Sitting of 4 April 2000

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

    CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 April.

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Council Constitutions
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What representations he has received opposing his plans to divide councillors into those with an executive function and those with a scrutiny function; and if he will make a statement. [116141]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received many representations both supporting and opposing our proposals for new constitutions for councils. The evidence is that local people want directly elected mayors to lead their communities.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that it is not her intention to have a single monolithic model imposed on all councils and, in particular, that, as long as councils achieve the aim of greater transparency in their dealings, the Government agree that that is an effective way to run local councils?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. The reforms in the Local Government Bill will open up many opportunities for councils to run themselves in the way that is most appropriate to their local area, after consultation with local people. Greater efficiency, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Bill—as the Joint Committee recognised when it
    792
    considered the Bill in draft. The traditional committee system does not meet that aim; that is why we want to move forward.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Minister old enough to remember the words of the old Erasmic shaving soap advertisement? Does she think that £58,500 a year for three days work a week on Cardiff council is a bit too much, not enough or about right?
    Ms Armstrong: I am concerned that we should have a local government system that local people feel is really effective and is working for and with them. I do not know about shaving soaps—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but the matter is not one that I spend much time worrying about. However, I do spend time trying to ensure that local government is open, accountable and working with local people.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister explain how, on the one hand, the Government are in favour of devolution of power, but, on the other, in relation to local authorities, they seem to be concentrating on the centralisation of power in the hands either of a mayor or a leader and a cabinet? Does the Minister accept that, if a councillor does not fit into one of those categories, his or her role will be minimal? Will she accept the amendment from the other place that gives local authorities the option of maintaining the status quo?
    Ms Armstrong: There is a slight problem with the amendments from the other place; three or four were accepted—all are contradictory. The status quo does not allow for scrutiny. It does not allow local people to find out what is really happening in their council; what the effect of any of its decisions would be on the ground; and how they would be implemented. The present system was right for 150 years ago, when few people had the franchise and were allowed to sit on councils. That system does not meet the needs of modern society or the demand from local people to have a better look at what is happening in their council and at the consequences of its decisions.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: As the Labour leader of Cardiff receives £58,500 a year, as we have heard, and leaders of London boroughs are likely to receive £45,000, is there not a real danger of creating two classes of councillor? After the clear-cut vote in the Lords recently, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to remove the freedom of local councils to choose their own structures? Will she listen to the voices of people such as her hon. Friends, the Local Government Association and councillors of all parties, including the Labour campaign for open local government—with 1,000-plus supporters, of whom 500 are councillors from 80-plus councils? Is it not high time that she and her friends gave up this control-freakery?
    Ms Armstrong: We are trying to emerge from an era when only one system was possible. At present, only the committee system is legal. The Bill offers a wide framework; those councils that have begun preparations to introduce it are coming up with widely different forms of governance. They are doing so after consultation with

    793
    local people. Of course, it is important that I consider and scrutinise what the Lords have said. I am discussing matters with the LGA; I met the LGA again last week. However, the Government have the right to ensure that the basic integrity of the Bill is preserved; we shall make sure that scrutiny—far from having a second-tier, less important role—is properly recognised as essential to good local government.

    London Transport
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What plans he has for reform of the management of London Transport. [116143]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): I have reformed the London Transport board and appointed a new chairman and a new managing director of London Underground and a new chief executive. The Government have also decided to introduce the public-private partnership. This will tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog, provide a stable funding environment and secure long-lasting improvements for the underground.
    When the mayor takes office, Transport for London—one of the functional bodies of the Greater London Authority—will take over all London Transport's current responsibilities, except London Underground. London Transport will continue to manage London Underground until the public-private partnership has been put in place.
    Mr. Cohen: I support the changes to London Transport that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will make it more dynamic and effective in delivering better public services. However, with two French and one US-dominated consortiums shortlisted to run the deep-level underground, and with several other arrangements involving the private sector, what special arrangements will the Government make to ensure that there is effective public service management at London Transport? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not end up with a situation similar to the one involving Railtrack and the train operating companies, in which they blame each other for performance failures?
    Mr. Prescott: It is important to ensure that the outputs of the infracos, or infrastructure companies, can be measured and that we have the proper management to measure them and make proper checks on the financial contributions that are made. Of course, incentives will be built into the system. If the organisations achieve their targets, they will do well. If they fail, they will face a penalty. That point will be built into the contracts. It is my belief—this will be subject to the public sector comparator—that public-private financing will be cheaper than the bond issue that is talked of. Those matters will be settled later, but I have no doubt that Londoners will benefit from a long-term approach to investment in the modernisation of the underground. That will be in contrast to the difficulties that we have faced from the stop-go economy which has reduced the necessary public investment in London Underground.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the management of London Transport, given that the money that it has spent on
    794
    private consultants has gone up two and a half times since the Government came to office? Could that money not have been better spent on repairing the 55 escalators that are currently out of action on London Underground? Is that really the fault of the management—or is it not perhaps the fault of the Government for persisting with their ill-advised and costly sell-off of the underground?
    Mr. Prescott: The problems with the escalators and their age are a function of disinvestment in the underground over many years. We are attempting to establish an entirely different financial framework for the underground, so that it is publicly owned and publicly accountable. That will guarantee a proper maintenance programme, so that there will not be breakdowns as there are at the moment. If we are to achieve that, consultants must give advice. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to make a judgment without proper and informed advice.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I am a London Member, and my constituents are looking for a modernisation of the tube that will achieve two things. First, they want reassurance that it will remain in the public sector. Secondly, and perhaps more important, they want value for money for the public purse. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that both those aims will be achieved?
    Mr. Prescott: It is clear that, under legislation, I have an obligation to the House to subject whatever ideas I have for the financing of the underground to the public sector comparator. I have to provide best value. That is what I am required to do by the House and that is what I intend to do. We have received the bids in the past few days, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. My hon. Friend will be able to judge whether we achieve them.
    London Underground will be publicly owned, publicly accountable and properly financed. Indeed, in those circumstances, it will offer a better opportunity for the proper investment to be made in it. It is not privatisation; I do not know of any facility that has been privatised where the assets have been returned to the public.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Secretary of State refers to the £100 million spent on consultants, can he recall any time, when he was in opposition, when he supported any money being spent on consultancies? He talks about disinvestment, so will he explain why in every year that he has been in charge less Government money has been spent on the tube than under the previous Conservative Government? Is not the chaos on the tube the result of the PPP being more than a year behind schedule, and is that not another emblem of the right hon. Gentleman's own personal failure? As he boasts about an extra £280 million from the Budget for transport, will he come clean with the House and explain that £100 million of that has been cut from his roads maintenance budget?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. There is more core investment going into the underground than went in under the previous Administration. I defy him to find any instance of my complaining about spending money on consultants in such matters; all Governments have to take advice. Considerable criticism

    795
    was made of the sums that the previous Administration spent on consultants—up to £500,000 in respect of rail privatisation—and there was a legitimate argument about that. We shall produce an underground that receives proper investment to deal with the problems left to us as a result of the Conservatives' disinvestment in the underground.

