commensurate with the need for it.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is naughty of me to intervene when I have just spoken, but I want to reinforce his point. The proceedings of many of those Select Committees are taped and are therefore available for any television station in the country to broadcast within hours of their taking place, so why should they be prevented from being published on the internet? That seems nonsensical.
Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Nicholls Committee did not accept that proposal because it thought that it would be unfair to witnesses who might have second thoughts about what they had said. I find that unacceptable. On the internet, it would be made clear that the publication was a provisional account of the Select Committee's proceedings, which would be published fully as soon as corrections could be made. That would not affect the Committee's final decisions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw further attention to the matter.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. The Joint Committee was concerned that witnesses who are not Ministers and who are not experienced in appearing before Select Committees feel awe when they do so and are therefore vulnerable. That was why we came to the conclusion that we did. However,

1045
it is important that the right hon. Gentleman has made his points, and he has certainly given us something to think about.
Mr. Sheldon: The point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon is still correct. Those proceedings can be on the radio and in the following morning's newspapers, but they cannot be suitably presented to Members of Parliament, and that is wrong. The concession on Ministers' evidence was made by the House of Commons Commission and I expect it to be extended in due course.
Mr. Bill Michie: We were concerned about the extent to which reports published in newspapers or on the internet are the authoritative voice of the House. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that we could try to deal with that by saying that the publication is only a report and may be changed, and that what is being published on the internet is not the official organ of the House.
Mr. Sheldon: It would be quite clear that the publication was provisional. Publication has been accepted not only for Ministers' statements but for close questioning of Ministers, during which important matters may arise. It would be nonsense if that provision were not extended in due course.
I turn now to Pepper v. Hart, which is very important. I have not been following that matter closely, but I will be surprised if Ministers are not much more guarded in their replies to questions, particularly in Standing Committees considering legislation, simply because of that case. That would be a great pity because we need greater understanding in Standing Committees of the complicated parts of legislation, and few pieces of legislation are more complicated than a Finance Bill.
Ministers have to sit with their towels round their heads in the early hours of the morning preparing for proceedings on their Bill, knowing full well that many questions may be asked and that they would never have dreamed of some of the questions. They must understand their legislation and advise the Committee to the best of their ability, which means going beyond the words in the Bill, as they must do if they are to be of any use to their Committee in explaining the Bill. I worry that Ministers may be far too cautious in answering crucial questions that could elucidate the legislation.
Mr. Grieve: The courts, in reading what Ministers have said so that they can make a judicial interpretation of a statute, are for the most part trying only to go through the same process of elucidation that the right hon. Gentleman advocates for Committees. Is it not better for a Minister who realises that there may be consequences from the judicial interpretation of his words to be cautious in Committee rather than to express himself in gobbledegook?
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman has far too rosy a view of Ministers' understanding of all possible consequences of legislation. All Ministers can do is give an explanation, to the best of their ability, of what the legislation is intended to achieve. A good Minister can make that explanation come to life, so that people better understand the intentions and the likely outcome of the legislation. The Minister's words are no guarantee—
1046
the guarantee is in the words of the legislation—but without an understanding of that legislation, the Committee will be much the poorer.
Mr. Forth: Perhaps I can put a slightly more positive gloss on what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Many of us feared that televising the House would alter Members' behaviour, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it did not. Very quickly, Members got used to the new ambience, and our behaviour reverted to its previous form. My experience is that, in the same way, Ministers who spend a lot of time in Standing Committees do not have Pepper v. Hart at the front of their minds. They behave naturally and are either effusively explanatory to the Committee or evasively secretive, and Pepper v. Hart does not inhibit their behaviour in long Committee proceedings.
Mr. Sheldon: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right. He should look at the Standing Committee that deals with the Finance Bill, where those matters come more to the fore. There are two different views of how our attitudes have changed since the coming of television, but I will not go into that.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as he was the subject of Pepper v. Hart. It was his midnight words in June 1976, if I remember rightly, when he was answering 90 questions put to him by a Committee that contained 12 future Cabinet Ministers and two future Chancellors, that were given so much weight in that interesting case. Does he agree that the courts have fortunately learned to be pretty cautious about using Pepper v. Hart too much? If that is their approach, I believe that they are wise.
Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree. I intervened before the right hon. and learned Gentleman came into the Chamber to explain the background to that case. They were clearly the most talented Opposition to have dealt with any Finance Bill. I was pursued in question after question. I could have ignored those questions, but I tried to be helpful. I was asked, "If that happens, what then?", "If that happens, what now?" I answered to the best of my ability.
When I heard about Pepper v. Hart, I turned to what I had said and, to my pleasure, I found that it was not bad. I could substantiate what I had said, but it could have been otherwise. It might have been a matter on which I had not worked too hard. There are dangers and it is as well for the House to understand that.
Clearly, the report deals with other valuable matters, but I wished to speak briefly to deal with those points.
5.32 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I start with a confession. When the appointment of the Joint Committee was first mooted, in my capacity as Chief Whip I had to select someone to serve on it. As a new Chief Whip, I did not have anyone on whom I wanted to impose a great penalty, so I had to put myself on the Committee—and it has been an interesting experience.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), as the experience was interesting not least because of the impeccable

1047
chairmanship of the noble Lord Nicholls. I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that the best sort of chairman is someone who can rise above the discussion around the table. Lord Nicholls did so with great distinction and effect.
The draftsmanship of the report, which is uniquely well formed and educational for those of us who are not familiar with many of the topics, is very much due to Lord Nicholls and to the two Clerks. I put it on record that serving on the Committee was an instructive exercise.
We were appointed in July 1998 and we reported in March 1999, yet I think that I am right in saying that not one member left the Committee in that time, which is a tribute to the extent of people's commitment to its work. The business was complicated, but we did not get bored by its subtleties and complexities; that, too, is a tribute to the Chairman.
There were times when Members of this House, who worried that the pace of our business seemed to get slower, felt that the presence of so many lawyers, who tend to weigh the minutes in terms of guineas, slowed up the proceedings somewhat. However, the product that we produced is one of which both Houses should be proud.
I put on record the thanks of all members of the Committee—and I hope all Members of this House—to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I was disappointed this afternoon not because the President of the Council and Leader of the House was to introduce the debate, but because I did not see her right hon. Friend here. I had thought that this might be a unique political and parliamentary occasion if, for the first time in living memory, the Government Chief Whip could be allowed to dispel the illusion that he or she is speechless. It would have been a useful opportunity to break with that convention.
The fact that we went back to the Bill of Rights of 1689 has been mentioned. We dealt with three centuries of piecemeal attempts to tackle this difficult subject. Dead wood has been referred to in the debate and it was our job to adopt some sophisticated and comprehensive tree surgery to a complex and difficult bit of growth.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to a mishmash. Yes, there is a mishmash and I hope that, by bringing it all out into the open comprehensively, we have made it possible for Parliament to review the situation.
I do not accept the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that this is an opportunity to turn back the clock—far from it. Now is the opportunity to ensure that we drag this aspect of parliamentary procedures into the 21st century. If we do not do it now, those in the other place will perhaps have to do it for us—it looks as though they will be reformed before this House.
Privilege is a misnomer, as has been said. We are really talking about responsibility, immunity and freedom of speech, and what can be more central to the way in which Parliament serves the nation? Incidentally, when the Bill is introduced that will put these proposals into effect, I hope that we will call it not the parliamentary privilege
1048
Bill but something better. Even if the long title is more explicit, such a name is a switch-off and it gives the wrong impression to the world.
The Committee's proceedings were dominated by careful assessment of balance. We had to consider independence from the Executive, which is why the Bill of Rights was written—to ensure that never again would Parliament be unduly susceptible to pressure from the Crown. I hope that lawyers will agree that now, as then, Parliament should not be subject to judiciary appointed by the Crown, which was an issue then.
If it were not for the fact that time is getting on, I might be diverted into an analysis of how the Bill of Rights came to be and how my ancestor, Bishop Jonathan Trelawny—one of seven bishops—was arraigned in Westminster Hall and eventually, due to the good sense of a British jury, was let off. The judges were, of course, appointed by the Crown and it was a direct result of that case and the threat of the Cornish to march on London that we got the Bill.
The other balance that is extremely important is that between the individuals in this place and the citizens we represent. Their interests and protection are part of the reason for our protection, because we are representing them. We are defending the privilege of citizens of the British Isles to know that their representative in this place can speak up on their behalf, not the privilege of individual Members of Parliament.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that it is when the going gets rough and one aspect of opinion that is very unpopular needs to be mentioned, that these so-called privileges and immunities that grant real freedom of speech are at their most important?
Mr. Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and now that he is on the Opposition rather than the Government Benches I am delighted to hear him say that. As a member of, hopefully, a not too permanent minority, I am more used to that experience perhaps than he. He is right to say that every Member of Parliament should be well aware that the minority view must be given its opportunity. We are representing not ourselves, but minorities in the country and that is a principle to which we must attach enormous importance.
The Committee tried to grapple with the difficult problem of natural justice and the normal rights of the individual, be it the individual Member of Parliament—he or she has rights, too—or the citizen. Members of this House and those in the other place, whatever they are going to call themselves—senators, peers of the realm, lords of Parliament, or whatever—have rights in terms of natural justice. It is extremely important that we have what the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) referred to, I think, as equity. We should not be treated differently and nor should citizens be treated less carefully when it comes to concerns about their rights.
That is why it is so important that we introduce as fast as possible comprehensive legislation on corruption. We cannot continue with a situation in which there appears to be one law for the legislators, and another law for the ordinary citizen. The sooner such legislation is enacted, the better.

1049
As has been pointed out, there is a draft corruption Bill in our report, brought to us by the Home Secretary. If it is now kicked into touch or put on the back burner, the House has a right to know why that delay is taking place.
The Committee tried to recognise the facts of 21st century life. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the internet. As I recall the discussion, it was not so much about whether parliamentary proceedings should or should not be publicised in that way, as about what their status would be if they were. It was not the responsibility of a Joint Committee on privilege to decide what should or should not be published, but we were concerned to ensure the appropriate level of protection for that publication. For both the electronic media and the broadcast media, we wanted to ensure that there were practical answers to practical questions.
Outside the House, it may be thought that the Committee's work on corruption and the extent to which the House disciplines itself was a knee-jerk reaction to a set of particular cases. That was decidedly not so. A discussion lasting 15 or 16 months is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. In any event, we were not obsessed by particular cases.
However, it has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, who was much more involved than I, that there was widespread unease about the way in which a number of cases had to be dealt with. It was felt that the machinery in the House was fragile, inadequate and not up to the job. There was concern that had it not been for the fact that in at least one case, the person concerned admitted a number of charges and only one charge gave rise to dissension, we might have been in an extremely difficult situation in the House, or we might have been challenged outside.
As the report makes clear, the Committee was not happy with the way in which the previous arrangements had worked, and we wanted to create a more robust mechanism for the future. Were it not for the admission of various charges in those cases, we might have ended up with a parliamentary impasse, which would have been gravely damaging. Reference is made to section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. That reflects the recognition that there were fault lines in the system. We never anticipated such difficulties. In the report, we have managed to take a more sensible overview of the problems and the opportunities for improvement.
Reference has been made to the significance of Pepper v. Hart. Never having heard of Pepper v. Hart before joining the Committee, as I frankly confess, I found the discussion in the Committee and in the House this evening illuminating. It is important that we see that that judgment is being treated with wise caution by the courts, and rightly so.
As I understand it, the court may take account of what is said by a Minister in the circumstances described only if doubt exists. Where else is the court to turn? All too often in the past, because the court was prevented from taking note of what was said in the House in those circumstances, courts were left to make invidious decisions. It is surely better that if there is doubt, the court should be able to refer to the explanation of Ministers.
We heard exchanges earlier between former Ministers about the extent to which the arrival of the Pepper v. Hart judgment changed their attitude when answering
1050
questions in Committee. On balance, I would prefer Ministers to be cautious, rather than generously expansive, and to say, "I do not know the answer to that."
Sir Nicholas Lyell indicated assent.
Mr. Tyler: I see a distinguished former Minister nodding. I would prefer Ministers to say, "I will let the hon. Gentleman know at the next sitting", or to find some other way of providing information, rather than shooting from the hip and possibly getting into trouble with the courts. There is no harm in such caution.
I shall not refer in detail to all the other recommendations, which I support. The issue of the sub poena is realistically assessed in the report, and I hope that the courts will exercise their usual discretion in deciding whether an attempt to subpoena a Minister or a Member is vexatious or merely political. I hope that the courts will be sane and sensible in such circumstances.
Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
Mr. Tyler: I hope that I am not about to be discouraged from that thought.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the hon. Gentleman share my caution that Ministers who have been subpoenaed improperly, as has been mentioned in the debate, have frequently had to send lawyers, at considerable public expense, to prevent them being brought unjustifiably to court? Ought there to be some system whereby the House would assist or find some public means of assisting its Members who were unjustifiably subpoenaed, so that the courts could consider the arguments with proper representation?
Mr. Tyler: I was coming to that point, and I am extremely grateful for support from such a distinguished source. If a Minister is subpoenaed, the mechanisms are in place to deal with the matter, but an ordinary Member, or a Minister in the capacity of a constituency Member, could be put to considerable expense. I know that there have been such cases recently. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter in his response, or that the Leader of the House will consider it urgently through the usual channels. The point could well be pursued, to the benefit of individual Members and of the House.
Regardless of whether we get a Bill soon and what it is called, a major exercise of education and information is necessary. One or two of the Committee's recommendations refer to that. For example, we state:
"The rules and conventions concerning standards of conduct are in readily accessible form capable of being understood outside Parliament, as well as within".
That is relevant to witnesses who come before Select Committees, for example. It is of supreme importance that the law is seen to be observed, so people must understand how the issue is addressed in the two Houses.
Perhaps that exercise in education could extend to the media, which seem to find it increasingly difficult to understand our proceedings. I heard the exchange between the right hon. Member for East Devon and other hon. Members about the summons to the Bar of the House. I suspect that some reporters would think that a summons

1051
to the Bar of the House meant that they would be offered a drink. It is important for us to explain what is meant by such expressions.
I have some experience of that. When I was a Member in 1974, I had occasion to make a complaint about privilege, and my union, the National Union of Journalists, was to be summoned to the Bar of the House and was looking forward to it. The union was only dissuaded from that, and persuaded to apologise to the Chair, when it was realised that matters might go further and involve other penalties that were much less fun.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 1967 I was summoned to the Bar of the House. The reaction of Mr. Callaghan, for example, was that he did not take part in blood rituals. That encapsulated the problem.
Mr. Tyler: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but my point stands that the summons is not as effective as the penalties that we suggest in the report.
My main point is that we are discussing not the privileges of individual Members of the House of Commons or of the other place, but those of Parliament—an institution—and our responsibility to ensure that we are able freely to conduct our business, represent our constituents and look after the nation's interests. That is why "privilege" is such a misnomer.
Finally, I have some points to put to the Minister. We must know this evening what the Government's intentions are, in broad terms. The Queen's Speech may give us more detail about the corruption Bill, but the whole House will be extremely concerned if it is being put on the back burner. The sooner we are told about that, the better.
No concerns about the broad thrust of the whole range of recommendations have been expressed this evening or during Committee proceedings. Although the Leader of the House said that they were tentative, I hope that the Government will express their major misgivings should they have any.
I can say on behalf of my party—I think that this is true of all parties—that we regard this matter as a parliamentary concern, not a question of party politics. Therefore, I hope that there will be a free vote across the House on it. Such a Bill is an absolutely excellent candidate for the procedure that we have adopted, on the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee, for pre-legislative scrutiny. Precisely such a Bill could be introduced rapidly as a draft measure and given the consideration it surely deserves.
5.51 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: Having been put on the Committee, I was a little apprehensive about exactly what form it would take, but I found our proceedings, which lasted 15 months and produced 39 recommendations, absolutely stimulating to say the least. I recall boring my family to death by discussing every Saturday night what had happened the previous Tuesday morning when we spent four hours discussing the first paragraph of a draft report. Our discussions went on and on, but they were important and not at all boring.
1052
The attendance tonight is not too bad, although there are not too many Members in the Chamber. That is the bad news. The good news is that, knowing the pecking order in this place, I would still be waiting to speak if many more Members of greater seniority were present. That is another matter which the Standards and Privileges Committee ought to consider on occasion.
Our proceedings were not dry in any shape or form, although there was plenty of dry humour, and I take the point about the Chairman of the Committee, who was very helpful. I have nothing but profound respect and gratitude for the way in which he conducted proceedings and, along with the other Lords and Members, helped the Committee. The Clerks in particular did a tremendous job for us. That appreciation should go on record. I do not think that the lawyers were on top, but it took a little bit longer to get our own way, which is always the case when lawyers are involved in any sort of discipline. I found their expertise very much to our advantage. I learned a lot as a member of the Committee, and I am sure that a lot of lords, including Lord Nicholls, did so as well.
A review of this nature is painstaking and it is obviously important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I had some preconceived ideas about what I wanted to happen, but when I considered the way in which our procedures work and how they came about I learned day by day that the question of privilege is not a simple one to answer. There is no doubt that it is fascinating to discuss amending or codifying an unwritten constitution. The mind boggles because the constitution is not written down, but here we are discussing changing and modifying it. That was the job the Committee was given and I think that we did a good job, although that may sound like self-praise.
It is 30 years since the previous fundamental review of these matters and many circumstances have changed. I believe that the attitude of the people of this nation towards Parliament has changed. It was necessary to look at the way in which we run this place in any case, because the perception of it held by people outside is totally different from ours. In the light of events, we needed to consider changes and modification to achieve much more open and accountable Houses of Parliament while allowing Members to carry out their duties fully without fear or favour. That was one of the main planks of our discussions.
Chapter 1 of the review refers to
"Parliamentary privilege: its nature and origins"
and states:
"Parliamentary privilege consists of the rights and immunities which the two Houses of Parliament and their members and officers possess to enable them to carry out their parliamentary functions effectively. Without this protection members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duties, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished."
I fully believe that to be the case. Getting the right balance may have taken a long time, but we have arrived at it.
Members know from their own experience that people outside the House perceive us as members of a club, although we discipline some Members and interview them on certain occasions. From the outside, the House is seen as a club with privileges—an old boy network in which we all look after ourselves. The public were becoming

1053
more and more critical and that was damaging the image of this place, so when we debate privileges we must make sure that we do not give the impression that we are self-serving. The media pick up on that impression—quite wrongly, on many occasions—and splash it about that we are looking after Members, but not looking after democracy and doing the job that we are supposed to do.
Nevertheless, we have to grasp the nettle. There is no doubt that we have to use our privileges—which are not personal privileges, but privileges of the House—to best effect to do our job properly on behalf of not only the country, but our constituents. The Joint Committee took all those points into account and we asked whether
"the law and practice of parliamentary privilege meet present and future needs? Do the existing procedures satisfy contemporary standards of fairness and public accountability? A modern code for parliamentary privilege should be principled and coherent."
Those matters were obviously discussed at great length because the public's perception was not always fair to us or to our constituents. The right to free speech, as provided for in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, must not be misused or abused. We all understand that and have our own commitments and responsibilities.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has accepted the second option in the Home Office consultation paper, which is:
"To subject members of Parliament to the same corruption statutes as other people."
However, if there is to be a draft privileges Bill, I hope that some of the points of concern that were raised in Committee will be considered, for example the problem of who consents to the prosecution. I note that she said that that matter is likely to rest with the Attorney-General. I bored the Committee to death discussing when he would make such a decision—late, early or what? If we are not careful—and if, having weighed up the evidence, he thought that a case should be considered by the courts for prosecution—that very decision could prejudice the case for the defendant. I do not know a way round that. I suppose that we must hope that he does not have any more influence with the jury than does the Crown Prosecution Service when it makes such a decision.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, I do not think that he need worry about that aspect of the matter. The Attorney-General gives consent in very many cases—even in very high-profile ones, such as war crimes cases—but no one realises it. The fact that the Attorney-General has given consent will not weigh with the jury when it comes to consider the case.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to make hon. Members subject to corruption and bribery charges, as they may already be held to be in common law, does not mean that what is said and done in the Chamber or in Committee necessarily has to be made admissible in evidence? Does he agree that the two issues are distinct? Whatever his view on the matter, does he recognise that there are very real dangers for the immunities of the House if we go down the second route?
Mr. Michie: Yes, I do accept that there are dangers in taking the second route—which is why, time and again, the dilemma posed by the second route raised its head in Committee. However, I think that the position of
1054
hon. Members is slightly different, as it is a high-profile one, and one of our most senior peers has made a judgment that the courts should play a role in the matter. Nevertheless, I do not particularly disagree with the Committee's recommendation, and am happy that the Attorney-General will decide on prosecutions.
Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 has already been well rehearsed in the debate. I am happy that it will be replaced by a more general waiver, given by the Speaker, with the advice of a small Committee of senior Members. The Act was passed in a blaze of publicity, and for reasons that might have been good at the time, but the House and the Committee have made it quite clear that we have come to regret it.
I support the report's proposals, and hope that hon. Members will endorse them in today's debate. I also hope that we shall soon have a Bill that will not only clarify for hon. Members what they may and may not do—the Register of Members' Interests is certainly a step in the right direction—but give the public a better idea of how this place is run.
6.3 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I should like to apologise now if I am not able to be in the Chamber to hear the closing speeches, but I have an unavoidable engagement.
I found reading the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege extremely interesting, and have no reason but to endorse heartily the vast bulk of the proposals. The clarification that seems to be inherent in the way in which the Committee has approached the matter is very desirable. It is undoubtedly a tribute to the Chairman, and perhaps to a little bit of legal incisiveness that has been introduced into quite a murky area, that, in many respects, what emerges seems to be so clear. However, with that in mind, I hope that I may be forgiven if I flag up one or two potential problems.
A moment ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) touched on the difficulties in making corruption, in terms of what might be said in Parliament, a criminal offence. To make the position clear, all hon. Members are subject to the bribery provisions at common law, and we shall continue to be so if a statute is introduced.
The key issue that the House will have to decide is the extent to which it is prepared to waive its current privilege in what may be said or done in the House, if it were to transpire that that might be material evidence in bringing a prosecution for bribery or corruption against a Member of Parliament. Although I am quite prepared and open to persuasion on the issue, I have anxieties about how that waiver would work in practice.
A central principle of our privilege in the House is that we are given liberty to express our views as we like. As we know from some previous debates, it is often suggested—albeit not in a way, I hope, that would offend against the Speaker's or a Deputy Speaker's ruling—that some policy decisions or Executive decisions may have ulterior motives, serving other than the public benefit. It is a problem which the Minister and his colleagues face daily. It is also a problem that, less usually, individuals may face.

1055
Dealing with the problem is, of course, one of the reasons why the House has introduced the Register of Members' Interests. It is also one of the reasons why a very serious breach of the procedures of the House—effectively a contempt of the House—is committed if an hon. Member seeks to argue a case without making absolutely crystal clear what personal interest he or she might have in it. If someone were offering such an hon. Member a financial inducement, no more personal interest could possibly be found.
I am content with that system. If we start departing from it and saying that, when an allegation of corruption is made against a Member of Parliament, what he says in the House could be used upon a waiver of privilege, we shall be going down quite a dangerous road. I believe that it would lead to the risk that that device might be used against an hon. Member for improper purposes, and that it could give rise to a great deal of political discussion on the motives behind the bringing of the prosecution.
We have to face up to realities in all this. In the presence of the previous Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, let me say that I have never had the slightest doubt about the impartiality of his office. However, it remains the case that we have always accepted in the United Kingdom that the marriage of politics and the system of justice could not be neatly cut in two, as there will always be pressures with which to contend, even if an Attorney-General were not a Member of this place.
The further one goes down the road of trying to dissect the issue of parliamentary privilege and a Member of Parliament's role—to cut off various aspects of that role and to say, "In that respect, you shall no longer have that protection"—the more difficult the situation will become. The truth—as has been noted to be the case in not only the past, but the recent past—is that, if an hon. Member transgresses, he exposes himself to enormous opprobrium, and probably to the ruin of his career. That seems to be the suitable verdict upon someone who falls foul of the House's very clear rules on how we should conduct ourselves.
We shall raise very serious issues by carrying the matter further and saying that, in a trial for bribery or corruption, what is done in the House should be open to analysis in the courts. Although I should be happy to pursue the issue further if it is raised again, all I wish to do now is to flag up my anxieties about it.
I should like to deal with two other matters. There is a very important section in the report on the waiver of privilege. I had certain anxieties about the route that was taken in 1996, and believe that some of the problems—which are linked to what we have been talking about—stemmed from that hurried legislation. Therefore, on that basis, I should be very happy to consider alternatives.
When reading the report, however, I had some anxiety about the proposed alternative. As cases that may involve a waiver may well be the subject of considerable political polemic and contention, leaving to the House the power to decide whether a Member of Parliament may be able to avail himself of the right to waive privilege raises many anxieties about what might happen if a waiver were not granted.
1056
Clearly, if the rules of the House were sufficiently tightly drawn in the way suggested in the report, so that the waiver would be granted except in cases in which the integrity and credibility of the House would be in some way in danger if it were, I see no great difficulty. However, my second anxiety is that unless that is the case there would be a real risk that a Member of Parliament seeking to bring a libel action might find himself unable to obtain the waiver because there was a majority in the House against it. That would be an undesirable politicisation of the issue. Unless the rules are clear, I would rather go back to the situation before 1996. It was unsatisfactory in some ways and did injustices to some, but at least it had the merit of clarity. Unless we are certain on the issue, we should not embark on change.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We cannot go back to the situation before 1996, but were we to do so it would mean going back to a situation before a newspaper made the claim that a Member of Parliament was barred. That was a novel idea brought forward by the newspaper.
With respect and delicacy, there is another revision of the law that might be useful. A year or two ago, the House authorities—which I do not define—made applications or representations in a court that Members of Parliament had not known about. That difficulty is well worth avoiding in future.
Mr. Grieve: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend's second point. That struck me as an extraordinary state of affairs. I also agree that the situation is evolving. There is no point in simply looking at historical precedent. We have to accept that the way in which the newspapers and the media operate and the problems that arise may change. I also accept that the situation in 1996 was novel. I am mindful of the problems and possible injustices that the 1996 legislation has caused. I am merely saying that if we are to take a further step on the issue, it had better be a step in the right direction and not one that we subsequently have cause to regret. The Committee's suggestions might work, but the rules will have to be tightly drawn so that only in exceptional circumstances would a waiver of privilege be denied to a Member of Parliament; otherwise we shall be in very difficult territory.
I concur with the view of the Committee on subpoenas. When I read the report, I was interested in the origins of the protection of a Member of Parliament from answering a subpoena. It is not to protect the Member from embarrassment, but to allow him to perform his services to the House. However, I suspect that if the provision has been used at all, it has tended to be used for the former rather than the latter reason. I do not know why Members of Parliament should have a greater protection than that afforded to the average citizen in this country from having to attend court on a subpoena.
Of course, subpoenas are grossly abused at times. As a barrister, I have seen it being done in court. That often puts a person to inconvenience. However, the court tends to take a dim view of litigants who subpoena witnesses unnecessarily. That undoubtedly provides considerable protection for anyone who receives a subpoena, including a Member of Parliament. If we add to that the requirement to explain and justify to a judge beforehand why the subpoena is required, there is ample protection.

1057
If we want to go further, the solution might be to say that no Member of Parliament shall be subpoenaed or required to attend court during the sitting hours of the House. That would still allow plenty of time during the week for him to attend. In that way, nobody would be disadvantaged by being unable to attend in this Chamber, which is apparently the reason for the privilege.
I broadly welcome the report. It is useful when a Committee that puts itself so diligently to its task casts light on areas that are normally obscure. We are undoubtedly the beneficiaries, but it may well be worth reflecting a little before diving into legislation on all the recommendations.
6.15 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), whose last remarks were very wise. I endorse the majority of the report and pay tribute to those who served long and hard on the Committee, but I have one grave reservation. It comes back to the fundamental facet—privilege is in some ways an outdated word—of our membership of this place: freedom of speech. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that freedom of speech is inviolable. Unfortunately, the report invites a dangerous attack on freedom of speech in relation to bribery and corruption.
I have no hesitation in saying that it is entirely right that Members of Parliament should be subject to the ordinary law of the land in relation to offences of bribery and corruption. If Members of Parliament allow themselves to be bribed, they should be able to be prosecuted. If they act corruptly, they should and can be prosecuted. However, that is not the issue. It is whether words spoken in the Chamber and in Committee and actions such as voting or the tabling of questions can be called in evidence, contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Having been a Law Officer for a decade, I have given my fiat in a significant number of corruption cases. Corruption cases involving Members of Parliament are very rare and I doubt whether they would turn on what was said or done in Parliament. There is not likely to be any grave inhibition on the proper prosecution of Members of Parliament if, contrary to the recommendations in paragraph 168 of the report, the House determines—as it would be wise to do—that we should not waive our privileges in that regard.
We have the unfettered privilege of freedom of speech. In a sense, our privileges are those of the House, but more fundamentally than that they are the privileges of every citizen of this country. We have that privilege in order that the citizens of the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the world—may know that any Member of Parliament can speak his or her mind in the Chamber of the House of Commons or in Committee and can vote or ask a question without the slightest fear that what they say or do in the House may put them at risk of legal proceedings, either civil or criminal. It is not just a protection for Members of Parliament, but one of the fundamental safeguards of the liberties of every citizen. It is therefore unlikely that it will be waived, and, in so far as it is under attack in the report, albeit in the most courteous sense and with the most careful reasoning, it must be defended. Of course it
1058
is under attack in relation to bribery and corruption, and I have already made it clear that I have no hesitation in saying that Members of Parliament should be capable, as they are today, of being prosecuted for bribery. It is a common law offence.
In the only case in recent years, where our former colleague was rightly acquitted, Mr. Justice Buckley none the less held at an early stage that the offence of bribery applied to Members of Parliament. I have never had the slightest doubt about that, but we are having to balance one public interest against another—the public interest in our absolute right of freedom of speech against the public interest in enabling a Member of Parliament to be prosecuted. It is very important to appreciate that clearly because a prosecution can certainly proceed without reference to what is said or done in the House if it is likely to be a remotely strong case.
Let us consider for a moment the kind of cases that lead to prosecution for bribery or corruption. They tend to happen because somebody who is in a position to grant an advantage to somebody else—such as the chairman or an influential member of a planning committee—takes money quite improperly and corruptly in order to give an opinion or persuade colleagues to a ruling. That is pretty much the essence of an offence of corruption.
I have great sympathy with what was said earlier in the debate about our former colleague, the noble Lord Merlyn-Rees, who asked what he had ever said in the House that was of advantage to anybody. I do not think that he quite said that, but the humorous way in which I put it encapsulates the essence of what he had in mind. If people had to rely on what had been said in the House, I could see it being laughed about a good deal in court, in the way in which things get laughed out of court.
Paragraph 168 of the report argues that there will be very few prosecutions for corruption. It is also argued that it will be very rare that what is said or done in Parliament will have any relevance and that, therefore, the proposal is a minimal encroachment on our liberties. I beg strongly to disagree. The danger is that it is not the cases that do happen which encroach on our liberties; it is the cases that might happen. During my years as a Law Officer I saw a good deal of that.
Before turning to personal insights, we know perfectly well that the very business of politics is a matter of people seeking advantage, usually for totally proper reasons, of Government or of a Member of Parliament to try to persuade Government, and thus seeking and conferring advantage. That seeking and conferring of advantage is of the very essence of the proposed Bill. In preparing my thoughts, I wrote down some quotations.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Drawing the House's attention to paragraph 168 was really useful. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to concentrate on the minor encroachment that it covers. Does he agree that if the Government intend to act on it, they should remember that Members of Parliament accused of taking some consideration for something they do in the House have broken the advocacy rule and probably others, so it will not be a question of letting them off? They can be exposed to a full investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and, as right hon. and hon. Members, we can certainly look at what goes on in the House.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In a moment I shall make the same point in my own way.
I was searching for the very definition of corruption that is set out in the draft Bill prepared by the Law Commission which is to be found at annexe D on page 103 of the report. One has only to read that definition to see how many ingredients of the offence, without being in the least corrupt in themselves, are an essential part of political life every day. They include conferring advantages, soliciting advantages and doing something that one has a right to do in consequence of another's request, primarily in return for the conferring of an advantage. I am reminded again of the old joke where one person says that there is no such thing as gratitude in politics and somebody else replies, "Yes there is. Gratitude in politics is the confident expectation of favours in the future". Of course, that is the whole business of soliciting and conferring an advantage. It is a vital but, in some senses, a very quick jump between the perfectly honest and indeed noble activities in which we seek to engage ourselves in public life and the allegedly dishonest and corrupt abuse of those activities. Consequently, we are extremely vulnerable. Indeed, there will not be one of us who has not been accused of acting corruptly during his period here.
I was about to draw on my experience as a Law Officer. The Law Officer's Department receives reams of letters almost daily containing widespread allegations of corruption, usually of a totally footling and foolish sort, which are sincerely made by citizens who are disgruntled in one sense or another. There are reams of letters and every one of us will have received copies of them. I do not wish to trivialise this, but the ones to which one pays least attention start by being addressed to the Queen, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, then the Prime Minister and copied to ourselves as Members of Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Underlined in green ink.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: As my hon. Friend rightly says, they are underlined in green and red ink. However, a number of those letters, although they are deeply saddening, are from people who have suffered the misfortunes of life which they believe are the result of corruption.
In the tough interplay of politics, people say and begin to believe that things which are done at least not corruptly are corrupt. I shall not mention them because I do not wish to give the slightest indication of corruption, but if right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber think back over a certain number of matters in the past two years where substantial sums of money have been paid by one person to another for one reason or another, it is not too difficult to suggest, quite wrongly, that there was an element of corruption in them. Where is this leading to in my speech? We should be confident that such accusations of corruption, which are frequently made, can never in themselves lead us into courts—either civil or criminal—in respect of anything which we say or do in this Chamber. If we do anything corrupt outside the Chamber, we can be brought to justice.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has had to leave the Chamber just as I have got to his point. New rules of the House have
1060
properly been put in place in the past four or five years. If we transgress them, perhaps by failing to declare a consultancy—I have never held a consultancy, although I do not regard the practice as dishonourable, provided that it is properly declared—a financial interest or a foreign trip, we are likely to be either lightly reprimanded or severely censured and put on the rack through the procedures of the House. That is an advance under the modernisation of our procedures that I totally applaud.
We come back to the fundamentals. We should be liable to prosecution for bribery or corruption if there is a case to answer, and I agree that we need the filter of the Attorney-General. I entirely agree with my successor, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who said to the Committee that the decision could be very difficult, especially if it relates to someone of one's own party, because there is always the great danger of leaning over backwards, and the proper stance is not to lean either forwards or backwards but to remain completely upright, but it is certainly necessary to require the Attorney-General's consent before a proceeding for corruption can be brought against a Member of Parliament.
It has always been the law that any proceeding for corruption must have the Attorney-General's fiat. That should continue. There is no need to draw a distinction between Members of Parliament and other citizens in that respect, but we are not as other citizens in the privileges that we enjoy and the duty that we have to speak up on difficult and controversial issues.
It is when the going gets rough and there is a witch hunt, and ideas of treachery, corruption or collusion are most rife, that the need to speak up bravely, and the dangers of doing so, are most pertinent. It is our duty to protect the integrity of the House against any diminution of our freedoms. Consequently, although I commend so much of the report, I ask that we think very carefully again on that aspect.
6.33 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I want to raise some matters of privilege that perhaps the Committee has not dealt with fully. I have been in and out of the Chamber today, as I have had other duties, including attending a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I have not read the full report, but I have read the summaries and had conversations with colleagues over the past few months. I was surprised by the radical nature of some of the conclusions.
We should consider the process of dealing with privilege for an individual Member of Parliament and the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee investigates issues of privilege and contempt. The present system is not working as it should. In 1981, I brought a complaint against the chairman of British Steel as I believed that there had been a breach of privilege. The Speaker, if he or she is so disposed, gives the individual Member the right to table a motion that is given precedence on the Floor of the House—it is taken straight after questions—to seek the approval of the House to refer the matter to the Committee.
That procedure is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong for the Speaker to have to decide whether the issue warrants being given that priority over the rest of the day's business. The Speaker is placed in a very difficult

1061
position. The decision cannot readily be deferred because it has to be taken on receipt of the complaint, which has to be made as soon as it is possible to report the breach to the Speaker. The Joint Committee might have considered a different procedure whereby the matter could be referred, if not directly by the Member to the Committee, at least by a truncated process. The Speaker, sitting in his or her quarters, might take the decision on behalf of the House.
The Social Security Committee—or was it the Liaison Committee?—referred a complaint to the Standards and Privileges Committee about the leaking of documents, so a Committee can refer a complaint and thereby route round the Speaker. I want an individual Member to have a fast route for application to have a complaint considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Mr. Sheldon: To clarify the point, the complaint came from the Social Security Committee to the Liaison Committee and eventually came before the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am also concerned about what happens when the complaint gets to the Standards and Privileges Committee. I have served on the Members' Interests Committee and its successor post-Nolan from 1983, although I missed a couple of years. The mechanisms whereby we deal with privilege are wrong. The commissioner for standards and privileges—not the Commissioner for Standards—should be given the power to carry out the investigation in precisely the same way as she currently carries out investigations on matters of standards.
I argue that for precisely the same reason for which I argued for the new structure long before it was introduced: I believe that there is a danger that the Committee can be politicised during the process of considering a complaint against a Member in the period before a general election. My experience is that that is precisely what has happened. To be honest, that is always likely to happen. There will always be members of the Standards and Privileges Committee who have an element of political consideration in mind when considering such matters.
Under the standards procedure, that is no longer possible, because the commissioner—acting independently, and as an Officer of this House—assumes responsibility for the investigation. The investigation should be carried out by the commissioner under another procedure, who would report to the Standards and Privileges Committee in exactly the same way as she does now on standards. The result would be a more neutral consideration of the important issues.
I do not wish to refer to individual complaints, but I can think of one where I am convinced that consideration of the matter under the heading of privilege was being distorted before the general election.
I wish to refer to privilege as it relates to the protection of Members of Parliament in the carrying out of their public duties. "Erskine May" refers to harassment and molestation of a Member of the House of Commons, and defines the circumstances in which a Member might feel in a position to bring a complaint. I wish to give an example of Members not being given sufficient protection.
1062
Last year, I was harassed at home by a Manchester business man. He rang me repeatedly and harassed me and my family. I reported the matter to Cumbria police, and the man got the message and stopped before the police had to intervene. Had I been prepared to identify the person, and had I referred the matter to Madam Speaker, she would—if I had provided evidence—probably have given it precedence. The matter would have stood referred to the Committee, which would have had to reach a judgment.
If my understanding of the system is correct, the person involved would have been brought before the House of Commons. However, the system does not necessarily deal with someone who is harassing a Member of Parliament. The person can be brought before the Privileges Committee of the House in so far as he is interfering with my rights as an individual Member of Parliament and preventing me from carrying out my public duties without fear of intimidation. In reality, we have no right to impose any penalty.
Equally, we could say that the matter could be referred to the police. However, because of all kinds of issues—I keep hearing one in particular: that it is "not in the public interest"—I am not convinced that there would be a prosecution. Parliament should be able to say to the authorities and the police that we require that the person involved in the intimidation be arraigned before the courts and prosecuted. That is what Members need to protect them from harassment by someone outside.
The harassment of me last year arose when I was investigating the background of the prosecution of Mr. Owen Oyston for rape. I had interviewed some 60 people in Lancashire over a couple of recesses and during the parliamentary term. I was carrying out the interviews with another person, a journalist named Andrew Rosthorne. He, it could be argued, has been acting as my agent. On 11 October, Mr. Rosthorne received 89 phone calls on his mobile phone from the same person who was harassing me. The calls were traced through Cellnet.
Mr. Rosthorne is writing a book about the matter, and we converse all the time about the case, and about another case that is coming before Preston Crown court concerning a Preston councillor, in which we feel equally under pressure from people who do not want us to get close to the truth. In so far as he is acting partly as my agent, Mr. Rosthorne needs some protection, but he has no protection whatever.
Mr. Rosthorne received 89 calls on one day and was harassed over three weeks. He was harassed last week on the telephone, and he can do very little about it. He has been to Blackburn police station to report the incidents, and he has referred the matter to Cellnet. However, he is being intimidated and harassed, and I am directly connected with him. For all I know, two or three of the strange phone calls that we received last week—one of which we managed to tape—were attempts to harass me as well. However, I have been unable to trace the calls.
This person is harassing a Member of Parliament and people outside involved in gathering information for that Member of Parliament. We are being impeded in our public duties. No process provides me with any sense of protection, and I believe that these matters should be considered not by the Joint Committee but by the powers-that-be when they consider legislation. Such