    Standard Spending Assessment (Southend)
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of the standard spending assessment for Southend for 2000–01. [116144]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Ms Beverley Hughes): Southend-on-Sea borough council wrote to the Department on 22 December, during our consultation period, commenting on the local government finance settlement for 2000–01. We also received inquiries from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
    Mr. Amess: Is the hon. Lady aware that, a few weeks ago, I was invited by the Labour/Liberal-controlled council to meet a Health Minister to discuss the crisis in social services in Southend? When the delegation told the Minister that the council was having to close old folks' homes, introduce charges for people with learning disabilities and increase charges for home helps, the Minister helpfully suggested that representations be made about the standard spending assessment. Will the hon. Lady advise Labour councillors on how they can stop further cuts in Southend?
    Ms Hughes: My information does not accord with that of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that a meeting took place and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), asked the council to submit plans for extra money to deal with social services issues. However, Southend did not request extra funding from the budget; in the end, it informed the Department of Health of an underspend of £31,000 from the partnership fund, which it was able to use.
    In general terms, the council is increasing its planned spending by almost 6 per cent.: it is providing for education growth of 7 per cent. and social services growth of 4 per cent. The Tory group did not even bother to submit an opposition budget. Provision is being made for increased investment in services, which stands in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government, when there were rises in council tax and cuts in services.

    Housing Density (South-East)
    Jane Griffiths: What plans he has to increase housing density in the south-east of England. [116147]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning policy guidance note 3, which we issued on 7 March, makes it clear that local authorities should plan for quality development and more efficient
    796
    use of land. They should avoid housing densities of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net and encourage developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net. Those policies are also reflected in the draft changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east, which we published on 27 March.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to increase housing density in areas such as my constituency in the heart of the Thames valley, in the interests not only of sustainability, but of affordability, so that key workers such as nurses, teachers and bus drivers can afford to come and live in such areas?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes two valid points. First, she highlights the importance of concentrating development in brownfield sites and of contributing toward urban renaissance, both of which form a crucial part of our planning policy guidance on housing and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Secondly, she emphasises the importance of doing more to house people in need, who have difficulty obtaining housing in areas of great pressure, such as the Thames valley. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is shortly to make a statement on our housing Green Paper, in which we expand on our policies to meet those objectives.
    Mr. Archie Norman: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister back to the House after four weeks' absence. Now that we know what was in the Budget, we understand why he disappeared to Brazil. We also understand why, unusually, there was no Budget debate on Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spending—there is to be hardly any DETR spending.
    Will the Minister for Housing and Planning explain his arithmetic on the question of housing densities? Does he recall that the Government's proposed building rate will force councils in the south-east to build 900,000 new houses in the next 20 years, and that the Government insist that 60 per cent. of those dwellings should be built on brownfield sites? Will he confirm that 60 per cent. of 900,000 means 540,000 new houses on brownfield land? Does he recall the House of Commons Library estimate that only a maximum of 10,000 hectares are available on brownfield land? Can he tell us, therefore, what density level is needed to build 540,000 houses on 10,000 hectares, and how that compares with the density levels that he just cited and those already achieved in major cities such as London and Manchester?
    Mr. Raynsford: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? He has shown a certain reticence about appearing since his appointment. He has clearly misunderstood the main thrust of PPG3 and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Predict and provide, which was the hallmark of his party's Government, is dead. We are no longer producing 20-year projections of housing.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that we are concentrating on annual build rates, which in the case of the south-east is 43,000. Looking at the figures, he will realise that there is a plentiful supply of brownfield sites to meet the needs

    797
    of the south-east over the next five years. His figures are wrong. In future, he should do his homework before coming to the House.
    Mr. Norman: The figures are not mine—they come from the House of Commons Library. They are the Minister's figures, and it is a matter of pure arithmetic. He has not attempted to answer the question, so let me answer it for him. The answer is 54 houses per hectare—higher than the figure that he cited, and higher than the density achieved in London. That target is regarded as wholly unachievable by every council leader in the south-east. Incidentally, it is no good the Minister speaking about five years, since every local council has to produce a structure plan for 10 years or more.
    As that level of density is unachievable, does the Minister concede that many thousands of extra houses will be built on green fields? While we are about it, will he say who will pay for all the knock-on infrastructure—2,000 km of extra roads, 300,000 new school places, and 3,000 new hospital places? How will he deal with the extra commuting and congestion in the most congested parts of the country? Is it not time that he recognised that his entire policy is not just a disaster for the countryside, but unaffordable? As the Deputy Prime Minister said to the Prime Minister,
    fancy dancing with figures is counterproductive.
    Mr. Raynsford: It seemed to be quite a long time before the hon. Gentleman got to the point. May I remind him that what he is suggesting comes a little rich from the party that was represented by greenfield building all over the south-east, out-of-town shopping centres, motorways driven across countryside, and by the contempt for the environment in the south-east which characterised the term of that party in power?
    The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that our new policy means the end of predict and provide. It means annual build rates, not 20-year projections; concentrating development on brownfield sites; and getting higher quality developments in the cities as part of an urban renaissance. It is about time that his party woke up to the reality, rather than looking back to the disaster that the Conservatives caused when they were in office.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend comment on the view that a greater density of housing requires a lower land take? Has his Department done any work on the relationship of higher density to lower land take, particularly in the light of the various figures put forward for housing in the south-east, and in view of the land that has already been allocated for housing in local authority plans?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken action where the previous Government did nothing, by publishing the national land use database to give us basic information about the availability of land on which plans can then be drawn up for development on brownfield sites. We will take that forward, as the NLUD needs to be improved over time. It has made an important start, but we can do better. Through capacity studies, we will also develop a closer analysis of what can be achieved. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the key objective is to produce high-quality
    798
    housing where people will want to live, in order to enhance our urban renaissance policy and to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.

    Single-person Households
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: What estimate his Department has made of the increase in the number of single person households over the next 20 years. [116148]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): The latest, 1996-based, household projections suggest a net increase of 3.12 million households in England over the 20-year period from 1996 to 2016. Of these 2.13 million, some two thirds of the total, will be made up of one person living by him or herself.
    Mr. Fraser: With those figures in mind, does the Minister agree with me that local people should determine their local housing requirements rather than the Government setting arbitrary figures? What consultation has he had with Purbeck district council, which has written to me today, and with Poole and East Dorset district councils in my constituency, about this matter? Without consultation, the Government's proposals mean the wrong houses for the wrong people in the wrong places.
    Hon. Members: Wrong people?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regional planning guidance for the south-west is undergoing examination in public. Clearly it would not be proper for me to respond on a detailed point, which will come to us for decision after the examination in public.
    The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. It is important to ensure that there is provision for people in need, and a high proportion of need comes from the sons and daughters of people who live in the area, who want to continue to live there. Older people, the largest proportion of single people, now expect to have independent homes in their old age. That is another area of need. It would be a serious disservice to the needs of single people, either young or old, if no housing provision were to be made for them in their area. Regional planning guidance is an appropriate framework in which the necessary need can be identified and from which recommendations can be brought forward for individual counties.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend in dialogue with the Treasury over possible fiscal opportunities to reduce the proportion of single-person households, especially in respect of housing benefit rules that encourage adult children to leave home prematurely and in terms of taxes on second homes, equal VAT treatment for both conversion and new build, and multi-occupancy incentives for retired people, for example? Will my hon. Friend consider a portfolio of possible fiscal measures to encourage higher levels of occupancy?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a number of matters that will be expanded on by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when we come to the statement on the housing Green Paper. It is integral to our

    799
    entire approach that we ensure that we create a planning framework that allows mixed and balanced communities in which single people can live side by side with families. We do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past—of social stratification, with areas of exclusively large executive houses on one side and social housing on the other. We want mixed and balanced communities that will allow adequate provision for single people.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If the Minister's figures are correct and the bulk of new housing is needed for single-person households, will he reconsider the decision to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency, given that little of that housing will be suitable, either in type or in location, for single people?
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman sounds rather like a gramophone record on this subject. He shows an inability to understand the basic framework on which Hertfordshire county council came forward with its proposals. He will know that there are no detailed plans at this stage for the composition of the housing stock and the proportions that will be single-person units, family units, and units suitable for the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous suggestion reveals something—the attitude of mind that was characteristic of the Conservative Government he served, under whom executive homes were encouraged to proliferate throughout the greenfield land in the south-east. We are ending that nonsense, for which the previous Government were responsible.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Minister seems not to realise that his answer to this question wrecks the case that he made in answer to the previous question. Does he not accept that, on the basis of the Government's household projection figures, more than two thirds of the homes that are needed are required for single and mainly elderly people? His plans to build tens of thousands more homes than local authorities say they need will inevitably encourage developers to build more profitable three or four-bedroomed homes, which are just what single-person households do not need. Will the Minister not acknowledge that his policy attracts working-age people out of inner cities, threatens our green fields and ensures that, as long as he is in charge, we will continue building the wrong houses in the wrong places?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his answer before hearing my reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I made it clear that we are not following Conservative party policy, which encouraged the proliferation of three and four-bedroomed executive homes.
    We are specifically encouraging the development of more mixed communities. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) knows that we are encouraging more suitable provision, which allows higher densities, of houses for single people and families. The Greenwich millennium village is a good example of good-quality new housing at a high density of 80 people to the hectare. It incorporates social housing and housing for sale; housing for single
    800
    people and housing for families. It is an excellent example of the mixed development that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is pioneering, not before time.

    Safety At Sea
    Mr. Colin Breed: What plans he has to improve safety at sea. [116149]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Keith Hill): With regard to international shipping, the Government continue to play a leading role in efforts to enhance maritime safety through their active involvement in and support of safety initiatives that are being taken forward by the International Maritime Organisation and in the European Union. With regard to the United Kingdom fishing industry, the Government are determined to improve poor safety standards through a mixture of regulation and education to foster a culture in which safe practice, such as wearing automatic lifejackets while working on deck, is taken for granted.
    Mr. Breed: I am sure that the Minister would wish to offer his condolences to the family and friends of Daniel Kebble, a young fisherman from Polperro in my constituency, who lost his life fishing earlier this year. Does the Minister accept that safety equipment such as lifejackets that are available to fishermen are either user friendly but do not fulfil the necessary buoyancy standards, or have the buoyancy but are bulky and not easy to use? Will he consider funding the relatively modest amount of research and development to marry the necessary qualities so that fishermen can obtain lifejackets that are user friendly and fulfil adequate safety standards?
    Mr. Hill: I join the hon. Gentleman in extending condolences to the family of the young man in question. I agree with his wider point: immersion suits are designed for use in abandon-ship circumstances, not for continuous wear. Under an EU directive on a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels, all new vessels of 24 m and over must carry lifejackets. However, we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should go further and require immersion suits to be carried on all vessels, regardless of size. There are anxieties in the industry about their practicality. However, the Government strongly recommend that fishermen should wear an automatic single-chamber inflatable lifejacket while working on deck and we have published standards for such garments.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my condolences to the family of the young man lost from the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), and also to the families of the two Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend.
    We need an early debate on safety at sea because not enough is being done. No fishing vessel should be allowed to leave port without survival suits on board for all members of the crew. It is not always possible for those lads to put them on when a vessel is foundering,

    801
    but when they have time to put on a survival suit, they increase their chances of survival dramatically. The Government must act through regulation.
    Mr. Hill: I join my hon. Friend in offering condolences to the Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend. My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign about the availability of immersion suits. I reiterate that the Government are not persuaded that they are appropriate in all circumstances. However, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for enhanced safety measures at sea. We believe that much can be done to improve the appalling safety record of the fishing industry, which is 10 times more dangerous than the next most dangerous industry, which is agriculture. Improvements can be achieved partly through equipment and partly through safety training.
    We believe that the time has come to subject the 80 per cent. of the industry that operates in vessels under 12 m in length to a statutory safety code. As my hon. Friend knows, that has been under discussion with the industry for many years. We now propose to implement a mandatory safety code for under-12 m vessels by the end of April 2001.
    Mr. James Gray: In the fishing industry, three vessels are lost and 11 sailors are killed a month. Both sides of the House will welcome what the Minister said about maximising safety standards. We would have welcomed what the Deputy Prime Minister said about safety grants last week, or last month—or last year rather. He said:
    speaking for the Government as a whole, I have made clear that the fishing vessel safety equipment grants would continue.
    In that case, why have the Government cancelled them?
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): It was to the end of that year.
    Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend has accurately stated from a sedentary position, he was referring to the end of that particular year. My right hon. Friend obviously has a clearer sense of time than does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who did not seem to know what time of the year my right hon. Friend had spoken.
    I shall make the Government's position entirely clear. Grants to the fishing industry should not be used for the purchase of mandatory safety equipment. We believe that if further funds are to be made available to the industry, they should be used to enhance that essential safety culture by improved safety training techniques.

    Housing Stock
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Which five local authority areas in England have the highest percentage of public and private housing stock built before 1919. [116150]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): The five local authority areas with the highest proportion of private sector housing built before 1919 are Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea, and Pendle. The five authorities
    802
    with the highest proportion of pre-1919 council housing are Camden, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, and Kensington and Chelsea. We are committed to improving the housing conditions of the poorest households, and today's housing Green Paper will set out some new ideas for tackling those needs in both the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Prentice: I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. Is the Minister aware that there is a unique cocktail of housing problems not just in Pendle, but next door in Burnley and in east Lancashire? Pendle ranks third in the entire country when it comes to unfit housing, and sixth in respect of empty housing. It is beyond the resources of local authorities in my area to tackle decades of neglect. I hope that, as a result of the housing Green Paper, of which we will hear details in about 20 minutes' time, the necessary resources will be pumped into the area to bring crumbling, useless housing up to a decent standard.
    Mr. Raynsford: I fully recognise the points that my hon. Friend made about the condition of the housing stock and the problems of vacant property in his constituency. Pendle's allocation in 2000-01 under the housing investment programme was some 30 per cent. up on 1999–2000, and, as he anticipated, when he hears the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make in a few minutes' time, he will realise that the Government are very serious about extending the help available to improve conditions in areas such as his.

    Train Services (Euxton)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What measures he can take to increase the number of trains stopping at Euxton railway station. [116151]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Services at Euxton Balshaw Lane railway station are provided under a separate contract between Lancashire county council and First North Western. I understand that two additional services to Preston will call at the station at 11.20 and 13.20 from the beginning of the summer timetable in May this year. The franchising director is considering a bid from Lancashire county council under the rail passenger partnership scheme, which, if approved, would further enhance peak hour services.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased to learn that there will be an immediate increase in the number of trains stopping at the station. Is the Minister aware, however, that the first train heading north leaves at 8.15 am, although most commuters need to catch a train at about 7 am? Is he also aware that Euxton is the only railway station in Chorley that is on the west coast main line, and that no direct trains to Glasgow or London stop there? What can he do to provide better services and get people off the roads?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is an indefatigable campaigner for his Chorley constituency. I thought that I was giving him genuinely good news in announcing the extra services, but his appetite for further improvements for his

    803
    constituents seems to be bottomless. I shall, of course, take account of his demands for further improvements in services to Euxton and Balshaw Lane stations.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Before the Minister devotes too many resources to Euxton, will he bear in mind the plight of rail services in north Lincolnshire? Last weekend, I had to spend—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a specific question.