1063
legislation could go further than bribery and corruption. It might have to go into other areas where Members feel that they need protection.
I am worried about the legal position of the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. As far as I am concerned, we are not a Committee of Parliament—to which I take strong exception. I believe strongly that our Committee should be a Committee of Parliament, enjoying all the privileges of Parliament, but it does not have those privileges. That will have to be discussed. The Committee might have looked at it—perhaps it is my fault for not drawing it to its attention. Perhaps the Government will consider what I am saying this evening.
Under present arrangements, the Standards and Privileges Committee cannot compel Members from the other place to appear before a Committee of the Commons. We can ask them, and they can agree to do it.
Mr. Alan Williams: That matter is referred to specifically in the report, which recommends that the Committee should be free to call such Members.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely—I read that recommendation. However, the recommendation is that we would have the right to bring before any Committee of the Commons a Member of the other place. That is my interpretation of the recommendation.
I wish to refer to an inquiry by the Standards and Privileges Committee into the case of a complaint against Lord Steel, who is now the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. The complaint was that, in 1997, he failed to supply an employment agreement in relation to £93,700 that he had received from the Countryside Movement. The complaint was upheld by the Committee. In other words, he was found to be in error.
The Committee's investigation took place after the general election. Lord Steel failed to make the declaration and submit the agreement before the election. If he had done so, it would have been an issue in the election, as a Liberal Democrat would have been identified with that contribution when we debated hunting. We could have asked him to appear before us, but we did not. Why not? The answer is simple: we could do nothing about it. Lord Steel had gone. He had flown off to the other place. We could not punish him by suspending him. In fact, we could do nothing to him. That is why the Committee could have gone a little further in its recommendations. We should have the right to require members of the other place to attend, but we should also have the right to impose a penalty on them for transgressions while they were Members of this House.
The Committee report on the Steel case states:
"We agree with the Commissioner on the failure to deposit an employment agreement."
Had Lord Steel still been a Member of the House of Commons, we would have called on him to deposit a record of the relevant information, even though the period of employment had ceased. However, he managed to avoid justice in the House of Commons because he had left to go to the House of Lords. Perhaps the Committee should have considered that issue, and perhaps I was
1064
remiss in failing to draw it to its attention, but I am sure that the Government will wish to consider the matter when they conduct their general review of arrangements.
6.51 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I do not often agree with him, but—as many people have said before me—I defend for ever his right to say it. That is what we are talking about this evening and I am sorry that so few hon. Members are present when we are considering an important and fundamental issue of democracy. Perhaps their absence is a measure of the trust that they have in those of us who are present to defend their rights.
I will immediately contradict myself, because we are talking about not the rights of Members of Parliament as individuals, but their rights as representatives of the electorate. In that respect, I am pleased to agree with the Leader of the House today when she said that the two key issues are freedom of speech and the right of Parliament to conduct its own affairs. We can all agree with that.
It has been an education to hear the wealth of wisdom and experience from right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, many of whom have taken part in the thorough determinations of the Committee. I am glad that we all agree that the report is a good basis for future action. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out the position of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with his usual eloquence and clarity. I am sure that the House will agree with his point that this debate is essential to democracy, and that his statement that it is important to build on what is tried and tested will prove to be correct.
I also share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the development of judicial review and the effect of the judgment in Pepper v. Hart. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that that was a bad judgment and other hon. Members have suggested that it was a good judgment. However, we are all agreed that it was an important judgment in taking forward the relationship between the workings of Parliament, the judiciary, the court system and Ministers and Back Benchers. The case certainly deserves consideration. It might well be a good thing to encourage Ministers to be more careful and more accurate in their answers in Standing Committees that are considering Bills.
One concern that has emerged from today's debate is the potential conflict between Parliament and the courts. We were privileged—in the ordinary sense—to have the benefit of the experience and wisdom of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I understand his point about the importance of penalties, but I do not understand the suggestion that a certain sum might have more value to Labour Members than to Conservative Members. As far as I am aware, all Members of Parliament who do not hold ministerial office have the same salary. Deprivation of a certain sum would have the same effect on everyone, in or out of Parliament.
Mr. Alan Williams: It was the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) who said that a

1065
certain sum would be worth different amounts to different Members of Parliament. It was not my observation: I merely responded to it.
Mrs. Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for elucidating that point. Perhaps I would agree with it if I won the lottery tonight and was, therefore, less concerned about how far my parliamentary salary would go next month.
I was pleased to hear the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who, as usual, brought wisdom and experience to our debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him about the vital and fundamental importance of freedom of speech. It might be our right now as parliamentarians, but it is our right only because it has been fought for over centuries on our behalf. Therefore, it is our duty to protect it. I hesitate to say this, because I have never found myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend before and I am happy to take his advice on many matters, but I cannot quite agree with him on his proposal that the sub judice rule should be more flexible. That is another issue that calls into question the potential conflict between Parliament and the courts.
I was also interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon had to say about privilege at press conferences that happened to take place under the roof of this building. I disagree with my right hon. Friend on that point. People at press conferences in this building should not be subject to privilege in the same way as those who participate in proceedings in this Chamber, and other proceedings in Committees that are reported to this Chamber. That issue highlights another point of great importance that my right hon. Friend did not mention as such. When important matters are being announced, they should not be announced to press conferences in other Rooms in this building. Ministers should be questioned and held to account not by journalists in press conferences in front of television cameras, but by the representatives of the electors here in this Chamber. This is where matters Ministers should bring matters to the attention of the House or of the public. It is almost as important as freedom of speech itself that hon. Members should be able to question Ministers and hold them to account here in the Chamber.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made a fourth good point on the same theme. Would the supposed bravado of journalists, to which some Labour Members referred, be so evident if they were to be brought to the Bar of the House to answer questions?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: They would love it.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Member for Workington says that they would love it, but, although they might want to feed off the publicity, would they love it in fact? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon distinguished between journalists and editors, and newspaper proprietors. If proprietors or editors wanted to publish a leaked report, it is possible that the threat of being brought before the Bar of the House would deter them. They are
1066
used to saying, "Publish and be damned", but I wonder how they would feel about being held to account themselves.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The villain of the piece is not the journalist, but the Member of Parliament who leaks the document, and that is who should be held to account. The House has never been prepared to consider the possibility that leak inquiries should be carried out on oath. That is how we should tackle the leaking of documents. We should not penalise the people in the Press Gallery. There is no one there now, as is usual with the great and important occasions in this House, but that is another matter. We must avoid conflict with the press at all costs. Journalists are totally free.
Mrs. Laing: Once again, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. If someone takes the responsibility of using a document—or any other item—that he or she has procured by false means, that person must take the risk of being held to account. The hon. Gentleman and I should perhaps leave this dispute to another day, but I agree with him about the importance of defending the freedom of the press.
Mr. Bercow: I fear that my hon. Friend was finding the arguments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) a little trying, but would she agree that it would be a matter of the utmost seriousness if the practice of journalistic freedom were to endanger people's lives—for example, the lives of witnesses to a criminal trial? Should we not deprecate such conduct?
Mrs. Laing: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I hope that we can continue this important discussion on another occasion.
It was also a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I can understand his unease about having a lawyer as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I am a lawyer—or was once—although I was never as distinguished as Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that peers remain parliamentarians, even after last night's sad events.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)indicated dissent.
Mrs. Laing: The Minister appears to question my use of the word "sad". Our history was changed in another place last night, and I believe that that was a sad sight. My point is merely that noble Lords are parliamentarians even when they are lawyers too, like many hon. Members.
Mr. Bill Michie: Don't call me a lawyer.
Mrs. Laing: I would not dream of insulting the hon. Gentleman in that way.
It was fascinating to hear the account of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne of the birth of the controversial Pepper v. Hart decision. I understand his reservations about the effect of that decision, but surely the process of interpretation by the courts is similar to the process of interpretation of the law in Committee. The Committee has a duty to look in great detail at the law

1067
while it is being made. That is the duty of all of us who are legislators. The court has a duty to examine the precise words of the law as they are to be applied. However, the same standards should apply, as the meaning and complexity of the words do not change.
I agree that Finance Bills are often extremely complex. If the Pepper v. Hart judgment encourages Ministers to be more careful and precise in their answers to questions in Committee, surely that is a good thing.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have two brief points to make about Pepper v. Hart. First, it has had the good effect of causing Ministers to be careful in explaining the purport of a Bill, and certainly the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did a magnificent job at the time of the case in 1976.
Secondly, it shows proper openness towards our debates. It is entirely right that the world at large should be able to read what is said and done in Parliament, and that the courts should be able to draw comfort from that, and assistance where that is available. However, courts have to be careful in the sense that it is often difficult to construe by a Minister's particular words—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is far too long.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall cut myself short.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has finished.
Mrs. Laing: It is always a pleasure to give way to my right hon. and learned Friend, as he understands these matters extremely well. Perhaps I can return to this matter in a moment, and he can finish his point if I give way to him again.
Another point occurred to me as I listened to the description from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about what happened in the Committee that gave rise to the Pepper v. Hart judgment. Surely the courts will consider the weight or significance of any fact, witness or evidence put before them. I venture to suggest that the explanations given by some Ministers—for example, by the right hon. Gentleman or by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—would carry more weight or significance than the explanations given by others whose grasp of detail may not be so sure. As ever, it is up to the courts to decide whether the evidence given under the Pepper v. Hart rule is good evidence, or not.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my hon. Friend agree that Pepper v. Hart is benign because it enables a clearer interpretation of statutes by Parliament, although it should be used with caution? Does she also agree that it is benign because it offers no threat to proceedings in the House, in
1068
comparison with my previous point about what is said and done in the House being used against an hon. Member in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings?
Mrs. Laing: Yes, I agree. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has had the chance to finish making his point.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) introduced an element of political correctness. He does not like the use of the word "privilege". I must disagree strongly with him. To speak in Parliament is a privilege that we exercise on behalf of the electorate. There is nothing politically incorrect about the word.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament must be free from interference. In the 17th century, that interference came from the Crown, and that is why the Bill of Rights of 1689 was necessary. Other influences today may attempt to interfere with Parliament. One of the clearest examples from today's debate is the potential for conflict between Parliament and the judiciary, and the effects on our legislative and democratic processes of the development of judicial review. I dare to suggest that certain senior judicial appointments should in future be considered by Parliament. Some judges should not merely be appointed, but be subject to scrutiny beforehand. That would be an important safeguard of the separation of powers, one of the most important conventions of our constitution and safeguards of our freedom.
Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Laing: I am told that I have taken rather a long time, so I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for not giving way. Hon. Members are anxious to conclude the debate, and reasonably so.
A future committee might be appointed to consider scrutiny of judicial appointments. If freedom of speech for Members extends to the Chamber, should it not also extend to certain written correspondence between Members and Ministers?
Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Laing: Of course I will.
Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend. It is dangerous of me to disobey the instructions of the Whips, but I do so in extremis. Does my hon. Friend agree that parliamentary scrutiny of future judicial appointments would be less necessary were it not for an exponential increase in judicial review and the recent passage of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Mrs. Laing: I agree entirely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I am sorry that he was not here earlier to make a full speech. Judicial appointments are extremely important and entirely relevant to the points before us.

1069
It seems logical that if the words spoken in the House and questions answered by Ministers in the House are privileged, correspondence between Members and Ministers on matters before the House should also be privileged.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: To some extent.
Mrs. Laing: That is fair enough. As the Joint Committee clearly enjoyed deliberating on the report before us, it may wish to consider the points that I have raised. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) suggested earlier—he has disappeared from his place, but I can see him—that he very much enjoyed the Committee's proceedings. We have enjoyed hearing his account of them. However, these matters are not merely matters of enjoyment, but matters of the historic development of our democracy.
As ever, it was a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has already apologised for being unable to be here now. He, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, is a learned Member, whether or not he is entitled formally to the accolade. He makes extremely good points from his position as a practising lawyer. I understand his anxiety about the waiver of privilege proposed in the report, and about the consequent possible introduction of a party political aspect to these matters. However, I sincerely hope that he is wrong, and that those fears are unfounded. The House should continue to put the working of democracy and the dignity of the House above party politics.
The same applies to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Workington. I hope that his concerns will also prove unfounded, but it would be bad for the House and for democracy if he and my hon. Friend were not wrong to believe that the proceedings of the House and matters of judgment of privilege will become party political footballs. I hope that both hon. Members are wrong.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire concluded with distinction that when we are considering amendment of such a fundamental piece of the democratic structure as the Bill of Rights—one of the foundations of our democracy and of the many democracies around the world that are based on ours—we must not become carried away. We must realise that the rights that had to be protected in 1689 were considerably different from those of 1999. It is a question of balance. The most important part of the Committee's report is on page 2 of the executive summary, which states:
"The Joint Committee concluded that corruption, a serious and insidious offence, can only be dealt with effectively by using the police and the courts."
[Interruption.] No, it appears that whoever is missing cannot be found at all.
Change is a question of balance. In commending the report, we are giving up a little—
Mr. Bercow: Would my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mrs. Laing: No, I must disappoint my hon. Friend. It really is time that I concluded. It is a question of balance
1070
and, in commending this report, we are relinquishing some of the freedoms that were granted by the Bill of Rights many centuries ago.
Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
Mrs. Laing: I cannot give way even to my right hon. and learned Friend.
We are gaining a balanced privilege that is more relevant to the present day. There will be few prosecutions for bribery and other insidious offences through the courts. As the report says, the occasions when a court will be called upon to question a parliamentary proceeding will be rare. Therefore, I conclude that it is a question of balance and that the report should be commended.
Although this is an Adjournment debate, it is also a take-note debate and I hope that Parliament as a whole will have the opportunity to reflect on the many valuable points raised today.
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has wound up the debate so comprehensively that there is little left for me to add. I noticed that she received a great deal of advice during her speech. In fact, I thought at one stage that she was going to talk about grammar schools in Boston and Skegness—but I have a feeling that the House may have missed the opportunity to discuss that subject tonight.
Like other hon. Members, I thank Lord Nicholls and the Joint Committee for their hard work. The report is extremely well written and easy to understand and I know that it has been well received, not only in this place but across the Commonwealth.
I was struck by Committee members' references to creative tension. Some Committee members were pressed men—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and, I suspect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—and others, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), volunteered to serve. The subject clearly suited the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who made an important contribution to the debate.
It was clear from the speeches of those hon. Members who served on the Committee that they believe that the work is valuable. They are excited about this rather dry subject and their thinking has developed. Their enthusiasm spread to other hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire said that the report has not received much attention, but I have a feeling—I will put it no stronger than that—that the report will develop a head of steam. This is the beginning of a very important debate.
The Committee report addresses Parliament, and Parliament must consider the issues and decide how to proceed. This debate has provided an important opportunity to listen to different views, of which many have been expressed. Some of my hon. Friends sought to extend the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was keen to add things to the Committee report, and we have noted his comments.

1071
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that the Government generally support the report. She put down only two markers on matters about which she required some advice. She flagged first the issue of relinquishing the power to imprison and introducing a fine instead. She asked candidly for different views on the subject, and that is what she got—there was no consensus in the House. We must take stock of the discussion and decide how to proceed.
There was also some argument about breaches and the early publication of Select Committee reports. We all accept that the person who leaks a report is liable to severe punishment, but I am not as convinced as some hon. Members that dragging journalists and even proprietors to the Bar of the House will have much value. I think that it will tend to pour petrol on the fire rather than extinguish it. Nevertheless, we sought views about this issue at the beginning of the debate and we must reflect upon the comments that have been made.
Mr. Bercow: I note the tender mercy that the Minister displays towards the journalistic profession—a tendency with which many hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur. Will he comment specifically on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)? She said that Ministers suspected of leaking Government or other documents should be obliged to respond to questioning and to do so under oath. If Ministers are not guilty, they will have nothing to fear from such investigations.
Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for 24 hours, he will receive the benefit of the advice that the Prime Minister intends to issue to Ministers. This is a trailer of coming attractions—it is a leak. The best is yet to come, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to watch the screen tomorrow.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Tipping: I must make some progress.
There has been much discussion of Pepper v. Hart, but no one mentioned judicial review except in passing. I believe that it is more corruptive and pervasive than the Pepper v. Hart judgment and I believe that we should reflect carefully upon the whole matter of judicial review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has much experience in this area, asked whether Pepper v. Hart had changed the behaviour of Ministers in Committee. It is a question of balance: the Minister responding to questions must try to be open while providing correct and factual answers. It is important to strike the right balance.
Mrs. Laing: I agree with the Minister's comments about judicial review. As a consequence of judicial review, the judiciary is becoming more powerful and getting involved in legislating. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the judiciary should be subject to scrutiny before appointment?
Mr. Tipping: We can look at organisation in different ways. The current mood of the House is that Select
1072
Committees, for example, should have a greater say in judicial appointments, and the matter deserves careful consideration over a long period. If the hon. Lady is seeking a personal opinion, I believe that we should have that debate; there is a lot to be said for reviewing our procedures. That is what we are doing today.
To return to Pepper v. Hart, we must recognise that Government lawyers, more than anyone else, like and rely on that judgment. Therefore, the Government have no intention of changing that convention, whatever the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might think. He did not like something so he wanted to turn back the clock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to turning the clock backwards or forwards in relation to the internet. He has conducted a long and strong campaign to make Select Committee proceedings available on the internet the following day and he is clearly making progress with Ministers' evidence. I believe that technology will drive change—it is sometimes irresistible. As we move through the information age, we will have to change our practices.
Other Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), referred to the difficulties that arise. These are complex matters. There is an understanding in the Chamber that we need clarity and certainty. People often tell me that they do not mind what rules there are, provided that they know for certain what they are. Those Members who talked about the need for clarity, certainty and transparency—for a clear and rational understanding that is not driven by political considerations—made some of the most important points of the debate.
It is essential to discuss the way forward. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that there was a general welcome for the proposals—the vast majority of the 39 proposals are acceptable. There are problems with some of them, but, with thought and discussion, those problems can be resolved. After the debate in this House, our colleagues in the House of Lords will want a similar debate. The point was made that these matters also affect that House. It will not be long before their lordships also discuss the report, although that is a matter for them.
Throughout the debate, reference has been made to the Law Commission's draft report on corruption. There is clearly a desire among hon. Members that it should not be kicked into the long grass, as one hon. Member put it. I assure hon. Members that that is not the case. The Home Office is actively working on the draft Bill, but it is still holding consultations. At this time of the parliamentary year, it would be most unwise—especially with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sitting beside me—for me to give any indication of when legislation will be introduced. However, the matter has certainly not been put on the back burner.
Mr. Tyler: As the Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench, will the Minister tell us whether such a Bill might be a candidate for the pre-scrutiny review that we found so useful in a number of other non-contentious cases?
Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see that when my right hon. Friend opened the debate, she pointed out that the matter was a clear

1073
candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that it may be possible to produce a Bill in the not too distant future and to put it out for consultation, because although the issues are complex, it would be fairly easy to make progress on them.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire rightly pointed out that we could take some action now; he mentioned the laws on sub judice, although I think that that is one of the more difficult examples. My impression is that whatever action we took, matters would remain more or less the same, in that the Speaker currently has great powers of discretion. As everyone is aware, these are extremely difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman said that we could also make progress on giving advice to witnesses who appear before Select Committees. I think that we could make some progress in that respect.
However, the real way to make progress is to go ahead on the recommendations of the Joint Committee report—to task it either to the Modernisation Committee or to the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee is already following up some comments on parliamentary papers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is minded to ask those Committees to explore those matters so that we can develop and implement good practice before introducing a new Bill—whatever it is called. It might be called the Parliamentary Privileges Bill, or it might have a more modern title if people would prefer that. However, we shall need more legislation.
Some Members pointed out that we last considered this subject in 1967, and that little progress has been made since that time. However, the Government set up the Joint Committee and asked it to undertake its work. We have accepted most of its recommendations; we are keen to make progress. It is important to modernise, but we should draw on our traditions. We must ensure that
1074
Parliament as a body takes seriously its rights and responsibilities. The Joint Committee report is a cornerstone on which we can build.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Will he give—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has finished.
Sir Peter Emery: By leave of the House—
Mr. Tony McNulty: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the House's pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am putting a Question to the House. Is it the House's pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?
Hon. Members: Aye.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what data he has collated on National Lottery ticket sales by(a) constituency and (b) social class. [95533]

  Kate Hoey
  Information on National Lottery ticket sales by constituency is not available. Ticket sales are only broken down on a geographical basis by television region. Average weekly spend on the Saturday and Wednesday draws between July 1998 and April 1999 is shown in the following table, which was provided by the Lottery operator, Camelot Group plc.

  TV Region

  Average weekly spend by those participating (£)

  Average percentage participating

  LWT Carlton

  3.55

  44

  Meridian/South

  3.44

  48

  Anglia

  3.08

  50

  West Country

  3.09

  49

  Wales and West

  3.23

  51

  Central

  3.11

  50

  Granada

  3.20

  48

  Yorkshire

  3.37

  55

  Tyne Tees

  3.45

  63

  Scottish

  3.26

  52

  Ulster

  3.00

  43

  Total

  3.29

  49

  £ billion

  Good cause

  Low forecast

  Medium forecast

  High forecast

  Charities

  1.88

  1.91

  1.97

  Heritage

  1.89

  1.92

  1.99

  Arts

  1.85

  1.88

  1.94

  Sports

  1.88

  1.91

  1.98

  Millennium Commission (including interest)

  2.019

  2.019

  2.019

  New Opportunities Fund

  1.16

  1.22

  1.36

  Interest for the period 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2001

  0.34

  0.35

  0.38

  Total (including interest)

  11.02

  11.21

  11.64

  The income data for the individual Good Causes (except the Millennium Commission) exclude interest for the period from 1 October 1999 to the end of the Licence. It is not possible to calculate the future allocation of interest between the Good Causes, because this will depend on the rate at which the Distributors draw income from the NLDF. The estimated total interest for all the Good Causes from 1 October 1999 to the end of the Licence is shown separately.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines he gives to the
  862
  Tickets sales by social class as shown in the following table, also provided by Camelot.

  percentage

  Social class

  Saturday game

  Wednesday game

  AB

  21

  20

  C1

  25

  25

  C2

  26

  27

  DE

  28

  28

  Note:

  No breakdown is available for instants sales.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide an estimate of moneys he anticipates will be received by each of the good causes up until the end of the current lottery contract; how much has been received by each good cause to date; and if he will make a statement. [95275]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: By 30 September 1999 the total income (including interest) to the Good Causes from the National Lottery was as follows:

  £ billion

  Good cause

  Lottery income received (including interest)

  Charities

  1.48

  Heritage

  1.50

  Arts

  1.44

  Sports

  1.48

  Millennium Commission

  1.66

  New Opportunities Fund

  0.63

  Total

  8.19

  The forecast income for the Good Causes to the end of the current Licence has been estimated using three different scenarios:

  Television Licensing Authority regarding the purchasing of licences part-way through a calendar month; and if he will make a statement. [95711]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued no such guidelines. Since 1991, the BBC has had statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system and Television Licensing carries out the day to day administration as agent for the Corporation. However, I understand that the practice of issuing new licences to expire 12 months from the end of the month preceding that in which they are issued follows previous Home Office practice.

  Public Bodies (Vacancies)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the current vacancies on non-governmental public bodies sponsored by his Department, together with the dates on which the vacancies arose and when they were advertised. [95154]

  Vacancy from

  Body

  Role description

  30 September 1999

  British Library

  Trustee

  16 June 1999

  Public Lending Right Committee

  Trustee

  30 September 1999

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Trustee

  30 September 1999

  Independent Television Commission

  Deputy-Chairman

  17 August 1999

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  15 August 1999

  Radio Authority

  2 Members

  30 June 1999

  National Film and Television School

  Governor

  8 February 1999

  English Tourism Council

  Member

  27 May 1999

  New Opportunities Fund

  Member

  30 September 1999

  Horniman Museum

  Trustee

  5 December 1998

  Imperial War Museum

  Trustee

  12 January 1999

  Geffrye Museum

  Trustee

  20 January 1999

  Museum of London

  Governor

  29 November 1998

  Museum of London

  Governor

  30 June 1998

  Museum of London

  Governor

  31 March 1999

  National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside

  2 Trustees

  7 June 1998

  Royal Armouries

  Trustee

  15 July 1998

  Royal Armouries

  Trustee

  25 February 1999

  Royal Armouries

  Trustee

  3 April 1999

  Tate Gallery

  Trustee

  19 May 1999

  Wallace Collection

  Trustee

  30 September 1999

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  3 Trustees

  3 August 1999

  Royal National Theatre

  Member

  18 September 1999

  English Sports Council

  2 Members

  8 March 1998

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  8 June 1998

  English Heritage

  Commissioner

  31 March 1999

  Advisory Committee for Historic Wrecks

  2 Members

  1 October 1999

  Theatres Trust

  Trustee

  5 April 1999

  Theatres Trust

  2 Trustees

  9 October 1999

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  Trustee

  Note:

  These are the vacancies which are in the process of being filled

  National Museum of Pop
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to support further the National Museum of Pop in Sheffield. [95756]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I regret that the National Centre for Popular Music is in difficulty. This is an exciting venture designed to celebrate the world's rich heritage of popular music. I understand that the NCPM is working with all interested parties, including the Arts Council of England, Yorkshire Arts, English Partnerships and Sheffield City Council, to arrive at a solution to the Centre's difficulties.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to visit the National Museum of Pop in Sheffield. [95470]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has at present no plans to visit the National Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield.

  World Cup
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the European Commission officials who were given World Cup tickets at the time of
  864
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The information is listed. For reasons of proportionality, it is my Department's policy only to consider advertising for posts which are of widespread public interest and/or with annual remuneration of above £10,000. The majority of appointments to my Department's public bodies do not fall within this definition.

  that event; if these officials were involved in assessing the fine on the football authorities imposed by the Commission; and if he will make a statement. [95498]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department does not hold information on the distribution of tickets for the 1998 World Cup Finals to European Commission officials. That is a matter for the organisers of the 1998 World Cup Finals and the European Commission.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many holidays were taken in the United Kingdom by British residents in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [95436]

  Janet Anderson
  In 1996 UK residents took 64.8 million holidays within the United Kingdom. By 1997 this figure had risen by 6 million to 70.8 million, an increase of 9 per cent. However, in 1998 the number of holidays taken had declined by 5.7 million to 65.1 million, a decrease of 9 per cent.

  Local Libraries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those local
  865
  authorities to which, within the last year, he has made written representations over their plans to reduce local library services. [95130]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: My Department has been involved in detailed discussions with 10 authorities about major changes to their library services, including service reductions. It is our policy at this stage not to name or list the authorities concerned. Our experience is that there is more chance of finding acceptable resolutions if this policy is followed, and indeed this has happened in several cases already.

  Television Advertising (Children)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is regarding television advertising to children; and if he will make a statement. [95924]

  Janet Anderson
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, it is the duty of the Independent Television Commission to draw up and maintain a code covering advertising on television. Appendix 1 of the Commission's Code of Advertising Standards and Practice includes detailed regulations which ensure that television advertisements aimed at children do not mislead or exploit or encourage unsafe or dangerous behaviour. The regulations also prohibit the advertising of certain types of product during childrens' programmes. The Code was revised last year following consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the television and advertising industries, viewer and listener groups and other bodies.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are estimated to have celebrated the New Year in 1999 in Trafalgar Square; and what the capacity of Trafalgar Square for celebrating the New Millennium will be if proposals to create an ice skating rink there go ahead. [95927]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Approximately 90,000 people attended the New Year's Eve celebration in Trafalgar Square in 1999 and it is anticipated that this number will be exceeded on New Year's Eve this year. The proposed ice rink will be removed from the Square before New Year's Eve for public safety reasons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Low Fat Diet
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if a low fat diet is to be available in the canteens and restaurants in the House; and what medical advice has been sought on this subject. [94932]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The House of Commons Refreshment Department is committed to a policy of encouraging "healthy eating" throughout all its cafeterias and dining rooms, ensuring that customers are given a sufficiently wide choice of foods to be able to modify and regulate their own diet. Regular promotions are held in conjunction with the
  866
  House of Commons Occupational Health Service to help educate customers and to assist them in making healthier food choices.

  The availability of low fat foods is an important part of this approach to the promotion of a balanced diet, and the Refreshment Department has for several years adapted its recipes and cooking methods to make use of healthier alternatives wherever possible. A "healthy eating" dish is publicised on daily cafeteria and dining room menus, in addition to which fish is offered on most menus and can generally be served without sauce or added fat. Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk is available throughout the Department, as are butterless vegetables, lean meats, un-dressed salads and reduced fat dressings, low fat yoghurts and sandwiches, and a wide range of fruit and vegetables. In addition there is usually a vegetarian option in all outlets which tends to be more healthy and lower in fat.

  The Department aims to ensure that adequate choice is available for customers wishing to follow a low fat diet and plans to continue to develop its policy of encouraging a rounded approach to healthy eating and a balanced diet.

  In fulfilling this policy, the Refreshment Department liaises closely with the medical and lay staff of the House of Commons Occupational Health Service, as well as with staff of the Gymnasium. Many senior managers and chefs of the Department have received some formal education or training in nutrition and dietetics, but further advice and guidance on specific issues is taken from external dieticians, the Health Education Authority or other professional bodies.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Gender Impact Analysis
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives and policies have been subjected to a gender impact analysis in his Department. [94497]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As an employer we monitor the impact on women of our recruitment, appraisal and promotion processes. To help women balance the demands of work and home, we have a range of policies including support for childcare, career breaks of up to five years and a policy that all posts (with very few exceptions) are available for part-time working and job-sharing.

  We are continuing to make use of consultations, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women. Specific examples of these include the recent consultation of various women's organisations on smoking in taxis and the development of a public transport gender audit. We are also requiring the inclusion of policy appraisal statements in each Ministerial policy submission. Other initiatives include the requirement to promote social inclusion (including meeting the transport needs of women and other social groups) in the Department's assessment of local authorities' provisional Local Transport Plans.
  867
  Our policies are subject to evaluation and will pick up differential impacts on specific groups, particularly where they are disadvantaged. Some policies do have intentional differential gender impacts; for example, the priority afforded to pregnant women and lone parent households (the majority of which are headed by women) in the allocation of council housing.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94851]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Railway Vandalism
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of offenders who committed vandalism causing train accidents in 1998–99 are being prosecuted; and what action he is taking to ensure that train operators and Railtrack provide adequate security. [95172]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive reported that in 1997–98 there were 1,098 reported railway accidents caused by malicious action, including 512 incidences of damage to the cab driver's window. The figures provided by the British Transport Police for the same year show that they dealt with 6,419 reported incidences of 'stone throwing' or 'Line of Route' offences, such as obstructing the line, of which 718 were either charged or cautioned, or no crime was found to be committed.

  Private tenancies (excluding rent free) by Government Office region

  Thousand

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  North East

  78

  66

  81

  74

  85

  North West (including Merseyside)

  202

  202

  250

  262

  246

  Yorks & Humber

  169

  176

  158

  201

  185

  East Midlands

  155

  150

  132

  152

  138

  West Midlands

  135

  176

  149

  131

  158

  East

  182

  205

  194

  220

  210

  London

  408

  478

  445

  442

  408

  South East

  350

  353

  400

  320

  352

  South West

  273

  222

  247

  245

  232

  England

  1,952

  2,028

  2,056

  2,047

  2,015

  Notes:

  1. Each private tenancy corresponds to a separate agreement by which a tenant or tenants rent their accommodation from their landlord.

  2. Excludes rent free tenancies, but includes those where whole rent is met by Housing Benefit.

  Artificial Reefs
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if his Department plans to investigate the environmental impact of building artificial reefs to create surfing waves around Britain's coast; [95929]
  868
  Train operating companies are expected to follow the crime prevention strategies in our guidance 'Personal Security on Public Transport—Guidelines for Operators', including measures such as CCTV, improved lighting and the availability of trained staff. My Department also encourages train operators to join the 'Secure Station' and 'Secured Car Park' schemes where they apply for accreditation by meeting agreed standards on crime prevention measures.

  Federal Express
  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what concessions he obtained from the United States Government in return for the rights recently given to Federal Express to deliver freight from Prestwick Airport to third countries. [95331]

  Mr. Prescott
  In granting fifth freedom rights from Prestwick to US cargo carriers, we have said to the US Government that we would expect it to give favourable consideration to equivalent applications for extra-bilateral rights to UK carriers. Although United Kingdom airlines will not benefit directly from the granting of these rights at Prestwick, there will be significant economic benefits accruing to the region. In the longer run, UK airlines and airports will gain when we have achieved our wider goal, which is the liberalisation of the overall market.

  Private Sector Renting
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the numbers of private sector rooms for rent in each standard region for the last five years for which figures are available. [94884]

  Mr. Mullin
  The term 'private sector rooms' is open to interpretation and so the following table shows estimates from the Survey of English Housing of the number of private tenancies in each Government Office region.

  (2) what investigation his Department has carried out to assess the impact on the surrounding coastline of creating an artificial reef off the coast at Bournemouth. [95930]

  Mr. Mullin
  No assessments have been made because no firm proposals have been submitted. More than one permission would be required. Constructing an artificial reef to create surfing waves would require prior written
  869
  consent from this Department to ensure that danger or obstruction to navigation was not likely to result. Such works would also require a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. They would take full account of effects on the marine environment.

  Under 18-year-olds
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the number of residents under 18 years of age at 30 June 1996, as used in the local government finance settlement, in each local authority area in England. [95734]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Registrar General's estimates of the number of residents under 18 years of age at 30 June 1996 were used in the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 local government finance settlements. The Office for National Statistics published revised population estimates for 1996 on 27 August 1998. These were used in the 1999–2000 settlement.

  The following table details the estimates of the number of residents under 18 years of age for each relevant local authority as used in the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 local government finance settlements.

  Population aged 0 to 17 as used in

  Local authority

  1998–99 SSAs

  1999–2000 SSAs

  Cornwall

  103,602

  103,602

  Cumbria

  106,625

  106,625

  Gloucestershire

  124,095

  124,095

  Hertfordshire

  235,936

  235,936

  Lincolnshire

  133,032

  133,032

  Norfolk

  163,488

  163,488

  Northamptonshire

  146,515

  146,515

  Northumberland

  68,080

  68,080

  Oxfordshire

  139,581

  139,581

  Somerset

  108,202

  108,202

  Suffolk

  151,628

  151,628

  Surrey

  230,697

  230,697

  Warwickshire

  111,008

  111,008

  West Sussex

  157,715

  157,715

  North Yorkshire

  121,597

  121,318

  Bedfordshire

  86,655

  86,655

  Buckinghamshire

  111,123

  111,123

  Derbyshire

  159,579

  159,579

  Dorset

  78,579

  78,579

  Durham

  114,946

  114,946

  East Sussex

  103,390

  103,390

  Hampshire

  281,077

  281,077

  Leicestershire

  134,380

  134,380

  Staffordshire

  181,698

  181,698

  Wiltshire

  95,900

  95,900

  Cambridgeshire

  120,210

  120,210

  Cheshire

  150,256

  150,256

  Devon

  142,841

  142,841

  Essex

  286,972

  286,972

  Kent

  299,256

  299,256

  Lancashire

  264,045

  264,045

  Nottinghamshire

  166,322

  166,322

  Shropshire

  60,515

  60,515

  Worcestershire

  119,717

  119,717

  Isles of Scilly

  475

  475

  Barking and Dagenham

  39,393

  39,393

  Barnet

  71,862

  71,862

  Bexley

  50,937

  50,937

  Brent

  59,524

  59,524

  Bromley

  62,205

  62,205

  Croydon

  78,345

  78,345

  Ealing

  68,773

  68,773

  Enfield

  61,898

  61,898

  Haringey

  49,363

  49,363

  Harrow

  49,286

  49,286

  870

  Population aged 0 to 17 as used in

  Local authority

  1998–99 SSAs

  1999–2000 SSAs

  Havering

  50,739

  50,739

  Hillingdon

  56,353

  56,353

  Hounslow

  48,678

  48,678

  Kingston upon Thames

  29,694

  29,694

  Merton

  39,751

  39,751

  Newham

  68,438

  68,438

  Redbridge

  54,334

  54,334

  Richmond upon Thames

  35,623

  35,623

  Sutton

  39,836

  39,836

  Waltham Forest

  53,855

  53,855

  Camden

  35,973

  35,973

  Greenwich

  54,062

  54,062

  Hackney

  50,741

  50,741

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  29,060

  29,060

  Islington

  38,964

  38,964

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27,165

  27,165

  Lambeth

  61,263

  61,263

  Lewisham

  57,319

  57,319

  Southwark

  56,327

  56,327

  Tower Hamlets

  50,629

  50,629

  Wandsworth

  49,496

  49,496

  Westminster

  32,790

  32,790

  City of London

  669

  669

  Bolton

  64,578

  64,578

  Bury

  42,824

  42,824

  Manchester

  113,070

  113,070

  Oldham

  56,249

  56,249

  Rochdale

  53,544

  53,544

  Salford

  53,818

  53,818

  Stockport

  65,700

  65,700

  Tameside

  53,303

  53,303

  Trafford

  50,669

  50,669

  Wigan

  71,929

  71,929

  Knowsley

  41,999

  41,999

  Liverpool

  112,094

  112,094

  St. Helens

  41,008

  41,008

  Sefton

  65,177

  65,177

  Wirral

  77,447

  77,447

  Barnsley

  52,055

  52,055

  Doncaster

  70,259

  70,259

  Rotherham

  60,695

  60,695

  Sheffield

  113,028

  113,028

  Gateshead

  44,106

  44,106

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  62,028

  62,028

  North Tyneside

  42,814

  42,814

  South Tyneside

  36,816

  36,816

  Sunderland

  71,104

  71,104

  Birmingham

  263,776

  263,776

  Coventry

  75,274

  75,274

  Dudley

  69,925

  69,925

  Sandwell

  70,768

  70,768

  Solihull

  46,772

  46,772

  Walsall

  63,567

  63,567

  Wolverhampton

  59,925

  59,925

  Bradford

  127,643

  127,643

  Calderdale

  45,755

  45,755

  Kirlees

  94,008

  94,008

  Leeds

  164,436

  164,436

  Wakefield

  74,414

  74,414

  Isle of Wight Council

  25,758

  25,758

  Bath and North East Somerset

  33,843

  33,843

  Bristol

  87,918

  87,918

  South Gloucestershire

  54,024

  54,024

  North Somerset

  39,568

  39,568

  Hartlepool

  22,780

  22,780

  Middlesbrough

  38,190

  38,190

  Redcar and Cleveland

  34,169

  34,169

  Stockton-on-Tees

  45,143

  45,143

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  66,904

  66,930

  Kingston upon Hull

  65,210

  65,212

  North East Lincolnshire

  39,284

  39,285

  North Lincolnshire

  35,570

  35,492

  York

  36,988

  37,248

  Luton

  49,669

  49,669

  Milton Keynes

  52,697

  52,697

  Derby

  55,091

  55,091

  Bournemouth

  29,692

  29,692

  871

  Population aged 0 to 17 as used in

  Local authority

  1998–99 SSAs

  1999–2000 SSAs

  Poole

  30,071

  30,071

  Darlington

  23,594

  23,594

  Brighton and Hove

  47,164

  47,164

  Portsmouth

  40,616

  40,616

  Southampton

  47,314

  47,314

  Leicester

  75,859

  75,859

  Rutland

  8,336

  8,336

  Stoke-on-Trent

  58,456

  58,456

  Swindon

  41,532

  41,532

  Bracknell Forest

  27,619

  27,619

  West Berkshire

  34,860

  34,860

  Reading

  32,100

  32,100

  Slough

  28,243

  28,243

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  31,373

  31,373

  Wokingham

  34,473

  34,473

  Peterborough

  40,405

  40,405

  Halton

  32,475

  32,475

  Warrington

  44,381

  44,381

  Plymouth

  57,836

  57,836

  Torbay

  24,924

  24,924

  Southend-on-Sea

  37,016

  37,016

  Thurrock

  32,305

  32,305

  Herefordshire

  36,666

  36,666

  Medway

  59,727

  59,727

  Blackburn and Darwen

  38,648

  38,648

  Blackpool

  30,862

  30,862

  Nottingham

  68,314

  68,314

  Telford and Wrekin

  36,724

  36,724

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received and what research he has commissioned on the likely effect of the periodic review of water prices in England and Wales on those employed(a) directly and (b) indirectly within the water industry; and if he will make a statement; [95553]

  (2) what representations he has received and what research his Department has (a) evaluated and (b) commissioned, on the implications of the loss of further jobs in the water industry in England and Wales for (i) safety, (ii) customer service standards, (iii) continuity of supply and (iv) environmental standards; and if he will make a statement; [95554]

  (3) what discussions he has held with (a) the Director General of Ofwat and (b) other organisations over likely job losses in the water industry in England and Wales as a result of the periodic review of water prices; and if he will make a statement. [95555]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has received representations about possible job losses in the water industry, from some water companies, from Water UK, from employees of water companies and from the union, UNISON. My Department has not undertaken or commissioned research on employment in the water industry, nor discussed this with the Office of Water Services.