    Council and Housing Association Dwellings (London)
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If he will estimate the number of new council and housing association dwellings to be built in London in the next 12 months. [116152]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Although no new-build council homes are planned for next year, some replacement homes will be built as part of regeneration schemes. In addition, 5,400 new housing association homes are planned for London next year, of which 3,940 will be for rent.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister realise what a depressing answer that will be for thousands of people in London who are on housing waiting lists or transfer lists, or living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation? If we are to deal with the housing problem that affects anyone on an average or below average income in London, there must be a significant increase in the number of properties made available for rent by councils or housing associations. Especially in inner London, people look to the Government to ensure that money is spent not just on improving existing estates—although that is welcome and necessary—but on purchasing and providing new homes for rent. Failing that, London will become an increasingly socially divided city as poorer people are forced to move out because there is nowhere for them to live.
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly acknowledge that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in London, but I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the housing investment programme for London has increased dramatically under this Government. This year it will be £613 million, which represents a 54 per cent. increase on the previous year.
    Let me also gently say to my hon. Friend that about 2 per cent. of Islington's council stock—not counting properties that are awaiting demolition or major renovation—are empty. One of the most effective ways of creating more affordable housing in London would be to put to proper use council housing in Islington—and, indeed, elsewhere—that is currently vacant. Islington has one of the highest vacancy rates.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Something else that has grown dramatically under this Government is the number of asylum seekers in London. How much of that social housing will be taken up by people who have been
    804
    on waiting lists for some time, and how much will, of necessity, have to be put aside for new arrivals and asylum seekers?
    Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are making provision to disperse asylum seekers around the country.
    This is not a problem that suddenly arose in May 1997. It existed long before then, and the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did very little about it. I regret attempts by some Conservative Members to play—let me call it not the race card but the asylum seeker card.

    Urban Taskforce
    Mr. Simon Hughes: When he will respond to the urban taskforce report. [116153]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Ms Hilary Armstrong): We propose to publish a response to the recommendations in the urban taskforce report later this year, at the same time that we publish our White Paper on urban policy.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that one of the recommendations of the taskforce was that it should have an influence on the comprehensive spending review so that urban policy became a term of reference, may we have a date for the report's publication before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review? Also, may we have a guarantee that sustainable communities will be at the heart of the policy, and that in every instance regeneration will put first the interests of those who live in the urban communities that are to be regenerated?
    Ms Armstrong: It is precisely because we want to take into account the urban taskforce's ideas—some of which we are already implementing and getting on with, but specifically those relating to the Government's wider policies, including our policies on regeneration and urban renaissance—that they will be considered as part of the spending review. We shall therefore respond to the ideas following the review. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined that we shall have regeneration that really means something, that changes the opportunities of those who live in such areas, and that ensures that those people are able to benefit from the advantages of regeneration. We are also determined to build sustainable communities, which are at the heart of our policy.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that, in the name of urban regeneration, Lord Rogers recommended a cut in VAT on residential renovations, has the right hon. Lady complained to the Treasury that such a helpful measure was not forthcoming in the Budget?
    Ms Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear all of the Budget, which showed that the Government believe that there is a strong case for stamp duty relief for new build on brownfield sites. We intend to consult on the matter. We shall demonstrate again that we recognise the important distinction between development on greenfield and brownfield sites. It really is a pity that the hon.

    805
    Gentleman and the previous Conservative Government did not do that. We shall be dealing with the need for urban renaissance through the tax system.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What plans he has for a common age of entitlement to concessionary fares for older people. [116155]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): The Government have a strong commitment to concessionary travel for elderly people. In the Transport Bill, we are introducing a statutory minimum for local authority concessionary travel schemes, which will provide at least half-fare travel on buses. After the recent Budget, we announced that the bus pass will also be available free of charge. Those two measures will benefit up to 5.3 million senior citizens. Under the terms of the Pensions Act 1995, the age of entitlement for concessionary travel for both men and women will be equalised at 65 by 2020.
    Mr. Burstow: The statutory minimum scheme will be greatly welcomed by very many pensioners across the country. However, given that fact, and given that the statutory minimum scheme will effectively make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of age, will not the Secretary of State take the opportunity to introduce a common age of entitlement to travel schemes for everyone based on the age of 60?
    Mr. Prescott: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As he will know, there have been a number of court judgments in Europe on the matter, and those judgments have not held against our differential at 60 and 65. It is therefore a matter of resources. It would cost about £65 million to meet his request. When considering expenditure, we have to make a judgment on priorities, and the 1p Liberal tax would not necessarily pay for a common age of entitlement.
    Angela Smith: Many pensioners in my constituency have warmly welcomed the Government's decision on concessionary fares for older people—although, quite rightly, they still complain about the lack of bus services in many areas. However, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider extending the scheme to include young people in full-time education and those who are under 18, who still have to pay full fares?
    Mr. Prescott: Those matters are affected by cost resource and priorities, which have to be determined. I note, however, that the Labour candidate for mayor of London has made a similar suggestion.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen to extend concessionary travel for older people, but how would establishing a common age for concessionary travel, which was the intention of the original question, help older people in many parts of the country where there is little or no public transport at all? Is it not important that the Deputy Prime Minister should consider the problems
    806
    faced by many elderly people who do not have their own cars and live in remote rural areas—such as some of the villages in my own constituency of Macclesfield?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but under the Conservative Government there was a massive decline in public transport provision, particularly in rural areas. Our £170 million of rural grants has led to 1,800 new services in rural areas. It may not cover everywhere, but it is a major step forward. I suppose that I should also be grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the Manchester airport eastern link road, as he often does.

    Ivory Trade
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: What steps the Government are taking to secure the restoration of a ban on the international trade in ivory. [116156]
    The Minister for the Environment(Mr. Michael Meacher): There can be no further international trade in ivory unless the 11th conference of parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species, which opens next week in Nairobi, agrees a specific proposal to permit that. The Government believe that any change to the conservation status of elephants under CITES would be premature. We are therefore urging all the proponents to withdraw their proposals on elephants. If they are not withdrawn, the UK, together with our European partners, will oppose all the proposals including those seeking further trade in ivory.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he, like me, seen the excellent article in The Mail on Sunday last week, entitled "Why killing elephants is again all the fashion"? It was about not just ivory, but a revival in trading in elephant skins. Will he assure me that the Government will do all they can at the talks in Nairobi later this week to support the position of Kenya and India, which want to ban that evil, wicked trade?
    Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we do not want a return to the large-scale poaching and full-scale ivory trading that characterised the 1980s; but for all trading in ivory to be ended and for elephants to be uplifted to appendix 1 of CITES, two conditions must be met. The first is that there must be evidence that the limited, experimental, one-off trade has led to an increase in poaching. The evidence is confused and there is no convincing proof. Secondly, the numbers must justify such a move. Elephant numbers are not small, their distribution is not restricted and they are not in decline. In the three countries concerned with the trade, over the past 15 years elephant numbers have quadrupled in Botswana, gone up sixfold in Namibia and nearly doubled in Zimbabwe. We are concerned to prevent any increase in ivory trading. That is why we have required all parties to withdraw their proposals so that we can monitor the illegal killing of elephants and provide convincing evidence for further action.

    Social Housing (Single Tenancy Agreement)
    Ms Oona King: What plans he has to introduce a single tenancy agreement in the social housing sector. [116158]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): I invite my hon. Friend to stay and listen to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making in 10 minutes.
    Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind invitation. I recognise that it might be a bit late to put in a bid for issues to be included in the housing Green Paper. However, does he agree that the introduction of a single tenancy would help to reassure council tenants and enhance their rights when they are offered transfers to community housing organisations, as those organisations are currently unable to offer secure tenancies?
    Mr. Mullin: I am aware of the problem that has arisen in my hon. Friend's constituency, where some misinformation has been floating about. There is no practical difference between secure and assured tenancies apart from the right to buy, which is guaranteed under the transfer schemes. Some tenants have been misled on that. It is desirable in principle that there should be a single tenancy, but there are practical difficulties.