  The examination of the water industry's costs and efficiency assumptions is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has a statutory duty to secure that water companies properly carry out their functions and are able to finance them. These functions must be carried out in full compliance with all legal requirements, including drinking water quality (regulated
  872
  by the Drinking Water Inspectorate), health and safety (regulated by the Health and Safety Executive), environmental standards (regulated by the Environment Agency) and customer service and continuity of supply (regulated by the Director General himself). In conducting his periodic review of water price limits the Director General is expecting companies to improve on efficiency savings that they have already achieved. It will be for water and sewerage undertakers to ensure that they maintain the necessary staff and other resources to meet these obligations in full.

  The Government believe that it is possible to deliver substantial quality improvements and reductions in customers' bills, for the benefit of consumers. The environmental and water quality improvement programmes will create significant new employment opportunities.

  MPG6
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6, Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England; and if he will make a statement. [95453]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Review of the Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England has commenced and it is expected that a paper on the main issues will be published for public consultation early in the New Year. Following consideration of the responses, a revised draft of the guidance will be published for consultation later in 2000.

  Housing (Voluntary Transfers)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing units are currently the subject of proposals for large-scale voluntary transfers. [95914]

  Mr. Mullin
  Seventeen local authorities on the 1999–2000 Housing Transfer Programme are proposing, subject to the approval of tenants, to transfer 112,432 housing units in this financial year. Details are set out in the table.

  Local authority

  Number of units

  Boston BC

  5,015

  Burnley BC

  5,354

  Coventry CC

  20,479

  Elmbridge DC

  5,022

  Huntingdonshire DC

  7,134

  Manchester CC

  3,336

  Newcastle-under-Lyme DC

  10,042

  North Devon DC

  3,399

  Restormel BC

  3,781

  LB Richmond

  8,780

  Tameside MBC

  16,959

  Test Valley DC

  5,789

  Tynedale DC

  3,731

  Weymouth and Portland DC

  3,526

  Wyre Forest DC

  6,440

  LB Hackney

  2,394

  LB Tower Hamlets

  1,251

  Total

  112,432

  873
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing units were the subject of large-scale voluntary transfers in each of the last three years. [95912]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Housing Transfer Programme currently runs from 1 April each year until 31 March the following year. In 1996–97, 22,248 housing units were transferred. In 1997–98, 32,982 units were transferred, and 73,900 units transferred in 1998–99. Details are set out in the table:

  Local authority

  Number of units

  1996–97

  Stratford District Council

  6,003

  West Wilts DC

  1,769

  Cotswold DC

  4,282

  South Staffs DC

  5,273

  Lichfield DC

  4,921

  Total

  22,248

  1997–98

  South Oxfordshire DC

  5,018

  Eden DC

  1,510

  LB Lambeth1

  515

  LB Bexley

  8,215

  Congleton DC

  4,061

  Oldham DC1

  642

  Liverpool CC1

  493

  LB Merton1

  1,018

  LB Tower Hamlets1

  1,852

  Kerner DC

  3,732

  LB Hackney1

  951

  LB Brent1

  1,481

  Basildon DC1

  708

  West Somerset DC

  1,869

  Stoke-on-Trent1

  917

  Total

  32,982

  1998–99

  Tewkesbury DC

  3,066

  Rother DC

  3,058

  LB Lambeth1

  681

  LB Tower Hamlets1

  2,431

  Wirral DC1

  1,082

  Tameside MBC1

  901

  West Devon BC

  1,446

  South Somerset DC

  8,883

  East Lindsey DC

  5,102

  Liverpool CC1

  646

  Manchester CC

  1,030

  LB Hackney1

  1,084

  South Hams DC

  3,096

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham1

  668

  LB Hackney1

  1,000

  Telford and Wrekin DC

  13,081

  LB Enfield

  1,194

  Worthing DC

  2,525

  Bath and North East Somerset

  9,887

  Manchester CC1

  6,667

  LB Greenwich1

  1,280

  LB Hackney1

  661

  Allerdale DC

  3,704

  Allerdale DC1

  727

  Total

  73,900

  1 Denotes a transfer facilitated with grant from the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund.

  Thames Transport
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action he is taking to ensure that London River Services and the Port of London Authority honour the contracts which they entered into with Thames riverboat operators under the Partners in Progress scheme; [95481]

  (2) what powers he has to enforce sanctions against London River Services and the Port of London Authority should they fail to honour the contracts which they entered into with Thames riverboat operators under the Partners in Progress scheme. [95480]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of the Government's Thames 2000 initiative to revitalise passenger transport on the Thames, London River Services (LRS) took over key central London piers from the Port of London Authority (PLA) on 1 April this year. LRS has been in discussion with Thames riverboat operators about the arrangements to transfer the licence agreements reached with the PLA to LRS.

  LRS hope to be able to reach agreements with all the Thames riverboat operators on the transfer of licences. Indeed, the majority of operators have now signed new LRS licences. However, I am aware that some operators are still in negotiation with LRS about contractual arrangements, and I understand that the possibility of legal proceedings has been raised. In view of this it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current status of the proposal to give Railtrack plc infrastructural control of the sub-surface lines of London Underground; and when he expects an agreement to be made. [95992]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack and London Underground are continuing to work together to explore the options for linking the sub-surface Underground lines with the national rail network in a Public Private Partnership.

  Subject to the outcome of the discussions currently underway, Railtrack would submit a priced bid for the sub-surface railway PPP contract and the integration schemes next year. As with the two deep tube PPPs, no bid will be entertained that does not contribute significantly to Tube safety.

  London Underground
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Mayor for London will have to alter the terms of the proposed public-private partnership for London Underground Ltd. [95998]

  Mr. Hill
  The Mayor and Transport for London will take over PPP contracts designed to secure the efficient maintenance and improvement of the Tube network. These will be contractually binding, but they will have built into them flexibility for the Mayor to make adjustments over time, to deliver changing performance requirements. The Mayor, through Transport for London, will have the necessary controls to ensure that the Tube plays its full part in a properly integrated strategy for
  875
  transport in London. Fares, ticketing, service levels and the operation of stations and trains will be the responsibility of the Mayor.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has undertaken into the operation of public/private partnerships in other countries similar to that proposed for London Underground Ltd. [95997]

  Mr. Hill
  Public private partnership is an area in which the UK is leading the way. The London Underground PPP is a bespoke arrangement to cater expressly for the needs of our Underground.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many extra District Line trains were run each day during the closure of the Circle Line service. [95994]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand that two extra District Line trains ran each peak period during the closure of the Circle Line service. Demand in out-of-peak hours did not require the additional services.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of absent parents who are liable to pay child maintenance following an assessment by the Child Support Agency but who do not do so; and if he will estimate the number of these who are currently in receipt of(a) income support/jobseekers allowance or (b) a disability benefit. [94697]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 26 October 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of non-resident parents (NRPs) who do not pay child maintenance following an assessment by the Child Support Agency. You also asked how many of these non-resident parents are in receipt of Income Support(IS)/Job Seekers Allowance Income Based (JSAIB) or a Disability Benefit.
  The most recent figures available show that at the end of May 1999 there were 863,960 NRPs with a full maintenance assessment and that 98,620 (11.4%) were known to be paying nothing at all. Included in this latter figure are 1,520 individuals on an Incapacity/Disability Benefit. As recipients of IS/JSAIB have nil maintenance liability, they will not therefore be included in category of payers or non-payers. A contribution to maintenance may however be payable and may be deducted at source by the Benefits Agency.
  When an NRP refuses to cooperate with the Agency in calculating a maintenance assessment we may impose a punitive Interim Maintenance Assessment (IMA). This may be for a much higher amount than would otherwise be due and is intended to encourage the NRP to provide the information needed. At the end of May there were 78,340 IMAs in force with 45,560 NRPs not making any payment. The very lack of information that led to the IMA prevents us the knowing the precise number in receipt of Incapacity/Disability Benefit though we are aware of 240 such cases.
  876
  The Department's Analytical Services Division produces a CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics that is available in the House of Commons Library and you may find the information it contains of further interest.
  I am very keen to improve compliance levels and to this end CSA has entered into partnership with Deloitte Touche. Working together, we will develop a strategy to increase the number of maintenance payments made on time and reduce the build up of arrears. The Agency will introduce effective compliance and enforcement procedures that will get rid of the 'soft touch' image it has acquired with some people. Furthermore, appropriate earlier contact with NRPs, by telephone, letter or face to face will encourage natural compliance. These measures will generate improvements in the short term and contribute to a sound base for achieving maximum benefit from the Child Support Reforms.
  I hope this is helpful.

  State Pension
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of reinstating the link with earnings for the state pension from 1 October. [95425]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Social Security benefits are uprated in April each year.

  The net costs of uprating the basic state pension in line with the average earnings index from 1 April 2000

  Million (1999–2000 prices)

  Year

  Excluding linked benefits

  Including linked benefits

  2000–01

  730

  850

  2001–02

  1,040

  1,210

  2002–03

  1,510

  1,750

  2003–04

  2,060

  2,390

  2004–05

  2,610

  3,040

  Notes:

  1. As annual costs are not constant over time the first five years are shown.

  2. Costs are in 1999–2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3. Net costs are estimated using gross costs provided by the Government Actuary's Department, together with income-related benefit offsets produced by the Policy Simulation Model and PENSIM in the Department for Social Security. Overseas cases are included.

  4. Costings assume the Minimum Income Guarantee continues to be uprated in line with earnings. No allowance is made for introduction of the State Second Pension or the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill.

  Discretionary Social Fund
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he intends to make to the Discretionary Social Fund. [96567]

  Angela Eagle
  As a consequence of the Decision Making and Appeals provisions contained in the Social Security Act 1998, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making changes to the Social Fund directions and guidance. These will come into effect on 29 November 1999. Also included is a range of other minor improvements, the need for which has been identified in the course of routine monitoring. Details of these changes have been placed in the Library.

  I am also pleased to announce that the Social Fund guide will be made available on the DSS internet site from 29 November.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94844]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply from the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to his letter of 1 September regarding a constituent, ref: 15499. [94919]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply was issued to my hon. Friend on 22 October 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94847]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Travel Documents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for travel documents have been waiting for more than six months. [94795]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are approximately 3,000 travel document applications awaiting consideration which were received over six months ago. In recent weeks, there has been a substantial increase in staff numbers in the Travel Document Section of the Integrated Casework Directorate in order to process increasing volumes of new applications as well as older cases from the backlog.

  This, combined with streamlined working practices, has resulted in dramatic increases in output from averages of 120 per week during August to well over 700 last week.

  Corporate Killing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the 1996 recommendations of the Law Commission on the issue of corporate killing. [94821]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are well aware of the weaknesses in the current law on corporate manslaughter. An interdepartmental working group 878
  of officials, which includes a member of the Law Commission, is currently considering the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report Number 237, "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter".

  We expect to receive the conclusions of the interdepartmental working group within the next few weeks and will then consider the way forward.

  HMP Liverpool
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the investigation into allegations of bullying in relation to nursing staff at HMP Liverpool will be completed; and to whom it will be made available. [95948]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report of the investigation into allegations that nursing staff at Liverpool prison had been the victims of bullying and harassment from other staff has been completed. None of the allegations were substantiated. However, the report makes a number of recommendations to improve the management of the health care centre in the future. The area manager is considering these recommendations and is determined to ensure that nothing along the lines alleged could happen undetected at Liverpool prison.

  The report is an internal document and contains information and unsubstantiated allegations which could cause further distress to individuals named in it if it was made public. However, the governor is making it available to the Board of Visitors at Liverpool prison. The investigating officer has discussed the contents of the report with the family of Robert Price, the former nurse whose death prompted the investigation. The Coroner recently recorded a verdict of suicide. Managers will arrange to discuss the report with any of the other members of staff involved who request it.

  Pellet Guns
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls are available and how often they have been exercised in the last five years over the(a) manufacture, (b) sale, (c) possession and (d) use of ball-bearing pellet guns. [95367]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are two basic categories of guns designed to fire small ball-bearings (BB guns).

  The first is the ball-bearing repeater pistol. These guns usually have a muzzle energy of less than one joule. Under the definition of "firearm" given in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968, guns with a muzzle energy as low as this are not classed as firearms because they are not lethal and are incapable of inflicting more than trivial injury. As such, they do not come under the control of the Firearms Acts.

  The second category consists of BB rifles. These are air rifles which are capable of firing ball-bearings as well as the more normal waisted pellet. Being low-powered airguns, there is no requirement for them to be held on a firearm certificate but in all other respects they come under the control of the Firearms Acts.
  879
  There are no controls under the Firearms Acts on the manufacture of low-powered airguns but their sale to, possession and use by young people is controlled by the Acts, as is the use of such weapons by adults.

  For the purposes of the legislation, airguns capable of firing ball-bearings are classed simply as "air weapons". For this reason, it is not possible to distinguish between

  Offence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place

  506

  614

  511

  575

  540

  Person under 14 having an air weapon

  92

  95

  92

  82

  60

  Person under 17 having an air weapon in a public place

  448

  361

  462

  396

  297

  The figures relating to other offences under the firearms legislation cover the misuse of all types of firearms. It is not possible to separate out those convictions relating to air weapons except at disproportionate cost.

  Police Funding
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to make to the police funding formula following the report into the sparsity element of the formula. [95781]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are considering the findings of the research report on the cost of policing in rural areas. We intend to announce soon details of how the police funding formula will operate in relation to next year's finance settlement.

  Farm and Country Watch Schemes
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department provides to farm and country watch schemes; how many such schemes are currently in place; and if he will make a statement. [95778]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government recognise that people in rural communities have different policing needs from those who live in urban areas, although they suffer from most of the same sorts of crime as urban areas. Rural communities can also suffer the twin problem of the lack of an obvious police presence and longer response times to emergency calls.

  That is why the partnership approach between the police and the local community is the most effective means of tackling crime in rural areas. We encourage farm and country watch schemes as means by which members of the public can help themselves and the police to engage in a positive way in the fight against crime.

  As farm and country watch schemes are run in conjunction with local police forces, the Home Office does not keep records of such schemes.

  Police Resource Implications
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the resource implications for the police service of(a) a ban on hunting with hounds and (b) the trialing of GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [95779]
  880
  convictions for offences in which guns firing ball-bearings were used and those involving guns capable of firing only the conventional waisted pellet.

  The table gives the number of convictions for the most common airgun offences for the five years between 1993 and 1997 (the last year for which figures are available).

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Most police forces can, from time to time, face unexpected demands on their resources. We would normally expect forces to meet the additional costs from within their existing budgets or from their contingency reserves.

  CCTV
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of his Department's planned expenditure on closed-circuit television schemes will be targeted on rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [95780]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the first round of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) initiative, Crime Reduction Partnerships in England and Wales have been invited to prepare final proposals on 376 bids for new and extended CCTV schemes with a potential capital cost of £68 million. The main priorities for the first round of the initiative have been to tackle vehicle crime and serious crime problems in housing areas, but shortlisted schemes to the value of over £1.5 million are specifically directed at rural crime. Final decisions will be announced later in the year.

  The priorities for future rounds of the initiative have not yet been set, and increasing the emphasis on rural crime is one of the options that will be considered.

  Prisons (Visitors)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was in total and in respect of each prison and young offender institution(a) the number of occasions in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to date that visitors have been caught trying to smuggle illegal drugs, (b) the number of such visitors in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 who have been banned from further visits as a result of their actions, (c) the number of such visitors in each year who have been charged with a criminal offence as a result of drug smuggling, (d) the number of such visitors in each year who have been prosecuted in court and (e) the number of such visitors in each year who have been convicted. [94905]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total number of visitors arrested for drug smuggling and the breakdown for individual prisons is given in the table. From 1 April-30 June 1999, a total of 387 visitors were banned. The number of visitors banned by individual prisons is not collated centrally. Figures for the number of visitors subsequently charged, prosecuted and/or convicted are not recorded by the Prison Service.
  881

  Number of visitors arrested

  Prison

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Acklington

  18

  13

  8

  Albany

  2

  0

  0

  Aldington

  3

  1

  0

  Altcourse

  2

  9

  3

  Ashwell

  6

  6

  3

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  1

  4

  2

  Bedford

  7

  19

  6

  Belmarsh

  1

  5

  1

  Birmingham

  2

  13

  6

  Blakenhurst

  24

  25

  21

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  13

  11

  2

  Brinsford

  3

  2

  0

  Bristol

  7

  22

  6

  Brixton

  3

  3

  0

  Brockhill

  3

  8

  2

  Buckley Hall

  8

  6

  0

  Bullingdon

  4

  23

  11

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  2

  Camp Hill

  5

  5

  3

  Canterbury

  15

  5

  1

  Cardiff

  54

  40

  29

  Castington

  4

  9

  5

  Channings Wood

  7

  8

  2

  Chelmsford

  8

  7

  1

  Coldingley

  1

  1

  0

  Cookham Wood

  2

  1

  2

  Dartmoor

  7

  3

  2

  Deerbolt

  3

  3

  2

  Doncaster

  24

  28

  1

  Dorchester

  3

  1

  2

  Dover

  2

  2

  0

  Down view

  1

  1

  0

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  16

  22

  7

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  1

  Eastwood Park

  0

  1

  0

  Elmley

  24

  19

  5

  Erlestoke

  10

  5

  1

  Everthorpe

  8

  3

  3

  Exeter

  8

  21

  6

  Featherstone

  5

  5

  2

  Feltham

  114

  48

  2

  Ford

  0

  0

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  0

  Frankland

  6

  6

  1

  Full Sutton

  4

  10

  3

  Garth

  30

  9

  6

  Gartree

  1

  3

  0

  Glen Parva

  3

  6

  4

  Gloucester

  5

  7

  1

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  1

  1

  0

  Guys Marsh

  3

  5

  0

  Haslar

  0

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  0

  Haverigg

  16

  6

  2

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  0

  Highdown

  2

  1

  2

  Highpoint

  19

  17

  6

  Hindley

  0

  0

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  0

  1

  Holloway

  20

  15

  8

  Holme House

  42

  22

  6

  Hull

  15

  11

  5

  Huntercombe

  0

  1

  0

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  3

  0

  2

  Kirklevington Grange

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster Castle

  4

  2

  5

  Lancaster Farms

  22

  15

  3

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  39

  31

  17

  882

  Number of visitors arrested

  Prison

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Leicester

  12

  3

  2

  Lewes

  18

  6

  5

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  11

  9

  6

  Lindholme

  5

  8

  3

  Littlehey

  4

  9

  10

  Liverpool

  4

  2

  2

  Long Lartin

  5

  7

  4

  Low Newton

  2

  8

  6

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  9

  5

  Maidstone

  6

  6

  1

  Manchester

  71

  79

  39

  Moorland

  16

  19

  3

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  0

  The Mount

  11

  3

  5

  Newhall

  0

  0

  0

  North Sea Camp

  0

  1

  0

  Northallerton

  11

  3

  1

  Norwich

  21

  19

  14

  Nottingham

  14

  15

  0

  Onley

  10

  8

  1

  Parc

  6

  23

  12

  Parkhurst

  8

  1

  1

  Pentonville

  13

  25

  9

  Portland

  2

  2

  1

  Prescoed/Usk

  2

  2

  0

  Preston

  9

  3

  6

  Ranby

  11

  2

  4

  Reading

  5

  9

  1

  Risley

  17

  18

  5

  Rochester

  1

  1

  0

  Send

  0

  0

  0

  Shepton Mallet

  1

  0

  0

  Shrewsbury

  5

  12

  4

  Stafford

  19

  30

  5

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  0

  Stocken

  3

  7

  0

  Stoke Heath

  2

  2

  2

  Styal

  2

  1

  3

  Sudbury

  0

  0

  0

  Swaleside

  10

  18

  5

  Swansea

  9

  11

  4

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  11

  9

  Thorn Cross

  0

  1

  0

  Verne

  4

  12

  5

  Wakefield

  2

  1

  0

  Wandsworth

  7

  14

  8

  Wayland

  6

  12

  9

  Wealstun

  2

  5

  0

  Weare

  2

  1

  0

  Wellinborough

  6

  11

  1

  Werrington

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  1

  0

  Wharton

  0

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  2

  10

  5

  Winchester

  1

  0

  0

  Wolds

  17

  10

  5

  Woodhill

  21

  7

  3

  Wormwood Scrubs

  27

  7

  0

  Wymott

  2

  3

  0

  Total

  1,1 10

  1,063

  436

  1Year to date

  Bail
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of persons granted bail who subsequently returned to court for breaching their bail conditions in the year 1998–99. [95550]
  883
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of persons granted bail who are returned to court for breaching bail conditions. Information is available on those granted bail who fail to appear for trial; the most recent figures are published in "Criminal statistics England and Wales 1997".

  At magistrates courts in 1997, out of 549,900 bailed defendants, 64,600 (11 per cent.) failed to appear for trial; and 44,200 defendants (68 per cent. of those who failed to appear) were proceeded against for failing to surrender to bail.

  At the Crown court in 1997, out of 72,000 bailed defendants, 5,400 (8 per cent.) failed to appear for trial. Bench warrants were issued against 4,000 defendants (74 per cent. of those failing to appear).

  Research undertaken in 1996 to provide a detailed picture of the extent and nature of offending on bail, particularly in relation to police conditional bail, found that 9 per cent. of those given conditional bail by courts in parts of Northumbria and Greater Manchester were detected in breach.

  Voucher System
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion his Department has held with(a) the retail trade and (b) other appropriate agencies in relation to the new voucher system set out in the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and if he will make a statement. [95685]

  Mrs. Roche
  A seminar about the proposed voucher system, at which many of the major retail groups were represented, was held in June. Officials have also had discussions separately with some of the retail groups and with security printing companies, various banks, other Government Departments and local authorities. Meetings were also held recently with the asylum authorities in Berlin, where they have had experience of asylum seekers being issued with vouchers with which to obtain essential living needs since 1993.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has held with member authorities of the Local Government Association outside London in relation to the dispersal of asylum seekers from London; and if he will make a statement. [95687]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Asylum Support Project Team has been working very closely with the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government for the past 12 months, concerning the new asylum support arrangements and in particular the new dispersal schemes. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote jointly with Sir Jeremy Beecham to the leaders of all local authorities in England in November 1998 encouraging them to participate in a voluntary dispersal scheme. Since then, officials have issued consultation documents and held discussions with a variety of local authorities around the country. These discussions continue and further meetings are scheduled.
  884
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what numbers are proposed for the new agreed dispersal programme for asylum seekers in each local authority area in the north-east. [95878]

  Mrs. Roche
  No firm decisions have yet been made on the number of asylum seekers to be sent to any given region within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many placements in the north-east of England have been made under the Refugee Allocations Project; how many have been allocated to each local authority area; and what the costs of such allocation have been. [95877]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Refugee Arrivals Project assists about 75 newly arrived asylum seekers, a month to access private rented accommodation in the north-east of England. Most of the accommodation is situated in the Newcastle local authority area, and it is that authority which pays the housing benefit entitlement to the landlords. The other costs involved are the transport costs from London to the north-east and the payments of income support by the Benefits Agency. No records of these costs are kept by the Home Office.

  Dyfed-Powys Police Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed by the Dyfed-Powys Police Authority on 1 April 1997, 1998 and 1999. [95792]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected at the end of March and September. The figures for the period requested are set out in the table.

  Total officer strength

  31 March 1997

  1,005

  31 March 1998

  1,002

  31 March 1999

  1,026

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the licensing laws for restaurants after 11 pm. [95928]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 8 October, we published a consultation paper seeking views on proposals to allow restaurants to serve alcohol with meals after 11 pm without needing to apply for a supper hour certificate or provide entertainment. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  Police Cells (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the provision of police cells in rural areas. [95765]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is an operational matter for Chief Constables to determine the number and location of police cells and stations. Chief Constables are best placed to judge these matters, in consultation with the local community where appropriate. It would not be right for Ministers to intervene in operation decisions.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93997]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 25 October 1999,Official Report, columns 739–40.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been(a) applied for and (b) granted. [95700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of Orders made is not held centrally, but we are aware of six Orders which have been made since 1 April 1999. We are not aware of any Orders applied for which were not granted.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs incurred to date by(a) police authorities and (b) local authorities in setting up procedures aimed towards the obtaining of anti-social behaviour orders. [95450]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 lays down no specific procedures which must be followed when considering applying for an anti-social order, other than that the police and local authority must consult each other. Where there is behaviour which is giving rise to concern, both agencies are already likely to be in touch with each other. Information about the cost of any additional consultation, or any other procedures which the police or local authority decide to establish, is not available centrally.

  Road Traffic Law Enforcement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that new technologies are utilised and developed by all road traffic law enforcement agencies. [94507]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  New advances in technology are being regularly introduced for police use. The Home Office has responsibility for approving technological devices for road traffic law enforcement by the police. The Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) has a programme of work on road policing, to support all United Kingdom police forces and road traffic law enforcement agencies, specifically the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Highways Agency, and the Government Office for London. PSDB do this by providing technical, operational and policy support as well as experimental research and development of technology applicable to traffic law enforcement and road safety.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has an established sub-committee, ACPO (Traffic Enforcement Technology), whose prime function is to
  886
  assess the usefulness of the new technologies being developed by manufacturers. The police must be satisfied that any new device is a genuine technical advance in helping law enforcement. All devices must also be tested rigorously by PSDB or the Forensic Science Service to ensure that evidence provided by the device is accurate and will give reliable evidence.

  Council of Ministers (Action Plan)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents were presented to Parliament relating to the Action Plan adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European Union on 3 December 1998 concerning implementation of the provisions in the European treaties now in force for the development of an area of freedom, security and justice; to what Parliamentary procedures they were subject; and if he will make a statement on the future implementation of this plan. [94364]

  Mrs. Roche
  In addition to the Action Plan itself (12028/1/98 REV 1), the following documents were presented to Parliament in accordance with the current arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny as amended in November 1998:Commission Communication "Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (10787/98), and Presidency paper for the Europol Working Group on Implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice with a view of Europol (6245/99).

  Further implementation of the Action Plan will be carried forward in the light of the Presidency Conclusions from the Tampere European Council on 15 and 16 October.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many boarders there were in each of the boarding schools(a) five years ago and (b) in this academic year. [94376]

  Mr. McFall
  The figures for the academic year 1999–2000 are not yet available.

  The numbers of boarders in 1998–99 and in 1993–94 is included in the following table:

  Grant-aided schools

  Preparatory departments

  Secondary departments

  1993–94

  1998–99

  1993–94

  1998–99

  Campbell College

  11

  2

  94

  47

  Methodist College

  9

  3

  162

  137

  Victoria College

  1

  3

  47

  37

  Hunterhouse College

  7

  5

  78

  54

  Portora Royal

  1—

  1—

  15

  0

  Coleraine Academical Institution

  1—

  1—

  78

  5

  Dominican Portstewart

  1—

  1—

  33

  0

  Friends' School Lisburn

  0

  0

  44

  44

  St. Colman's Newry

  1—

  1—

  53

  47

  Royal School Dungannon

  3

  0

  36

  29

  Royal School Armagh

  0

  2

  66

  54

  St. Patrick's Armagh

  1—

  1—

  72

  41

  Coleraine High School

  1—

  1—

  34

  0

  1 Not applicable

  887

  Independent schools

  1993–94

  1998–99

  Glencraig

  48

  43

  Rockport

  25

  20

  Road Schemes (Carryduff)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present volume of traffic on the Saintfield road near its junction with Buckhill road; what is the maximum volume of traffic which is acceptable at this location; what is the estimated increase in volume of traffic if all present planning applications for housing developments in the Carryduff area were approved; what plans there are to improve the Saintfield road between Buckhill road and Carryduff; what area plans are proposed for the Carryduff area; and if he will make a statement. [94549]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to Mr. G. P Fraser of the Roads Service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 25 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked our Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about, inter alia, the present volume of traffic on a section of Saintfield Road, Belfast and associated issues. In the absence of our Chief Executive, I am replying.
  It is assumed that your question relates to the volume of traffic on Saintfield Road near its junction with Beechill Road and not Buckhill Road as stated in the question. The latest traffic figures available for this location relate to surveys carried out in 1998. These show that the 2-way average 24-hour flow on Saintfield Road is approximately 30,000 vehicles at the Ivanhoe Inn with a peak hour 2-way flow of 2,700 vehicles.
  As regards the maximum acceptable volume of traffic at this location. I should explain that there are many factors that have an influencing effect on road capacity and it is not possible to quote an 'acceptable' maximum volume of traffic for any particular road. For most urban roads, it is the junctions that act as the constraint on traffic capacity rather than the road links between them. However, the theoretical design flow capacity for a 4-lane undivided carriageway, such as Saintfield Road, is 1,700 vehicles per hour in each direction. On this basis, current traffic flow on this section of Saintfield Road is below the theoretical design capacity.
  You also asked what is the estimated increase in volume of traffic if all present planning application for housing developments in the Carryduff area were approved. At present we are not in a position to determine the estimated increase in traffic generated by proposed developments in the area as the developers for the major applications have not yet completed Transportation Impact Assessments for their respective developments.
  As to plans to improve Saintfield Road between Beechill Road and Carryduff, Roads Service has no proposals at present to carry out any major road improvements on this section of road. We are, however, currently introducing "Quality Bus" measures in the Saintfield Road corridor between Carryduff and Belfast. These measures include bus lanes, bus stop infrastructure, improved traffic signal control and traffic management arrangements. The introduction of a "Park and Ride" site in the corridor is also being pursued.
  Finally, you asked what area plans are proposed for the Carryduff area. Colleagues from the Department's Planning Service have advised me that the Carryduff area will be included in the proposed
  888
  Belfast Metropolitan Plan which will encompass the district council areas of Belfast, Lisburn, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Newtownabbey and North Down.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Road Schemes (Ards Peninsula)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a proposal for a bridge across Strangford Lough was last considered by the Department for the Environment; what is the estimated cost of such a bridge; what is the present planned investment in roads in the Ards Peninsula over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [94720]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about the provision of a bridge across Strangford Lough and planned investment in roads in the Ards Peninsula over the next 10 years.
  The Department of the Environment considered the proposal to construct a bridge across Strangford Lough as recently as September 1999 following a request from a local interest group. The span across the lough between Portaferry and Strangford measures approximately 0.6 miles and the cost of constructing a bridge at this location is estimated to be in the region of £25M-£30M, depending on detailed design requirements. The Department considers that such an investment would not represent value for money compared to other higher priority road schemes which are required across Northern Ireland.
  As regards planned investment in roads in the Ards Peninsula over the next 10 years, approximately £180K is scheduled to be spent on minor road improvements during the 2-year period 2000/01–2001/02. The level of funding for future road programmes over the next 10 years is unknown, but assuming it is maintained at current levels, some £0.9M will be spent on minor road works in the Ards Peninsula over that period. While the Department's 5-year Major Road Works Programme 1999/2000–2003/04 does not include any schemes in the Ards Peninsula, the 6-15 year Forward Planning Programme includes 4 schemes in Newtownards (total value approximately £5.2M). This programme is, however, currently under review and, even if these schemes are retained, the timing of their implementation will depend on the availability of funding.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils were enrolled(a) in this academic year and (b) five years ago in (i) each of the primary schools and (ii) each of the secondary and grammar schools in the constituency of Strangford. [94375]

  Mr. McFall
  The figures for the 1999–2000 academic year are not yet available. The information for 1998–99 and 1993–94 is included in the following table:

  Strangford

  1993–94

  1998–99

  Primary Schools1

  Abbey PS

  523

  588

  Alexander Dickson PS

  213

  209

  Andrews Memorial PS

  511

  493

  Ballycloughan PS

  73

  67

  Ballykeigle PS

  66

  49

  Ballywalter PS

  141

  170

  889

  Strangford

  1993–94

  1998–99

  Brooklands PS

  537

  679

  Carrickmannon PS

  75

  90

  Carrowdore PS

  137

  128

  Carryduff PS

  279

  274

  Castle Gardens PS

  441

  388

  Comber PS

  412

  389

  Darragh Cross PS

  68

  91

  Derryboy PS

  73

  73

  Dundonald PS

  563

  605

  Greyabbey PS

  71

  69

  Killinchy PS

  238

  218

  Killyleagh PS

  154

  118

  Kircubbin PS

  58

  90

  Kirkistown PS

  53

  64

  Londonderry PS

  292

  322

  Loughries PS

  93

  85

  Moneyrea PS

  134

  146

  Newtownards Model PS

  365

  398

  O'Neill Memorial PS

  41

  33

  Portaferry Integrated PS

  44

  55

  Portavogie PS

  157

  134

  Regent House School Prep. Department

  172

  160

  St. Finians PS

  194

  124

  St. Joseph's PS

  475

  739

  St. Mary's PS (Portaferry)

  313

  261

  St. Mary's PS (Killyleagh)

  175

  139

  St. Mary's PS (Comber)

  33

  28

  St. Mary's PS (Ballygowan)

  66

  48

  St. Mary's PS (Kirkcubbin)

  225

  195

  St. Patrick's PS

  91

  108

  Victoria PS

  556

  581

  Victoria PS (Ballyhalbert)

  100

  101

  West Winds PS

  203

  206

  Secondary Schools

  Comber High School

  460

  448

  Dundonald High School

  637

  634

  Glastry High School

  554

  579

  Lagan College

  849

  966

  Movilla High School

  752

  895

  Saintfield High School

  299

  341

  St. Columba's High School

  363

  306

  Grammar Schools

  Regent House Schools

  1,428

  1,434

  1Figures include reception and nursery pupils

  Police Stations
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Chief Constable of the RUC has to close police stations in Northern Ireland within the next three months. [95340]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  21-gun Salutes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the decision to look at alternative venues to Parliament building, Stormont for traditional 21-gun salutes to mark royal anniversaries; and if he will make a statement. [95342]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gun salutes are fired by the Army to honour various anniversaries connected with members of the Royal family. As the Crown and Armed Forces remain excepted (i.e. non-devolved) matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, it is felt that it might be more appropriate for future salutes to be fired at a location other than Stormont, which is effectively transferred to the 890
  Northern Ireland Assembly under the Act. Alternative locations are being considered but no final decisions have yet been taken.

DEFENCE

  BVRAAM Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department started discussions with the United States Government regarding the Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile capability; when these discussions are expected to be concluded; with which section of the United States Department of Defense his Department is holding these discussions; and whether his Department is holding discussions with other United States Departments regarding this matter. [93864]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Discussions with the United States Government regarding the UK's Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile (BVRAAM) programme commenced after the receipt of the Raytheon Systems Ltd. (RSL) bids in May 1998. These discussions will continue until the BVRAAM competition concludes around the end of the year. Discussions have been held with the US Air Force Departments of Acquisition, International Affairs, and Armaments Co-operation in Washington D.C. and with the Air to Air Joint Systems Program Office at the US Air Force Base Eglin, Florida. The MOD is not currently involved in discussions with any other US Government Departments regarding this matter.

  UN-designated Standing Reserves
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units will replace UN-designated standing reserves when those units are otherwise deployed. [95410]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK does not earmark specific forces for UN peacekeeping operations, and therefore the issue of replacing UN-designated units on deployment does not arise. We updated our declaration of forces potentially available to the UN in June in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU makes clear that declared forces may not be available at the time of a UN request because of other commitments.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Indonesian pilots and instructors are currently receiving training in the UK, (b) UK personnel are in Indonesia (i) to train Hawk pilots and (ii) to service Hawk aircraft; and what is the cost of the training and servicing. [95338]

  Mr. Spellar
  No Indonesia pilots or instructors are currently receiving training on Hawk in the UK, and no UK service personnel are in Indonesia to train pilots or service aircraft.

  Rapier Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the security implications are to the United Kingdom of the manufacture of components of the Rapier missile system being undertaken outside the United Kingdom; [95344]
  891
  (2) what the value to Turkey will be of work undertaken there in respect of co-production of Rapier Mk 2 missiles for the Turkish Army and the Turkish Air Force Command and for the British Army and the RAF. [95343]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The value of work to be undertaken in Turkey for the Turkish and British Rapier missile procurement programmes is around £30 million. There are no security implications concerning the manufacture of these components outside the United Kingdom. The technology involved is not sensitive and the prime contractor, Matra BAe Dynamics, is responsible for meeting the MOD's contractual specification and for ensuring continuity of supply.

  Challenger Tanks
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Challenger 1 MBTs are to be sold to the Jordanian army; [95373]

  (2) what is the value of the Challenger 1 MBTs to be sold to Jordan. [95345]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As part of its support for King Abdullah of Jordan on his accession to the throne, and in response to a request from His Majesty, the Government announced in March that we had agreed to supply Jordan with Challenger 1 Main Battle Tanks as they come out of service with the British Army over the next few years. Up to 288 Challenger Is will be supplied.

  The Challenger is currently in service with the British Army have a current average book value of £750K each but, on leaving service, that value will reduce to zero. The tanks will therefore be supplied to Jordan at no cost. However, agreement has been reached with Jordan that the Jordanian Government will meet the MOD's additional costs arising out of the Challenger 1 transfer programme.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Strategic Environmental Assessment examining the impact of the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review to be published; if the Assessment team has been authorised to make recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [95522]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is still subject to consultation within MOD and with external Statutory Bodies, it is hoped that the final document will be available early next year. Its work is being taken forward within the methodology agreed with Statutory Bodies and will inform decision-making on the Strategic Defence Review outcomes.

  Vehicle Movements
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason two tank transporters were stationary on the A303(T) near Winterbourne Stoke on 15 October; how long it was before they were moved; and what assistance was(a) sought and (b) given by the Wiltshire constabulary. [95805]
  892
  Mr. Spellar
  At around 1700 hours on 15 October a single empty Scammell Crusader tank transporter travelling east on the A303 towards Stonehenge broke down due to engine failure. The civilian and MOD police were informed shortly afterwards and I understand that civilian police assistance arrived at around 1800 hours. The civilian police directed traffic at the scene of the incident. Due to the volume of traffic, the recovery vehicles, a Scammel Commander and a Seddon Atkinson tractor and trailer, did not arrive until around 1900 hours, and the broken down tank transporter was removed at around 1930 hours.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of a return journey between RAF Honnington and Salisbury Plain training area by one low loader vehicle carrying equipment for use by the Joint NBC regiment. [95803]

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

  Operation Abbott
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of Operation Abbott. [95804]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to date of the operation to clear buried wartime ordnance at Winterbourne Gunner carried out between November 1998 and July 1999, Operation ABBOTT, is some £500,000. This amount relates to the clearance operation, compensation paid to freehold and tenant farmers for loss of harvest and payments made to DERA Porton Down. Negotiations continue with DERA Porton Down over the cost of disposal of the remaining items. The final cost of the operation will not be known until the disposal programme, scheduled to finish in the financial year 2002–03, has been completed.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had or plans to have with the new Secretary General of NATO in respect of the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the United Nations Balkan Environment task force over NATO co-operation with the task force on the use of depleted uranium shells by allied forces during the Kosovo conflict. [95635]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. The North Atlantic Council does not discuss the deployment of specific munitions by individual member states. However, my hon. Friend may wish to note that depleted uranium-based ammunition was not used by UK forces during the Kosovo campaign.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to evaluate the study sponsored by the United States Department of Defense, published on 19 October, into the possible role played by exposure to pyriostigmine bromide in the causation of Gulf War Syndrome. [95631]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has already undertaken a preliminary assessment of the RAND review of the scientific literature on pyridostigmine bromide (PB), as it pertains to Gulf War illnesses. The report does not present
  893
  any new research on PB and does not imply that PB is necessarily a causal factor in Gulf veterans' illnesses, only that the possibility cannot be dismissed. We will now be studying this large and comprehensive report in detail.

  The report calls for more substantial research into the effects of PB. MOD is currently funding research into possible interactions between PB and the vaccines given to UK troops in the Gulf (initial results show no untoward health effects). We are also conducting a neuromuscular symptoms study (one of the areas specifically mentioned in the RAND paper). The MOD welcomes new proposals for research into Gulf veterans' illnesses and would look favourably on any proposals recommended by the Medical Research Council who act as our independent assessors and advisers.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 1999–2000. [96021]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1:

  To deliver personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) within 5 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  Key Target 2:

  To obtain 95 per cent. satisfactory assessments from the employers of NRTA trainees.

  Key Target 3:

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined Pre-joining training.

  Key Target 4:

  To reduce the variance between RNR Trained Strength and Trained Requirement to 39 per cent.

  Key Target 5:

  To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its 1999–2000 cash allocation.

  Key Target 6:

  To achieve net benefits of £8.1m in FY 1999–2000 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Limited.

  Departmental Controls
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the defence procurement contracts with value of greater than £5 million for each year since 1995 and (b) the companies involved in each of these contracts. [95351]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Regiments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current location in the United Kingdom of each army regiment; the number of service and support personnel at each such site; and the total wage bill for each such site in the last year for which figures are available. [95276]
  894
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make ex-gratia payments to former prisoners of war who were held captive by the Japanese in the Second World War; and if he will make a statement. [95573]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: There are no plans to make an ex-gratia payment to former Japanese prisoners of war. The Government's emphasis is on providing support to those who are in current need, through health services, pensions and war pensions as appropriate.

  Departmental Property Sales
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all former buildings of his Department or land sold since 7 May 1997, and the sale price for each. [95283]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gurkha Pensions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the examination of Gurkha pensions and gratuities; and if he will make a statement. [96019]

  Mr. Spellar
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in the House this afternoon, gratuities payable in respect of death attributable to service for Gurkhas will be brought into line with those of their British counterparts. The new payments take effect from 26 May this year and so will apply to the widow of Staff Sgt Balaram Rai killed in Kosovo in June.

  The announcement is the result of the first stage in our examination of Gurkha pensions and gratuities. The increase remains firmly within the conditions set out in the 1947 Tri-Partite Agreement between India, Nepal and the UK and follows increases that have been implemented recently by the Indian Government. To take account of the fact that the UK is the home base for British Gurkhas I have introduced a UK element to substitute for the Indian State Government payments which are variable throughout India. This will bring payments for all deaths attributable to service up to British Army rates.

  We are also looking at Gurkha pensions, still within the context of the Tri-Partite Agreement, and I hope to report on this by the end of the year.

  Soldiers (Minimum Age Limit)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum age for soldiers of the British Army to be sent into armed combat; and what plans he has to alter this limit. [96260]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 22 October 1998,Official Report, column 1161, my predecessor announced that Service personnel would no longer be deployed on operations if

  895
  under 17 years of age, although in practice most personnel will be well over 17 prior to their being deployed. Personnel under 18 years of age are not deployed on UN peacekeeping operations, at the request of the UN. Both our recruitment and deployment policies are in line with international standards set by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recent International Labour Convention 182.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the monetary value of the poverty line for a family with two children aged under 11 years which is consistent with his estimate of the number of children taken out of poverty by the working families tax credit; and what is the rate of Income Support for a family of this size and composition. [94694]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the analysis behind the estimate that around 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by recent Budget measures, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the former Economic Secretary on 14 April 1999,Official Report, column 244. Latest statistics on household incomes (covering 1997–98) can be found in "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1997–98" and current rates of Income Support are published in "Social Security Statistics 1999", both published by the Department for Social Security. The Government have also increased the personal allowance for children under 11 on Income Support by £4.70 from this October, and announced a further increase of at least £1.05 from next April.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94840]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office gave her on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations represented on each working group in respect of the national changeover plan; [95301]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress to date, by each working group, on the Outline National Changeover plan. [95302]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Outline National Changeover plan identified the next steps in changeover planning. These are being taken forward in a number of working groups, which include representatives from the following organisations:

  British Bankers Association

  Association of British Insurers

  Building Societies Association

  Utilities

  British Licensed Retailers Association

  Association of Payment Clearing Services

  896

  Association of Unit Trust Investment Funds

  Financial Services Authority

  Consumers' Association

  Local Authority Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards

  British Shops and Stores Association

  Mail Order Traders Association

  British Hospitality Association

  Food and Drink Federation

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Age Concern England

  Mencap

  Local Government Association

  Central Office of Information

  British Retail Consortium

  Citizens Advice Bureau

  Confederation of Indian Industries

  British Chambers of Commerce

  Confederation of British Industry

  The Royal Mint

  Bank of England

  Consumers in Europe Group

  The Post Office

  Automatic Vending Association of Britain Securicor

  Securitas

  National Federation of Retail Newsagents

  Institute of Chartered Accountants England and Wales

  International Primary Markets Association

  International Petroleum Exchange

  International Underwriters Association

  International Swaps and Derivatives Association

  International Securities Markets Association

  London Investment Bankers Association

  LIFFE

  Lloyds of London

  London Stock Exchange

  City Law Society

  Fund Managers Association

  National Association of Pension Funds

  London Clearing Houses

  Financial Services Authority

  Association of Investment Trust Companies

  Association of Corporate Treasurers

  CHAPS Clearing Co.

  CRESTCO

  Finance and Leasing Association

  Financial Law Panel

  Futures and Options Association

  Gilt Edged Market Makers Association.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the nature of the circumstances whereby the Bank of England will be required by the European Central Bank to prosecute
  897
  breach of copyright of euro banknotes, with reference to ECB/1999/3 (1999/656/EC); what manner of appeal is permitted; and what part he played in the discussions leading to the decision. [95400]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Guideline of the European Central Bank (ECB) on certain provisions regarding euro banknotes (ECB/1999/3 and 1999/656/EC) is addressed to the national central banks of participating member states. As such, it does not apply to the Bank of England, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not involved in the adoption of the Guideline by the ECB Governing Council.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the cost in terms of lost revenue of exempting trades under £5,000 from stamp duty on share transactions. [95090]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1999 Budget forecast of revenue from stamp duty on transactions in shares and other securities is £3.3 billion in 2000–01.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the cost in terms of lost revenue of reducing the rate of stamp duty on share transactions to(a) 0.4 per cent., (b) 0.3 per cent., (c) 0.2 per cent., (d) 0.1 per cent. and (e) 0.003 per cent. [95091]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1999 Budget forecast of revenue from stamp duty on transactions in shares and other securities is £3.3 billion in 2000–01. The estimated costs of reducing the rate of duty from the current 0.5 per cent. are given in the table. These estimates take account of the impact the relevant changes would be expected to have on the value of share transactions.

  £ billion

  Reducing the rate of duty on share transactions to

  Estimated cost

  (a) 0.4 per cent.

  0.6

  (b) 0.3 per cent.

  1.2

  (c) 0.2 per cent.

  1.8

  (d) 0.1 per cent.

  2.5

  (e) 0.003 per cent.

  3.3

  Exchange Rate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his Department's latest estimates for the real effective exchange rate on a monthly basis since May 1997, taking into account relative inflation and United Kingdom trade-weighted movements in other exchange rates. [95638]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Neither the Treasury nor the Office for National Statistics publishes monthly estimates of the real effective exchange rate. However, the OECD produce monthly estimates in their publication "Main Economic Indicators", with the latest estimates summarised on page 36 of the September 1999 Edition.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public service widows currently receive a pension based on(a) one half of their husband's pension entitlement and (b) one-third of that entitlement. [95516]
  898
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The major public service pension schemes do not hold information disaggregated on this basis, with the exception of the Teachers' Pension Scheme which can identify some 3,500 widows receiving a pension at one half rate; 60 at one third rate; and 31,700 receiving a widow's pension at the rate of some other fraction of their husband's pension. A widow's pension at a rate of between half and one third would result if the scheme member's service straddled the point at which public service pension schemes raised the rate of widow's pension from one third to one half, in 1972, and the member did not pay the maximum additional contributions fully to upgrade the entitlement in respect of previous service.

  ISAs
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the number of people who have taken out both a mini and a maxi ISA. [95519]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Inland Revenue holds no data to enable it to make estimates of this kind.

WALES

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Treasury Ministers in relation to the operation of the Barnett Formula as regards Wales. [94082]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not had any discussions with Treasury Ministers regarding the operation of the Barnett Formula for Wales, as a sound framework is already in place.

  Cross-border Environmental Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the liaison between his office, the National Assembly and the Welsh region of the Environment Agency on issues which affect Welsh-English cross-border environmental management issues. [94084]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Secretaries and with Government Colleagues.

  NHS Technical and Scientific Staff
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about pay, recruitment and retention of qualified technical and scientific staff in the NHS in Wales. [94085]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on these issues. When considering the annual pay settlements for NHS staff, the pay review bodies will take evidence from the Assembly along with the Department of Health and other devolved administrations.

  Welsh Assembly (Funding)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the total amount of funding allocated to the National Assembly for Wales. [94086]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received a number of representations about this matter, including in particular about the need for funding to permit Wales to take advantage of its access to funds under Objective 1.

  Fundholding (Abolition)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Department of Health concerning the impact of the abolition of fundholding on waiting lists in English health authority areas adjacent to the Welsh border. [94087]

  Mr. Hanson
  None.

  Ministerial Staff
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the staffing of his office in(a) Cardiff and (b) London. [94089]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At present I have just over 30 staff. All except my special adviser, and my legal adviser are based in London.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Department of Trade and Industry following the publication of the new Assisted Areas map in Wales. [94091]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. The Assisted Areas map published on 15 July 1999 constituted the Government's proposals to the European Commission. It is the European Commission which must approve the map and the matter is now with the Commission for a decision.

  Policing (Millennium)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Executive on policing needs over the millennium period. [94092]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that there have been liaison meetings between the National Assembly for Wales and local service providers, including the police services, in the interests of co-ordinating activities at the local level.

  However, I have not had any discussions with the National Assembly for Wales on policing needs over the millennium period. Police issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and millennium preparations in Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  EU (Welsh Interests)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the UKRep regarding the presentation of Welsh interests to the European Commission. [94093]
  900
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I plan to visit Brussels and meet senior UKRep officials shortly to discuss a range of issues. The UK Government remain responsible for relations with the European Union but wishes to involve the Assembly as fully as possible in decision-making on EU matters which touch on devolved areas. The concordat between the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales on co-ordination of European Union policy issues, published earlier this month, sets out the framework for ensuring that the Assembly's interests are adequately represented.

  Health and Education
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the responsibilities of his Department in relation to(a) health and (b) education. [94094]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State has been in consultation with the Assembly on aspects of Health and Education policy affecting Wales, which may be the subject of primary legislation in the near future.

  Flood Control
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what negotiations he has had on measures to improve flood control in mid-Wales this winter. [94095]

  Mr. Hanson
  None. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Universities (Grants)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the DfEE to ensure that Welsh universities receive a greater share of grants from UK research councils. [94096]

  Mr. Hanson
  None. I am aware of measures being undertaken by the National Assembly for Wales to address this situation.

  Poverty
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about UK Government actions to tackle poverty in Wales. [94097]

  Mr. Hanson
  I regularly discuss this issue with colleagues and the appropriate Assembly Secretary to ensure that we are working together to reduce poverty in Wales.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received during the past three months with regard to the adequacy of the block grant provided for the National Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [94098]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received a number of representations on this subject over the last three months, including in particular the need for Wales to have adequate funding to take advantage of its access to Objective 1 grants.

  Match Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the First Secretary of the National Assembly with regard to providing match funding for European structural funds for Wales. [94099]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues.

  Post-16 Education and Training
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that Welsh interests are advanced in any future reorganisation of post-16 education and training following the recent Government White Paper. [94100]

  Mr. Hanson
  The recent Government White Paper, "Learning to Succeed", put forward proposals for reorganisation of post-16 education and training in England.

  The Welsh Office issued its own consultation paper which drew on work done by the Education and Training Action Group, which was set up by Welsh Office Ministers.

  Any primary legislation brought forward to effect reorganisation as recommended in these papers will take account of Welsh interests.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on measures to help the young unemployed in Wales. [94101]

  Mr. Hanson
  I met my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, earlier this month and we discussed a range of issues in relation to the Government's Welfare to Work agenda in Wales.

  Funding Programmes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions he intends to make to ensure that funding for European structural fund programmes in Wales is additional to funding allocated to the National Assembly for Wales under the Barnett Formula. [94102]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Welsh Block currently has provision for European Structural Funds.

  Next year's Spending Review is designed to review the Government's overall expenditure plans. The Treasury has agreed to consider on their merits representations from the National Assembly for Wales about the public spending implications of Objective 1 status for West Wales and the Valleys as part of the 2000 Review. I will be fully involved in those discussions.

  Reserved Powers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a guide for the public on the reserved powers relevant to Welsh matters; and how they are dealt with in the House. [94088]
  902
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A Guidance Note is being prepared and will soon be placed in the Library.

  Child Abuse Tribunal
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal of Inquiry. [96415]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Tribunal's report has been delivered to my Department this afternoon. We will now consider the report and set in hand arrangements for its printing and presentation to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. At the same time I will present an executive summary of the document which is still in preparation by the Tribunal. I will present this summary in Welsh and in English. I expect all this work to be completed by January and I do not plan to make any further statement on the report and its findings until then.

  Road Infrastructure
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning studies carried out into the impact of investment in road infrastructure in England upon the economy of Wales. [94078]

  Mr. Hanson
  None. I understand that Assembly officials are in direct contact with their DETR counterparts.

  Sea Fishing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the division of responsibilities between the National Assembly and the Welsh Office for sea fishing issues. [94083]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for all matters pertaining to the sea fishing industry for up to 12 miles from the Welsh coast line. The UK Government have powers from 12 miles to the British fisheries limit of 200 miles.

  Cardiff International Airport
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the potential for Cardiff International Airport to attract additional traffic from passengers living in South West England. [94090]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

HEALTH

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made by regional cancer registries in submitting 1997 information to the Office for National Statistics; and if he will make a statement; [94060]

  (2) what steps he has taken to prevent future backlogs of submissions by regional cancer registries to the Office for National Statistics; and if he will make a statement; [94061]
  903
  (3) if he will list the regional cancer registries, indicating the latest year they have submitted data to the Office for National Statistics; and if he will make a statement. [94063]

  Yvette Cooper
  The latest year for which cancer registries in England have submitted complete data (as compared to the number of registrations in previous years) are:

  Year

  Registries

  1997

  East Anglia, South and West (Winchester), Oxford, Trent and West Midlands

  1996

  South and West (Bristol)

  1994

  Yorkshire, North Western

  1993

  Thames, Northern, Merseyside and Cheshire

  For 1997 data, five registries have submitted substantially complete data, two have submitted some data and four have submitted no data.

  We are concerned to promote more timely submission of cancer registration data. In February 1999, we commissioned Professor Charles Gillis of the Department of Public Health, University of Glasgow to review the cancer registration system in England and Wales and to make recommendations for improvement. His final report is expected early in the New Year and is expected to make recommendations to improve timeliness and quality of published cancer statistics.

  Cancer Care Action Group
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Cancer Care Action Group has met; at each meeting what new best practice and joint working projects were established; and if he will make a statement. [94066]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Cancer Care Action Group (CCAG) was established to bring together the leading cancer voluntary organisations with the National Health Service Executive. It advises and makes recommendations to the National Cancer Forum on key issues on developments in cancer and palliative care policy at a national level and the implications for voluntary sector organisations, and represents those with cancer and their carers in so doing.

  The CCAG has met twice so far, on 27 January 1999 and on 29 September 1999.

  The CCAG has been consulted on the development of the New Opportunities Fund initiative for palliative care. It was also consulted on the cancer information strategy and as a result of this, CancerBacup and Macmillan Cancer Relief have joined the Departmental Steering Group which is developing the strategy.

  Following the first meeting the National Council of Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services undertook to co-ordinate a project to scope the training and education provided by voluntary organisations. The findings were considered at the second meeting and it was agreed that they offered a good basis for considering further developments in this area.

  NHS Pay Review Bodies
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current membership is of the NHS pay review bodies. [96271]

  Mr. Denham
  The current membership is as follows:

  Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration

  Chairman—Mr. Brandon Gough—First appointed 1999—Reappointed 1996 reappointed for further 2 years 1999;

  Mr. David Penton—First appointed 1994—Reappointed 1997 until 2000;

  Mr. Christopher King CBE—First appointed 1996—Reappointed 1999 until 2002;

  Mrs. Carol Hui—First appointed 1996—Reappointed 1999 until 2002;

  Professor Sheila McLean—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mrs. Matti Alderson—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mr. Alan Hawksworth—First appointed 1999–2002;

  Dr. Gareth Jones—First appointed 1999–2002.

  Review Body on Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine

  Chairman Professor Clive Booth—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mr. Clive Monks OBE—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mr. Jim Bartlett—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mr. Mike Malone-Lee CB—First appointed 1998–2001;

  Mrs. Sheila Gleig—First appointed 1994—Reappointed 1997 until 2000;

  Professor Pauline Weetman—First appointed 1999–2002;

  Mrs. Marlene Davies—First appointed 1999–2002;

  Mrs. Urmila Banerjee—First appointed 1999–2002.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94845]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Objective 2 Funding
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he received from the Welsh Assembly on Objective 2 funding for Wales. [95741]

  Mr. Caborn
  The proposals for the Objective 2 map were prepared having regard to advice from the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Economic and Development Secretary. Their concern was to ensure, within a total population coverage agreed for Wales of 270, 000, that the best balance was struck between coverage of disadvantaged urban areas and rural areas.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas were identified in the submission by the Welsh Assembly for Objective 2 funding in Wales. [95742]
  905
  Mr. Caborn
  The proposed Objective 2 map envisages coverage in Wales of parts of Powys, Newport and Cardiff. These proposals took account of advice from the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Economic and Development Secretary.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the deadline for amendments to the draft map of areas of Objective 2 funding in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [95739]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK proposals for Objective 2 coverage have been submitted to the European Commission, and these are now the subject of discussion with the Commission. We hope to have agreement on the proposals by the end of this year.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were used to allocate Objective 2 funding to areas of Wales. [95740]

  Mr. Caborn
  The criteria that the Government used are set out in the document URN99/1021 "The Government's proposals for new Objective 2 areas", copies of which were sent to all hon. Members.

  The criteria were based on levels of unemployment, in combination with measures of high dependency on industry or agriculture and a decline in those sectors. For urban areas, an index of local deprivation was used.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps he is taking to(a) promote and (b) safeguard the future of the UK textile industry. [95790]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government work closely with the textiles industry on a number of key areas, including trade policy, education and training, exporting and industrial sponsorship.

  On the latter, the Department of Trade & Industry's Textile, Clothing and Footwear Unit is dedicated to assisting these industries to compete effectively. The Unit is currently funding over 20 projects targeting specific areas for future development, including product innovation, design, marketing, benchmarking and the development of supply chain partnerships.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for competitiveness met with the industry-led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group on 13 October 1999 to discuss with them progress on the development of a national strategy for the industry.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94019]

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

  Mirror Group
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the report into the circumstances of the Mirror Group flotation, following the appointment of inspectors in June 1992. [95520]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The inspection is being conducted by independent inspectors.

  They are still carrying out their work and consequentially they have yet to report to me.

  Company Regulations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the regulations which a company manufacturing refrigerators and employing 1,500 people has to comply with. [95921]

  Ms Hewitt
  The regulations applying to a refrigerator manufacturer, employing 1,500 people, include those deriving from company law, taxation, health and safety, land planing requirements and environmental legislation.

  Regulatory information relating to the operational aspects of all types and size of business will be available through the Direct Access Government (DAG) INTERNET web site, which is currently being updated and will be relaunched as part of the Small Business Service.

  The Government announced a tougher approach to regulatory control in the Modernising Government White Paper in March, with the aim of eliminating unnecessary regulation and minimising the burdens that necessary regulations impose.

  Telephone Dialling Codes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates his Department has made of the adjustment costs associated with the planned change in telephone dialling codes; and what proposals his Department has to assist charitable organisations which face exceptional costs in making the change. [95640]

  Ms Hewitt
  The administration of the National Numbering Scheme is a matter for Oftel. Oftel has not carried out any specific research into the adjustment costs associated with the planned changes to telephone codes. The changes to geographic codes have been made in response to the views of consumers and businesses following "Phoneday" in 1995 in order to meet additional demand for numbers. In order to minimise the costs to businesses, Oftel has given long periods of notice of changes and put in place parallel running for old and new numbers and "changed number announcements". This enables businesses to plan for the future.

  This Department has no proposals to assist charitable organisations with their exceptional costs in making the change. Grants may in certain circumstances be awarded to bodies in the health sector under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, through a scheme administered by the Department of Health.

  Droit de Suite
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect on the London art market of introducing Droit de Suite. [95133]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: An independent assessment of the potential risk carried out earlier this year concluded that, business could be lost to markets where droit de suite is not applied and that, by 2005, sales of works covered by droit de suite could fall by as much as 78 per cent., from £280 million to £61 million, resulting in lost earnings of £57 million per annum; and total sales could fall by £750 million or 23 per cent. (due to vendors unwillingness to spilt lots), putting many jobs at risk.

  Former Paymaster General
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria will determine whether the report in preparation on the business affairs of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) will be published. [95557]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The criteria which determine whether information from an inquiry is made public are the nature of the case itself and other considerations such as the applicable law and commercial confidentiality. Subject to these constraints, I would wish to be as open as possible on these matters.

  National Export Strategy
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the National Export Strategy. [95465]

  Mr. Caborn
  I hope to make a statement shortly.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will break down the number of employers who have been reported by minimum wage inspectors for paying less than the national minimum wage by(a) region and (b) firm size. [95949]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  National Minimum Wage compliance officers have dealt with over 3,000 cases of suspected underpayment of the national minimum wage. The latest available figures of complaints by region and by employer size is provided in the following tables. These data and other information on enforcement activity will be included in the Government evidence to the Low Pay Commission which we will publish shortly.

  Complaints received by region. April-September 1999

  Region

  Complaints

  Percentage

  Scotland

  204

  7

  N. Ireland

  46

  2

  Wales

  88

  3

  North East

  114

  4

  Yorkshire

  310

  11

  North West

  211

  7

  Merseyside

  29

  1

  W. Midlands

  202

  7

  E. Midlands

  183

  6

  Eastern England

  120

  4

  908

  Complaints received by region, April-September 1999

  Region

  Complaints

  Percentage

  London

  79

  3

  South East

  178

  6

  South West

  162

  6

  Not known

  922

  32

  Total

  2,848

  100

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  2. The reason for the large number of complaints that appear to have no geographical region is that anonymous calls cannot be identified by Government Office regions since precise addresses are not taken: the complaints are simply dealt with by the nearest IR compliance team.

  Source

  Inland Revenue

  Analysis of employer size for complaints cleared, April-August 1999

  Number

  Percentage (rounded)

  1 to 10

  320

  46

  11 to 100

  291

  42

  101+

  78

  11

  Total

  689

  100

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress there has been in discussions with industry regarding the impact of the Climate Change Levy. [95953]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have had extensive discussions with industry about the impact of climate change levy, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–90.

  The Government have made clear that they wish to design the levy in a way which maximises its environmental benefit while seeking to protect competitiveness. They have been concerned to develop the best possible understanding of business's perspective in discussions over recent months, in order to inform their decision on the levy for the Finance Bill 2000.

  The Government have said that they recognise the special circumstances of energy intensive sectors of business in this context including their energy usage and exposure to international competition. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has been leading the discussions with a number of key trade associations representing energy intensive sectors to develop negotiated agreement. Under these agreements, sectors which are to be subject to Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulation would earn significantly reduced rates of the climate change levy in return for commitments to targets for energy efficiency and/or emissions reduction. The DETR has been conducting detailed negotiations with an initial ten trade associations. Some initial offers of targets have now been made. The period for these discussions has been extended from mid-October to 20 December in order to give the trade associations more opportunity to consult their members.

  Gas-powered Electricity Generation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications to construct gas-powered electricity generating plants are awaiting consent. [95813]

  Mr. Caborn
  Currently there are 35 proposals involving gas-firing before the Department (a mixture of CCGT, CHP and other) awaiting a decision. Decisions on these will be taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled 'Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee' (Cm 4071), and announced in due course.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Over 50s)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for the over 50s. [96391]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal 50plus has been introduced this week in the following nine areas of the country: Durham; Dorset; Oxfordshire; Black Country; North Derbyshire; Manchester—City Pride; Hull; North East Wales; and, Edinburgh, East and Midlothian. The programme will be introduced throughout the UK in Spring 2000.

  Basic Skills Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to undertake a review of the Basic Skills Agency. [96392]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have a policy of conducting five-yearly reviews of all non-departmental public bodies. As the Government are the major contributor to the funding of the Basic Skills Agency, we believe that the Agency should be subject to comparable

  £ million

  Expenditure1

  Programme

  1998–99 Allocation

  Amount

  Percentage

  Carry forward

  New Deal for young people

  534

  189

  35

  345

  New Deal for long term unemployed

  114

  12

  10

  102

  New Deal for lone parents2

  17

  17

  100

  0

  New Deal for disabled2

  5

  2

  40

  3

  Totals

  670

  220

  33

  3450

  1 Expenditure excludes a total of £82 million spent out of existing Departmental provision

  2 New Deals for lone parents and the disabled are programmes operating jointly between the DfEE and DSS and figures given are those for DfEE only

  3 £103 million of which was returned to the windfall tax reserve

  To some extent, underspends resulted from the timing of submission by contractors of their invoices for services provided to the New Deal. In addition, the numbers of people entering New Deal programmes were lower than had earlier been projected on the basis of the Government's unemployment assumption at the time.
  910
  review procedures. Since the last review of the Agency was in 1994, the Department has commissioned a new review of the Agency.

  I am placing in the Library a copy of a letter to Sir Claus Moser, Chairman of the Basic Skills Agency, setting out further details of the review, including its terms of reference.

  Age Diversity in Employment
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment (June 1999) on reducing age discrimination in the workplace. [95950]

  Ms Jowell
  The Code was launched barely four months ago and it is therefore too soon to make a full assessment of its impact on age discrimination in the workplace.

  The effectiveness of the Code is being evaluated through a large-scale research project looking in detail at its impact on employer policies, attitudes and practices. Specific topics to be covered include recruitment, selection, promotion, training, redundancy and retirement. The results of the evaluation will be published in early 2001.

  Windfall Tax (New Deal)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amount and percentage of the proceeds of the windfall tax allocated in the 1998 Budget report [HC620] to(a) the New Deal for 18–24 year-olds, (b) the New Deal for the long-term unemployed, (c) the New Deal for lone parents and (d) the New Deal for the sick and disabled, for expenditure during the 1998–99 financial year were (i) spent during that year and (ii) carried forward for future years, giving reasons for any underspend. [95086]

  Ms Jowell
  The table shows the amount of windfall tax set out in the 1998 Budget Report allocated to the Department for Education and Employment, for the New Deal programmes shown, in 1998–99 together with expenditure and carry forward.

  Finally, the success of the New Deal for young people itself contributed to underspends.

  The programme aims to help as many young people as possible to leave its Gateway for jobs. The original planning assumption was that 60 per cent. would need to

  911
  move on from the New Deal Gateway into one of the four options. The Gateway performed much better in 1998–99 and some 55 per cent. of entrants were leaving New Deal without needing to move first into an option. Fewer young people into options has the effect of reducing expenditure on option provision, allowances and Follow-Through.

  Expenditure on the New Deal is, of course, planned over the Parliament as a whole and unspent resources in any single year are available for spending on the New Deal in future years.

CABINET OFFICE

  Gender Impact Analysis
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which Government policies have been subject to gender impact analysis; and if the gender impact analyses are publicly available. [94504]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to ensuring their policies are fair and inclusive, of high quality and flexible. This aim is contained in guidance (published 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on women and other groups, and is a cornerstone of the Modernising Government White Paper. It is for individual departments to consider how to make use of this guidance. There is no formal requirement to carry out a gender impact assessment for every policy or regulation, and the absence of a separate document does not mean that gender impact was ignored during policy making.

  The Women's Unit in the Cabinet Office is working with the Home Office, and Department for Education and Employment to produce more comprehensive guidance for departments on equality impact assessment—to sit within the consolidated guidance described. In addition the Women's Unit is developing a framework for gender impact assessment.

  The Government have introduced a wide range of policies clearly designed to meet the concerns, priorities and circumstances of women. These include the National Minimum Wage, Working Families Tax Credit and the Childcare Tax Credit, Sure Start and the National Childcare Strategy, the New Deal for Lone Parents and increases in Child Benefit. These measures help women make real choices in their lives.

  Fight the Fog Campaign
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on developments since April 1998 in the Fight the Fog Campaign. [95293]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  "Fight the Fog" is an internal management initiative within the European Commission. I wish it every success.

  Further information on the initiative can be obtained on the Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/sdt/en/ftfog/index.htm.

  EU Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her predecessor's answer of 27 July 912
  1999, Official Report, columns 155-56, concerning EU working groups, for what reasons he did not make a statement at that stage. [95418]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 155–56. My right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Cabinet Office did not make a separate statement as this Answer contained all the relevant information.

  Property Advisers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate have(a) paid and (b) been contracted to pay to (i) S. J. Berwin and (ii) DTZ Debenham Thorpe since 2 May 1997. [94901]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member and I will ensure a copy of the letter is placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. David Lidington, dated October 1999:
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to respond to your question about the level of the Agency's payments to S J Berwin and DTZ Debenham Thorpe since May 1997.
  PACE do not, and never have, employed S J Berwin in any capacity, therefore the question of payment does not arise.
  DTZ Debenham Thorpe have held a Management Commission with PACE since 1997 and have also received a number of smaller Commissions since that time. PACE has paid DTZ a total of £3,215,036.00 since May 1997. Work is normally ordered on a call-off basis and as a consequence there are no significant payments contracted in future, other than the current work in progress, which amounts to approximately £50k.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the members of the Board of the Property Advisers to the Civil Service and the annual remuneration each board member receives. [94902]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The current members of the management board of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) their salary and accrued pension (in £5,000 bands) and pensions increase for the last complete year (in £2,500 bands), is set out in the table:

  £000

  Salary (including performance pay)

  Total accrued pension at 60 at 31 March 1999

  Pension increase (net of inflation)

  Chief Executive

  Mr. John Locke

  175–80

  5–10

  0–2.5

  Directors

  Mr. Barry Redfern

  55–60

  10–15

  0–2.5

  Mr. Arnold Butler

  55–60

  10–15

  0–2.5

  Mr. John Hathaway

  55–60

  15–20

  0–2.5

  Mr. Jay Jayasundara

  45–50

  5–10

  0–2.5

  1 The Chief Executive's salary shown does not include performance-related pay. He is entitled to an annual performance bonus of up to 10 per cent, of basic salary, but the bonus payable in the current year has yet to be determined.

  913
  Further information on PACE's activities and its performance during the last financial year will be provided in PACE's Annual Report and Account 1998–99, which is due to be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she has taken to promote policy appraisal for equal treatment; if she will promulgate a checklist for strategic policy making; and if she will place a copy of the checklist in the Library. [95371]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Guidelines on policy appraisal for equal treatment were published jointly by the Home Office, Department for Education and Employment and the Women's Unit in the Cabinet Office in November 1998. These were circulated to all departments to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all groups within society are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  On 2 August 1999 the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit launched an IT-based checklist for policy makers on the Cabinet Office website. Among other things the checklist provides up to date information and advice in taking account of a range of issues including gender, ethnicity, disability and age in advice to Ministers. It also provides advice and contact points on statutory requirements, for example the Human Rights Act, good practice in consultation and other impact assessment tools like regulatory impact assessment. Policy makers are advised to use the checklist at the beginning of the policy formulation process, as part of their on-going work and in evaluation.

  The checklist is IT-based to help ensure that it is kept up to date and is accessible to a wide range of users. It is available on the Cabinet Office website at http.//www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/1999/checklist/intro.htm

  A copy of the checklist is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to review the Government Car and Despatch Agency. [96390]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The first review of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) is due to be completed by the end of March 2000. I have decided that the Cabinet Office should now begin work on this review.

  The review will consider the options for the future delivery of the Government Car and Inter Despatch mail services, taking account of the lessons of the Agency's past performance. The options are: continued agency status, contracting out, market testing, merger with another organisation, privatisation and abolition. Each option will be considered on its merits, and the preferred option will be the one that offers best value for money, taking into account the interests of the customers and staff of the Agency, and security issues.
  914
  Implementation of the review's recommendations and revision of the Framework Document (if appropriate) will follow.

  Anyone who wishes to contribute to the review of GCDA should contact David Smith at the Cabinet Office Agencies Unit, Room 206, Ashley House, 2 Monck Street, London SW1P 2BQ (Tel: 020–7-276–2758/Fax: 020–7-276–2739/ e-mail: dsmith@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk) by 31 January 2000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94850]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning staff hours in connection with the Working Time Directive. [95402]

  Mr. Battle
  Ministers have regular meetings with staff representatives. Working hours have been discussed at such meetings. The staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are committed to advancing British interests overseas. The outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review is enabling the Department for the first time in years to recruit the staff it needs to meet its objectives, and to fill the gaps which have been a major cause of long hours.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on measures taken to prevent the arrival in Indonesia of Hawk aircraft in line with the common position of the European Council of 16 September. [95249]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the adoption of the common position of the European Council of 16 September which imposed an immediate arms embargo and suspension of military cooperation with Indonesia, no Hawk aircraft have been exported from the UK. None will be exported while the embargo is in place.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Indonesian Government and (b) the UN regarding the return of East Timorese people held in camps in West Timor. [95241]

  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply anxious at the plight of the many thousands of East Timorese refugees in West Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. Those wishing to return should be free to do so at the earliest opportunity. We have made it clear to the Indonesian Government that we
  915
  expect them to ensure the safety and security of the refugees. I raised this with former President Habibie on 8 September. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this with the then Indonesian Foreign Minister Alatas in New York on 22 September. And my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the then President Habibie to reinforce our concerns. We welcome the news that several hundred returnees per day are being repatriated from West to East Timor by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But there is an urgency to get the refugees moving in much larger numbers. To this end, we are providing financial support and working closely with UNHCR who have established an office in West Timor. We continue to assist the United Nations with this urgent task.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in East Timor. [95432]

  Mr. Battle
  We welcomed Indonesia's decision on 20 October to reverse its claim on East Timor and look forward to welcoming East Timor as the newest member of the community of democratic nations. In the meantime we remain deeply anxious at the plight of the many thousands of East Timorese refugees in West Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia. We have made it clear to the Indonesian Government that we expect them to ensure the safety and security of the refugees. I raised this with the then President Habibie on 8 September. Over 18,000 East Timorese have so far been repatriated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), but there is an urgency to get the refugees moving in much larger numbers. To this end, we are providing financial support and working closely with UNHCR who have established an office in West Timor. We have also fully supported international efforts to ensure that those guilty of human rights abuses in East Timor are brought to justice. We co-sponsored the resolution adopted on 27 September at the Special Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights which called for an International Commission of Enquiry to be set up. The Commission is to provide the UN with its conclusions by 31 December.

  European Commission
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy that the President of the European Commission should be granted the authority to appoint, dismiss, and reshuffle commissioners. [95214]

  Mr. Vaz
  We support the process of reform in the new Commission. This is necessary following the events which led to the resignation of the Commission earlier this year. Next year's IGC is likely to consider Treaty provisions on appointment and dismissal of Commissioners.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of granting the European Commission the authority to draft new European Union treaties. [94900]
  916
  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty sets out the Commission's role with respect to intergovernmental conferences. The Commission may make proposals to the IGC, but decisions are taken by the member states. We see no reason to change this.

  Tunisia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that financial aid to Tunisia under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement is not used to fund the Tunisian state security apparatus. [95094]

  Mr. Vaz
  Financial aid under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement is administered by the European Commission which is responsible for ensuring that these funds are used to further the goals of the Agreement: the establishment of an area of peace and stability; shared prosperity; and partnership in human, social and cultural affairs. We monitor the use of these funds through our membership of the Med Committee established under the Agreement.

  Consular Matters
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans to change arrangements for dealing with representations from hon. Members on consular matters. [94915]

  Mr. Vaz
  I t is the practice of hon. Members wishing to raise consular matters with the Foreign Secretary to write to him or to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, is responsible for consular matters. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Responsibility for representations on visa matters rests with me. I am currently reviewing the procedures for dealing with representations concerning visas. The objective will be to provide an efficient system to enable hon. Members to assist their constituents. All correspondence should in the first instance be sent to the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1 Palace Street, (Room 4.3.5) London, SW1 5HE.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange a comprehensive investigation into the complaints made by Mr. Mike Bingham, a resident at Stanley in the Falkland Islands as requested in his letter of 9 October in relation to the Governor's action in suspending Mr. Bingham's residency on 28 May 1998, and associated matters relating to his residency; and if he will make a statement. [95330]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are aware of the allegations made by Mr. Bingham against the Falkland Islands Government. We have consulted the Governor of the Falkland Islands who has investigated the matter thoroughly. We have no grounds to believe that there has been maladministration on the part of the Falkland Islands Government or the Royal Falkland Islands Police in their dealings with Mr. Bingham. Some of the matters raised
  917
  by Mr. Bingham are between himself and his former employer, Falklands Conservation, which is entirely independent of the Falkland Islands Government.

  Mr. Bingham already has a Residence Permit, valid until September 2000. It is his application for a Permanent Residence Permit which is under review. This process has been complicated by the various legal difficulties to which Mr. Bingham has been subject. The Governor is satisfied that the Falkland Islands Executive Council has handled the consideration of Mr. Bingham's applications for permanent residence status properly and impartially.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the UK will ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court. [95476]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 26 October 1999,Official Report, column 805.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report those countries which have (a) signed and (b) ratified the International Criminal Court Treaty. [95420]

  Mr. Hain
  Eighty-nine States have signed the Intentional Criminal Court Statute: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Eritrea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic), Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Samoa, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Four States have ratified the Statute: Italy, San Marino, Senegal and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom Government intend to ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. [95421]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 26 October 1999,Official Report, column 805.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government on their failure to sign the International Criminal Court Treaty. [95422]

  Mr. Hain
  The Secretary of State has frequently raised the International Criminal Court in contacts with the United States Government. In his talks with Mrs. Albright on 21 September in New York, he again urged the United States to sign the Statute.
  918
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the President of China during his visit to the United Kingdom on China's position concerning the International Criminal Court Treaty. [95423]

  Mr. Battle
  The issue was not specifically raised during the visit. The Chinese Government are well aware of our strong position on the International Criminal Court.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chief Executive of Pakistan concerning (i) the restoration of democratic Government and (ii) his plans for those persons under house arrest. [95789]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan. He has also called on the new regime to respect the safety and legal rights of those arrested. The British High Commissioner in Islamabad reinforced these points on 15 October when he called on General Musharraf.

  China
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if during the visit to the United Kingdom by the President of China he raised with the President(a) the use of capital punishment in China and (b) the Chinese policy on compulsory abortion; and what replies he received. [95424]

  Mr. Battle
  The use of capital punishment figures prominently in the human rights dialogues with the Chinese which we hold both bilaterally and with the EU. The Chinese Government are in no doubt about our strong opposition to the use of the death penalty. We have regularly raised our concerns about China's population policy in the EU and the bilateral human rights dialogues, and at higher levels. We believe that coercion has no place in family planning and our bilateral aid programme does not include funding for population programmes.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was able to discuss human rights in China with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Tang Jiaxuan, when they met on 20 October, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also raised human rights issues with President Jiang on 21 October. Specific issues, including capital punishment and the Chinese birth control policy, are also addressed through the regular high level human rights dialogue between us, which we remain convinced is the best way to secure progress over the longer term.

  Business Ambassadors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Ambassadors for British Business are held accountable for their duties. [95308]

  Mr. Battle
  The Ambassadors for British Business are asked to make a portion of their time available to the Ambassador for British Business scheme when travelling overseas on company business. This is entirely voluntary
  919
  and the Ambassadors for British Business receive no remuneration. There are no fixed duties and no obligation to undertake engagements.

  Minurso Mission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 143, what was the previous United Kingdom commitment to Minurso (a) in manpower and (b) financially; and at what level the decision not to recommit was made. [95417]

  Mr. Hain
  From September 1991 until September 1993, the UK contributed 15 military observers, including the Chief of Staff to Minurso. The cost of this deployment was approximately £1,148,080.

  Since the establishment of the mission, the UK has been liable for its share of UN assessed contributions. In the financial year 1998–99, the UK paid £2,359,371 in assessed contributions for Minurso.

  The Government fully support the UN's efforts to bring peace to the region. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) made clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 26 July 1999, we are unable to consider re-committing manpower to Minurso at this time due to heavy commitments elsewhere.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what key performance targets Ministers have set the Intervention Board for 1999–2000. [96526]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In agreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister for Rural Affairs, Scotland and the Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development, Wales, I have set the following targets for 1999–2000:

  Target

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  99.0%

  Percentage of claims process correctly

  98.5%

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5%

  Improvement in index of productivity

  4.0%

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.40%

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  7.0%

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0:1.0

  Percentage of invoices paid within deadlines

  98.5%

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the range and (b) the average hourly rate of charge for official veterinary surgeons employed in abattoirs. [R] [90384]
  920
  Ms Quin
  The current hourly rates for Official Veterinary Surgeons employed in abattoirs range from £25.01 to £106.18 and the average hourly rate is currently £40.76. This range reflects the results of the tendering exercise undertaken in 1997.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93680]

  Mr. Morley
  Central expenditure on the production and printing of official publications, since May 1997 totals £1.5 million. Information about publications bought for official use and those produced for internal use only is not held centrally.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public 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. [93854]

  Mr. Morley
  In house publication and newsletters produced for the staff in MAFF on a regular basis are as follows:The MAFF Bulletin; the Department's staff magazine having been published monthly from April 1957 to August 1999. It has now been replaced by a new monthly magazine called "Landscape".
  Infrastructure Support and Information Services (ISIS); a newsletter produced by the Departments Information and Technology Division and has been published on a bi-monthly basis for the last four years.
  LIT (Library, Information and Translations) UPDATE; a quarterly newsletter produced by the Departments Library and Translation Service. It was first published four years ago.
  Building and Estates Management (BEMD) Newsletters. Published periodically since June 1996.
  IIP (Investors in People) Newsletter. A monthly newsletter first published in December 1998.
  "FINRAB"; a newsletter from the Finance Planning and Resources Group commenced publication in August 1999 on a monthly basis.
  Offices Notices; these inform staff about operational matters and have been published in a weekly journal since April 1985. Prior to that date notices were circulated individually.
  Not included are numerous other publications produced on a one off basis.