    Housebuilding (Chelmsford)
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on future housebuilding in the Chelmsford local authority area. [116159]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): An illustrative breakdown of future housing provision within the south-east region, including an annual rate of provision for the county of Essex, was published for consultation with the proposed changes to the draft regional planning guidance on 27 March. Once finalised, it will be for the Essex county structure plan to determine the level of house building in the Chelmsford local plan area.
    Mr. Burns: Will the Minister confirm that that fudge by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means that there will be about 1,200 extra houses a year in Essex? Will he also confirm that his past statements on the Government's commitment to the green belt were sincere? If the answer is yes, what does he think of Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council's preferred option of building possibly 2,500 houses in greenbelt land in the village of Margaretting in the local authority area?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The annual average for housebuilding in Essex under the existing south-east regional planning committee arrangement is 6,383 homes per year. The average number of homes built throughout the 1990s was 5,770, and the illustrative proposals that we sent out on 27 March, to which I have just referred, suggests that an
    808
    average of 5,420 should be built. Therefore, it is simply not true that we are imposing an increase on existing Serplan arrangements, or on current levels of building.
    Mr. Burns: What about the green belt?
    Mr. Raynsford: I turn now to the green belt, which the Government are committed to protecting and extending, and whose area we have increased by some 30,000 hectares. There is a presumption against development in the green belt, which will be overruled only in exceptional circumstances.
    We have a quasi-judicial role in relation to individual planning inquiries, so the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a matter that might come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I reaffirm our commitment to the defence of the green belt.

    Council Tax (Second Homes)
    Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to abolish the 50 per cent. reduction in council tax on second homes. [116160]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have no plans at present to abolish the council tax discount for second homes. Some respondents to our consultation last year on rural issues suggested ending the discount, and we are considering this along with many other proposals for tackling rural problems.
    Mr. Rendel: Does not the Minister agree that giving local authorities the right to raise the council tax on second homes would do quite a lot to reduce the problems of overdevelopment across the south-east? Would not it also give young people wanting to move out of the parental home a better chance of obtaining affordable accommodation?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is being too simplistic. Sometimes there are good reasons for not raising council tax on empty properties, as such properties are empty for all sorts of reasons. Second homes come into that general category.
    The issue is complex, and varies across the country. We are considering the matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to contribute his thoughts to our deliberations.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are many different views on the matter across the country? People in north Norfolk are often unable to buy a house because others are coming into the area and buying second homes—those incomers include Members of Parliament. Their presence contributes to the local economy, but the negative feelings of the local community would be somewhat diminished if they were to pay the full council tax. I understand that my right hon. Friend may want to introduce a broader package

    809
    of changes to council tax, but will she assure my constituents that that particular change has not been ruled out?
    Ms Armstrong: I have made it clear that the change has not been ruled out, but that it has not been ruled in either.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister may be aware that 600 new wooden chalet-type homes are being built in the Cotswold water park. The local Cotswold district council does not get the full benefit of the council tax on those homes, which are entirely second homes. Will the Minister consider giving local authorities a discretionary power to enable them to levy full council tax in certain circumstances?
    Ms Armstrong: I have given the assurance that we are considering that.

    Housing Revenue (Resource Accounting)
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement about the move to resource accounting for housing revenue accounts and his plans to mitigate its effects on councils in negative subsidy. [116161]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): Our view has always been that transitional measures would be justified for councils in negative subsidy. We propose to introduce such measures from April next year, to coincide with the introduction of the major repairs allowance. We shall consult on the detail of the measures in due course.
    Mr. Rammell: The Minister will be aware of the dramatic impact of this change on a number of local authorities, particularly new town authorities. Without mitigation, the change would involve a dramatic slashing of council services or a huge and unsustainable increase in the council tax. Will the Minister look carefully at the issue and, in particular, at the use of housing capital receipts for non-housing capital purposes which took place during the 1980s and which is the major cause of this problem in my local authority?
    Mr. Mullin: I have possibly taken my hon. Friend by surprise by saying that we are proposing to introduce transitional measures from April next year. We are aware of the problem—I met a delegation of leaders of councils that are affected, and am due to meet my hon. Friend in due course. I look forward to discussing the details with him then.

Housing Green Paper
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): I am very pleased to announce to the House that today we are publishing the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All". This is the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Any search of the record will confirm that.
Housing is a basic requirement for everyone. Every member of the House will know from their postbag just how much housing matters. Decent housing gives people a stronger sense of security and identity. It strengthens communities and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health, educational achievement and employment opportunities. It provides a long-term asset that can be passed on to future generations.
Despite the fact that the majority of people are satisfied with their housing, there are still too many problems. The previous Government's neglect made those problems worse. I inherited the worst repossession crisis ever, with more than 1 million homes repossessed or in negative equity, and a £19 billion backlog of repair and modernisation work in council housing. Despite Britain's mild winters, we have one of the worst records of winter deaths in Europe. Whole communities have been abandoned in ghettos of deprivation, and the number of homeless people and those sleeping rough has doubled.
Nothing in the Opposition's latest policies suggests that they have learned any lessons. Their proposals have little to do with solving problems and nothing to do with common sense. In fact, to coin a phrase, they are all mouth and no action.
We have made an early start to put things right. [Interruption.] This is what action is. We have released £5 billion of capital receipts to renovate 2 million homes. We are implementing the Egan report on raising standards in construction and are tackling the problem of cowboy builders.
Our economic policies have delivered stability, so that people can afford their own home. We have announced measures to make it easier for people to buy and sell their home. Our initiatives have reduced the number of rough sleepers by 10 per cent. These are a few of the things that we have done.
From this week, we are giving tenants a greater say in how their homes are managed. This week, the best value regime starts to ensure better services to tenants. A new housing inspectorate will ensure high standards.
The Green Paper on housing is a key part of our wider ambition to support sustainable communities. It shows how our existing initiatives fit into an overall strategy. It also sets out a range of proposals.
Over the coming weeks and months, I shall be launching the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the urban White Paper and the rural White Paper. The housing Green Paper, together with those documents, is a key part of our strategy to build sustainable communities in this country.
The Green Paper is a consultation document. We are seeking responses by the end of July, but we would also welcome earlier reactions to inform decisions in the next
812
three-year spending review. We shall be looking to press ahead with our housing agenda in the autumn, although clearly some of our proposals will require legislation.
The Green Paper is about quality and choice. We want to raise the quality of homes everywhere, whether they are owned by individuals or provided by landlords. We want to extend choice, so that there is more choice for tenants and for those wanting to buy their own home.
I will start with the greenest part of the Green Paper—that dealing with housing benefit and rents. Everyone recognises that housing benefit is in need of reform. It has helped distort the structure of rents and trap people in unemployment. It is difficult to understand and complex to administer. I am sure that every Member of Parliament knows that to be so from dealing with constituents.
Most people who receive housing benefit are of working age, although 41 per cent. are over 60. We are already helping those moving into work by arranging to pay benefit automatically for the first four weeks in employment, but we want a more efficient service for all who receive benefit. In the short term, we propose improvements such as computerising mail between different benefits offices. That will save the postage of 20 million pieces of paper and speed up the process.
We are also tackling fraud and error. The Green Paper proposes further options, such as a single national fraud hotline service.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, a hotline!
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be not too concerned about fraud.
In the longer term, we want to examine the case for reforming housing benefit to give tenants greater choice over where they live, but that will require reform of rent structures. There is a consensus that council and housing association rents are a mess. We want to build a new consensus on the way forward.
Mr. Forth: What does that mean?
Mr. Prescott: It means reaching agreement about commonsense proposals.
The Green Paper offers a range of options for restructuring rents. We believe that the key principles should be comparable rents for comparable properties and rents that take account of the size and quality of the homes on offer. I can give a clear commitment that, whatever changes we introduce, we shall maintain rents in the social sector at an affordable level—below market rents. I also make it absolutely clear that pensioners on housing benefit will not be affected by any proposals to reform housing benefit.
Home ownership has increased dramatically over the past few decades, owing partly to the right-to-buy programme introduced by the previous Administration, under which 1.3 million people bought their own homes. I have already referred to our initiative to make the home buying and selling process easier. We are also taking action to help first-time buyers.
We are announcing a new starter home initiative to help key workers, such as nurses and teachers and first-time buyers on modest incomes. The initiative will help them