  EU Sugar Regime
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account is being taken of the needs of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in relation to the reform of the EU sugar regime. [94135]

  Ms Quin
  My Department has consulted the full range of UK sugar interests, including the ACP London Group, for views on the forthcoming reform of the EU sugar regime. Responses to this exercise will help the Government formulate their line in time for next year's negotiations. Meanwhile we would strongly encourage the
  921
  ACP to make their views known in Brussels to enable the Commission to take them into account as it draws up its reform proposals.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a submission to the European Commission on the EU sugar regime; and if he will make a statement. [94136]

  Ms Quin
  The EU sugar regime is due for review next year. We have consulted UK sugar interests on their views in preparation for the forthcoming negotiations. At this stage we have no plans to make a submission to the European Commission. We expect them to come forward with proposals for sugar reform early in the new year.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the Government's intention to remove all badgers in the proactive areas of the badger culling trials. [93740]

  Ms Quin
  The Government neither intend nor expect to remove all badgers in the proactive areas of the badger culling trial. Given the operational constraints deliberately imposed on welfare grounds—principally restricting the method of capture to cage trapping, and limiting the capture period—the Independent Scientific Group established that around 80 per cent. of the badgers in an area could be captured. In other words, one fifth of the badger population would be expected to remain in place. The statistical experts in the Scientific Group have designed the trial specifically to take account of such factors, and are satisfied that the results it yields will be robust.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many of his Department's staff have been dedicated to export promotion in each of the past five financial years; what were his Department's budgets for export promotion for each of the past five financial years; and if he will make a statement; [94607]

  (2) what further measures he proposes to take to promote food and agricultural exports; and if he will make a statement. [94608]

  Ms Quin
  Over the past five financial years my department has directly deployed 35 staff on dedicated export promotion related activity. The overall budget for each of these years (including the MAFF contribution to Food From Britain) was:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  6

  1995–96

  7.1

  1996–97

  6.7

  1997–98

  6.3

  1998–99

  6.9

  The Ministry will continue to play its full role in government export promotion activities in conjunction with the overall aims and strategies of British Trade International. This will be undertaken both by staff within
  922
  the Ministry and by other bodies such as Food From Britain, Meat and Livestock Commission, and Home Grown Cereals Authority.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume of imports from the United States, for the latest year for which figures are available, came in the form of(a) raw potatoes, (b) processed potatoes, including powder and (c) potatoes present in finished products destined for human consumption. [94466]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: Imports of processed potatoes from the United States are given in the following table. There were no recorded imports of raw potatoes and imports of potatoes present in finished products are not separately identifiable.

  Imports of potatoes from the USA in 1998

  Processed potatoes1

  Thousand tonnes

  6.1

  Raw equivalent (thousand tonnes)

  9.6

  1Includes prepared, frozen, canned, crisped and dehydrated.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94856]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  Fisheries (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to cut fisheries grant aid on inbound fisheries with particular reference to(a) salmon in the Test and Itchen and (b) sea trout in rivers in the south. [94897]

  Mr. Morley
  The planned reduction in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency to fund its work on salmon and freshwater fisheries in England will come into effect in 2001–02. It will be for the Environment Agency to determine its spending priorities for that year in the light of the fall in grant-in-aid. Until it has done this it is not possible to assess the impact of the reduction on individual rivers.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review his decision to cut fisheries grant aid; and if he will make a statement. [94896]

  Mr. Morley
  The planned reduction in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency to fund its work on salmon and freshwater fisheries in England is one of a number of economies made to keep MAFF's expenditure within the limits set by the Comprehensive Spending Review. The reduction will come into effect in 2001–02, and will be reviewed as part of the forthcoming review of Government spending that will determine expenditure plans for the period starting in 2002–03.

  Morocco (Fisheries)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his position regarding the renegotiation of a fisheries agreement with Morocco; what is the estimated cost of the deal; how many(a) United Kingdom and (b) other EU vessels will be affected; and if he will make a statement. [95294]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK will be aiming to ensure that any new agreement that can be negotiated with Morocco offers value for money, contains costs, promotes sustainable stock management and is coherent with developmental policies for Morocco. We would not expect the cost to be more than the cost of the existing agreement (125m euros p.a.).

  Around 500 vessels from Spain, Portugal, France and Greece fish in Moroccan waters under the current agreement. No UK vessels are affected.

  Ragwort Infestation
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to counteract ragwort infestation. [95317]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has policy responsibility for control of injurious weeds, of which ragwort is one, under the Weeds Act 1959. Under its provisions, MAFF may investigate complaints from any occupiers of agricultural land who consider that their land is threatened by ragwort spreading from land nearby. It seeks to resolve disputes between neighbours about control of injurious weeds primarily through persuasion and good advice.

  However, where such approaches are ineffective, the Weeds Act empowers MAFF to give occupiers of land formal written notice requiring them to take control measures. If they fail to do so MAFF may enter onto the land with an accompanying agricultural contractor, carry out the controls, and then recover the costs of the work, as a debt due to the Department.

  In the case of any persistent offenders, MAFF will continue to give careful consideration to bringing a prosecution under the Act. However, past experience has been that use of the powers of entry and recovery of reasonable costs incurred in taking direct weeds control action is sufficiently effective.

  There has been some doubt about the policy for enforcement of the Weeds Act where land is used to graze horses and is threatened by ragwort growing nearby. Each complaint about injurious weeds will be dealt with on its own merits. However, MAFF has policy responsibility for farmland and for farmed animals, rather than animals kept for non-agricultural businesses or for recreation. MAFF will not normally investigate complaints about weeds threatening land used for horses, ponies or donkeys. Higher priority will be given to protecting farm livestock.

  MAFF supported the Country Landowners Association national awareness campaign to help eradicate ragwort, which came to an end during August. That campaign helped horse owners understand what they can do to protect their own animals, as well as their neighbours' from this poisonous weed.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice he has received concerning the Dutch permission for sale in the Netherlands of genetically modified raddicio rosso, containing an antibiotic marker gene; [94866]

  (2) what steps he is taking to prevent the importation to the United Kingdom of genetically modified raddicio rosso recently licensed in the Netherlands. [94867]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 October 1999]: The Dutch authorities have confirmed that, contrary to recent reports, they have not granted permission for the sale of genetically modified raddicio rosso in the Netherlands. Applications for approval for the commercial planting and food use of this crop within the Community are still being scrutinised by the EC Commission and member states and no conclusions have yet been reached.

  Pollution Prevention and Control
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with farmers about the likely cost to them of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Measure; what representations he has made to the EU about the potential impact on British farmers of this measure; and if he will make a statement. [95714]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The National Pig Association raised this issue with the Minister when he and I met them on 5 October; we have also received representations from farming organisations in the context of the Review of Regulatory Burdens on Agriculture announced on 9 September. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive was adopted by the Environment Council in 1996. Its implementation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also responsible for approving charges set by the Environment Agency to meet its costs in enforcing the relevant regulations. My officials are in contact with him about these charges which will be consistent with the Government's better regulation principles and take full account of the circumstances of industries which have not previously been subject to Integrated Pollution Control regulations.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he is making to the EU regarding the review of the EU Transport Initiative with respect to the transportation of live animals; what representations he has made to the French Government over the Eid-el-nabin festival; and if he will make a statement. [95576]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Commission is obliged, under the terms of Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transit, to bring forward a report during 1999 to enable the Council of Ministers to review the terms of the Directive. We consider it regrettable that there is as yet no sign of this happening, as we consider that the review will be an important opportunity to press for improvements to the rules in this area.
  925
  We deplore the flagrant infringements of EU animal welfare rules and appalling acts of cruelty which take place when sheep are slaughtered at the annual festival outside Paris and which—commendably—have been highlighted by animal welfare organisations. We look to the French government to enforce the law and to the Commission to fulfil its responsibility to make sure that this is done.

  We have pressed the Commission and the French government on both these matters, and will continue to do so until suitable action is forthcoming.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 26 October; and if he will make a statement. [96192]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fisheries Council met in Luxembourg on 26 October. I represented the UK together with John Home Robertson, Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive.

  The Council had extensive discussions on two draft regulations. The first, revising the market regime for fish and aquaculture products, and the second, reforming the structural funds in the fisheries sector in the context of Agenda 2000. I stressed that the fishing sector needed to be economically, as well as biologically, sustainable and that this needed to be reflected in the market and structural measures to be applied. It did not make sense to sustain excessive capacity in relation to the available fish stocks; and import arrangements needed to be adjusted to meet the actual market circumstances. The Council will resume discussion on both proposals at its next meeting on 22 November.

  The Commission reported that it hoped to take up contacts with Morocco shortly to begin negotiations on a successor agreement to the current EC-Morocco Agreement which expires on 30 November. The Commission also introduced the findings of an independent study it had commissioned on the costs and benefits of third country fisheries agreements which will now be examined in detail. There was an initial discussion of a draft Council regulation on improving the dialogue with the industry. This was remitted for further examination.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the number of stipendiary magistrates. [95471]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor recently consulted on a proposal to increase the present ceiling of 50 provincial stipendiary magistrates. After considering the responses received to the consultation, the Lord Chancellor proposes to seek parliamentary approval to an increase in the ceiling to 56.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the jurisdiction of the stipendiary bench. [95473]
  926
  Jane Kennedy
  I have no plans to increase the jurisdiction of the stipendiary bench.

  Derbyshire Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the annual estimated manning costs of Derbyshire's magistrates courts will be in the three years immediately after the completion of the Private Finance Initiative for the county's courts; and what were their running costs on the same basis in 1996, 1997 and 1998. [95482]

  Jane Kennedy
  Cleaning and care-taking costs for the three years mentioned are 1996–97—£114,461; 1997–98—£116,656; 1998–99—£123,572. The cost of providing security cover is separately provided by the private sector: 1996–97—£86,500; 1997–98—£92,595; 1998–99—£105,037. These costs include cash carrying duties that cannot be separated from guard duties. No information on the likely costs under the PFI project will be available until bids in response to the Invitation to Tender are received and evaluated during December. Any decision to transfer staff to the private sector will be made on a value for money basis.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest estimated cost of the investigation and preparation of the Private Finance Initiative for property connected with Derbyshire magistrates courts. [95527]

  Jane Kennedy
  The latest estimated cost of advisers and the local authority management fees for the investigation and preparation of the Private Finance Initiative project involving Derbyshire magistrates courts is £673,582. Costs have increased because work has been undertaken to establish the feasibility of bringing back in to use a listed building as a magistrates court.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [95451]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor wrote to the President of the Law Society on 23 July. The letter set targets for the Law Society to achieve; these are that the number of unresolved cases on the Office's books should be down to 6,000 by 31 December 2000; and following this, 90 per cent. of cases should be dealt with within three months of receipt and 100 per cent. within five months. For the three months to date the backlog has been reduced by 1,700 cases ahead of target. I am encouraged with the progress that the Office has made towards reducing the backlog of complaints. I do recognise, however, that there is a long way to go for the Office to reach the targets set by the Lord Chancellor.

  Hague Convention on Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what response the Government have made to the recent request from the Secretariat for the Hague Convention on Child Abduction for an increase in funding from states who are parties to the Convention. [95479]
  927
  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor met the Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in The Hague on 22 October. This issue was not raised. As and when a request of this nature is made it will receive due consideration.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94864]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are committed to ensuring their policies are fair and inclusive, and focus on public service users, not providers. This aim is contained in guidance (published in 1998) which helps Departments consider the impact of their policies on gender, ethnicity and disability. In addition to considering impact the guidance encourages consultation with women's groups and others where appropriate and action to deal with any differential impact if this appears appropriate. My Department applies the principles enshrined in the guidance in developing its policies. For example in developing the Community Legal Service (CLS), a wide variety of views is being canvassed. For the CLS website we are investigating how access can be facilitated for people with disabilities or who do not use English as a first language. In developing the Quality Mark for 928
  services to be provided by CLS members, we have consulted bodies representative of the interests of ethnic minority groups and of people with disabilities. Indeed bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and DIAL UK are members of the Task Force charged with progressing this development.

  Witness Summons Fee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the intended use is for the funds raised from new witness summons fee of £30. [95531]

  Jane Kennedy
  The fee is intended to recover the cost associated with the service for which the fee is paid. This includes not only the work involved with the issue of the witness summons but also the extra time at the trial likely to result from the witness giving evidence.

  Mentally Incapacitated Adults
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government will publish its proposals for making decisions on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults. [96525]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has today issued a Policy Statement, "Making Decisions" which sets out the Government's proposals. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

Lord Grabiner
Anthony Stephen Grabiner, Esquire, QC, having been created Baron Grabiner, of Aldwych in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Browne-Wilkinson and the Lord Levy.

Lord Sharman
Colin Morven Sharman, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Sharman, of Redlynch in the County of Wiltshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Razzall and the Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Londesborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Hambleden—Took the Oath.

Rail Safety
2.48 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to enforce the provisions of Sec Lion 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to the personal responsibility of directors and managers concerning rail safety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, responsibility for enforcement under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on issues concerning railway safety falls to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the executive arm of the Health and Safety Commission. The HSC's published enforcement policy statement sets out circumstances when the enforcing authorities, including the HSE, should consider prosecution. The enforcing authorities should identify and prosecute, or recommend prosecution of individuals, including company directors and managers, if they consider that a conviction is warranted and can be secured. Health and safety prosecutions may be brought only when there is sufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he accept that where it can be proved that a director or manager of
294
Railtrack or any other company is personally responsible for the tragedy of Ladbroke Grove, then that individual should be held to account? Do the Government accept that it is not good enough to prosecute the corporation, which will have no problem in paying the penalty? Do they further accept that if we are to have the safety which passengers are entitled to expect, individuals on the boards and senior executives of the companies concerned should accept their responsibilities for safety and should be held to account when they do not perform their duties in a proper way?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in replying to my noble friend, I should preface my remarks by saying that I am making a general point; I am not referring to any particular company or incident. Clearly in the health and safety area, it is vitally important that managers and directors take responsibility for the health and safety culture and decisions within their companies. If they are found to be directly responsible for breaches of safety procedures, they should be prosecuted. Under the present procedures, matters are more complex and the number of individual prosecutions is relatively limited. We are reviewing the situation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when the Statement about the Ladbroke Grove incident was made in the House on 11th October, I asked what categories of trains carried black-box recorders. At that time the Minister did not know the answer and said that he would write to me. More than two weeks have elapsed and I have not received a reply. So I put again the question. What kinds of trains carry black-box recorders—which were mentioned when the Statement was made—in order to help trace responsibility for accidents?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend if the noble Lord has not received a reply. The answer to his question is difficult to ascertain. Black boxes are not standard fitments to all trains and one has to gather the information from the companies. I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives a reply as soon as possible.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that even though the railways remain one of the safest forms of transport available, no one will ever provide a totally safe railway system? No one will ever provide a totally safe hospital system, a totally safe farming industry, or even a totally safe private home, no matter how much one spends on it. Is it not high time that we stopped this massive speculation, sat back and waited for the report of a sensible inquiry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's final remarks. It is very important that these incidents are investigated and that speculation does not prejudice any inquiries. The inquiries into the Southall and Paddington incidents are continuing. We shall need to assess the conclusions that are reached. It is right to underline the noble

295
Lord's initial remark that the railway system in this country during recent years has been very safe. Last year there were no fatalities at all on the railway system. While the Ladbroke Grove accident was an absolute tragedy, we need to keep matters in perspective.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate the last occasion when a director or manager was prosecuted in connection with any incident affecting rail safety?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no record of any individual railway company director being prosecuted. Under the present law and procedures, the total number of directors across the board who have been prosecuted for breaches of health and safety regulations is very small. Understandably, most cases are brought against companies, in the railway sector as elsewhere.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the trend of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Janner. However, does the Minister agree that there is a danger that the investigation into, and the rectification of, the causes of an accident can be delayed while a prosecution is being pursued?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that possibility has been taken into account by Ministers and by Lord Cullen. There have been previous instances of delay. That was one of the reasons why we were reviewing the safety aspects of all modes of transport well before the accident took place. We hope to reach conclusions which will take into account the lessons of the current inquiries.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that when the Secretary of State exercises his functions he will apply the same tests of the ratio of costs versus safety benefits to all modes of transport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that his question is more complex than it at first sounds. We were looking at the whole aspect of transport safety across the modes precisely because some of the calculations and implications differ. It is an assessment issue as well as a procedural issue on which we hope to reach conclusions before too long.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, as regards rail safety, has the Minister taken note that following the privatisation of British Rail much of its maintenance work, previously carried out by British Rail employees, was handed over to private contractors? I am reliably informed that this led to a good deal of delay and indecision in dealing with safety issues. This applies particularly to rail safety committees. Will the Minister look into the matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my colleagues and I have received similar reports in regard to maintenance and
296
other safety matters. One should not make an ideological point on this issue. As my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, until the tragedy the railway companies were improving their safety record, both through and after privatisation. It is not primarily a matter of the ownership of the companies. However, it is clearly important in this area, as in others, to establish where responsibility lies. If it rests with the board of directors, that should be recognised. More generally, the Law Commission has looked at the possibility of corporate manslaughter and the Home Office will shortly issue a consultation document on that and related issues.

Individual Savings Accounts
2.57 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to advertisements for individual savings account investments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, advertisements for individual savings account investments are currently regulated either under the Financial Services Act 1986 or are subject to the Banking and Building Society Codes of Conduct. The Financial Services Authority has worked closely with the banking and building society associations to ensure that comparable information is given in all ISA advertisements. The Government welcome this work by the authority in order to protect the financial interests of investors.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that at the moment many such adverts seem to be deliberately misleading? I use the term objectively.
I have with me an advert—it is similar to many others—which states in very large bold print that there is a 9 per cent yield, tax free; underneath, in small print, it refers to projected yield; below that, in tiny print, about six lines inform the reader that investment value and income can go down as well as up. Does my noble friend accept that some innocent people—including, perhaps, Members of your Lordships' House—could be persuaded to invest in such an ISA? Does he agree that terrible damage can be done to people who invest without reading the small print? I see the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, nodding. Perfectly reputable advertising agencies will no doubt draft such adverts. He will know that better than I do.
My noble friend's Answer is not good enough if we are to ensure that innocent people are protected. Will he do something more about the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have long ceased to think that Members of your Lordships' House are innocent. However, the Financial Services Authority is aware of this type of advertisement. It will be considering those campaigns as a part of its routine

297
supervisory duties. I have seen the advertisement to which my noble friend referred and that, among others, will be considered by the authority.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as he usually does, put his finger on a most important point about ISAs? Many people in the savings profession believe that ISAs have failed because, quite simply, they are too complicated. Generally, advertisers do not set out to produce misleading advertisements—unless they are for a certain political party, shall we say. However, can the Minister tell us whether the complication of ISAs and their failure are the reasons why the Prime Minister's promise that he would deliver 6 million extra savers as a result of ISAs has failed to be delivered? Instead of delivering that promise, there has been a halving of the savings ratio since the Labour Government took office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows more about misleading advertisements for political parties than I do. I yield to him entirely on that point. However, he is quite wrong to say that ISAs have failed. Despite the fact that there was a rush into PEPs and TESSAs before the end of the financial year, in the first three months of ISAs, £7 billion has been invested in 3.5 million accounts. That compares with only £3.9 billion invested in the same period in the previous year. The punters themselves are giving the lie to the fears expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Newby: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the take-up of ISAs, does he accept, first, that a recent survey has found that over four-fifths of all ISAs are being taken up by those in social groups ABC1 and therefore are not being taken up by the people for whom they were specifically targeted?
Secondly, does the noble Lord agree with the view of the Consumers' Association that the rules are unduly complicated and that there are specific measures of simplification which could well lead to a greater take-up, such as abolishing the maxi-ISA, which is immensely confusing, and raising the limit on the mini-ISA?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, evidence on who is taking up ISAs is still anecdotal, but many of the companies issuing ISAs have reported that there has been a considerable increase in take-up among young people in the 18 to 24 year-old age group, and particularly among women. I simply do not accept that there is any evidence that ISAs are failing to meet our objective of extending the number of people who are saving.
On the noble Lord's second question, I am a supporter of the Consumers' Association and my family has subscribed to it since 1957. However, in this case the association has made a mistake. It carried out its investigation in May and June, or even in April and May, which were the first two months of operation. It has drawn the unjustifiable conclusion that ISAs are
298
too complicated. The association said, quite reasonably, that there has been a great deal of confusion among bank and building society staff, or at least there was when ISAs were first introduced. However, that does not justify a call for the recipe for ISAs to be changed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is it of any interest to the Minister that when I looked at maxi-ISAs and mini-ISAs the other day, I found the things so complicated that I simply said, "Scrub it"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all I can say to that is that the noble Earl has a short fuse. The statistical evidence suggests that other people have a little more application than the noble Earl, are prepared to look at the range of ISAs on offer, and are taking them up.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that ISAs are very complicated? I am quite keen to invest, but I find it difficult to find out all the details that would lead me to decide that one ISA is better than another. Does the Minister agree that we need a much less complicated system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are dealing with two different issues here. The first is how to choose between different ISAs. It is not possible to make a generalisation about that because different people have different needs. Independent financial advisers exist precisely because of those differing needs. However, it does not follow from that that the system is too complicated. There are maxi-ISAs and mini-ISAs. Maxi-ISAs have one provider and up to three elements, while mini-ISAs have one element and up to three providers. It is not terribly complicated.

James Mawdsley and Rachel Goldwyn
3.5 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
What efforts they are making to secure the release of James Mawdsley and Rachel Goldwyn from Burmese gaols.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have expressed our and James's and Rachel's families' concern to the Burmese authorities at the way certain aspects of their separate cases have been handled. We remain in close touch with the families and will continue to provide full consular protection and do all that we properly can to assist both during their detention.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all that she personally has been doing to assist Rachel Goldwyn and James Mawdsley. Has she had chance to consider the appeal made by James Mawdsley that Her Majesty's Government should

299
respond in two particular ways? First, genocide charges should be brought against those responsible for the suppression of democracy in Burma, especially for violations of human rights against the Karen people, 30,000 of whom have died in the past five years and 300,000 of whom have been displaced. Secondly, have the Government considered the call James Mawdsley has made that economic sanctions should be brought against those British companies such as Premier Oil which continue to be involved in Burma? Does the Minister further agree that the sentences—up to 17 years in the case of James Mawdsley—for simply distributing literature in favour of democracy illustrate more graphically and eloquently than anything that may be said today the nature of that oppressive and brutal regime?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to know that Her Majesty's Government have not ceased to press their complaints about the undemocratic processes in operation in Burma. We have been at the forefront of those wishing to impose sanctions to achieve an appropriate Burmese response. However, your Lordships will also know that there is not total agreement about the way in which that response should be managed. We have endeavoured to do all we can to raise the concerns many have expressed, not least about the length of the sentences imposed. However, we must bear in mind that judicial systems are entitled to operate within their own confines. Every effort is being made on behalf of Rachel Goldwyn in particular by those representing her and receiving her instructions to pursue her appeal. For the moment, James Mawdsley has chosen not to appeal. He has one more month in which to reconsider his position and lodge an appeal, However, that is a matter for his choice.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I appreciate what the Government are doing on behalf of the two people involved. Is the Minister aware that the very courageous young man, James Mawdsley, went to Burma with the intention of raising in the public arena, particularly with the SPDC, the release of all political hostages, the opening of universities, and respect for the legitimate rights of the National League for Democracy and the ethnic minorities? Has the Minister raised these issues with the SPDC, and if so, what was its response?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to tell noble Lords the precise nature of all the conversations that have taken place over many months in regard to these issues. However, I can reassure the House that human rights are an issue that is constantly brought to the attention of Burmese representatives and pursued with vigour. The noble Baroness is right when she says that James Mawdsley went to Burma knowing that he was in breach of a suspended sentence and that the acts he intended to commit would be in contravention of the Burmese position. For the moment, we are in a sensitive
300
position. The Burmese authorities have not always responded well to statements made by outsiders. For that reason we must exercise a degree of circumspection, even in this House, in the way we respond. However, I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that this issue is at the forefront of the mind of Her Majesty's Government and that we have not obscured the real difficulties present in Burma.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's replies, especially the first. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give an example of how the Government's policy of constructive engagement and dialogue, including our trade links to which she referred, has improved the human rights situation in Burma over the past two and a half years.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the attempts made by Her Majesty's Government to engage the Burmese have met with resistance. I believe that that is known to all in the House. Burma has set its face against proper engagement. Therefore, we have done all we can to make sure that Burma is aware of the strong disapproval of Her Majesty's Government for its actions. I regret to say that there is little we have been able to do so far to change its obdurate stance.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in recent years both the British press and indeed the British Government have striven to have released men and women who perhaps should have stayed in prison under any jurisdiction? However, in this case we are dealing with two young people who have acted with great courage and in the highest traditions of British commitment to liberty and freedom. In her first reply the noble Baroness said that the Foreign Office was doing everything that is proper. I think that the feeling of the House is that the Foreign Office must do more than what is proper. It must strive with everything at its disposal to make clear that we want an extra effort on behalf of these young people.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may respond by saying that Her Majesty's Government have never sought the improper release of any person. I do not accept one of the first statements made by the noble Lord in that regard. Your Lordships' House should be clear that it is not within Her Majesty's Government's gift to secure the release of these two young people. I say without shame that this Government will always act with the utmost propriety. If the noble Lord seeks to persuade us to cross that line, I regret to say that we will not hear his siren call. We are pursuing with vigour every avenue open to us to ensure that both James Mawdsley and Rachel Goldwyn have the best consular support we can provide. We are assisting both of those young people and assisting their families in every way we know. I do not think that either of the families could say that Her Majesty's Government were failing to do anything that they can properly do to assist them.

Chechnya
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to discourage Russian troops from entering Grozny and to protect the civilian population of Chechnya.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned about the situation, and the reported civilian casualties. If the Russians enter Grozny, they risk increasing the human suffering and getting dragged into a military quagmire. Russia has the right to fight terrorism, but its response must be directed solely at those responsible. The Prime Minister has expressed our concern to Prime Minister Putin, a message repeated by Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen at the EU/Russian summit.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware that there is great concern about refugees? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to alleviate their suffering?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware of, and are concerned about, the plight of refugees. Many of those refugees—about 150,000 of them—are crossing the border. Her Majesty's Government have plans to route any assistance through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or the Red Cross. What the EU gives depends on need, but 1.2 million euros of EU money is available. We have successfully lobbied the Russians to allow an international needs assessment mission to go to the region to look at the requirements.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to describe a whole region as terrorist is perhaps a rather dangerous definition to enter into? Given how much the Russians weigh their membership of the Council of Europe—it is something they hold very precious—will Her Majesty's Government consider raising this matter with the Council of Europe through the Assembly in order to warn the Russians that their actions, if they involve large-scale deaths of civilians in Grozny, would conflict with then commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, to which they are now of course a party?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is quite improper to suggest that all Chechens are terrorists. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government will give full and proper consideration to the noble Baroness's very pertinent point.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government, together with our European Union and NATO partners, have received any requests from Chechen leaders—for this is fast becoming a major refugee crisis—either to mediate or to intervene in the current conflict in Chechnya? Can
302
she say against which criteria the Government would weigh such a request in view of NATO's intervention in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have received no such request. At this stage perhaps I may respectfully suggest that it would be proper for us to await such a request before speculating on the basis on which we would respond.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the indiscriminate use of force by the Russians is in the long run likely to be self-defeating because it will fuel Islamic extremism and put at risk the Russian minorities in central Asia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, right. We have made very strong representations to the Russians that any response made by them should be proportionate and that they should direct their attention at those who are responsible for the incursions and not at others. They should also be very much aware of the civilian casualties that may flow from any such response. We have also made it plain that a military response will never adequately address the issues that are alive and present in this dispute and that that is not an appropriate way forward.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend assist me with a case that has come to my notice? Chechen President Maskhadov's representative in Moscow, whose name is Maïerbek Vatchagaer, has been arrested on what appears to be planted evidence. Can our embassy be asked to follow up this case to ensure his safety and a fair trial? I declare an interest in the case because this man ensured my safety and provided generous hospitality during a rather perilous visit that I made to Chechnya four years ago.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware that the President's envoy has been arrested. The allegation, as far as we have been notified, is that he had an unlicensed firearm. We do not know the precise facts of the matter and we shall continue to monitor the situation.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.19 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

WAR PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS
(" .—(1) A widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) ("the DSS pension"), and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex, only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order reenacting the provisions of that order,

(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions Act) 1939,

(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, 59 years ago I was visiting my aunts in Lambeth. They were both ARP wardens. The street in which they lived had been heavily bombed the night before. There were broken houses, bricks and debris lying everywhere. Walls stood on their own; the rest of the house had been torn away, leaving the bare upstairs fireplace surrounded by pink flowered wallpaper. There was of course no furniture left for anyone to cling to. I could only trust that the occupants were sitting safely in their shelter. It was the end of so many hopes, fears and endeavours, a place once loved, now gone. The corner shop had also had its windows broken, although they still had sticky tape bound across them to minimise the blast. But there was a smile from the shopkeeper, and in the corner a small, very British notice, "Business as usual". I think that small vignette describes how we all feel today.
It is so short a time since I moved a similar amendment that I shall not weary your Lordships further with detail. This amendment does not refer to the pension that all war widows receive from the DSS. It refers only to the attributable forces family pension which post-1973 war widows receive if their husband's death is attributable to his service life: fighting for his country in time of war or working as a peacekeeper, or in training for those activities.
It is a fact that the lives of servicemen are constantly at risk. Since I last spoke on this subject on 11th October, there have been three aeroplane accidents and four young men have lost their lives. It is also a fact that their widows, many of whom may be young, with children, and wish to remarry will lose both the DSS pension and the pension to which their husbands contributed if they remarry. There is an interesting lack of logic here, in that they will also lose the pension if they cohabit. On the other hand, a lady who cohabits before her husband is killed will not be entitled to a pension after his death because she is not married. One of the young Lossiemouth
304
pilots left behind a fiancée who was expecting a baby, but because they were cohabiting rather than married she is not entitled to a pension. There is an anomaly of some kind here. We hold that the attributable pension should be for life, regardless of future marital status.
I have said that the amendment would affect about 2,700 ladies. There are in fact in this group only 2,650. Of those, on 1st April this year, one was under 20; 62 were under 30; 394 were under 40; and 806 were under 50. There were only 1,263 under 50 in total, and of those only 457 under 40. I feel that I am beginning to sound like a marriage bureau consultant. However, the point is that there are not many ladies involved. The proposal would cost the Government no new money, and might indeed save them something.
Last Monday, some of those younger ladies came to London with their children for a tour of 10 Downing Street to which the Prime Minister had kindly invited them. We all enjoyed the privilege very much. Later, we came to Westminster Hall, where we all picnicked together, and the ladies also had the privilege of meeting some of your Lordships. They will have put their case much more powerfully and poignantly than I could.
The War Widows Association holds that the attributable forces family pension should be for life, regardless of future marital status. My noble friend Lady Dean described the situation as clearly wrong. She is right. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on being present to listen to the debate both on Report and today; I am also pleased to welcome the arrival of the first woman to hold office at the Ministry of Defence. It is appropriate and constructive that the appointment comes at the same time as that of the first man to speak in Parliament on women's issues. I have always said that when those two things happened together we should be making progress.
It is precisely that progress which means that we need to re-examine very carefully the attributable forces family pension. The arrangements made by the Ministry of Defence in times past relate to a view of women which is now not merely contrary to experience but positively indefensible. They rest on the view that the function of a woman is to be kept by a man. So, as soon as another man begins either to cohabit or marries the woman, any MoD responsibility to her is assumed to cease.
That is not, as I understand it, what the attributable forces family pension is for. For any spouse it is a very considerable sacrifice to consent to a partner going off to war with a risk of being killed. It has always been a difficult thing for anyone to do. It has always been recognised by governments of all parties that people simply do not do that unless their sacrifice is recognised and some appreciation is shown by those in authority.

305
We are suggesting that in the present climate that appreciation cannot be properly shown unless it is understood to be for the suffering and the sacrifice, and not merely for the lack of a man to keep the woman. It seems to me also a little curious to insist on imposing permanent celibacy on widows in their 20s. It is not easily done, and not kindly received. The Government will have a much better reputation, not only within the forces but within many different circles, if they understand the force of the argument behind the amendment, and if they welcome it. I end my remarks in that hope.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. I do not know a great deal about pension provision in the forces, but I understand that the pension referred to stands in as a kind of occupational pension. I have some experience of negotiating private occupational pensions in industry. It has become increasingly common over the past 10 or 15 years for such schemes to make arrangements for a widow's pension to be continued even after remarriage. I really do not see why a similar provision cannot be applied in these circumstances. I support the excellent case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I, too, should like to associate myself with the amendment. The case has been strongly put. I wonder whether in the case of two people who had been married but who had divorced, it would have been possible for the wife to inherit part of her divorce settlement, to which she would have had access for the rest of her life.
This is a pension to which the husband makes contributions throughout his service career. There is every expectation that if the two people continue together, the wife will be well supported on the basis of her husband's pay. As a widow, the woman may well have children to support. There is no great financial difference between what is proposed and the current situation. It therefore seems iniquitous that the present arrangement should be allowed to stand. I strongly support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I too strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Strange. Like her, I was shocked and distressed to hear about the fast jet crashes of the past few weeks which have resulted in the deaths of four servicemen under the age of 40. Sadly, there will always be accidents involving high-tech equipment. Many of our servicemen are involved in perilous activities, often on a daily basis. This kind of risk is expected of them. It is part of the job. But although the possibility of death is ever present, we fail to make adequate provision should the worst happen.
The conditions under which the current war widow's pension is paid out fall short of what a serviceman has a right to expect. We fail to face up to the likely future circumstances of a war widow and her family. By
306
providing pensions only for as long as war widows remain unmarried, regardless of their husbands' contributions, we circumscribe their personal lives and the kind of families in which their children will grow up.
We provide strong financial reasons for war widows not to remarry or even cohabit. This is all the harder as, given the nature of military service, many are young when they lose their husbands. As the noble Baroness said, currently there are 394 war widows under the age of 40, many of whom are likely to have young children. It seems cruel to expect them not to build up a new family unit; if they do, they risk losing all financial security. The amendment is therefore an opportunity to benefit a comparatively small number of very deserving widows and children. They should not be ignored. Their husbands, and the men currently serving in our Armed Forces, deserve this kind of security. We expect our servicemen literally to put their lives on the line. In return, we must provide their families with a pension scheme that matches their unique circumstances, thus honouring their commitment.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, will take this excellent opportunity to impress upon the MoD that it is the will of this House to provide our servicemen with a just pension for their potential widows.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to add one further argument in support of the amendment. Recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that children in happy step-families do as well as children in natural families. However, the evidence indicates that children without fathers can be, and often are, severely disadvantaged. I do not believe that we should do anything to discourage a mother from finding a new father for her children if she is able to do so.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, there are some practical issues which should be considered in support of this excellent amendment. Particularly in the Army, accompanied service is the rule. It is difficult enough for an army wife to have a career while her husband is in the UK. When abroad, she becomes nonresident, or not habitually resident, once one tax year has elapsed. If, as in Cyprus, she manages to get one of the very few jobs available in the defence complex and can pay national insurance contributions, that is not recognised on her return until she has secured a job and paid those contributions in the UK for a year. She cannot, incidentally, claim jobseeker's allowance. When the appropriate form about her proposed employment is sent by her employer to the Inland Revenue, that eminent body has no way of recognising her as an army wife who has been making a contribution to service life abroad. Therefore, it sends her a form devised for aliens and visitors which inquires why she wants to work and how long she proposes to stay in the UK.
More than 20,000 spouses accompany service people on overseas postings. Most of them must give up their jobs on posting and can work only part time anyway. They cannot contribute to ISA schemes when

307
overseas because under Inland Revenue rules it would be discriminatory to amend the arrangements to allow them to do so. I understand that that issue has been raised at ministerial level. When families are overseas, opportunities for employment are limited. In some cases, they are prevented from working, except as Crown servants in a few instances. Those who do not have jobs as Crown servants and have not taken out a deferred contributory pension will not meet the residence criteria. Incidentally, it would be a major step to improve their position if they could be allowed to take out a deferred contributory policy while overseas and be able to contribute to such a scheme for five years or, because of the many periods of broken employment, even eight years.
I give an example of the difficulty faced by service wives. Mrs A, who is in her 50s, has spent 17 out of her 26 years of married life abroad. She has only begun to establish a career in the UK in the past three years. She will have to work for at least 10 years to qualify for the state pension in her own right; otherwise, she is excluded from it. I add the important point that the stakeholder pension will go far to help such wives in the future, but it comes too late for those already in their late 40s. Thus, army wives who play a vital part in the work of the services both at home and overseas, and who make a major contribution to it, are disqualified by residence abroad from building up ISAs. Because of constant moves they are unlikely to build a career which allows them to save for a private pension, and at the end of the day often they do not qualify for a state pension. Those seem irrational and unjust situations.
I raise these issues because I believe it is essential that the House and, perhaps more importantly, the Government should recognise that army widows are already heavily handicapped, with little prospect of a career structure that gives them the chance either to build a private pension or, in many cases, to qualify for a state pension. It has been assumed that if a widow has the temerity to marry again another man will support her and she has no claim to anything more, even though her first husband earned the right to leave her at least part of his pension and that, in partnership with him, she played a key part in contributing to the work of the services and, in so doing, had to forgo any possibility of a lucrative career of her own. She cannot, thus, establish her independence.
Many widows will remarry if they have children, at least partly for the children's sake. I made reference to that in the previous debate, and I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who repeated it. They will want to give their children fathers. It seems to me that the dice are loaded against them. They cannot have ISAs or non-contributory pensions and the Revenue treats them as aliens. The country, nevertheless, owes them a great debt. Surely everything possible should be done to enable them to retain a degree of financial independence by keeping the pension which their husbands, rightly, believed they would have. If they had not been service wives, they could have saved for themselves.
308
I strongly support the noble Baroness's amendment and hope that the debate will lead to serious consideration by the Government of the issues I have raised. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, is concerned about all these issues, and I honour her for that. But it is vital to recognise that these women are, in a thousand different ways, severely disadvantaged.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, many excellent points have been made, and I shall not rehearse them. I make only two points. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her ingenuity and persistence in bringing forward this matter again and again. Secondly, in another place I represented a constituency with strong service connections. I am well aware of the difficulties that can arise for the unfortunate minority of women who would benefit from a continuation of this occupational pension. However, I am aware that in this matter the Ministry of Defence is notably stubborn and unyielding. It will take all the persistence of the noble Baroness, who, as a Minister, now has a place at the Ministry of Defence, to get that department to depart from long-established practice. I look to her to carry the matter forward; I have every confidence that she will.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Gulf Veterans' Association. In recent times perhaps the widows of Gulf veterans are the ones we hear about in any numbers. We hear about those who are widowed because their husbands are killed in aircraft crashes, and so on. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put it much more succinctly than I ever could. To live in sin is no longer a sin. We must take into account cohabitation, as my noble friend Lady Strange said.
Perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, as the first person who has really taken an interest in the Gulf veterans' widows. They very much appreciate it and are thankful. I heartily support the noble Baroness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, when I took the Pensions Bill through your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, led a reasonably successful attack on my position. As a result of the defences I had to put up, I had to dig very deeply into the various details of those pension arrangements. As I made clear in the debate on Report, I have no problem with the position on the DSS war widows' pension; and neither does the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, whose amendment this is. The Government's position on this amendment and the last ones is perfectly sustainable: that in the DSS system the DSS war widows' pension should be treated in exactly the same way as the other DSS widows' pension; they are lost on remarriage.
However, when we come to the Armed Forces attributable pension, we are entitled to look at other pension schemes of a similar superannuated nature. The majority in the private sector would give a widow a pension for life. I accept that a minority in the public sector do so, but at least some do.