813
to buy their own homes in areas where housing is costly, in the town or in the country. We will invite proposals from housing associations and others. Ideas could involve interest-free loans, development grants or other innovative approaches.
We are also giving new help to unemployed home owners who are moving back into work. We are helping them to pay mortgage interest for the first four weeks after they start a new job. Some home owners, especially the elderly, are unable to maintain and modernise their property. We propose a range of new options to help more people to make essential repairs.
The private rented sector provides homes for more than 2 million households. Most private landlords are professional and responsible, but a minority of bad landlords gives the whole sector a bad name. Our proposals include helping landlords to improve their expertise and standards. We intend to make sure that unscrupulous landlords who neglect their responsibilities do not profit from housing benefit. We also intend to give local authorities a selective power to license private landlords where bad landlords and bad tenants—sometimes in collusion—are destabilising the local community.
Social housing has been at the foundation of millions of people's lives for decades. The previous Government viewed council housing as little more than an embarrassment. Their neglect of investment in social housing created misery for millions of people and deprivation for whole communities. In the Tory vision, there were two nations—home owners and those who were left behind in areas of deprivation.
We must ask why 25 per cent. of crime is concentrated in 10 per cent. of communities. The Government believe that we should have a greater mix of social housing and owner-occupied housing. People should have a real choice between buying a home and renting without a sense of stigma or snobbery. In the Green Paper, we propose to improve the quality of social housing, housing management, and lettings.
Too often in the past, social landlords have offered people a home on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That system has failed: it often concentrates the poorest people in the poorest properties. We must design a lettings system for the 21st century if we are to support sustainable communities. We propose to give new applicants and existing tenants more say in choosing where they live. In the Green Paper, we propose pilot schemes across the country to test new approaches that put the tenant first.
The growth of homelessness over the past two decades is completely unacceptable. The previous Government took away rights from homeless people and made it harder for local councils to help them. In our election manifesto we promised to improve the safety net for those who are homeless through no fault of their own. Our proposals will ensure that homeless people are given the support that they need while they seek more permanent housing along with others in housing need on the waiting list.
In addition, we propose to extend the safety net to a wider group of homeless people, such as young people aged 16 and 17—that measure is not before time—and those who are vulnerable because they are leaving care and other institutions. Those are the people most at risk
814
of ending up on the streets without a home and without hope. Our commitment is to end the scourge of people sleeping rough. We shall also ensure that local authorities work with other agencies to prevent people from becoming homeless in the future.
The House should recognise the crucial role played by local authorities in the past in providing good homes. Over the past 100 years councils have met the housing needs of millions of people who otherwise would have been left in private sector slums. The private sector would not have met that need. Local authorities tackled the slums and the squalor and rebuilt our communities.
Local authorities are still well placed to play a dynamic role. In our Green Paper we are proposing a stronger, more forward-looking and strategic role for local authorities, in which they will identify and address housing needs across all housing in their area, in the public and private sectors.
The past 20 years have seen massive disinvestment in council housing. In our Green Paper, we set out a range of approaches to investment. We aim for a step change to ensure that all social housing is of a decent standard within 10 years. That will give us a decade to overcome the mountainous £19 billion backlog of repairs and modernisation left by the previous Government.
Stock transfer began in 1988, under the previous Administration. Since then, more than 400,000 homes have been transferred to registered social landlords, mainly housing associations. Stock transfer will continue to be the preferred approach for many authorities and their tenants, provided of course that they vote for it. We shall support the transfer of up to 200,000 homes each year from local authorities to registered social landlords. That is a matter of choice; it is not a target. We will make provision for that, but only where local authorities propose it and tenants vote for it.
A number of local authorities have asked to use the private finance initiative to increase private sector investment while maintaining ownership of their stock. We are piloting eight pathfinder schemes to find out how that approach can work best.
Some have suggested that stock transfer means the end of the local authority as landlord, and the end of the council house. We believe that there is a continuing role for council housing. Indeed, today I am announcing a new option for investment in local authority stock. Local authorities will be given new borrowing powers to invest in their housing and retain full ownership where they put their housing management in arms-length companies and demonstrate an excellent record of management through best-value inspection. There is therefore a good future for the council house.
The housing system that we inherited from the previous Government was fraught with difficulties: stigmatised social housing; a £19 billion backlog of repairs and improvements; a housing benefit system spiralling out of control; record repossessions; and a lack of choice and flexibility.
The proposals in our Green Paper can set about repairing Britain's poorest quality homes, helping first-time buyers and key workers, moving towards a fairer balance in rents and improving services. We are working hard for Britain's hard-working families. We propose help for home owners and the private sector, and we are not ashamed of that. We propose investment and

815
modernisation in social housing. A decent home is a measure of a civilised society. All in all, our proposals mean better quality, more choice and more opportunity. The system will be based not on stigma and snobbery, but on social justice, ensuring that everyone in Britain has the chance of a decent home.
Mr. Archie Norman: Once again, we have the familiar pattern of events surrounding one of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcements of policy failure. First, we read about it in the newspapers over the weekend and on Monday; then one of his Ministers appears on the "Today" programme, and then the Deputy Prime Minister appears in the House, claiming that the leaks are unauthorised and nothing to do with him.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said after his statement on rail safety on 22 February? He said:
I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I did not brief on that report. I should make it clear that that is not my style; I do not play that way.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1378.]
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said before his statement on housing in the south-east? He said:
I regret and denounce the leaks, as I have said before in the House, and I am doing all I can to prevent them.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]
Can he confirm that he did all he could on this occasion, or is it that, as usual, circumstances are beyond his control?
There are aspects of the Green Paper that we welcome: for example, the proposals for shared ownership—a Conservative proposal—and the aspirations to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred to improve social housing in Britain. I remind the House, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister came to power promising to reduce homelessness, to improve the quality of public housing stock, to cut benefit fraud and to provide more social housing. Can there be a more explicit or embarrassing example of all mouth and no delivery?
Under the Government, homelessness has risen, not fallen, by 3,000. Both capital and revenue spending on public housing has fallen. Spending on urban regeneration is lower than under the last Conservative Government. Fewer social houses, not more, are being built. There is an estimated £20 billion backlog of housing repairs. Housing benefit fraud is estimated to be at £2 billion and rising, with only a pathetic 700 successful prosecutions last year.
The Deputy Prime Minister has now confirmed in his statement that council and housing association rents are a mess after three years. Is he not embarrassed? [Interruption.] Is he not embarrassed that, after three years in government and one year before he retires to his RMT-owned flat in Clapham, all he can produce is a Green Paper for consultation? Is it not a splendid irony that it is the Deputy Prime Minister, the self-appointed guardian of the old left, who should end up starved of Treasury funding and presiding over plans finally to abolish council housing in Britain?
The Green Paper is a long shopping list of ideas for consultation. The question that the House is entitled to ask is: how much of that has been costed? Who will pay? When will the Deputy Prime Minister deliver and what will he deliver? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear these important exchanges.
Mr. Norman: How will the Deputy Prime Minister's widely trailed mortgage subsidies, which have been proposed in the very week that MIRAS is abolished, be funded? How much will they cost and has he agreed them with the Treasury? Is that proposal not more than a little divisive? How will the Deputy Prime Minister explain who will receive the subsidies? Is it right that a nurse in the south-east can get a home loan, but that a nurse or hospital cleaner in the north-west cannot?
Are not the Deputy Prime Minister's new proposals to make local authorities shareholders in arms-length companies just a muddled way of getting around the Treasury and of enabling councils to borrow money? Has he cleared it with the Treasury? What will it do for tenants that bulk transfers to housing associations cannot do better? Is it not the housing equivalent of the air traffic control fiasco: the worst of all possible options? Is not tinkering with the priorities for places in housing lists a poor substitute for reducing growing waiting lists in the first place?
How will hard-working families feel about being queue-jumped by released prisoners? Is that another example of a Labour Government penalising those who work hard and who do the right thing for society and for their families?
Why is it that, after three years of a Labour Government, five Labour councils have the worst record on empty council housing in Britain? One is Kingston upon Hull—the Deputy Prime Minister's own constituency. When will he deliver on any of his earlier manifesto commitments? These are basic facts. Housing investment has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1997. When will he increase it so that it will again reach the levels delivered by the previous Conservative Government, which he chose to deride in his statement? When will he increase the number of social houses built—which has fallen by a third since 1996, not risen—so that it will again reach the levels delivered by a Conservative Government at the end of our time in office?
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. In conclusion, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is still asking questions, not providing answers, after three years in government? Is not the bottom line the fact that housing policy is being sacrificed to a turf war between him and the Treasury? The Treasury has won and the Green Paper is the surrender document. Is there a single item in the consultation document that will deliver anything in the lifetime of the Government? Does it seriously pass the Kilfoyle test? On housing, is not the bitter truth that the Deputy Prime Minister will go down in history as not only a new Labour failure, but an old Labour failure as well?
Mr. Prescott: Another impressive performance! May I put the record straight on one fact? If one looks at the history of local authorities, of Labour government and of the building of council housing in this country, our record stands clear against that of Conservative Administrations. I well recall that, after a Labour Government built the massive housing estates after the war, a Tory Government were returned and brought in what were called the Macmillan houses, and they achieved 300,000 by

817
reducing the size and the quality of houses. Macmillan houses, such as those in my constituency, are known as ones where people bring the rubbish through the front room to take it to the dust cart. That is the reality of what Tories have done. They have never been concerned about the quality of social housing—the evidence has always been clear.
Let me address a number of points. With regard to leaks and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), I can only assume, and the House might accept, that if I had leaked the statement I would hardly have said that I would give priority to prisoners. That would not be the leak that I should have wanted to give to the press, but I might say that to pick on that point—[Interruption.] I would hardly do that—there are more positive things to say. With regard to the prejudice here and the extent of homelessness, let me make it clear that a third of homeless people have been in care. We have some responsibility to provide them with homes. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman may well know, some might be Tory Members of Parliament coming out of prison to whom we would want to give some consideration.
With regard to the personal matter, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly resent any implications that I did wrong concerning rents and my flat. I have done what is proper—[Interruption.] I trust that the House will listen. I have done what is proper and immediately referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner to ask for advice. This rent is covered by legislation passed by a previous Tory Government. In those circumstances, it would be better if the House would at least accord me the right to wait for the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether any offence has occurred. Indeed, Members should not simply rely on press reports. Everyone should at least expect that, and I certainly expect it from the hon. Gentleman. I personally do not want to get involved in a slanging match on those matters; I make the fair point—[interruption.]—I am responding to the point made by the Opposition spokesman.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's comments on houses, it is a bit much for an Opposition spokesman to talk about the disinvestment that took place in the social housing stock. We estimate that as about £19 billion. That occurred because the policy of the previous Tory Administration was to sell housing, while denying councils the use of the £5 billion in their accounts to improve their properties. That was especially obscene. We corrected that injustice immediately. Let us compare our investment to that of the previous Government, which was referred to in the press reports. From 1991 to the last year of their administration in 1997, under the Treasury commitments made by the Conservative Chancellor, capital investment was halved. With the £5 billion, we have doubled it since we came into office. That is the reality.
The Conservatives halved investment through that period—the figures are clear. We have doubled it. We have changed direction because we are investing in social housing, as we are committed to do. Today, we are talking about the quality of housing. That is the difference between us.
818
The policy on MIRAS was not started by us. The reduction of MIRAS and of the payments for the subsidy of mortgages for private housing were initiated by the previous Administration. Both sides of the House agreed that MIRAS had affected house prices and that it should be abolished. The former Chancellor wanted to abolish it in one go. The objective has now been achieved by both Labour and Conservative Governments. We felt that MIRAS unfairly influenced the price of houses. I believe that there was agreement on that across the House.
On local borrowing and my influence on the Treasury, I am accused, on the one hand, of having no influence with the Treasury and, on the other, of getting something from the Treasury that I should not have received. What I achieved for local authorities was the right to borrow.
Local authorities were discriminated against. Housing associations were able to borrow against their rents and assets. It was unfair that local authority tenants should be discriminated against because local authorities were not allowed to raise resources against their assets and the income stream to improve the quality of their housing. I have removed that discrimination. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to have the same advantage. That is right. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in that matter.
That opportunity is a major and most welcome change. It will be given to those local authorities that have good management standards, achieve best value and can get on with providing good council housing. The Green Paper is a major step towards a more comprehensive approach to housing. I shall not deal with any more of the questions put by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, as they were wholly irrelevant.
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Frank Dobson.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper and its recognition of the problems in London, where vital workers, such as nurses and teachers, are being priced out of the city because of the rise in housing costs? I thank him for adopting my suggestion that interest-free and cheap loans for nurses and teachers would be helpful. I urge him to proceed with those proposals as quickly as possible because a large number of hard-working people in London are under severe pressure. We need those teachers and nurses; we cannot afford to lose them because they are being driven out by housing costs.
Mr. Prescott: Like other hon. Members, I welcome my right hon. Friend to our proceedings today. I am delighted to support his election campaign. I also congratulate him on the campaign he led while he was Secretary of State for Health. That should be properly recorded. I held many discussions with him—as did many of my hon. Friends—on the new starter home initiative. His concern was especially for teachers and nurses, although I know that the issue also became important in relation to the police.
Perhaps I could point out to my right hon. Friend that I have read the South London Press, as one tends to do when one has nothing has else to read—I hope that I do not get into trouble with the South London Press. In an article dated 31 March, the newspaper quotes someone