309
I think that the Armed Forces pension scheme should be considered entirely differently from schemes for other people working in the public sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, mentioned in her introduction, in the past two weeks two aircraft have crashed and young men have been killed—young men who left widows and children. That brings home the nature, whether it be in war or peace, of the dangers to which servicemen are always exposed.
I should find it easy to defend the position on the Armed Forces pension scheme against any other sector pension scheme. There are those who have been widowed in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, and the Falklands; and training creates many widows—fortunately not week after week, but it happens. I believe that we should put as much pressure as we can on the Government to make a change in the Armed Forces attributable pension scheme.
It is now even more important to do so because of another part of the Bill; namely, pension splitting on divorce. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, introduced the question of divorce. I underline the point. Two armed services families live side by side. In one case, the husband and wife divorce. The wife will receive a share of the pension pot and, frankly, can marry as many times as she likes—consecutively, not concurrently!—and keep the pension pot. Next door, unfortunately the husband crashes his aircraft in practice, and that lady receives her war widow's pension from the attributable pension scheme, but the moment she remarries she loses it. So she has been placed in a worse position than the lady who has divorced. I do not think that that is right.
Some noble Lords are saying, "Why didn't he do something about that when he was in a position to do so?". That is a perfectly fair point. I did try—it is my only defence—but obviously not very successfully. I sent letters to my noble friend Lord Howe. I chased my civil servants across to the MoD. My noble friend Lord Howe and I totally agreed. But the MoD has had a lot of practice at inertia and it is very good at it. I kept being told that it is all under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, told me on Report that it is all under review. I think that five years of reviewing are more than enough. I am depending on the two noble Baronesses to show (if I may use a Scots term) that the lasses are better than the lads and that they can make progress on this issue.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I speak with considerable sympathy on this amendment. I admire the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in her continuing hard work to press the Government to support this very special group of people. The forces family pension is an occupational pension, a contributory scheme, and I think that we are all now very aware that it is currently under review by the Ministry of Defence. I am pleased to note the presence here today of the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. It is our firm belief that payment of this pension should not depend on whether or not a widow chooses to remarry or live with
310
a partner. It is true that not all occupational pension schemes continue in the event of remarriage—far from it. However, with particular regard to war widows, we feel strongly that an obligation is owed to their husbands who have put their lives at risk to serve this country on a continuing basis.
More than that, it is entirely wrong to assume that just because a widow remarries any loss of income incurred on the death of her husband is naturally restored. We have heard many of the arguments rehearsed, both today, in Committee and on Report. In short, it is our hope that the Government will now take action and support what I believe is a very strong case for the Ministry of Defence to change its policy with regard to war widows who wish to remarry or cohabit and so rebuild their lives.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I have listened to this debate very carefully, and I have had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and Mrs Jenny Green of the War Widows Association to discuss the issue as my noble friend Lady Hollis undertook on my behalf in answering Amendment No. 51 at Report stage. I thank the noble Baroness warmly for the way she moved the amendment. I also thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks to me.
Let me say at the outset that we all have sympathy with the case that the noble Baroness argued. At one level, it is of course straightforward. She has argued that in logic and in equity the widow or widower of someone whose death is directly related to their service in the Armed Forces should retain their benefit from their spouse's occupational pension on remarriage or cohabitation. But although that is a straightforward uncomplicated proposition to put to your Lordships, the issues which it raises are far more complex and difficult to resolve. If the House will allow me, I shall try to explain.
Currently, as we have heard, the widow or widower of someone who has died for a reason which is directly attributable to their service in the Armed Forces receives not only the DSS widows' pension but also an occupational pension from the MoD (the Armed Forces Pension Scheme) which is enhanced to take account of the fact that their spouse's death was directly related to his or her service. Currently, both the DSS pension and the enhanced occupational pension are withdrawn if the widow remarries or cohabits.
The proposed amendment does not affect the withdrawal of the DSS pension, which is withdrawn for all widows who remarry or cohabit. However, the amendment, if passed, would ring-fence a war widow's MoD occupational pension for life and make it payable irrespective of remarriage or cohabitation.
In that respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was right when she argued that the amendment's provisions would reflect a number of private sector occupational pension schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the same point also, I

311
think, about public sector schemes. Indeed, the local authority scheme has a similar provision. But that local authority scheme is very differently funded.
The schemes for other emergency services—services where men and women put their lives at risk in pursuit of their public duty, such as the police service and the fire service—also withdraw occupational pensions on remarriage or cohabitation. So, of course, does the Civil Service scheme.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, believes that this ring-fence for war widows is justified, but only in the short term. Naturally, she and the association want to see occupational pensions for life for all service widows. Of course they do. However, I am sure that many would immediately make what they perceive to be the entirely justifiable claim on behalf of their own members—their members in the police, their members in the fire service and their members across the public sector. Ring-fencing, while justifiable to some, is rarely justifiable to those on the edge of but outside the ring. Indeed, while doing a great deal of good to some, it may cause a very great deal of bitterness to others.
We cannot make the change that the noble Baroness seeks without taking into account the position of those others outside the immediate ring. We must do our best to treat everyone with equity and look at the needs of all those who are widowed as a result of the dedication to public duty of those they have lost.
We must also consider those other widows in the public services whose spouses have been lost through natural causes. We cannot set their position on one side; we cannot even do it temporarily. They, too, will find themselves outside the ring-fence. They will find themselves in an unfair and embittering position.
The highly persuasive point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made about children could equally be applicable to widows whose spouses have died through natural causes. However, they are not covered by this amendment. The noble Baroness has told us that 2,650 widows would be covered. There are over 68,000 widows covered by the Armed Forces pension scheme who may also have young children and who may also be in need but who would not be covered by this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was quite right. My noble friend Lady Hollis and I turned to each other while he was speaking and said, "Why did he not do it when he had the chance?" He said that he tried but that the MoD was inert. I assure the noble Lord that, under New Labour, the MoD is not inert. The MoD has set a personnel strategy for the Armed Forces. It was published in 1997 under New Labour and it covered a wide range of issues for the Armed Forces. It stated that a review of the pension arrangements would be required. The then Minister for the Armed Forces announced a review of the scheme in September 1998. The review is currently under way. It is not going to happen in the future; it is happening now. I also remind the House that my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces,
312
John Spellar, is also presently reviewing, on an ongoing basis, with the DSS the compensation arrangements for injury or death resulting from service.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister understand why her argument reminds me of the people who said, "You cannot give some people the vote; you might have to give it to all of them"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand that. We are dealing here mostly with real women who are in very difficult positions. While we have an enormous amount of sympathy for the women whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has drawn to our attention, I must in all equity point out to your Lordships that there are many widows whose husbands have died as a result of pursuing their duty and public service in dangerous and difficult circumstances who will feel embittered, upset and angry if this amendment is passed. Therefore, I do not accept the analogy, intellectually clever though it may be, as real in human terms.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that the issues are not being set on one side or ignored. Not only are they understood, they are under active consideration. Her Majesty's Government believe that the right way to tackle this issue is through the detailed review of the pension scheme, looking at a wide range of possible changes for members of the scheme, including improved pension arrangements for families.
Of course, a number of other options can be considered. There are many different ways of tackling these issues, which are reflected in different pension schemes in the public and private sectors. However, the point is that the review has to be far more wide-ranging and comprehensive than the noble Baroness's amendment. It must be fair, or as fair as it can be, to everybody, not only to those people who naturally command a certain amount of public sympathy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, drew our attention to the difficulties faced by women with peripatetic lifestyles in setting up superannuation. These issues are understood. Indeed, it was an understanding of those issues which prompted different arrangements under this Government 18 months ago for spouses in the Diplomatic Service. I remind the noble Baroness that we do understand these issues and that they will be taken into account.
Of course, I cannot give any undertakings about the outcome of the review. It would clearly be premature to do so; nor will I raise expectations that may not be fulfilled. However, I can assure the House that all the options will be considered. In that regard, I very much hope that the War Widows Association will give us the benefit of its advice and experience.
In view of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will acknowledge that her very powerful advocacy has had its effect on ministerial thinking and that she will agree to

313
withdraw the amendment. However, if the noble Baroness is unwilling to withdraw her amendment, I must ask the House to oppose it.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken today: my noble kinsman, Lord Russell; the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; my noble and gallant friend, Lord Craig of Radley; my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lord Northbourne; the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth; the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes; and indeed everyone who has spoken. All the war widows are deeply grateful for their support.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for allowing my noble friend Lady Symons to answer on behalf of the MoD. The MoD is, of course, the payer-out of the attributable forces family pension, although this money comes from the Treasury, whose money comes from us, the taxpayers.
I suspect that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, is also a friend of all the war widows. We greatly value her sympathetic and sensitive summing up. We also greatly value the time that she has spent with us. We are very grateful to her for her sympathy, lime and understanding.
However, this issue has gone on for long enough. We heard exactly the same arguments from the MoD in 1995. We are referring to 2,650 ladies, not 68,000, and we hope that there will not be many more. All those beautiful ladies who picnicked in Westminster Hall and were sitting in the Galleries of your Lordships' Chamber on Monday are growing older by the minute. All those lovely children, who some of your Lordships met, are growing up without much chance of a second father. Time is not on their side, nor on ours. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brightman, L.

Addington, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Alderdice, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Aldington, L.

Cadman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Calverley, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carlisle, E.

L.

Carver, L.

Arran, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Chadlington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Avebury, L.

Chesham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Clancarty, E.

Berners, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Cockfield, L.

314

Cornwallis, L.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Munster, E.

Cross, V.

Naseby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Newby, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Darnley, E.

Norton, L.

Davidson, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dholakia, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Dundee, E.

Oxford, Bp.

Dunleath, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ebury, L.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elibank, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erroll, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Exmouth, V.

Prior, L.

Ezra, L.

Pym, L.

Falkland, V.

Radnor, E.

Ferrers, E

Reay, L.

Fookes, B.

Redesdale, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rennard, L

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Ridley, V,

Geraint, L.

Rix, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rogan, L.

Glanusk, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gray, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandberg, L.

Grey, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sandys, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Haslam, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Slim, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stair, E.

Ilchester, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ironside, L.

Strange, B. [Teller]

Iveagh, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Suffield, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinton, E,

Kintore, E.

Taverne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Liverpool, E.

Thurso, V.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Tordoff, L.

Long, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

Warnock, B.

Mar, C.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Westbury, L.

Methuen, L.

Westmorland, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wigoder, L.

Milverton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Bach, L.

Borrie, L.

315

Bragg. L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Brett, L.

Privy Seal)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brookman, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Levy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crawley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Diamond, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

[Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Northfield, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Orme, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grabiner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gregson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harrison, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Skelmersdale L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Wilkins, B.

Chancellor)

Williams of Elvel, L

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

UPRATING OF BENEFITS
(" .—(1) Section 150 of the Administration Act shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after "prices" insert "or earnings".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices" substitute "Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices or earnings", and

316

(b) in subsection (2)(a) after "beginning" insert "and, in the case of the first of the sums specified in section 44(4) of the Contributions and Benefits Act and the sum specified in column 3 of paragraph 5 of Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Contributions and Benefits Act, not less than the percentage by which the general level of earnings is greater at the end of the period than it was at the beginning".").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. Both amendments are tabled in my name and that of Lady Turner. I shall discuss them together, although we shall wish the House to express its opinion on each separately.
Amendment No. 2 is designed to restore the link with average earnings for the annual uprating of the basic state pension. I want to try to interest the House in the far-reaching effects of the present situation and how we deal with it today. Last night, this Chamber was crowded. There was an excited debate in which Members from all sides of the House said that we were "making history". I wish to point out in all seriousness that if Amendment No. 2 is not carried today, we shall be destroying history. That is not an exaggeration because we shall be destroying—I use that word advisedly—the centre of the social insurance schemes in this country; namely, the basic state pension.
What astonishes me is the equanimity with which the Liberal Democrats in this House have visualised this development. After all, two of their giants helped to mould the social insurance system in this country in the past century. First, of course, was Lloyd George, who, I believe in 1906, although I am subject to correction, introduced a five shilling old age pension. He was warned by a Conservative Peer in this House that that would ruin the empire. We do not use exactly that word today, but the assertion will be made, in a slightly different form, that it will "ruin the economy" if we restore the earnings link. I await with interest alarming figures from the Minister to make our blood run cold about the danger we all face economically if we go back to what was Labour's policy in 1974.
The second great Liberal figure was Sir William Beveridge, to whom millions of people must have offered prayers of gratitude, because he took a hotchpotch of private provision, a bit of state help here and a bit of charity there, and moulded it into a comprehensive state insurance system under which everyone in work was compelled to contribute in order to receive a benefit as of right when they retired.
That vision of social cohesion has helped to make our national character. I am desperately afraid that, unless we return to that vision, we shall have the exact opposite—the splintering of society and the breaking up of pension provision into different private schemes or occupational schemes for those who can afford them or who are lucky enough to have them. It will be rather like the Tories' privatisation of the railway system, giving us dozens of bits of responsibility, so that we do not get a comprehensive national transport plan.
I must begin by reminding the Government of what they wrote in their manifesto before the last election. That manifesto declared that the

317
Government would continue to provide a basic state pension, not means tested, as of right, for everyone who had contributed. The manifesto added that the Government would also ensure that all pensioners shared fairly in rising national prosperity. It cannot possibly be said that the present system is achieving that. I am astonished at the way the Minister returns time and time again to that pledge. "Oh yes", she says, "it's the building block of our pensions provision." But if we continue to increase the basic pension in line with prices rather than earnings, in 20 years' times it will have shrunk to 7 per cent of average national earnings. Are you going to tell me that that is to allow pensioners to share fairly in rising national prosperity?
Let us take this year as an example. Pensioners are muttering. Indeed, they are becoming almost as angry with this Government as they were with the Tories, despite the Government's many excellent moves to help them, such as the £100 fuel allowance, free eye tests and the attempt to introduce a national plan of concessionary fares. Those provisions are excellent. However, they are not means tested, but needs tested. Thus pensioners keep their dignity. But they are increasingly angry when they see the contrast between price indexing and earnings indexing.
The figures this year show that inflation has gone up by 1.1 per cent. We all applaud that, of course. However, what it means to the pensioner—and this has already been announced by the Government—is 73 pence per week on top of their pension. In the meantime, the wage earner has had an increase of 4.9 per cent, maybe more. I never like to exaggerate.
The Minister cannot say that that is a fulfilment of manifesto pledges; it is not what pensioners believed they were voting for. They believed and trusted that at last Labour would return to its 1974 policy of indexing their pensions in line with growth of earnings. Of course, the rate has varied from year to year because one year price rises may be higher. That is not very often the case, but in some years they will be. Broadly speaking, however, we know that unless there is high unemployment, which keeps wages down, wages tend to rise above prices. The figures show the effect cumulatively. If Lady Thatcher had not abolished in 1980 the earnings link which Labour had introduced, the basic state pension for a single pensioner today would be some £93 per week. Imagine what that would mean to pensioners: a little bit of breathing space; a little feeling that they are not the pauper pariahs of society. They do not want the pension means tested. They want something they have earned as of right.
I hope the House realises what it will be saying if it votes down Amendment No. 2. It will be saying, "We are content that in 20 years' time the basic state pension should be worth 7 per cent of average national earnings." I am sorry, but I believe that this Government's policy, like that of the previous Conservative administration, is designed to allow the state pension to wither on the vine. Increasing numbers of people have a choice between private or company insurance on the one hand and a charitable safety net on the other. In making that choice the
318
Government are not only humiliating pensioners; they are saying that the whole state insurance system is out of date. We are always being told that we must think of the future and not be dragged down by our ideological past. To the pensioner, this issue is not ideological; it is very practical.
Lord Higgins has breathed some very sympathetic noises and sensitivities which made me hope at one stage that he would be on our side. I realise that he is a prisoner of his own party's history and that that might be slightly inhibiting. However, perhaps he was listening to Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who told us that he had done his best while the Tories were in power to get the policy which is being advocated today for war widows adopted. I hope that Lord Higgins, who is a humane man, will break out of his prison and join us in the Division Lobby when we vote today.
Amendment No. 3 is slightly different because it asks for an immediate increase in the state pension to £75 per week from the £67 which it is at the moment. On what is that based? It is based not on some fancy figure which we produced out of thin air but on the Government's own figure. The Government say they will abolish poverty and thus ensure that no single pensioner should get less than £75 per week. That is all very well but, if it is good enough for those who have not saved, why is it not good enough for those who have—for those who have contributed all their lives?
I shall not bother the Minister with the dozens of letters I have received about means testing to which, of course, the minimum income guarantee, which the Government offer, is subject. People may say, "Well, what have I been up to all these years, scraping and saving to get my own house and stand on my own feet? Now I find that I am not a penny better off." Indeed, in one of our earlier debates the Minister got dangerously near to saying, "It is absolutely fine that that should happen because we have discovered that many of those million pensioners who have been quoted as not drawing the income support to which they are entitled have in fact been saving too much. Of course, they must be penalised, mustn't they?"
I have had a long correspondence with the Minister about the cost of this provision. In our previous debates I pointed out that, based on the Government Actuary's own figures, the National Insurance Fund has a surplus of £5.89 billion. No doubt unintentionally, in her first reply the Minister misled the House. She misled me because she said that the Government Actuary insisted on a balanced basis—that an amount must be achieved by the contributions in order to keep the fund in funds. That figure was, as the Minister told us, nearly £8 billion. She then added, as though this condemned the whole situation, that the surplus was only about £5 billion. The general impression given was that the surplus paid for the balance. When I got home I started to think about those figures and found that the £5.89 billion is over and above that prudent figure demanded by the Government Actuary.
In later letters the Minister admitted that our figures were correct. But she said, "Ah, but you see, there are all sorts of different uses to which we could put the

319
money. You have got to take into account our state second pension." How can we? That is not mentioned in the Bill. There is no means of judging it. There are many glossy consultation documents but, of course, they are only consultation documents and the proposals might be changed. The Government may change their mind.
As I have said previously, I deeply deplore the failure to give a balanced picture of what the pensions system of this country will be like when the Government's whole network of different pensions is in place. However, one thing that we do know for sure is that unless the earnings link is restored and unless this minimum guarantee is not means tested, there will be a growing cleavage in our society in which some people will be made to feel poor and therefore outside the ring referred to earlier. This is probably one of the most important issues for social cohesion in our society. The Government's policy pauperises pensioners. I know that child benefit does not do so because it is universal and non-means tested. The same applies to eye tests and fuel benefits. Excellent! But why do it for one person and not another? Do not say that we cannot afford it. Of course, the cost grows steadily. But so does the yield from our contributions. What the Government do not seem to realise is that that surplus in the National Insurance Fund will continue to grow because contributors pay earnings-related contributions for a flat-rate, price-indexed benefit. Therefore, that surplus will grow.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will listen. This is a very serious subject. It is not just one or two of us saying, "Let's have a bash at the Government". We have thought long and hard about it and worked out our tables just as much as the Government have worked out theirs; indeed more.
In all seriousness, I beg the Opposition to let us, in this Parliament, before the end of this Session, tell the Government that they must restore to pensioners the dignity of an adequate pension as of right. If they do not, they will pay an electoral penalty.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. This is the last opportunity we shall have before the Bill leaves this House to restate the case for pensions as of right based on the contributory principle rather than on means testing.
The vast majority of today's pensioners rely on the basic state pension, which is now £66.75 for a single person. As my noble friend said, we know that had it been uprated in line with the earnings index it would now be in the region of £93 per week. What is being offered instead is the minimum income guarantee of £75 dependent on means testing.
I cannot emphasise enough just how much means testing is disliked, particularly by elderly people. Take-up is low and one does not need expensive research to understand precisely why. Benefits that are not means tested, such as child benefit, have a high take-up and rightly so.
320
Today's pensioners believe that they have paid for a decent pension. This is the wartime generation, people who spent their youth in the Armed Forces fighting for their country and afterwards endured the lean years that in so many ways prepared for later prosperity. Moreover, the oldest pensioners are the poorest pensioners. Because they retired some years ago, even if they had occupational pensions, these are based on earnings much lower than those of someone retiring now.
One in four pensioners qualifies for income support; about 700,000 are entitled to it but do not claim it. Of course, it will be said that to increase the basic pension in the way suggested and, incidentally, in the way that previous Labour governments have always supported, would mean that people who do not really need it would benefit. But those who do not need it are already taxed and the Government will get most of it back; that is even supposing that the really wealthy would ever bother to claim what is hardly small change to them.
Governments redistribute through the tax system. They should not seek to do so through the benefits system. As my noble friend Lord Ashley said so eloquently, "If you do it that way, the poor are forced to pay for the really poor people". Pensioners do not want handouts, welcome as they may be to meet fuel bills and other expenses. They want the income they believe they have earned of right.
Let us not again have the argument that lots of white-collar employees have generous occupational pensions. Some do, but by no means all. Most ordinary schemes, as distinct from "top hat" schemes for senior management, are based on the assumption that they top up the basic state pension. That means that the basic state pension is an important part of pension provision for large numbers of people. Furthermore, the pensions are, of course, paid for by the employees themselves. The unions rightly always describe pensions as deferred pay, so people are getting what they have paid for, both through national insurance contributions and the pay packet.
We are not treating our pensioner population very well. It is not surprising that so many feel resentful. One said to me quite recently, "I worked hard for over 50 years, paid my taxes and national insurance and now I am expected to live on a pittance. What have they done with all my money?" I hope that your Lordships will feel constrained this afternoon to support Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 3 has been grouped with Amendment No. 2. As my noble friend has already said, £75 per week is the Government's proposed minimum income guarantee for a single person. That is presumably the minimum amount that is estimated can support a single elderly person. However, as has been indicated, it is not all that generous and, as I said before, it is means tested. Not all pensions are generous. Most are based on the assumption that they are second-tier; in other words, the basic state pension is the cornerstone of pension provision for large numbers of people.

321
We believe that if we can pay £75 as a basic right to all pensioners and then build in the right to earnings-related increases, we will help to restore a reasonable pension structure for much poorer people. I therefore hope that the House will feel constrained this afternoon to support these amendments.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I cannot but admire my noble friend Lady Castle. All of us have been treated to many speeches from her over the years and everybody admires the way in which she fights for pensioners. Of course, one can admire her but perhaps not agree. Frankly, I am not sure whether I do agree.
I have an interest to declare. Since Report and Third Reading, I have become a pensioner. As such, my interest is that there should be stability in prices and wages. That is what will benefit society as a whole. The question of pensions has to be looked at within the economy as a whole. If we are to vote for my noble friend's amendment, we are, in a way, voting against the management of the economy. The Government are doing a very good job in managing the economy. The interest of pensioners is the same as the interest of everybody else; that is, that there should be stable prices and wages. That is what the Government are managing to do. I support the Government on this.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not intend any discourtesy to the admirable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, if I say that the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, was one of the most powerful and persuasive speeches I have ever listened to in this Chamber. On these Benches, we are able to give her some support, although I fear it will not be as much as she would like.
As we know, Amendment No. 2 proposes restoration of the link of basic pensions to earnings. Amendment No. 3 proposes a one-off increase in the basic pension. Both would increase the social security budget substantially. We are in favour of an increase in public spending on pensions. However, we realise that that is potentially very expensive and therefore needs to be carefully targeted.
One problem with restoring the earnings link—a problem that perhaps, in a sense, we should welcome—is that of the increased life expectation of pensioners. If the basic pension is linked to earnings, total pension costs will increase faster than earnings because pensioners are living longer. Therefore, pensions will require an increasing share of GDP to fund them. That problem will be reduced but not eliminated when the pension age for women is raised to 65. Be that as it may, it cart be argued strongly that the cost of the basic pension is now so low that we can afford to restore an earnings link even if, over time, it will significantly increase funding costs as a proportion of GDP.
A forecast given in a Written Answer in the other place within the past two days was that by 2050, if no changes are made to the present system, 30 per cent of pensioners will be below income support or minimum income guarantee levels.
322
The cost of pensions in the United Kingdom is very low in comparison with the cost of pensions in other countries. A recent IFS report contained a table of 10 of the leading developed countries. The forecast for state spending on pensions in the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP in 2000 was 4.5 per cent. Only two countries in that list, the USA and Australia, spent a smaller share of their GDP on pensions. Further, the projection of trends for 2040 shows that United Kingdom spending will have dropped to 4 per cent of GDP while in all other countries in the list spending on pensions will have increased as a percentage of GDP; and by 2040, on the basis of those trends, the United Kingdom will be spending less than any other country on the list. I accept of course that some countries, notably Italy and Germany, have landed themselves with an unsustainable burden of pension costs, but they already spend nearly three times as much as the United Kingdom.
The problem with Amendment No.2 is that this is not yet the right time to discuss it. I believe that the future of the basic state pension cannot be considered without also looking at the second state pension.
The Government are likely to propose that the second state pension should be earnings linked, but it is not clear how firm that undertaking is. We know need to know the plan for the second state pension. What are the long-term projections of its cost; and will there be a firm undertaking to index-link it? It is only when we have detailed information about the second state pension, which will be a very important element in pension provision, that we shall be able to form a judgment on the need for the restoration of either full or partial linking of earnings to the basic state pension.
I am not very hopeful about the effect of the second state pension. Another Written Answer given on Monday to my honourable friend Professor Steven Webb in another place suggests that by 2025 the second state pension will have increased the income of most single pensioners by less than £2 a week and of most married pensioners by £5 a week, which does not seem to be adequate. However, the time for that battle is when we are considering the second state pension next year.
Amendment No.3 proposes a substantial one-off increase in the basic state pension. That would be the new baseline for future increases, whether price or earnings linked. It would not restore the full amount of the loss over the past 20 years as a result of the loss of the earnings link. If the earnings link had been retained, single pensioners would now be getting £93.25 a week. An increase even to £75 would be very expensive: it would cost approximately £3.6 billion a year if a corresponding increase was made in the basic state pension for married pensioners.
There is a surplus in the National Insurance Fund, but that can be spent only once, and, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, I am not persuaded that there will continue to be a regular surplus of the same amount.
We would be able to support the amendment if the increase was restricted to pensioners aged 75 or over. Those who are now over 75 are, as the noble Baroness,

323
Lady Turner, pointed out, are the least likely to have significant income from occupational or personal pension schemes or from SERPS. Old age brings increasing costs, such as the need to spend more on heating. The over-75s are those who find it most difficult and confusing to apply for income support. According to another Written Answer, of the estimated 720,000 pensioners or pensioner couples who are entitled to income support but not drawing it, no fewer than 430,000 are aged 75 or over. That strongly bears out the particular problems of the older pensioners.
We believe, therefore, that there is a very strong case for a substantial increase in the basic state pension for pensioners aged 75 or more, but, reluctantly, we cannot support a blanket increase of this size for all pensioners.
In those circumstances, if the noble Baroness wishes to divide the House, our position is that we are unable to support her because we feel that there is a great deal in principle to be said for the arguments that we are putting forward. We shall also be unable to support the Government.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, for many of our fellow citizens the state national insurance pension is the only pension that they have. For a very large number of people on low incomes, the lowest 30 per cent, the second supporting pension, from whatever source it comes, is a very small supplement. Therefore, the basic level of the state national insurance pension is very important, and will be so for a considerable time.
Frankly, unless we are simply to accept that a great swathe of our people should have recourse to national assistance or supplementary benefit or income support, we clearly have to try our best to bring up the level of the national insurance pension, and this Bill is perhaps our last opportunity to do so.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that on the available information I cannot support the once-for-all large increase, much as I should like to do so. However, I am prepared to keep an open mind on that matter in the light of any further information.
I should have thought that no one, for reasons of fairness and natural justice, could seriously challenge the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. Why should the pensioner alone be denied the benefit? It is no good my noble friend Lord Haskel saying that their only interest is in stable prices and stable wages, the same as everyone else, because they have a separate interest. The point is that they are not, with the rest of our wage-earners, carried forward by the growth in prosperity of the country as a whole.
Having said that, what can one add? Very little. The only possible answer to the problem is that the new second pension, or the new pension, the stakeholder pension, could conceivably provide a solution. If the stakeholder pension became one of substance and could rescue the lowest 30 per cent of the population from what is otherwise a rather poor prospect in
324
retirement, I would go along with that, but the stakeholder pension is wholly untried, as we know. It is almost undefined. A very small stakeholder pension will be available to people on lower incomes who can put money into such a pension. There is no prospect of any significant return for the greater majority of lower-paid people, where there is no employer's contribution and no state contribution.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, reminded us, our manifesto stated that the basic state pension would be retained as the foundation for pension provision. The following sentence in the manifesto is also an important one as it states that the pension will be increased at least in line with prices. I assume that that rather careful caveat was put in because of the general state of panic of my party leadership just before the general election when they were desperately anxious not to give the slightest sign that there would be an increase in public expenditure if the Labour Party won the general election. OK! Responsible stuff. But as it turns out, the economy is really rather good, not in terms of the National Insurance Fund to which reference has been made, but in terms of the national finances as a whole. And this modest amendment is simply asking for an annual uprating which will be linked to earnings rather than prices. One is almost embarrassed to be asking for so little.
I hope therefore that my noble friend, for whom I have the highest regard, will go back to her Secretary of State and say: "Think again. You are not fulfilling what we in the party and the country as a whole have a right to expect on behalf of retired people. Look again at your pledge to at least increase in line with prices. Surely we are entitled to something more than an increase in line with prices, which is all that we are being offered at the present time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lady Castle and Lady Turner on tabling these two amendments. I was pleased to add my name to the first of them.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and felt he made an excellent case in favour of the amendments. I can only say that I am extremely sorry that his vote will not follow his voice in true parliamentary tradition. However, there is still time for he and his colleagues to change their minds before the vote takes place and I sincerely hope they will do so.
I support the new clause which, if accepted by the Government or agreed by the House, will be welcomed not only by pensioners, but also by most other people. They believe that pensioners have not been well treated over a long period of time. I have to tell the House that the prospect of an increase of only 73p on the basic pension this year is causing outrage. It will do the Government and the Labour Party no good if they persist in putting that forward. I hope that they will change their minds.
I had a conversation yesterday with a Labour MP in the House of Commons. He said that he was receiving lots of letters from pensioners regretting that the

325
contract which they believed was made between the Government and pensioners in 1948 was not honoured by the Conservative Party and they are extremely sorry that it is not now to be honoured by the Labour Party. That was a contract to ensure that pensioners had a good and continuing standard of living. In fact many people are worried about this and are writing to MPs and to Members of your Lordships' House.
The new clause is very modest. It does not seek to backdate the link between pensions and incomes to 1981. It simply proposes that it should be reinstated from now. So in fact the pensioners are being asked to make a big sacrifice; make no mistake about that. As we have heard, they have lost so much in the past 19 years. I recall, as one or two of my noble friends will recall, the excitement and the satisfaction of the 1975 Act which not only kept pensions in line with the cost of living but also ensured that pensioners shared in the rising standard of living reflected in people's incomes. The Labour Party was proud of that Act. We believed that we had put pensions on a sound and permanent footing.
We are asking now to go back to that Act, of which we were so proud—not to reinstate the amounts that have been lost, but to go back to what was a great scheme put forward by my noble friend Lady Castle, who is as great a person as Lloyd-George and Beveridge. She has contributed so much to this country and to the pension situation.
It is shameful that the link between pensions and incomes was broken by the previous government. For most of our time in opposition, the Labour Party demanded —I was part of the demand, as was my noble friend sitting on the Front Bench—the restoration of that link. However, it seems that things have changed now that new Labour is in office. I suppose the Prime Minister will regard people like me as part of the forces of conservatism for wanting to restore the link—a link fought for by the last Labour government. Apparently the progressives are now those who destroyed the link in 1980—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher; a progressive!—and those who do not want to restore it are also progressives.
Those who wish to reduce the value of the state pension, vis-à-vis GDP and living standards, are those who are supposed to be progressive, while those like myself who wish to restore the link and to maintain the living standards of the pensioners are apparently conservatives. That is complete and utter nonsense. Indeed, if that is being conservative, I suppose I must own up on this issue to being conservative. But how odd it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, whose government broke the link, are apparently now considered to be the progressives, while my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Castle and others, including myself, are the new conservatives.
I suppose I must not be too hard on Cabinet Members. After all, the Prime Minister, Mr. Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Straw, the Home Secretary, and Alistair Darling, the Social Services Secretary, were not even Members of Parliament at the time of the 1975 Act. I am not even sure that the Prime
326
Minister was a member of the Labour Party. So they must be forgiven for not being part of that great fight for decent pensions in 1975. They may not feel the same sense of obligation to pensioners that those of us who fought that Bill through the House of Commons feel, and feel very deeply. They may not understand that those of us who voted for the Act—I was a Whip and helped to Whip it through in 1975—believe that it was a fine Act, designed to remove poverty in retirement by giving pensioners a decent pension by right and not by means test. We believed that fervently, and I still believe that.
This is the time to restore the link and add a little dynamic to the basic pension to bring it up to £75 a week as some compensation for the losses incurred since the breaking of the link in 1980. There will never be a better time. The economy is booming. Living standards are rising. Inflation is steady. The budget is in surplus by at least £5 billion and likely to remain so for as long as income is buoyant from taxation as well as national insurance contributions. As we have heard, the National Insurance Fund is in surplus of £3.8 billion this year. So there is no need to increase contributions or taxes to fund what is being proposed. But even if it did mean a rise in contributions—I say this to my noble friend and indeed to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties—or even taxes, the people of this country would be prepared to pay if it meant that pensioners received a decent and ensured standard of living.
Our pension contributions as a percentage of GDP are much lower than those in Germany, France, the United States, Japan or Canada. Further, we do not have the same problems, and are not likely to have such problems, as some of our continental neighbours whose deficits on their pension schemes are horrendous. Indeed, we have no such problems. Therefore, I appeal to the House and I appeal to those in the Conservative Party to redeem themselves. This is the opportunity to redeem the awful mistake they made in 1980. If they want to restore their reputation among pensioners, this is the opportunity to do so. They were the ones who destroyed the link. I ask noble Lords opposite to come with us on this because it is fair and decent. I understand that Conservatives believe that they are decent people, despite what some people may say—though I shall not mention any names. This is the opportunity for them to come along with us.
I say this to Labour Members. I believe it is their duty today to restore that link which Labour gave. Let us not forget that it was a Labour Act. It is for Labour Members today, assisted, I hope, by other Members in the House, to help to restore that link. I also say this. There are Members of Parliament along the road who are dying for the opportunity to have another go at restoring the link. So by voting for these amendments, my noble friends would not only be voting to help the pensioners. They would also be voting to help elected Members of Parliament do their duty. Above all, they would be helping the pensioners of this country have a decent and rising standard of living, which it is our duty to give them and which is something everyone else enjoys.
5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have a particular interest because there was a very distinguished woman called Eleanor Rathbone, whom I think the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, may remember, who sat as a Member for the combined universities. She was one of the first to begin work on just these issues. Therefore, I have a particular interest. I am not an actuary, as are so many noble Lords, so I cannot produce the impressive figures that have been put forward. However, I do know that the honour and the dignity of old people matters not only to themselves but also to their families.
Many people now living alone would at one time have been living in a family environment where the grandmother played a valued part by looking after the small children. None of that—or relatively little—happens now. There are many people who are as concerned for their old aunts, uncles, fathers and brothers as they are for themselves. They care about the dignity and well-being of those people.
On a more practical issue, the health budget is a very large one. I believe that it could be a great deal smaller if people had more money to spend—modest money—to keep warm, to avoid stress and to look after small ailments before they become big ones. That is something which should be in the power of any one of us to do. We should not have to turn to the state for what is, basically, charity, especially if we have spent our whole lives paying into the scheme. I cannot think of any other business or industry into which you would pay and invest and get nothing back. If that was the case, you would be saying that it was bust business and not very impressive.
I strongly support these amendments. I feel that there is a question of human dignity involved here. I conclude my remarks by saying that I am very proud to call the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, a friend; indeed, I would love to call him a noble friend as well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, most of us in this House who are members of the Labour Party, of whatever stream we might conceivably belong to, remember quite well the anxiety that was felt at a certain time. We were naturally very pleased that our Government had been returned, but we were under no illusion. Times were going to be difficult before we were able to correct many of the trends that had established themselves in the previous Conservative administration.
We were well aware—even those of us in your Lordships' House—that hard choices would have to be made. I believe that most of us were extremely cautious as to the rate of progress that could be achieved in the years that followed. However, as time has passed—there are many reasons for this, not all of which are disagreeable or disreputable—my party and my colleagues have not made quite as much progress in the direction to which they have normally pointed their political actions. We find that there has been an increasing tendency for hard choices to be made by
328
people who have no power to make any choice at all. The hard choices have to be made by them, yet they have no power. Indeed, there are thousands, nay, millions of them, in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, when my noble friend Lady Castle, with whom I have had the privilege of being associated over many years—way back to 1945—came forward with this proposal to insist that my party honoured the obligations which it willingly undertook I naturally thought that she would pursue the campaign that she has. She has done so with courage, tenacity, eloquence and deep feeling for people who are less fortunate than herself.
I was trained as an accountant. I tried to look at the real nature of the contract originally entered into by the state and by the population in 1974. What was that contract? Subject to certain qualifications, clearly laid down in the Act and explained in Parliament at the time, the contract was that employees generally were to make an insurance contribution, which was fixed. Employees had no particular part in framing the rules; they were there and were accepted. In return, employees were offered a pension on retirement—not means tested—which was upgraded year by year in accordance with earnings rather than with prices. That was the contract.
In my view, an insurance contract is a contract of the utmost good faith. I believe it is called in legal terms uberrimae fidei. At least that was what I was told when I had what smattering of legal education it was my fortune to receive. I naturally expect contracts, particularly contracts of insurance, to be carried out. No upward limit was laid down, nor any minimum limit, but the rules were quite clearly there. I expected that to be carried out and, quite frankly, I expect it to be carried out now because it was a contract entered into in good faith.
I willingly concede that circumstances can occur—some national catastrophe or some unforeseen economic misfortune that is manifestly no fault either of the state or of the population of the country—which mean that some possible revision has to be undertaken in spite of undertakings that have been given. But that is a matter for public debate; that is what Parliament is all about—the Parliament which is progressively being stripped of such powers as it once had. This is where my noble friend has pursued her campaign.
What national catastrophe has occurred to justify the breaking of the insurance contract? My noble friend Lord Haskel must make up his mind: either we are prosperous or we are not. It is my understanding that Her Majesty's present administration say that we are doing well. However, I have reservations about that. But has there been anything to justify the state dishonouring a contract that it entered into with the most vulnerable section of our population, the least articulate section of our population and, unfortunately sometimes, the least educated section of our population? In my view nothing has occurred to justify that.
We must now have even greater regard—especially the day after we made an historic decision with regard to the composition of this place which will have

329
profound effects upon the whole of the constitution of the United Kingdom—to the esteem in which we are held by the other place, the notice that it is prepared to take of what we say, the authority by which we speak, and the regard in which we are held by the public. These are also important considerations.
I have listened carefully to the arguments. I have been present throughout most of the proceedings on this Bill although I have been silent as this is not my normal subject. I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister for the great care she has taken in presenting the figures. However, with our national record of public expenditure, our record of investment and so on, there can be no possible reason why the Government whom I have the honour to support should not honour the obligations that were freely entered into.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I have every intention of supporting this amendment, as I did the previous one. I admire the noble Baronesses, Lady Castle and Lady Turner of Camden, and I have always enjoyed listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I express my last few words here before I find new pastures in which to exercise my mind—
Noble Lords: Fight on!
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I shall fight on in the area where I live and do whatever good hereditary Peers can do, by Jove I shall! I support this amendment as I feel that what it seeks is only right and fair. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not just listen to what is said but will also respond. There are people in this country who still need the support of this Chamber where they do not receive it from the other place down the corridor. I hope that the Government will not just listen to what is said but will also accept the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that it is time to pull together some of the threads of what has been an interesting and excellent debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, for introducing it and for making us all do some thinking. There seem to me to have been valid points made on both sides. On the one hand, the erosion of the basic state pension is becoming serious. When that erosion falls below income support level, it does not result in any substantial saving of public funds. Also, of course, it is creating a fairly considerable level of hardship among a limited number of people, which is why the Government have felt the need to offer the minimum income guarantee, which is known by the somewhat unfriendly acronym of MIG. The trouble with that, of course, is that although I know that the Minister has been deeply concerned for a long time about the level of take-up—I congratulate her on all she has done—there is no foolproof way to guarantee the delivery of income support to those who do not wish to claim it. Therefore there is a real and serious problem.
330
On the other hand, we on these Benches see a real and serious problem in going all the way down the road of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. We have, among other things, a party conference resolution on this subject in which we abandoned the link with earnings. I have a great deal more respect for party conference resolutions than some people do, and I am proud to belong to a party where I think they deserve respect.
On this occasion I must pay particular attention to it because the movers of that resolution were none other than my noble friend Lord Goodhart and myself. I would find those words distinctly indigestible especially as I still think they were right. The trouble is that for as long as I can remember our earnings have grown faster than GDP. We have in fact paid ourselves more than we earn. The effect of that is that the money comes to be worth less over the progress of time. Were we to commit ourselves to compound that mistake by paying pensions also at a rate growing faster than GDP, again the effect could only be that the money actually received by pensioners becomes worth less, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out. That point is one that I do not think it is safe to ignore. But since, as the Minister has pointed out over and over again in debates on pensions, the poverty is concentrated among a particular number of pensioners without occupational pensions, the proper way to address the issue is through the state second pension. What we on these Benches look for with particular interest is how substantial and how secure and how much backed by the necessary element of compulsion the state second pension will be. As we do not know that yet we reserve judgment and therefore we reserve judgment on this amendment.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Can the noble Lord help me before he sits down? The state second pension will come too late to benefit millions of those to whom we refer. It will not be granted retrospectively to people who have missed out.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we accept that point. That is why we are committed to an increase especially for the over 80s, which is where we think the worst poverty is concentrated. We do not think that a blanket restoration of the link with earnings meets that need. That is why we have to tell the noble Baroness with regret that we cannot vote for her amendment.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am 84. How many more 80th birthdays have to occur before this measure is granted? The latest increase has the value of a tuppenny ha'penny stamp.
Earl Russell: My Lords, our policy is that that increase should be implemented now. It is not we who are stopping it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that the whole House will agree that in the course of debates which we have had on this Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has made a quite extraordinary series of speeches of

331
remarkable quality and force. We should pay tribute to the points she has made. She has been admirably supported on many of the more technical points by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
These are extremely difficult issues. I have always found them somewhat difficult because of two aspects of my personal involvement in politics. For more than 30 years I represented the constituency with the highest number of pensioners in the country. It has long been said that people went to Worthing to die and forgot what they came for—and it is true. Many years ago, when I made my maiden speech in the other place, I spoke about the need to give pensions as of right to those who had been left out of the national insurance contributory scheme, who were known then as the over-80s. The first thing that we did when we came into office—I was a Treasury Minister in the Heath government—was to deal with that particular problem. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is smiling. Against that, one has to recognise one's long-standing involvement with the Treasury, either as a Minister or as Chairman of the Treasury Committee and so on.
The basic task is to deal with the very great, real problems of pensioners. As far as concerns take up of pensions, one knows only too well that even now people are very reluctant to accept income support. One recognises all the problems but, at the same time, it remains a question of priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, have been very clear as to their priorities; they are set out in the two amendments we are debating. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, rightly reminded us that he used to be a Whip. I did not realise what an orator he was until I came to this House after he ceased to be a Whip.
The Government have sought to meet these real problems by introducing the minimum income guarantee. However, the danger here is that more and more there is a move away from the contributory principle in the direction of means testing. The problem with the minimum income guarantee—unlike the state pension—is that it is means tested. Moreover, the particular problem with the scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is so anxious to address is that it is a pay-as-you-go and not a funded scheme.
We must look at the problem against the background of priorities. It is now generally recognised that the state pension is inadequate. The new Minister at the Department of Social Security, Mr Rooker, for whom I have great respect, is reported as saying last week to the National Association of Pension Funds that the state pension will leave one in poverty. In the present circumstances, it is necessarily the case that the state pension has to be topped up by a degree of income support.
The Government are now engaged in a large-scale reorganisation of the overall situation and one needs to put this debate in that context. We have debated the proposals in the Bill for a stakeholder pension—which
332
was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shore—and the proposals for the second state pension. They are likely to be before the House during the new Session of Parliament. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, pointed out to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches in an intervention, it will still not come in soon enough. It is very much a matter for the future.
I do not feel able to support the noble Baroness's amendment, despite the personal and charming way she has asked me to do so. However, we should consider whether there are some areas where we need a degree of amelioration. Inflation is proving to be a real problem, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. Inflation has come down radically—that is to be welcomed—but the implications in arithmetical terms for pension increases cause real difficulties. The proposed pension increase is 73p. Even more importantly, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the supplement for the over 80s is 25p. The pension increases have become derisory and are a cause for grave concern. I know the increase is set against a background of a reduction in inflation—which we all welcome—but once it comes down to such a small amount it can cause real problems.
For the future we should move towards more occupational schemes, more stakeholder schemes, the second pension and so on. In that context, I deplore the fact that the first act of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was to remove some £4 billion from those in occupational pensions as a result of the ACT tax change. There is a degree of schizophrenia on the Government Benches as far as concerns occupational pensions—witness their proposals with regard to those on disability benefit, on which the House has expressed its view, and the actions of the Chancellor, to which I have referred.
We should do everything we can to move towards a degree of reliance on occupational funded schemes. One must hope that the proposals the Government are to bring forward in that respect are adequate and hopeful for the future. While I cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment, it is right that the Government should give very careful thought to what should be done against the background of the trivial increases we are looking at. I agree very much with the views expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches about the need to give greater weight to the problems of the over 75s, the over 80s and so on. All the evidence suggests that they have higher costs than those at a lower level.
I turn now to the question of capital limits, which the House debated earlier but on which it arrived at no conclusion. Pensioners who have as little as £3,000 capital will find that their ability to receive income support is eroded. Pensioners who have capital of £7,000 will find that it is eliminated altogether. We should give greater priority to these areas. While fully recognising the passion with which the noble Baroness has spoken, these amendments do not represent the right priority in the present circumstances.
Having said that, against the background which has been outlined by many noble Lords, we should consider whether more cannot be done in the areas

333
that I have mentioned to help pensioners generally. One hopes that in future it will be possible for pensioners to have a more secure existence than they have under a pay-as-you-go scheme which depends on the decisions of Ministers and the Government.
When they stood for election, the Government said that pensioners will share in rising national prosperity. I am not clear about how the Government propose they will do so— unless the Minister is prepared to accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, my noble friend Lady Castle has explained the purpose of Amendment No. 2, which is to allow for uprating contributory benefits each year in line with the growth of prices or earnings, whichever is the greatest. Amendment No. 3 seeks to increase the basic state pension to £75 a week. We have debated these issues both in Committee and on Report. I am not sure whether your Lordships will expect new arguments from the Government at this late stage.
Basically, the Government's belief and position is that these amendments would prove to be very expensive and are badly targeted. They may help pensioners who are better off, but they will do nothing much for the poorest. That is at the core of our objections to these amendments.
The Government believe that it is right to target help on pensioners where it is needed most, which means extra help when is cold, with healthcare and with travel. We are spending an extra £4 billion—money contributed by tax payers, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—by the end of this Parliament to heir today's pensioners.
My noble friend Lady Castle asked whether pensioners will share in rising prosperity; a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The Government stated that pensioners will have a share in rising prosperity. That is exactly what is happening. Let us remember that since 1979, on average, pensioners' incomes have grown faster than those of any other broad group of the population. I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome that. Their incomes have grown by 70 per cent in real terms, compared to an average of 40 per cent for the rest of the population. The proportion of pensioners on means-tested benefit has fallen by almost one-third, from 57 per cent to 40 per cent. However, that growth has been unequal. The incomes of the top 20 to 40 per cent of the pensioner population have grown by over 70 per cent, but those of the bottom 20 per cent of single pensioners have grown by only 28 per cent. We all know that what has happened is that inequality has widened among pensioners. Four-fifths of pensioners have enjoyed a standard of living which has increased faster than that of the rest of the population. I am delighted that that is so. However, the bottom one-fifth has been left behind. The rate of increase in living standards for those pensioners has been only barely half as much as
334
for the rest of us. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made clear in his speech, that is where we have identified that help is most needed.
My honourable friend Mr Rooker was right when he said that we do not expect any pensioner to live on the basic pension alone. We never have expected that. Second pensions, SERPS, in the future the state second pension, occupational and personal pensions have all had the effect, for those pensioners who receive them, of producing a real increase in standards of living nearly twice that of the population as a whole. It is the poorest pensioners on whom we must concentrate our help; namely, those who do not have the resources to support themselves decently and comfortably in retirement.
I ask noble Lords to consider the figures. If we had done as my noble friend asked and increased the basic pension and linked benefits to £75 a week in April 1999, it would have cost over £4 billion gross. However, raising the state pension across the board is not the way to help the poorest pensioners. To restore the earnings link to today's rate of pension would make virtually no difference to the better off and would not be enough for the poorest. But it would cost the country over £1 billion next April, rising to £7.6 billion in 2010. Increasing a £75 pension by linking it to earnings would be even more expensive and would cost £10 billion by 2010.
Those are significant amounts of money, but for the most part that money would go not to the poorest pensioners, who would see it docked off their income support levels, but to those who have generous occupational pensions, savings and the like. That is what my noble friend's amendment would do. It would mean that £10 billion would be spent on pensioners who already have seen a welcome generous increase in their living standards, and whose current living standards are supported and augmented by occupational pensions and savings. However, that £10 billion would do little or nothing for the poorest pensioners—those who have not participated in the improvements in living, standards—because it would be taken off their income support. Is it right to spend £10 billion to help those above the benefit level and to do nothing for those below it?
My noble friend and other noble Lords have referred to the increase of 75p in the basic pension. I hope that noble Lords are not arguing for a return to the days when high inflation meant that there had to be compensating cash increases in the state pension. I have said cash increases, because those were not real increases. They compensated for the increase in the cost of living. In 1991, for example, pensions went up in cash terms by more than £5, but inflation was running at nearly 11 per cent. It may have been a large cash increase, but it gave pensioners no increase in buying power and, because the economy was failing badly, pensioners lost out because high inflation eroded their savings. Low inflation is part and parcel of our aim of ensuring long-term economic stability rather than the boom and bust of the past. It may mean smaller increases in the basic pension, but it also means

335
that pensions and savings better hold their value and it offers much better prospects for sustained capital growth, which means much better prospects for tomorrow's pensioners.
My noble friend Lady Castle suggested that the proposed amendments could be paid for from the surplus in the National Insurance Fund and through taxation. I regret that my noble friend misunderstood the figures I set out in a previous debate on the National Insurance Fund. It did not occur to me that, with my noble friend's huge experience of this area, she would not already know of the sums held in the National Insurance Fund, especially as the amendments she is proposing would have been funded by it. However, we must maintain a significant working balance in the fund to cover forecasting errors—for example, on the numbers in employment who pay contributions—and the risk of disruption in receipt of revenue due to unexpected events.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, identified that the surplus over and above that working balance would be eliminated in two years if we increased the pension to £75 a week. In addition, the Chancellor will of course already have taken account of this surplus in determining his fiscal stance. It could not be spent without altering that fiscal stance or raising equivalent revenue elsewhere. If we raised pensions now along the lines of my noble friend's amendment, it would mean an annual spending commitment now and every subsequent year into the future, and that would have to be funded.
My noble friend Lady Turner suggested that we would claw back much of that expenditure through the tax system. I regret that I do not think that that would be the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent changes have lifted 200,000 pensioners out of tax, so that two-thirds of all pensioners—some 7 million people—will pay no tax at all. Only 2.5 million pensioners pay tax at 23 per cent and only 150,000 are higher rate taxpayers. In practice, very little of the enormous cost of these amendments would be clawed back through the tax system. Indeed, I am sure that noble Lords would not want to extend taxation to pensioners in order to claw back expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised several issues, including a point that he quoted from a Written Answer given to his honourable friend Professor Steven Webb. I fear that the noble Lord may have seriously misunderstood the Answer, although that may be the fault of the drafting of the Government's reply, when he said that the state second pension would not be of much help. The £1 or £2 figure that he suggested would be the roll-up figure is in fact the annual figure for each year of credits so that, for example, a carer who had taken on care duties for 30 years would receive a state second pension of £30 or more as an annual figure and not a full figure.
I turn now to the foreign comparisons made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who said that the UK and the US lagged well behind foreign countries in the contribution the state made to pensions as a percentage of GDP. That is quite true,
336
precisely because in this country—and all credit is due to the previous administration who supported such measures—pensions are largely funded by the private £60 billion occupational pension industry. So far as I am aware, the only other country with a comparable funded pension industry in the private sector is the United States. As a result, in both countries, through the development of partnership, pension poverty has been addressed by the private and the public sectors working together. In most of continental Europe, it has not. That is precisely why those countries are facing a pension funding crisis, as indeed they are.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. If it is true, as of course it is, that we have a funded pension system in this country, that relieves the state of the enormous burden of supporting pensioners who are not looked after by the private sector. In those circumstances, surely we can afford to do better by those people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these are the figures. Those private occupational pensions, in turn, are heavily supported, and rightly so, by recycled rebates, as my noble friend will know. She will also know that around 60 per cent of personal pensions are funded only by recycled state rebates. So there is a question of whether one is talking about direct state funding or indirect state funding—by not requiring from employers and employees the contribution they would otherwise have made into SERPS. The package has to be seen in its totality. It is a partnership. I know that my noble friend believes in the rightness and propriety of private pensions. But, as a result, compared with most of Europe, we have a £60 billion private pension funded industry, which is therefore meeting the needs that elsewhere in continental Europe—unwisely, in my view—have to be met by the state and taxpayers in a pay-as-you-go system so that such countries are now having to contemplate raising their state pension age beyond ours, cutting back their pension levels and undoing the contract. They are having to contemplate doing that precisely because they do not enjoy the partnership that both we and the United States have had over many years.
We are already giving real help to all of today's pensioners. Winter fuel payments have been increased fivefold to £100 this year and for the first time will be paid before Christmas. We have cut VAT on fuel from 8 per cent to 5 per cent. There are free eye tests, concessionary travel and extra help with energy efficiency. Those are all measures that will have an impact on pensioners' lives. Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, rightly said, we are introducing in this Bill the stakeholder pension and in the new Bill that I hope will come through, a state second pension which together will in future lift pensioners out of poverty.
My noble friend Lord Shore referred to stakeholder pensions failing to address the problem of the poorest and the lowest paid. He is absolutely right. But stakeholder pensions are not intended for them. Stakeholder pensions are intended for those earning

337
between £9,000 or £10,000 and £20,000 upwards and can be run alongside personal pensions, occupational pensions and so on, up to Inland Revenue ceilings. The pension designed to help the poorest, which I hope to have the pleasure to bring before your Lordships later this year if the Queen's Speech so determines, will be the state second pension which is the reformed SERPS and is a funded pay-as-you-go scheme. It means that people earning between the lower earnings level of £3,500 and £9,000 will receive a pension as though they were earning £9,000. It is a redistribution to the poorest that was never contemplated in my noble friend's SERPS, under which those who earned the most received the highest pensions. On the contrary, under our proposals there will be a stakeholder pension for those who can afford a funded pension, which is cheap, fair, portable and transparent—in contrast to some of the personal pensions that have been mis-sold over the years—and for the poorest, about whom my noble friend is concerned, a state second pension which will redistribute heavily to the poorest, including women, the low paid and the chronically sick and disabled, who have not been able to build up a generous occupational pension record.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for clarifying the situation. The difficulty, as am sure she will recognise, is that that second state pension is not part of the Bill. We have great difficulty in envisaging quite what it contains. In order just to clear up one further point, can my noble friend tell me how many pensioners who are entitled to draw income supplements do not, for whatever reason, do so? That raises the question of human dignity and the natural reluctance of so many people to resort to that procedure.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is a very pertinent question. Around 1 million pensioners have incomes below the income support level. Some of those cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, identified—it is a matter of concern to your Lordships—arise because their capital takes them over that ceiling. We think that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners may be entitled under present rules to income support but do not claim. That is precisely why, in answer to previous questions in your Lordships' House when pressed by my noble friends Lord Hughes and Lady Castle, we have been trying to explain how we are ensuring that extra take-up. We are becoming successful at it. We are seeking to do it automatically. Our research shows that between a quarter and a half of all pensioners are not claiming income support but want to claim it within two years. We are making in-roads into that problem. If we do not target, the alternative is to spread the same bundle of money thinly over everyone so that those of us in this House would enjoy a modest increase but the poorest would get very little, if anything at all.
My noble friend Lady Castle referred to pensioners as pauper pariahs. That is simply not the case any more. I want to quote from the research of Professor
338
Robert Walker of Loughborough University which was quoted fairly extensively in The Times on 14th September 1999. As I said at col. 175 of Hansard on 11th October, Professor Walker said that the public misunderstanding of pensioner poverty was an obstacle for the Government in attempting to reform the pensions and benefits system. He stated that times have changed:
"A generation ago, the stereotype of the poverty-stricken pensioner was grounded in truth. Not so today. Some pensioners are very poor but most are not".
Professor Walker added that the Government's political problem is that public opinion,
"has not caught up with the mass of changes that have occurred".
He went on to say:
"Raising the state pension"—
that is what the amendments would do —
"would make richer pensioners richer and would not help the poorest",
because they would just lose out on their other benefits. That is the dilemma facing the House. Your Lordships can support my noble friend's amendment, but what you will do is ensure, as Professor Walker has said, that richer pensioners will become richer while poorer pensioners will not benefit at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right when he said that we have a long-term strategy—the state second pension and stakeholder pensions—to deal with long-term pensioner poverty by floating people off into good and decent occupational pensions. He is also right, as other noble Lords have identified, that in the mean time we have the problem of poorer pensioners. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. They tend to be older, usually widowed or single women, who have not built up an occupational pension. We are seeking to ensure that such people take up automatically—through the postal system or by telephone, without ever having to go into a benefit office—the minimum income guarantee to which they are entitled. However, if you depart from the Government's strategy and go for my noble friend's strategy what you will do—I quote Professor Walker—is make "richer pensioners richer" while doing nothing to help the poorest. I cannot believe that my noble friends behind me would feel that such a policy was consistent with the philosophies by which they have lived their lives. I hope that the House will reject the amendments.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: There is one fatal flaw in the Minister's argument about cost. As I expected, she pointed, as have others, to the enormous burden there would be—there would have to be increases in contributions and all the rest of it—if either of these two resolutions was put into effect. As the Minister has now admitted, a surplus does exist in the National Insurance Fund over and above the prudent basic level upon which the Government rightly insist.
The Minister fails to recognise two things that are happening. One is that national wealth is on a kind of escalator of affordability in terms of social wealth,

339
simply because it will be financed through earnings-related contributions. In return, the Government are offering price-indexed flat rate pensions. So there will be an increasing surplus. If there is not going to be a surplus, why are the Government proposing to cut the contribution rate?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the basic problem with my noble friend's argument, as I attempted to say earlier, is that the current surplus of some £5 billion or so over the balances proposed by the Government Actuary would pay for her proposal for two years only. She has failed to take into account the fact that across Europe, including the UK, there is a growth in the number of pensioners, and they are living longer. The ratio of pensioners to workers—particularly as young people now stay longer in education—is worsening across Europe. I agree that the position in the UK is probably better than that of many of our European contemporaries, but it is not good enough. The position will worsen and the National Insurance Fund will have to pay. We know that to be the case: pensioners are living longer; younger people are out of the labour market for longer; therefore, the workers have to support more people. That is why there is long-term pressure on the National Insurance Fund.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: The Minister has still not answered my question. Why are the Government proposing to cut contribution rates, to provide lower rates, so that there will be a smaller income out of which to meet the needs of the rising generation of old age pensioners?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are not.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I am sorry, but a cut in rates is proposed by the Government. It is part of a strategy that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and I, and those of my colleagues who have supported our amendments with such excellent speeches, are trying to point out to the House. The Government's strategy is to reduce the role of contributory pensions and increase the role of means-tested benefits, or benefits negotiated through private insurance—
Baroness Turner of Camden: That is right.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn:—and the declining number of those who have a good occupational pension scheme. It is that approach that we are fighting. That is what we face at this crucial stage of the Bill.
The Government have indicated that they will restore the earnings link in the longer term for minimum income guarantee. So we face the prospect of a contributory pension that is shrinking all the time under price indexing, and guaranteed means-tested income will go up under the earnings rule. It is true that the Government have not given a date yet. We are rather used to that. But they have conceded the point
340
that there will not be a guarantee unless the amount is uprated in line with the movement of incomes generally. That is the position that some of us are trying to fight.
I am extremely grateful to all those in the House who have supported what we are trying to do through these amendments. If we fail, this country will move inexorably towards the destruction of state insurance in its entirety. A contributory pension which is worth only 7 per cent of average national earnings can only be a pauper's pension. I repeat the word "pauper". We are talking about the people whom the Minister says the Government want to target. Pauperism is not just about quantity of money. It is about one's stature in society. It is time that those old age pensioners who are too old to benefit from the promised, not yet received, second state pension were acclaimed with the affection and dignity that they deserve, and not told that they are being targeted as "the poorest pensioners". How many of us would like to be labelled "the poorest pensioners", deserving of charity?
If it is money the Government are worried about, the most expensive way of helping anybody is through means-tested benefit. Government figures have shown that it costs £5 a week more per recipient to administer income support than it does to administer the contributory state pension. That is what we are fighting today. We could go on arguing the figures. I challenge many of the Minister's figures. She is a bit of a slippery eel—
Noble Lords: Order.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Yes, she is. I say it in affectionate admiration. I must say —
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, only deference and respect for my noble friend's long experience and great seniority stop me replying in kind.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: You are very welcome to, if you want to. I do not mind. I am thankful that this debate has come alive, and thankful that this Chamber is at last trying to face up to one of the crucial challenges of this century. Are we deliberately going to move to a divided society in which those who can enjoy a private or occupational pension, and the rest are dependent on means-tested charity? That is something I have always fought, and will continue to fight.
As I listened to the debate, and particularly to the Minister's speech, as regards targeting—"We're hard up, so we can't throw money about; fancy giving money to people who don't need it. What a waste of public funds"—I could not help thinking what our National Health Service would be like if that principle animated it. Do we ask what a patient's income is before offering treatment? They do in America. Yes, there are a lot of things that we admire in America. We are galloping after them as fast as we can. No, we say, "You are a citizen, you are human being, and we must so organise society that you can get some of the basic essentials of a decent life as of right".

341
The whole world admires our National Health Service, as I am sure do Members on all sides of the House. They do now; they did not like it when it started. Look at the National Health Service and the principles behind it. The targeting of income is not one of them, but targeting of clinical need, yes. Regardless of income, people receive treatment when a problem is discovered. I cannot see the National Health Service surviving very long in its present form if we allow this to happen to the state insurance, the great Beveridge scheme. I should think that he and Lloyd George are turning in their graves.
I want to thank all those who have spoken in support of our amendments. I want to thank noble Lords opposite, who have been courteous in saying nice things about me. Of course I like it; I appreciate it very much. But I should like far fewer compliments and more action. And who is following us into the Division Lobby today? I say advisedly that those who vote the other way will have deliberately chosen the destruction of the whole essence of our post-war society, which, for all its failings, has been the envy of the world.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L. [Teller]

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Clancarty, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dunleath, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elibank, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glanusk, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rix, L.

Holderness, L.

Rogan, L.

Hoyle, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jeger, B.

Selsdon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller]

Laird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinfen, L.

Layton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Long, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bach, L.

Ahmed, L.

Barnett, L

Ailesbury, M.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

342

Bragg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Brett, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Brookman, L.

Privy Seal)

Burlison, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Kintore, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

Londesborough, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Diamond, L

[Teller]

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dunrossil V.

Marsh, L.

Elder, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monson, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Filkin, L.

Montrose, D.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Northfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grabiner, L.

Reay, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grantchester, L

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hacking, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B

Harrison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warner, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

WEEKLY RATE OF BASIC PENSION
(" . In section 44(4) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, for "£66.75" there shall be substituted "£75".").
On Question, amendment negatived.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

REQUIREMENT TO STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBER: PARTNERS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS
(" . The Verification Project under section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 shall not be applied to the partners of asylum-seekers.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I can undertake that this amendment will not detain the House quite as long as the last amendment. It is technical; at points it is extremely technical. But people's liberties and chances of livelihood in this field depend on technical points. I hope, therefore, that it will be worthy of some attention. I am grateful to the Minister for the attention she has given the point already.
I apologise for introducing this matter at this late stage but it is a story that is only just beginning to break. It goes back to the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. Section 19 of that Act set up a project of verification that claimants are who they say they are. There are pilots in progress now. Reports from the pilots are beginning to come in. The key point of the Act was that it required the production of a national insurance number and evidence establishing that the national insurance number had in fact been allocated to that person.
There is nothing in that Act about the requirement to produce the national insurance number for the claimant's partner, but in fact partners as well as claimants are being required to produce national insurance numbers under those pilot projects. That raises the problem between individual claimants and individual responsibility as regards household benefit. In a number of situations the claimant's partner may not be in a position to produce a national insurance number while the claimant can do so. The situation is arising quite frequently in the London area with partners of asylum seekers, some of whom have been claiming asylum here, with their claim undetermined, for a considerable number of years. The record about which I heard was in the London borough of Westminster about three years ago. The claimant had been claiming for about 10 years. That gives plenty of time for people to marry.
National insurance numbers are not normally given to asylum seekers. The effect is that if a person happens to be married to an asylum seeker and makes a claim he produces his own national insurance number. He cannot produce the partner's number because she does not have one. The effect is that the partners of asylum seekers are being disentitled, in my view accidentally, to benefit.
I remember that when we debated the Bill the Minister and I were concerned about some of the possible effects of this clause. I do not think either of us ever envisaged that what I have described could be an effect. I am not certain whether the issue should be discussed on this Bill or on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As the Minister knows, I have tabled the amendment on both Bills and await a lead from Government on which is the most appropriate Bill. Having received no such lead, I now take the
344
opportunity to move it. I shall be interested to know what the Minister thinks about it and of other situations in which people may be disentitled to benefit accidentally because of the status of the partner.
It is a situation where problems are arising. I am grateful to the Minister for her interest. I look forward with considerable interest to her reply in due course.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for raising this important point. Like the noble Earl, I, too, look forward to the Minister's response. Perhaps I may ask two questions. Do the Government feel that the amendment would involve significant cost implications either through an increase in fraudulent claims or administrative costs? And do the Government feel that the amendment could be beneficial to those local authorities which have to support the partners of asylum seekers who fail the evidence of identity test?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the prior notice that the noble Earl gave. I have sought information which may take the House forward. I am intrigued that he has tabled the amendment on both Bills. Does the noble Earl think that he will receive the same answer from two different governments departments? I know that he would go for whichever answer was more favourable to his point.
The amendment seeks to exempt partners of asylum seekers from the requirement to provide sufficient information to allow their national insurance number to be traced or a number allocated to them. The requirement under Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 was one of a number of measures introduced to reduce the opportunity for fraudulent claims for benefit. The aim of Section 19 was to verify the identify of benefit applicants and to ensure that benefit goes only to those entitled to benefit who can prove that they are the person they say they are.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, the reason we went that far was because we had some evidence—some, no doubt, anecdotal and not scientifically established, although to my knowledge there have been cases—of people fraudulently claiming benefit under false names to which they were not entitled, sometimes involving extended families, or whatever. This is one of the ways in which we have sought to ensure that the money goes to those who are rightly entitled to claim it.
The requirement also extends to the partners of claimants for any benefit where the claim is made on behalf of both people or where extra money is paid in respect of a partner. For example, in respect of benefit, if you have larger accommodation by virtue of there

345
being two or more people it is important to guarantee the identify of that second person by which you qualify for the housing benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but can she tell me where the vires are for the extension to partners? I cannot find the words in the Act.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall have that checked. I do not have the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act with me.
If you are to identify the accuracy of entitlement to benefit where the benefit is based on more than one person you have to check all elements. For example, if you are claiming for three children, it is reasonable to ensure that there are three children and not one. It seems straightforward. If someone is claiming benefit as a single person, only that single person needs to have his entitlement checked. If you are claiming for two, three, four or five people, you need to check that entitlement. It seems straightforward. Given that the benefit will be what I call a multi-person benefit, I am not sure whether the question of vires arises. I shall have that checked. It is done for both people because without that condition it would be difficult to prevent or detect cases of fraud where the partner is independently claiming benefit at the same time, or even where the partner or alleged children do not exist.
I believe that a particular case may have influenced the noble Earl. If that is so, and if he will provide me with further details, I shall be happy to take it further. If he feels that anything we have said needs to be further discussed with organisations such as the CAB, so that people may know how to gain access to benefits in that situation, we shall be very happy to hold such discussions.
I am told that the vires is in Regulation 10, which states:
"In the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987(c) after regulation 2 there shall be inserted the following regulation
'Section 1 … shall not apply—

(a) to a child or young person in respect of whom income support is claimed;

(b) to a partner in respect of whom a claim for income support is made or treated as made before 5th October 1988'".

I thank the noble Earl for his copy of the statutory instrument. I believe that the copy he has provided answers, in Regulation 10, his own question.
I believe it may be useful to emphasise that the requirements of Section 19 should be neither onerous nor a barrier to genuine claimants.
It may be worth while outlining the processes by which national insurance numbers are issued. For most people who are born and brought up in this country in respect of whom parents have been receiving child benefit, the national insurance number is issued automatically at age 15. Their identity has been verified when their parents first claimed child benefit and by way of checks over the years.
346
However, there are people who, for one reason or another, have not been allocated a national insurance number through the child benefit route, the vast majority of whom are from abroad. When such people need a national insurance number, they are interviewed in person and must complete an application form. This is likely to be either when they want to start work and start paying national insurance contributions, or when they or their partners claim a benefit.
The main aim of the face-to-face interview is to establish the identity of the person applying for a national insurance number by requiring them to produce a range of evidence sufficient to support their account of themselves. No one document is regarded as conclusive proof of identity. Only a range of evidence in support of a person's life history can provide the necessary assurance. In other words, this is essentially about the credibility of the account.
We accept, of course, that many asylum seekers will have difficulty in producing a range of documents in support of their identity. If they had had ease of access to the documents, they might not have needed to be asylum seekers in the first place. That is why we do not rely on any specific document. A story can be verified, however, even in the absence of any documents at all. by means of intelligent questioning and by building up a consistent picture of the person. Our staff are fully aware of the reasons why asylum seekers may have little or no documentation. However, by using a combination of sensitive questioning and such evidence as is available, we believe that they can verify a story to the extent to which it is safe to issue a national insurance number.
If the noble Earl has experience to the contrary, I should be very grateful to hear of it. If, for example, he feels that we need to give extra guidance to the obvious ports of call to which people might go, such as a citizens' advice bureau, on how they can best do it, we shall be very happy to look at that. We want to be helpful in this respect. If, by virtue of not getting a national insurance number, some people are failing to qualify themselves and their partners for various benefits to which they are entitled, that would obviously be a matter of concern. We want to overcome those bureaucratic obstacles, while at the same time ensuring against the possibility of fraud. If the noble Earl has any proposals to put to us, I shall be very willing to follow them up with, for example, the NACAB to establish whether it has had similar experiences and how we can address them.
Given that, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The aim of Section 19 is to verify persons' identities, not for bureaucratic neatness but in order to prevent fraud. Without Section 19, a loophole would be left in our procedures which would enable claims to be made for non-existent partners or multiple claims for the same person. We see no reason why an exception should be made for the partners of asylum seekers. Such a measure would simply lower the standards of evidence needed for them and would weaken the rationale behind Section 19. We believe that our procedures are flexible and sensitive enough

347
to cope with these issues. However, if the noble Earl has any further concerns, we shall be very happy to follow them through.
I do not believe that hardship would be caused to asylum seekers without this amendment. I do not believe that their cause would be served by adopting it. Therefore, in the light of the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the care of that reply. This is not, of course, the sort of amendment which one considers pressing. One raises this sort of amendment in an attempt to gain clarification, of which I have gained a good deal. I am most grateful to the Minister for the information about the vires on partners. I did not actually supply her with the regulation. I supplied her with the text of Section 19. I believe that the regulation reached her by the usual process of osmosis!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I stand corrected. Following his generosity to contribute to the intellectual level of the debate, I was crediting the noble Earl with even more expertise on social security than is customarily the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am flattered. I entirely understand the point made by the Minister about non-existent partners. It is a valid point and I accept it. However, we need to distinguish between the claimant's own claim and the household claim on behalf of a partner. I do not understand why, because it is difficult to verify the identity of the partner, the claimant's own entitlement to benefit as a single person should also be threatened. I believe that this is a matter which calls for some thought.
I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for what she has said about help with regard to national insurance numbers. However, my information is that this does not relate to a single case, but to a whole sequence of cases in a number of local authorities. That suggests that the system is not working particularly well. It may be possible to get a national insurance number within a matter of weeks for those who are extremely fortunate. However, for most people, it takes a great longer than that. Indeed, one of our social security researchers in another place recently needed to claim another national insurance number, and it took no fewer than six months to get it. In my experience, that is by no means exceptional. If the Minister can think of any way of improving that, I shall be extremely happy to talk to her. However, I do not believe that I need to detain the House waiting while we do so. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [New allowances for bereaved spouses]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 60, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) At the conclusion of the two year period, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to an allowance, based on the contribution record of the deceased spouse (subject to the conditions in subsections (4) and (5) below), until he or she attains pensionable age or dies, whichever happens first.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return again, as I said I would on Report, to the matter of widows' benefits. At Report stage, the House agreed, with a substantial majority, to an amendment to extend the period of the bereavement allowance from the six months proposed by the Government to two years. That is, of course, an improvement. No one who knows anything about the trauma of bereavement believes that it can be overcome in six months or even a year. Therefore, this is a very welcome improvement. I said at the time, however, that I did not believe that it went far enough. After all, what the Government are proposing is the removal of a benefit to which widows over the age of 45 have hitherto been entitled as of right, based on the contributions of the deceased spouse.
My amendment seeks to restore the benefit to widows, taking account of the two-year amendment, and also extends the benefit to widowers, but on precisely the same terms as it is today paid to widows. It makes it quite clear that both sexes will benefit equally to the extent that the deceased spouse paid national insurance contributions. In other words, as happens now, it is a contributory benefit.
I expect that it will be argued again that this will result in benefits going to those who do not need them, but that is true of all contributory benefits. The Government redistribute through the tax system. They should not seek to do so through the benefits system, since this automatically impacts on poorer and more vulnerable people.
My major argument is that this is a contributory benefit and the Government are seeking to remove it from people who believe that they have a right to it because it has been paid for. To remove it would be a breach of contract, just as much as it would be were a private insurance company to refuse to pay out when policy conditions had been met.
The other argument against what I am proposing is that times have changed; most women work and are working at the time of bereavement and therefore have no need of the benefit. I believe that some of the statistics advanced in support of that argument are rather suspect. It is true, of course, that of the 17 million women of working age, approximately 12 million work. There is, therefore, a large proportion of women who work. However, there are 6 million part-time workers, and the overwhelming majority of those—about 5.4 million—are women.
There has been a slight narrowing of the gap between female and male earnings, but that is due to the impact of the minimum wage of £3.60 per hour. The minimum wage, which I welcome, has in fact

349
benefited mostly women; £3.60 per hour is certainly not a fortune. It is not within striking distance of the £15,000 a year which my noble friend the Minister has from time to time claimed to be the average earned by married women in work.
Moreover, about 5 million women do not work at all, either part time or full time. Presumably, they are spending their time bringing up their children. And no real research has been undertaken to see just what the effect will be of the removal of this benefit. There has been no challenge to my contention that households in which women are the main earners are in a minority. The loss of the wages of the principal earner in a household is bound to lead to hardship and a drastic reduction in living standards in many cases.
Nor is it true that many women will benefit from generous white-collar pensions. In support of her argument, on one occasion my noble friend quoted bank managers. Not all white-collar workers are bank managers, and pensions are not always all that generous. The average white-collar worker not at managerial level is likely to qualify for a pension of around £7,000 a year. His widow will qualify for about half of that. So for someone receiving a generous white-collar pension of £3,500 a year, the widow's benefit is a useful, indeed necessary, addition, even if she is successful in obtaining full-time employment at the rate of £3.60 an hour.
I repeat that much occupational pension provision, apart from top-hat provision for people at managerial level, is based on the assumption that there will also be a state benefit. That includes survivor's benefits as well as the basic state pension paid at normal retirement age.
I understand that the Government will make a profit from this scheme, even with the two-year amendment, of around £500 million a year. Why is it necessary to make this small profit at the expense of the bereaved? I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness moved the amendment with her customary technical expertise. The House has already decided to amend the Bill by extending the proposed 26-week period to two years. The origin of the matter is in the fact that the Government lost their case in the Court of Human Rights and they then extended the benefit to widowers as well as to widows. The Treasury, in a classic Treasury clawback, is seeking to recover the money it has to pay by penalising some other group. In short, the widower's benefit is to be paid for by a reduction in the duration of the benefit paid to widows.
Moreover, there is a degree of overkill to the extent of some £500 million. I presume that part of that arises because although the change will take place rapidly in respect of widows, due to computer problems there will be a technical delay in payment to widowers.
The noble Baroness rightly stressed the importance of the contributory principle in this context and the fact that contributory benefits are not normally means tested. However, while it is right to raise the matter
350
today I believe that we should wait and see what happens in another place. I profoundly hope that it will accept the amendment that has been made, but either way the Bill will return to this House when we can reconsider this issue. It is right to raise it at this stage because we believe that the Government's solution to the decision of the Court of Human Rights is not correct.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the amendment seeks to extend entitlement to bereavement allowance well beyond the two-year time limit currently on the face of the Bill. It would extend payment of the allowance to men and women alike right up until pension age.
My noble friend Lady Turner made her position clear on Report. I respect her views, although they are not the same as mine. However, I am baffled by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, not only supported the amendment from the Opposition Front Bench but put his name to it. When we debated the issue a fortnight ago, he seemed to be wedded to a different proposition. On that occasion, the noble Lord successfully secured an amendment to extend entitlement to the bereavement allowance to two years. He has now joined my noble friend Lady Turner in tabling an amendment which would annul his earlier one by allowing bereavement allowance to be paid beyond the two-year limit. I find that deeply perplexing.
He clearly accepted at Report the principle of a time limit and, indeed, pressed to the vote his proposal to set it at two years. Yet in a matter of only two weeks he has decided that there should be, in effect, no time limit at all. I realise, because the noble Lord has told us on many occasions, that in sitting on the Front Bench as Opposition spokesperson on social security he takes no responsibility at all for any policies expressed at the Dispatch Box by his Conservative predecessors at the DSS while they were in government on the ground that "it was nothing to do with him". However, I had hoped that he might take responsibility for his own policies of just a fortnight ago. But apparently not. When can we hope from consistency from the noble Lord?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's puzzlement. It seemed to me that although we had a discussion on the matter at the Report stage some of the issues were not fully debated. It seemed to be not inappropriate that we should have the opportunity of returning to them now, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to press the matter to a Division.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not think I am being personal if I say that, as answers go, to say that some issues were not dealt with is fairly weak. We had a substantial debate and two votes. For the noble Lord to believe that issues remain outstanding which should be raised for the first time at Third Reading on the ground that

351
he did not get round to them at Second Reading and during the Committee and Report stages after two votes seems to me to be thin. He nods; he agrees.
I had hoped that the debate had moved on. On numerous occasions, the Government have made the case that it is not right to pay a benefit for life regardless of circumstances. The amendment takes us back. It would undermine the Government's strategy of focusing support where and when it is most needed—on families with children and on the period immediately following bereavement. The amendment will do nothing to ensure that help goes to those in greatest need. It would provide continuing support for widows up to pension age, regardless of their circumstances or income and extend this support to widowers, regardless of their circumstances or income; whether it be the MP earning £45,000 or the banker earning £450,000 in the City. They will all receive widower's benefit for life whether or not they have financial need, a job or children.
There is no reason why men and women without dependent children, many of whom will have well-paid jobs or generous occupational pensions, should receive a benefit for the rest of their working lives. Our reforms will extend bereavement benefits to men and remove the assumption that widows, simply because they are women, should have to rely on benefits throughout their working life.
We have always said that we recognise that people need a breathing space to come to terms with the emotional and practical upheaval caused by the loss of their spouse. That is why we are proposing that the new bereavement allowance should offer financial support for a limited period following bereavement.
It is not easy to decide when that time limit should end. When we considered the needs of working age widows and widowers without dependent children—the majority of whom are in the labour market already—we weighed up all the arguments. I believe that we have made the case that it is not right that they should receive a benefit for the rest of their working lives regardless of their financial need, employment situation or dependent children.
At the Report stage I recognised that the original proposal for a six-month time limit in bereavement allowance was causing concern and I offered to accept an amendment put down by my noble friend Lady Crawley to extend that period to one year. We then had two Divisions. Noble Lords opposite voted for the two-year provision before the House had had a chance to express its view on one year. That was the way the procedure operated. Many noble Lords approved of the Government's position on the proposal for a one year period. It was supported not only by my noble friends on this side, but by the right reverend Prelates, Liberal Democrats, most of the Cross-Bench life Peers who voted, and even some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches.
352
However, that amendment was lost. We are now where we are and it is for the House of Commons to consider what it will do. Now the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Turner are asking the House to go much further. Effectively, this amendment would provide a benefit for the entirety of a widow or widower's working life, regardless of their need. It would cost over half a billion pounds every year in the long term and, incidentally, would add to the cost of the Conservative amendment which has been supported so far, bringing it up to nearly £4 billion.
I cannot believe that the House would wish to see a benefit of this sort going to men and women irrespective of income, financial need, employment situation and whether they have children attached to them. Are we really in the position of approving an unlimited benefit to women and men who may have six-figure salaries? That is what this amendment proposes. I very much hope that your Lordships will not accept such an amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I hear what the Minister is saying, and I simply do not agree. She has not answered my main argument. We are talking about a contributory benefit for which people have made contributions in their working lives. The deceased spouse made contributions believing that if he died—it is the case that we are mostly talking about widows—there would be some form of contribution from the state for the support of his widow. That widow may have spent most of her time with her spouse bringing up children and then will have to cope somehow or other with a much-reduced household income when he dies, perhaps in his late forties or early fifties.
The argument of the right of people to have a benefit for which they have contributed has not really been answered by my noble friend. I have to say that there is no meeting of minds on this point at all. I do not agree with the Government's position here, and I am sure my noble friend acknowledges that. We simply do not agree. I pointed out the fact that the main wage earner in most households is still the male. My noble friend has not answered the point that the position of women has not changed so drastically that the state contribution is no longer needed.
However, I see that there is really no point in calling a Division on the amendment as it has been thoroughly debated in the House. I simply put on record once again my dissatisfaction with the arguments advanced from the Dispatch Box this evening. I very much regret that the Government appear to be departing from the social insurance principle in which many of us have believed for many years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 57 [Claim or full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 63, line 26, at end insert —
("(1A) Regulations under this section may not impose any condition or requirement in respect of a person who—

(a) is in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance;

(b) has caring commitments of 35 hours per week or more; or

(c) is in receipt of widow's and bereavement benefits falling within section 20(1)(e) and (ea) of the Contributions and Benefits Act (other than a bereavement payment);

but may make provision for a person who falls within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) to be invited to take part in a work-focused interview on a voluntary basis.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Report I moved an amendment designed to remove from those in receipt of widows' benefits the necessity to attend for work-focused interviews as required by this clause. It will be recalled that the clause stipulates that failure to attend for such an interview can result in the removal of benefit. In other words, there is a measure of compulsion.
I tabled my previous amendment because present widows had been assured by the Government that they would continue to receive their benefit unaffected by the new legislation and that the new arrangements would apply only to individuals widowed in the future. The present widow's benefit is paid as of right, based on the contribution record of the deceased spouse. It is not means tested, as it is a contributory benefit, and no other conditions whatever are attached.
To introduce the further condition of attendance at work-focused interviews on pain of losing the benefit seemed to me a breach of the undertaking given by the Government that the benefits to present widows would not be affected. I was told by the Minister on Report that work-focused interviews were not only about getting people back to work, but also for giving advice and counselling. I said then that I would think about what had been said. I have since done so, and I must point out that bereavement counselling is already readily available from a number of organisations specialising in that area whose counsellors are probably far more expert than officials involved with the administration of benefits, however well trained.
Furthermore, it seemed to me that there were other categories of benefit recipients who should not be put under compulsion to attend for interviews on pain of losing benefits. As the amendment states, they are those in receipt of disability living allowance or attendance allowance, and those with caring commitments of 35 hours per week.
However, there is no reason why such people should not be told about the availability of such interviews and invited to attend on a purely voluntary basis. It is the element of compulsion to which I object. From what the Minister has said, I am hoping that she may find what I am suggesting here reasonable and sensible. I therefore tabled the amendment, even at this
354
late stage, in the hope that she may perhaps feel inclined to accept it, if not in this wording, then at least in similar terms. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by reaffirming our support for the principle of the work-focused interview. It is our belief that everything should be done to help and encourage into work anyone and everyone who can work. But this amendment allows a narrow and carefully defined category of certain individuals, not a broad range of people, the choice of whether or not to attend a ONE interview.
Those individuals already face considerable challenges in their everyday lives. They include individuals who, if they were able to work, would not be work-shy. Others, as carers, are already working arduous uncertain hours, often undertaking extremely difficult tasks. These individuals are constrained from working because of their disability, bereavement or caring duties, not because they do not want to work. We believe that for those individuals, compulsion is simply not necessary, appropriate or justifiable.
Those individuals should be encouraged to attend a ONE interview, but on an entirely voluntary basis. We urge the Government to encourage them and thereby afford them the same opportunity as everyone else. If that is done on a voluntary basis, it will contribute to their self-worth and self-esteem, and that must be right. It would give them confidence, a crucial ingredient for entering the world of work, through choice as opposed to making it a requirement of the law to attend.
We are already aware and expressed in Committee our real concern that the whole thrust of ONE has conjured up fear and raised considerable alarm among many people who are terrified at the prospect of not performing in an interview which is work-focused due to their disability. They fear that they will somehow fail, be penalised, and perhaps lose their benefits.
Noble Lords may recall that I suggested in Committee that the terminology "work-focused interview" is not at all helpful. "Personal development interview" would, in my view, be much better a way of describing what is at hand, not least because the Minister has striven to reassure us that the interview in fact concerns rights and benefits as much as work.
Indeed, the ONE learning assessment framework manual for advisers concentrates almost entirely upon benefits. In Committee and on Report we rehearsed the arguments against compulsory attendance at a ONE interview, particularly for the disabled. There was suggestion that we were somehow seeking to deny opportunities to those individuals. This amendment would provide them with choices—not threats—and with opportunities.
Further, I recall, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, believed that we were questioning the very value of interviews. Far from it, my Lords. We are extremely aware of the value of interviews. We do not support the dragooning of certain individuals who, if they are in receipt of disability living allowance or

355
attendance allowance, have already had to face a raft of medical panels and been signed off as incapable of work; or, if they are carers with commitments of 35 hours per week or more, are probably already coping with the logistics of juggling those caring commitments with meeting other family commitments which may impinge upon their daily and—dare I say?—nightly lives. Is it fair or indeed cost effective to insist that those categories of individuals attend a ONE interview on a compulsory basis? Where is the value in that compulsion?
In conclusion, I fear that it seems to me quite clear that the most vulnerable people in the country are having to meet the most demanding criteria relative to their condition.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a good amendment. I believe that nothing goes deeper in the divisions between this party and new Labour than the issue of compulsion. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister put forward an extremely powerful and carefully argued defence of compulsion to which I listened with great interest. The central principle of what the Minister said was, "You don't know what you don't know". She argued that people should be made to attend in order to receive information. But the Minister's principle that "You don't know what you don't know" cuts both ways. Of course, there is a great deal about people who have disabilities, who are carers, who have carers to look after them, or who have been recently bereaved which cannot be within the knowledge of those arranging the interviews.
The case against compulsion comes under two headings. The first is the compulsion to attend the interview, which, formally, is all that is in the Bill. The other is the possibility of mistaken decisions being reached at that interview. I agree entirely with the Minister that many people with disabilities are capable of doing extremely valuable work. Any Member of this House who denies that has not attended recently. But we need to know each disabled person as an individual because we all know that what two people with an outwardly identical handicap can manage to do despite that handicap is not the same. There is a mental factor in this which is perfectly genuine and not always understood.
Similar reasoning applies when one is dealing with pain. Nobody really knows how much pain other people are suffering. I have even known family doctors make quite grave errors on this point. It is very difficult indeed for someone who has never before met a person who is in pain to reach an accurate decision on whether that person feels too much pain to be able to do what is required of them.
When we deal with carers, we must consider not only the interests of the carer but also the person who is being cared for. If your mobility is limited or if your mental state is disturbed, you have a very high degree of dependence on your carer. You may be faced with the fear of an interview which may take your carer away from you and cast you into a quite unknown
356
situation. I observe the Minister shaking her head. But were she to explain that to someone who suffers perhaps from acute depression, I believe she would find that, although her reassurance is rational, it might not be enough. One cannot put forward policy on the assumption that everybody who needs to be cared for is rational all the time. Apart from anything else, acute pain makes one irrational from time to time.
With regard to bereavement, I refer to the extremely powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, when we discussed the bereavement allowance in Committee about the length of time it may take in some cases to make the necessary adjustments. One cannot know without being inside somebody else's skin which people can make it quickly and which people make it slowly. Lady Seear once said that it is not right to require people to go straight from graveside to job centre. That is one reason why we on these Benches support this amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for, particularly, the second part of this amendment which refers to carers. I wish to add a few comments to what noble Lords have said. I shall speak briefly and only to that part of the amendment.
I believe it is sometimes difficult for people to understand that those with heavy caring commitments are still extremely interested in having a job outside the home. That is not only for financial reasons but, perhaps even more importantly, for psychological reasons. It is not always easy to remain in that type of relationship at home, constrained as one often is. Therefore, carers want to move into the job market. However, that has to be handled extremely sensitively.
I made the point previously to your Lordships about sensitivity and training that the people who conduct the interviews must have. Also, the way in which the interviews are—if I may put it this way—marketed to those who may be involved is extremely important. I believe that we must be very careful how we deal with such interviews.
On the other hand, however, I can think of some instances in which compulsion to attend an interview has been beneficial to carers. In particular, I think of carers in a New Deal programme in the north west which the Carers National Association conducted in partnership with Centrica. They specifically targeted carers to persuade them to enter Centrica's workforce. Their first efforts to bring in the carers were not at all successful because the carers could not understand that they were the people who should be encouraged to come into the workforce. It took much more aggressive marketing to say, "Yes, we do need you", to involve the carers in that particular programme. I am happy to say that it is now extremely successful.
Therefore, as the noble Lord said, it seems that the key issue is to treat people as individuals, to think about their psychological as well as their financial needs, and to think about the way in which the

357
interview is operated. That is much more important than whether the interview is voluntary or compulsory.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this has been a short but very thoughtful and scrupulous debate.
The amendment seeks to exempt from compulsory work-focused interviews three groups of claimants: those who receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance; those with caring responsibilities of 35 hours per week or more; and those in receipt of widows' and bereavement benefits.
The arguments for inclusion of those groups in the provisions of this clause are essentially those that I have used with your Lordships throughout the course of this Bill. It is a key principle of our welfare reforms that people should be treated as individuals and not be put into a box, as my noble friend said, which carers do not believe applies to them. We want to move away from that rigid categorisation which says, "If you are a disabled person you have no interest in working. Therefore we shall not encourage you to think about the opportunities", and so on. Yet we know that 8 per cent of those on DLA are in employment.
If we are to make progress in moving those at risk of falling into the twilight or the edges of our society because they live on benefits which do not give them the full quality of life that they would wish, we cannot afford to deny them the help that our reforms will offer them.
I turn now to the amendment. I shall speak to each of the three groups in turn. First, obviously the reference to attendance allowance is unnecessary because attendance allowance is payable only to those who have attained pensionable age. The clause does not apply to anyone over the age of 60. As we made clear when we introduced an amendment on Report, there is no requirement that pensioners should attend work-focused interviews. Only pensioners are eligible for attendance allowance.
DLA is payable to people who, because of their disability, incur additional costs in relation to their care or mobility needs. Its recipients include, but are not limited to, those with the most severe disabilities. For example, someone who receives DLA may have acute intelligence, acute skills and enjoy general good health, but may be a paraplegic and may therefore need higher rate DLA in order to qualify for a Motability car, which then gives him the very mobility he wants. That person may be an extraordinarily effective addition to the labour force but the amendment would wipe out the invitation to that person to come in to the work-focused interview.
7 p.m.
Lord Higgins: What about DLA?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, DLA is a broad sweep of category in the amendment. In the same way that we included attendance allowance,
358
which can only be paid to pensioners and therefore is not relevant, although I accept that among those who receive DLA there may be those who are so severely disabled that they need constant care and attendance, it also includes people who are receiving a motability car which then gives them exactly the independence they need to enter the labour market. To categorise people because they receive DLA as not to be on the receiving end of a requirement to attend an interview does them no kindness.
While people who receive DLA as their only benefit will not be subject to the provisions of this clause, people with DLA who then claim a benefit which is covered—for example, income support—will be subject to the requirement to participate in a work-focused interview.
The fact that this clause could apply to recipients of DLA does not mean that all recipients of this benefit will be subject to work-focused interviews. Advisers will be trained and guided to consider each case individually using all the information available to them. They will consider whether a client will benefit from an immediate interview or not. If not, that interview may be waived or deferred. Clearly, if somebody is on DLA, on highest rate care, on what I call the six months or under special rules—that is, they are regarded as having a terminal illness—of course no one is suggesting that compulsory interviews apply.
I can assure your Lordships that these provisions will be applied with appropriate sensitivity. We are working with all the voluntary organisations to ensure that they guide us not only in training staff but in continuing to train and advise staff once the schemes are up and running so that they may stay up-to-date with the knowledge they need.
The argument for including carers within the scope of this clause is the same as that for people with disabilities. Of course we respect and value the role performed by carers. We are emphatically not suggesting that carers give up their caring responsibilities and take a job.
What we are saying is that caring duties do not last for ever. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley knows infinitely more about this than I ever will. Caring for a child who, for example, will be dependent as an adult may well be a lifetime commitment. Caring, say, for an elderly parent or a seriously ill spouse may not be. We know that the median length of time that someone is on ICA is two years. One quarter of all carers care for around six months or less. Only one-fifth care for more than five years. There is a wide range of experiences here according to whom the carer is caring for.
I therefore endorse the remarks of my noble friend. Carers who are permanently outside the labour market not only become poor but socially and emotionally isolated. When they, in turn, come to need care they may well find that there is no one to care for them. One of the best ways to ensure that carers re-enter full society is to ensure that they remain sensitively and properly in touch through an adviser with the potential to re-enter the labour market as and when they are ready.

359
As I have said, around 10 to 15 per cent of carers work in spite of the fact that they have heavy caring commitments. Others may wish to do so. We would not want to deny them that opportunity. The same argument applies with respect to widows and widowers. Recently bereaved people must and will be treated with appropriate respect, consideration and compassion. But we must have regard to the individual circumstances of each claimant. In my view, a blanket exclusion of those on attendance allowance or DLA, of carers, widows and widowers would do absolutely nothing to address, meet and reveal individual needs. It would deny many the very help and support they need at a difficult time.
As I have tried to make clear in earlier discussions, the ONE service is not just about jobs, although work for those who can is a central aim. It is also about providing an holistic approach to the welfare needs of each claimant based upon their individual circumstances. If those needs are best met by helping individuals to move towards the labour market, that is what will be provided. If they have different needs, such as help in stabilising their financial position or bereavement counselling, we will provide that help and ensure that those who can at least help them are available to them. Each person will be treated according to their personal needs, which is the basic tenet of ONE.
Many widows and widowers choose to work. Those who have given up work to provide care for their spouses may move back to work quite quickly. Others, if they have children, may wish to stay in touch with the labour market to improve their future employment prospects. We will offer tailored help via their adviser.
The core of the debate is whether access to the additional service of ONE that we wish to provide should be on a voluntary or compulsory basis. In my view the argument here is clear. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in putting words into my mouth did so entirely accurately. If people have not had the advantages of a new system explained to them, how can they arrive at a sensible conclusion as to whether or not they should volunteer? How can people decide whether or not they want the help the ONE service can give them until someone has told them what help is on offer?
As I said to the House on a previous occasion, I have changed my mind on this issue so far, for example, as concerns lone parents. When I first started at the Dispatch Box I thought that voluntary interviews for lone parents were all that was necessary. I thought that those who were ready would take them up and those who did not come for interview were those with caring responsibilities who would not want to enter the labour market and it was not right to encourage them to do so. I have to say that I have changed my mind. The evidence is overwhelming that the element of compulsion for new lone parents will be essential.
Where interviews are voluntary, we know that 80 per cent of those to whom we extend an invitation do not respond. Yet, of the 20 to 25 per cent of those who do respond, 90 per cent choose voluntarily to join
360
the programme. It is perhaps worth repeating those figures. On a voluntary basis, 80 per cent of lone parents do not respond to the letter. Of the 20 to 25 per cent who do respond, over 90 per cent choose voluntarily to join the programme. How on earth do we reach the other 80 per cent unless we can bring them within the corral of a preliminary interview? Overwhelmingly, of those who do respond, over 90 per cent go on to join the programme by choice.
That is why I say that people do not know what they do not know. When lone parents come in for an interview for the first time they realise what is available to them, as do disabled people, carers, widows or widowers who have perhaps been out of the labour market for some time. Only then can they make an informed choice as to what they want to go on to do. That has been my experience in trying to address the identical issue with lone parents who may have come out of a bad relationship and have dependent children. They need to know. When they do know, they voluntarily make informed choices that suit their needs.
I hope your Lordships will accept that we mean such interviews to be holistic, not just work-focused; to offer a range of information, services and advice about benefits to which they may be entitled; counselling support; debt counselling support; bereavement support that may be necessary; training and childcare opportunities or whatever is appropriate. Most people cannot know that sort of information unless they have come within the purview of that interview.
I take the point about the work-focused interview in relation to the comments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, some of which I rather sympathise with. In future we shall describe the interviews as "personal adviser meetings" in order to lower the possibility of stress and tension associated with the word "interview". That point was sensitively made and we are, indeed, taking that on board.
The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the need for sensitivity in training among personal advisers. She has seen the training pack. We are working closely with the voluntary organisations to ensure that that training is delicately and sensitively done and, as I say, is holistic.
However, I ask your Lordships not to effectively write off those on DLA with another benefit, widows, widowers and those who are carers, from coming within the range of this service. From my experience with lone parents, if such a "personal adviser meeting" is voluntary, people do not attend. Yet, if they do attend, 90 per cent want and choose to go on the programme and are glad that they do so. Had we not sent the letters out, they would not have come.
My concern is how we reach the rest. If noble Lords were minded to support the amendment there would be a repetition of the same experience. These people would be confined to the edges of society, living on inadequate income and support, with an inadequate social life, because they had not learned of the opportunities that exist.

361
It is not an onerous requirement. They will attend a simple meeting. If that meeting is inconvenient, if it is deferred because of a person's health or recent bereavement, or if the meeting needs to take place in the person's home in the presence of a friend or a carer, that is acceptable. It is not meant to be threatening or create barriers. It will ensure that people who are pushed to the edges of society as a result of their responsibilities or experiences, have the information with which to join mainstream society. Knowledge is power, and the Government wish to empower people. If the amendment were to be accepted, there would be a risk that they would not have that knowledge and they would effectively be disempowered. I hope that noble Lords will not accept the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her very detailed and compassionate response to the amendment, and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this very interesting debate. I share the views that were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that "work-focused interviews" is not a very good name for what my noble friend has described. If personal development were the key issue, the situation might be different.
My problem is that I do not like the notion that the people referred to in the amendment, who are rather vulnerable, should have to attend an interview on pain of losing their benefits if they do not do so. It is that element of compulsion that I dislike about this section of the Bill, but if the administration of this section will be as described by the noble Baroness, then it is unobjectionable. It is reasonable that people should be encouraged to come in and be spoken to about their personal development and training opportunities. The problem is that that would be against the background that if they do not come in for the interview they could conceivably lose their benefits.
In view of the very detailed explanation given by the Minister, and the fact that there will be no further opportunity to consider this matter under this section of the Bill, I feel inclined to see how it works out in practice. If the interview is a personal development interview instead of a work-focused interview and if the emphasis is not on people losing benefits if they do not show up, then that will be a very good move.
A great deal more could be done to market what is available. People do not always realise what opportunities are available. There should be marketing of the interviews and an explanation of what they involve. Sometimes people are wary and afraid when summoned to an interview. We do not want people to stay away because they are afraid and then lose benefits as a result. If the Government intend to pursue this in the way indicated by the Minister, that would be satisfactory to most noble Lords, including my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley, whose support I value. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No.8.
Page 64, line 25, at end insert—
("(g) for carrying out a full review of the effects of the interviews and decisions connected with them on specific groups of claimants, to ensure equality of treatment and consistency of standards and to disseminate examples of good practice, such review to—

(i) include consideration of the effects on those with disabilities, black and ethnic minorities, and those whose first language is not English, and

(ii) include consultation with relevant bodies, to include the Disability Rights Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and organisations of, or representing, people with mental health problems;

and to take place not less than one year and not more than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are returning to the idea of obtaining the right type of information from these compulsory interviews, and the question of training and support for the people who conduct the interviews. We have been round this course several times. The amendment will enable the correct information to be extracted from those people who are being interviewed.
We propose a review process whereby the information gathered is assessed by those who know it from the special groups. I have always said that these interviews potentially have two edges. I should like to see the right type of interviews conducted for the right groups.
We can talk about this for a long time, but I have consistently expressed the fear that the people who conduct the interviews will not be properly trained. The noble Baroness has assured me that they will be well trained. I have countered that assurance by asking whether they will be trained in the right areas and asking about groups with mental health problems. The noble Baroness has addressed this point, for which I thank her. She has been in touch with charities which have in turn been in touch with me.
The amendment would extend the process further in identifying best practice and where it does not work. I am asking for a process of review that would identify where things are going wrong. If the process is carried out properly, we shall be able to enhance it. The problem that we all fear is that, if we get it wrong, people's lives could be utterly destroyed. The noble Baroness has acknowledged that potential danger. The amendment would allow a review of the process as it develops.
I hope that the noble Baroness will respond favourably to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome the amendment. It adds a safeguard for cross-cultural awareness. It is vital to consider the training of advisers and the effect of the process upon black and ethnic minorities, which have not yet been mentioned

363
in discussion of the Bill, as well as those with disabilities and those whose first language is not English.
Much depends on the administration of the Bill and particularly the training of advisers and the sensitivities displayed by those advisers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, stated, it is very important to see what happens in practice.
If the Government decide to reject the amendment, what guidance will be given to personal advisers on how to respond to people from minority communities with such problems as those highlighted in the amendment, particularly those whose first language is not English?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I are reading Amendment No.8 in the same way. It seeks to place an obligation on the Government to undertake a review of the impact of work-focused interviews and the decisions taken by one's staff and asks us to consider the effect on people with disabilities, those from ethnic minorities and those whose first language is not English. The amendment, as I understand it, is concerned with reviewing information on the progress of this initiative and ensuring that it is handled professionally and made available. However, the noble Lord also spoke about the adequacy of training of personal advisers.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if we do not take on board what is going on, we shall not know how to change the training. That is what we are getting at. If mistakes are being made in training, or one party has it right and another has it wrong, we shall not know. It is a matter of disseminating information about training.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is saying that we need the research in order to get back a learning loop. The simple answer to that —I can cut a couple of pages here—is yes; we are placing great emphasis on collecting and publishing a whole range of information. It will be one of the most closely monitored initiatives I can think of, other than perhaps the Child Support Agency.
We shall be collecting information on areas such as the number of people who go through the service and are referred to a job vacancy; the number having their interviews deferred; why the deferral occurred; how long for; information on those failing to take part in an interview; the appeals decisions and so forth.
In addition—this is more pertinent because the first is simply a collection of numbers—we shall be conducting a full and comprehensive evaluation of the pilots which will have qualitative as well as quantitative elements. It will assess whether the pilots led to an increase in the sustainable level of employment by getting more people into work; it will also—this is pertinent to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was saying—seek the views of clients regarding the actual level of service that they received.
364
Personal advisers will be interviewed to ensure that lessons are learnt to help to make the service we offer more effective. Again, much of the qualitative information will be broken down so that we understand whether the impact on the ONE service for each of the main client groups differs from that overall picture. We shall also be monitoring the effect of disentitlement. The evaluation data and the current survey will allow us to see what is happening.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that key organisations, representing people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and people with mental health problems are consulted in the review process. That is already happening now with the training and will continue to happen as we roll out the scheme. We shall get their advice and experience as we look back at our work. For example, the ONE consultation forum gives national organisations representing disabled people, carers, lone parents and people with mental health problems the opportunity to discuss emerging issues with Ministers and senior officials. At a national level, the BA Annual Forum and the Disability, Homelessness and Ethnic Minority Forum have begun to run two-way sessions on the operation of the ONE project, bringing together officials and delegates of all the major organisations representing those clients.
We also have local networks of supervision. I could go on and on. But I hope that noble Lords will be assured that not only are we collecting what I call the traditional statistical material of numbers, outputs, through-puts, sustainable job levels and so forth, but we are also going into the area which quite rightly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in relation to the quality of service to clients; their views on the quality of that service; the degree to which we are being supported and sustained by the voluntary organisations and the degree to which all that can be fed back into training. Yes; we are doing it in spades! I hope that when we see some of that research coming through noble Lords will be able to join with us in feeling that this is a worthwhile new development by government.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have one brief question for the noble Baroness. Will that process involve bodies receiving back reports? This is one of the reasons the amendment was tabled. Most people go to an organisation if they have a problem. That is generally the way with which these matters are dealt. People look for support. Primarily for the record, can the noble Baroness tell us what would be the process and how a person or group who is not in that loop, can get into it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I am not entirely sure I understand the noble Lord. What is it that the individual client would want to know? I can then perhaps help as to how that information might come to them. Statistics, for example, will be in the annual reports, the quarterly reports, the PQs and so forth. Guidance notes would go through to CABs and voluntary organisations. If information is required

365
about the consultation that has taken place with the voluntary organisations, that may be in the voluntary organisations' annual reports. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me further.
Lord Addington: My Lords, what I am trying to get at—it is like pulling teeth and I apologise to the House for this— is that when people have problems, they tend to go to help groups; groups that exist outside the Government, such as the voluntary organisations. People go there for support when they feel they have a problem. The amendment seeks to bring those groups into the legislation. and this is by no means an exhaustive list. They would then be able to tell the Government if they have a problem. The process is extremely important to people's lives. If the Government go to the groups straightaway, it simply tightens the link. Will the Government have a format whereby people will know where to go to become involved in the link?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if any group is not involved but would like to be, perhaps it will contact us because we are working closely with all the major national organisations; those for disabled people; those for people who have a language other than English as their first language; those for ethnic minority groups, and so forth. We believe that our trawl was extensive, and the DSS has a lot of experience in this. But if the noble Lord feels that any specific organisations should have a voice but may have been overlooked, I shall be grateful if he will let me know. I shall ensure that they are embraced within the procedures.
Lord Addington: My Lords, being told in Parliament that there will be a constantly open door is probably what I was seeking. Having been offered that invitation on the Floor of this Chamber is about as good as it is going to get and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved. Amendment No. 9
Page 67, line 41, at end insert—
("(2) This section is subject to section 84(4A).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return to the same issue we were discussing in Amendment No. 7; that is, the issue of compulsion. We have had two theoretical cases competing with each other put fairly powerfully on both sides. Amendment No. 9 asked for evidence. To obtain evidence to choose between two rival sets of principles is not an ignoble ambition.
The question is: when people are actually disentitled to benefit, what happens to them? We know very little about that. I do not see how we can consider the effect of a policy of disentitlement when we do not know what happens. We get then a contest between two opposite moral principles without any way of anchoring either of them in experience.
We know a limited amount. There is government research in the MORI report on 16 and 17 year-olds and the incapacity benefit leavers tracking study, both
366
of which show a significant percentage of those affected as having no income. Those people are not actually dead, so they must be keeping alive in some other way. It could be of interest to find out in precisely what way they are keeping alive; to find out in particular how many of them are suffering ill health. Anyone who has read the Acheson report knows perfectly well that there is a clear link between poverty and ill health, and a clear link between being on benefit and ill health. One would expect, therefore, that there might be an even clearer link between having no benefit and ill health.
It is no good simply asserting that as a hypothesis. We ought to have some evidence on it. We know also that a number of people who have got into drug running have done so because they were disentitled to benefit and because it was the only way they could make a living. The MORI report on 16 and 17 year-olds documented that, among other pieces of research. Amendment No. 9 suggests that, when compulsion is brought in under this Bill, the Government should set up pilot studies into the effect of the compulsion and what happens over the next year to the people who have been disentitled to benefit. Presumably those who hold for the idea that it is a short, sharp, salutary shock suppose that those to whom it happens decide to reform their ways and return to actively seeking work and generally conform. Whether that is the case, or whether those concerned sink into an underclass, disappear from the records without trace and do things which would not stand very much inquiry, is a question of some importance.
You cannot judge whether a policy is justified until you know the nature of its actual effects. On the one hand, it is asserted that it is not right to pay people benefit for doing nothing, while, on the other hand, it is asserted that all these people are human beings and we should not starve them. Why cannot we have some decent information? I have been asking for this for a long time; and I am still asking. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we fully support a proposal for a full review of the pilot schemes, in particular the gathering and publication of information regarding the outcome of those who do not attend personal adviser meetings. I should say here that I am very pleased to be referring to the ONE interview as that; indeed, I am grateful to the Minister for that change. What happens in relation to the benefits of these claimants if they fail to turn up three times? What happens to those people? Are the procedures introduced at the pilot scheme stage flexible enough in practice to deal with all those who must attend?
The amendment proposed highlights the diverse situations which the interviewer may find himself or herself in as a personal adviser coping with those interviews. Can the Minister say whether the processes for communicating with the Benefits Agency are sufficient to cope with what one might describe as "exceptional cases"?

367
We welcome the pilot schemes. However, we believe that the Government have, in large part, accepted the enormity of the challenge of introducing the personal attendance meetings. Indeed, they have undertaken the pilot schemes to see how the process works. Therefore, it would surely make sense to evaluate the workings—the successes and the failures—before bringing Clause 57 into force.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, part of the answer to evaluating what we are doing with the ONE programme was, I hope, given to your Lordships in reply to the previous question; namely, that we are monitoring both quantitatively, in terms of the number of people coming through, and qualitatively, in terms of the experience from the perception of the client, the personal adviser and the voluntary organisations. We seek to feed that back into the training and learning experience of the personal advisers who, as I believe all noble Lords recognise, will be at the heart of this process.
In terms of monitoring what is happening with the ONE programme, I hope that noble Lords will accept that, as regards the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, monitoring and evaluation will continue. However, the second part of the amendment is a worry, as expressed very powerfully, as always, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerning what will happen to those who are disentitled. There are two separate issues here: first, the degree of monitoring of the scheme overall; and, secondly, what will happen to those who are disentitled.
The noble Earl referred particularly to the lack of evidence as regards the withdrawal of other benefits which would enable us to see what is happening. We believe that clients will be keen to participate in the meetings that we propose. Of the two pieces of research that are to hand on those who have come off benefit, one of them, which relates to those who leave incapacity benefit as a result of no longer meeting the eligibility conditions, was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, I wonder whether the noble Earl is also familiar with the research regarding those who have been disentitled to JSA and what happened to them, which was published in 1998. The findings in that respect were mixed. The research did not indicate that the respondents had ended up in prison, but—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister who actually recommended that research to me at the time. I have indeed read it. There is information on the availability or not of income, but not on how people succeeded in making a living. That is what we need to know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Possibly, my Lords. However, what the research also showed—and I think this is pertinent to our discussion this evening—was that respondents wanted more face-to-face treatment; that is to say, someone to explain what was happening to them. They also said that they needed better
368
explanations and more consistent information, which is precisely what ONE aims to provide. In other words, of those JSA claimants who became disentitled, one of the consistent complaints was that they had not had the face-to-face service that the ONE programme is designed to introduce.
We believe that the vast majority of people will want, and recognise, the propriety of having an interview as a pathway into their benefit. We expect the numbers regarding those disentitled to be very small. We want to elicit co-operation, not impose sanctions. We want to remind people of the safeguards, especially those who may be vulnerable. First, the personal advisers have the ability to waive or defer meetings. Secondly, clients will have three opportunities to attend a meeting before a decision is made that they have failed to take part. Thirdly, clients will get numerous clear verbal and written reminders of the need to have a meeting as part of the condition of claiming benefit, which will be drafted with the help of the lobby groups.
There will also be a comprehensive good-cause provision to ensure that those who fail to attend with good cause are not penalised. Clients will be able to dispute or appeal against decisions that they failed to take part, and they can have those decisions overturned. I repeat what I said earlier. We will visit people in their homes when this is appropriate. Moreover, if we have failed to make any contact with someone, we will ensure that we make a home visit first before there is any move to disentitle him or her from benefit. At the end of the day, I really believe that the numbers of those disentitled will be extremely small. I hope that it will be a wilful choice and not one caused by either lack of information on the side of the client or lack of effort on the side of the agency.
In light of the fact that we are, on the one hand, tracking very carefully through research what is happening to the ONE process and, on the other hand, putting in place an abundant array of safeguards for those who might be at risk of losing a benefit, such as those I have just itemised to the House, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a long and careful reply. However, there is rather more to be done here than she suggested. In order to have any serious tracking of what happens to people who are disentitled to benefit, we will obviously have to have joined-up use of records between different government departments. We must, for example, break down the Chinese wall between the social security statistics and the criminal statistics; and we must break down the Chinese wall between the benefit statistics and the health statistics. It is only when we can see what correlation there is, or is not, between disentitlement to benefit and effects in either health or criminal matters that we can really know what we are dealing with.
I accept that I have received a very serious and sympathetic reply, but I do not believe that it has met what I am asking for; indeed, I do not think that the Minister really expected that it would. This is not the

369
right moment to take the matter further, but the noble Baroness can take it for granted that I will do so on other occasions—I fear, on many other occasions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Incapacity benefit: persons incapacitated in youth]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 71, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("notwithstanding") in line 39 and insert ("incapacity benefit shall, in prescribed circumstances, be entitled to short-term incapacity benefit under subsection (1)(b) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment makes a slight revision to an amendment to which the House agreed on Report. It is entirely beneficial. The changes that we introduced to Clause 62 were intended to protect two specific groups of people. The two groups were those who take up employment and earn below the LEL for a lengthy period before becoming incapable again of work, and those who return to the UK after a long period abroad. In neither case would they have had the opportunity to establish a contribution record to qualify for IB in the normal way.
The amendment will improve the original wording to reflect our intention that, in addition to new claimants who are awarded IB as a result of Clause 62, existing SDA recipients aged under 20 at the point of change who will transfer to IB a year later, will also be covered by this concession. I hope that noble Lords will be happy to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for the exemplary care and courtesy with which she has kept us informed of the content of government amendments at all stages of this Bill. That has done a great deal to save the time of the House and, in order not to refute myself, I shall sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Transitional provisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigharn Baroness Hollis of Heigharn moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 84, line 12, at end insert (", or under section 31(7B) of that Act if the marriage was dissolved by a decree granted in proceedings so begun").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20. This is a small group of technical amendments relating to pension sharing. As pension sharing is extremely complex, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to seek their agreement to some final important touches to the legislation.
Amendment No. 12 is required to make clear the policy intention that pension sharing should be available only where divorce proceedings begin after the pension sharing provisions come into force. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is no provision for
370
pensions which have been shared and then uprated to be paid at the new rate. Amendment No. 18 puts this right.
Amendment No. 19 is necessary to ensure that any additional administrative expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the supply of information for pension sharing can be met from the appropriate vote. Amendment No. 20 extends Section 178(a) of the Pension Schemes Act, with which I am sure your Lordships are entirely familiar. The amendment extends to earmarking cases in Scotland the power under Section 178(a) to say who are the managers of an occupational pension scheme. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Extent]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 86, line 28, leave out from ("70") to end of line.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are not only technical but are also consequential. They remain in the Bill rather like the smile on the face of the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland after the cat itself had disappeared.
I shall not detain the House more than a moment or two but I shall make just two points. First, at Report stage I expressed some concern at a particular passage in an employees' bulletin issued by the chairman of the Inland Revenue. He has with great courtesy written to me about this and stated in the clearest terms that it was certainly never intended that the statement should be read in any other way than as a factual statement. I fully accept what he says and would like to place that on the record.
Secondly, as regards the cat which has disappeared, it remains to be seen what steps the Government now propose to take with regard to IRS35, whether in the Finance Bill or by way of further amendment. Clearly some of the consultations in which the Government took part have been helpful in improving what was originally proposed. However, there is still quite considerable concern among smaller operators in the IT industry, in particular that they may find themselves disadvantaged by what was further suggested in relation to their larger competitors. All I say at this stage is that I hope very much that the Government will carry out further consultations, because everyone has the same objective; namely, to ensure that tax avoidance does not occur. However, it is important that that should be done in a way which does not damage industry or the state of the economy. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that these amendments are consequential on the removal of Clauses 71 and 72 and we shall not oppose them. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord

371
Higgins, has just said, I should say a little more about the Government's intentions. I sent a letter to the noble Lord today which he will not have received because he has been on duty in the Chamber. I have sent copies of the letter to all other noble Lords who took part in the debate on this subject, including the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who also probably has not seen the letter. We shall seek to reverse in the other place the vote at Report stage on the service companies measures. I shall not repeat the debate any more than the noble Lord did but I wish to respond in public to a point that he made about the use of a Finance Bill because, although that point is mentioned in the letter I have sent to him, it is important that that should be placed on public record.
The reference that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made to an Order in Council of 1987 concerned a specific and limited circumstance which has not been regarded as creating a precedent. It was in the context of what is now Section 649 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Briefly, this section covers the delivery of tax relief on minimum contributions from the National Insurance Fund to personal pension schemes under Section 86 of the Social Security Act 1986. It provides that the Government should make the payments to the pension scheme grossed-up to take account of basic rate tax, and that the National Insurance Fund should be recompensed for the tax relief from the Consolidated Fund. So it covers a payment in respect of tax from the Consolidated Fund into the National Insurance Fund. That seems to be a very specific circumstance of NICs legislation being included in a Finance Bill. It is completely different from the current case, which is a substantial and important change to the rules governing NICs.
I am advised that the House authorities would not agree that such an example provides a precedent for including other NICs changes, such as the NICs service provision proposals within a Finance Bill. In the meantime, as I said, I accept the amendments which the noble Lord is moving.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the noble Lord's clarification as regards both Finance Bills and also the Government's intention. I repeat that as regards this clause our objectives are the same as the Government's. However, we are anxious that the matter should be even-handed as between various participants in any particular industry. Technical points have been made which suggest that this is not the case. However, I very much hope that before the measure reaches another place the Government will have further discussions. I have received a document from the Professional Contractors Group which states,
"All we have ever asked for were meaningful discussions and we still believe that given the opportunity we can with good will arrive at a solution that will address the Government's concern without damaging the knowledge-based sector".
372
I hope very much that it is possible to achieve that objective. We shall of course watch with interest what happens in another place and then consider the situation carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House. I have moved the amendment. It is so unusual to have an amendment accepted. I am grateful to the Government for having indicated their approval of this amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 87, line 11, leave out from ("71") to first ("and") in line 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 145, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
("25.—(1) Section 155A is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)(i), after "retirement pension" there is inserted "or shared additional pension".
(3) In subsection (2), after "retirement pension" there is inserted ", a shared additional pension".").
Page 145, line 25, leave out from beginning to (", and") in line 28 and insert (" 24 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999,"").
Page 147, line 16, after ("1973") insert (", section 12A of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 155, line 37, at end insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 22. These are two small amendments to the measure on pensions and bankruptcy. They change the two remaining mentions in the text of "unfair contributions" to "the unfair contributions". We did all the rest at Report stage but we missed these two, for which I apologise. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will be heartily relieved to hear at this late stage of the Bill that we shall not seek to embarrass the Government with our depleted troops over the word "the".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to have kept the noble Lord away from Hatfield House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 159, line 15, at end insert ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, enough of speeches—at least for the time being. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hollis of Heighem.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness about speeches. I make only this point. At Second Reading I suggested that this Bill was really four or five Bills rolled into one. I believe that is the case. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have been throughout extremely helpful in their explanations of what is happening. It is fair to say that the noble Baroness has been brilliant, expert and comprehensive and the noble Lord has been expert and impressive. The Bill is vastly better than it was when it arrived at this House. I suspect that we have not heard the end of it. It may be that the other place will accept all our amendments, but, should that not be so, no doubt we shall have an opportunity to go into the matter further. Meanwhile—whether by way of an interim thank you or otherwise—I express my thanks to the Ministers for the courteous and helpful way in which they have responded. I particularly thank my noble friends Lady Buscombe and Lord Astor of Hever, who have been very helpful in improving the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I believe that it is out of order to refer to participants in the debate, according to the Committee. I will not do that but I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tried to do so.
All I wish to say in 20 seconds is that we have had very good debates on this excellent Bill, shorn of the three amendments which defaced the Bill. I understand that Ministers will now make detailed changes. All I ask is that the changes are not only detailed but substantial, so that when the Bill comes back to this House there can be agreement all round. The Government will make a serious mistake if they fiddle only with details in the Bill in another place.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have here a not uncommon story of a good Minister and a bad Bill. I wish to express my thanks to the one, and to value the parliamentary opportunity to criticise the other. I hope that our remaining proceedings will be conducted according to all the normal parliamentary freedoms.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your kind words. I acknowledge my appreciation of the courtesy shown by all those present in the exchanges that we had often in the course of the Bill. I am very grateful. Even when
374
I was resisting amendments that I sensed might have significant support in the House, the style of the House was always open, listening, attentive and courteous. Of that I am deeply appreciative. As my noble friend suspects, this may not be the entire end of the Bill. We shall leave those speeches for another day. With that, I hope the House will now agree that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons, that they made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited, or has been the subject of a Resolution of this House to dispense with Standing Order 171A within the present Session, or has been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  Mentally Incapacitated Adults: Decisions
  Mentally Incapacitated Adults: Decisions
  Basic Skills Agency
  Basic Skills Agency
  Government IT Projects
  Government IT Projects
  British Council: Chairman's Remuneration
  British Council: Chairman's Remuneration
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Wartime Records
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Wartime Records
  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Visits to RUC Headquarters
  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Visits to RUC Headquarters
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME: CMO's Review
  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME: CMO's Review
  Gulf War Personnel: Adverse Reactions to Vaccines
  Gulf War Personnel: Adverse Reactions to Vaccines
  Gurkha Pensions and Gratuities
  Gurkha Pensions and Gratuities
  Young Homeless People in Rural Areas
  Young Homeless People in Rural Areas
  Coalfield Communities: Regeneration Measures
  Coalfield Communities: Regeneration Measures