819
complaining about the sale of homes set aside for police officers and nurses in London and it accuses the past Administration of selling off police section houses and
police estates and…good nursing accommodation.
That seems to be a powerful argument, particularly when it comes from the Tory party's candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steven Norris.
Mr. Don Foster: Why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is with us is, I suppose, beyond our Ken. However, we are delighted to see him here.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have advance notice of his statement. We acknowledge that the Green Paper is a consultation document and we look forward to participating in the discussions that will follow. We welcome much that is in the document: the proposals for a more flexible housing market; the speeding up of house sales; the wider definition of homelessness, which is long overdue; and the promise of action on leasehold reform.
However, we have concerns on three issues. First, although it is important to offer new powers and responsibilities to local councils, giving them those powers and responsibilities without the promise of additional resources is meaningless. They must be told how they will fund new loans, how they will have the money for increased discretionary grants and how they will make payments to home improvement agencies. The proposals will be useless unless they receive the promise of additional funding.
Secondly, I simply fail to understand why, apart from the few headline-grabbing proposals, any real reform of housing benefit has been kicked into the long grass. The Government promised us that they would take tough decisions, but on this issue, at least, they appear to have chickened out.
Thirdly, why is the Deputy Prime Minister so totally besotted with stock housing transfer? Why, in the latest proposals, will he allow councils to borrow additional money only if they are prepared to privatise their housing management systems? Surely there should be a level playing field in which housing associations and councils can borrow money on equal terms. Tenants could then choose. At present, they can choose anything that they like so long as they say yes to transfer. That is like having a pistol put to their heads.
Mr. Prescott: I am most grateful for the warm support that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Green Paper. I hope that it will start a debate and achieve the consensus that we want. Resolving the problems will take longer than the term of any one Government. There is a desperate desire to reach consensus; the problems of housing finance, and particularly housing benefit, mean that one must achieve considerable agreement. We will achieve nothing if Governments continually seek to change policy. On housing benefits and rents, we must take a long-term view; anyone considering the problem knows that that is true. By keeping the Green Paper green, by not coming to conclusions and by holding discussions, I hope that I am able to achieve such consensus.
That does not mean that we are not doing anything. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done much in the Department of Social Security to
820
deal with such matters. As I said earlier, it is important that we get a proper balance to deal with fraud and to improve administration. However, the real problem is with structural reform. People should recognise that and realise that it is a long-term problem involving—let us make no mistake about it—many political difficulties. We have started to make changes and we look forward to considerable debate and discussion on them.
On local authorities and stock housing, I cannot have made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman—even though I thought that I had. Ownership of the stock remains with the local authority; it is not passed over as with other stock transfers. He should bear in mind that local authorities have pushed us to take a different approach so that they can have access to resources to improve the quality of their stock after such massive disinvestment has taken place. In some cases, they are stock transfers, which were offered by the previous Administration in 1988, and PFIs have been pushed by some local authorities. I have opened a new possibility. Local authorities will keep the ownership of the assets—it is not privatisation—and they will borrow against the income and the assets.
In some local authorities—Burnley is one—the overhanging debt is too great compared with the value of the houses to obtain a private finance arrangement. We are making some changes to deal with such cases. I am offering another option—giving local authorities another opportunity. As for resources, the on-going spending review will measure the sums going into housing. A combination of a new source of borrowing and new resources resulting from the spending review will deal with the housing changes.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the best statement on housing since I was Minister in charge of housing in the last Labour Government. After that time, the Conservatives ended the council house building programme and caused appalling problems for owner-occupiers. My right hon. Friend is putting that right. I especially congratulate him on dealing with collusive fraud between private landlords and their tenants, which, in inner city areas such as my constituency, is a stain on housing finance.
I thank my right hon. Friend for pioneering pilot schemes and suggest that the Gorton division of Manchester would be a good place to run one. I have received strong representations from many constituents living in local authority estates saying that they want to have the right to remain council house tenants. Despite all the shortcomings that may affect council house management, council housing is accountable in a way that even Housing Corporation housing is not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide assurances for me to take back to Manchester.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's warm support: his record as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and in housing matters is so considerable that I should be grateful to leave with a similar reputation—I am working on it.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make a bid for his area to host a pilot scheme and that he will be a powerful advocate for it. He makes an important point about tenants' rights. The first housing action trust introduced by the previous Administration was in my

821
constituency. Those who remember the debates at that time will know that the Tories took the view that tenants should have no say. However, they found that no one would take up the scheme, so when the first one was introduced in the Hull area, tenants had the right to vote; they all voted to return to local authority control.
We think that tenants' rights are important: tenants should have considerable influence over where they live, how they live and what happens to them. That is why we shall ensure that there is accountability and that none of the schemes will be introduced without tenants' agreement.
Mr. Eric Pickles: In chapter 11 of the Green Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister lays down seven commitments on housing benefit, all of which fall well short of its fundamental reform. Is he aware that the list bears an uncanny resemblance to a list published in Housing Today, which stated that the measures had been considered by the Government a year ago, but had been dismissed as inadequate tinkering on the fringe? How has the passage of a year turned measures that were dismissed as tinkering on the fringe into fundamental reforms of housing benefit? Is not the truth that the wheels have fallen off welfare reform?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a leak and on reports of the Government's views. We do not think that our measures constitute tinkering; they make a contribution to the discussion that we shall have to have about housing benefit, and to radical change. The previous Administration introduced housing benefit and watched it increase from £2 billion to £11 billion, yet they did little to check fraud. It is important that we deal with fraud, but issues of administration, how to deal with people, how to apply the benefit and rent structure are all fundamental.
I believe that there will be fundamental reforms, once agreement is reached, but I do not kid myself that there is not a long and controversial road to be trod before we achieve that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is tinkering, I can live with that, but I think that the measures contribute to radical change.
Mr. Clive Soley: May I express my delight that my right hon. Friend has put quality and affordability back at the top of the housing agenda, after they were removed by the Conservative party for all those years? Will he make sure that we keep mobility up there as a major priority? People want to choose the area in which they live, and they want to choose whether to rent or buy, and to interchange between the rented and purchase sectors at different stages of their life, as events dictate. I welcome the Green Paper immensely and I hope that my right hon. Friend carries it forward.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I well remember when he was the shadow spokesman on housing, and the emphasis that he placed on mobility and quality. However, he does himself less than justice. There is one aspect of my statement today that he should especially welcome. He was the man who made a statement, as I did supporting him, suggesting that
822
local authorities should have the right to borrow against their assets and to use their income stream to improve quality and choice in housing. He got a terrible press, and a great deal of reaction from some on our side. I am delighted to say that what I announced today has long been advocated by my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Bercow: What is the implication of the Secretary of State's borrowing proposal for the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?
Mr. Prescott: All our proposals, particularly in respect of borrowing requirements, depend on how far we advance. The extent of the borrowing will determine the interest rate. Once we establish that, we will be able to make a judgment. That will be taken into account when we allocate the resources available for borrowing.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What improvement does my right hon. Friend expect in inner London housing as a result of the Green Paper? Although many would welcome the recognition of the need for homes for nurses, teachers and police staff, I hope that there will also be a recognition of the need for homes for people who are on a housing waiting list and who have no possibility whatever of renting privately or buying. For them, the only future is to move out. Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a need for local authorities to be able to buy or build, in order to alleviate the terrible housing stress and the overcrowding in which many inner-city children are growing up in London?
Mr. Prescott: No one can doubt my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties of housing in London. Most of us, who come from various parts of the United Kingdom, know that to be true. There are real difficulties. However, there are still problems with empty homes, even in his constituency. Unfortunately, that is often a result of inadequate resources being allocated to maintain standards. It should be recognised that no local authority likes to have empty houses; it is income lost. I am told that even in Tunbridge Wells there has been a 50 per cent. increase in empty houses. I do not know why that should be so—perhaps it has happened since the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was elected or his constituents heard him at the Dispatch Box.
There are serious housing problems, but we are moving to help. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the key worker proposal. We are providing extra resources, and the £5 billion has had its effect in the London area. The waiting list remains a problem. Although housing is still the responsibility of central Government, I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is elected as London mayor, we will get together. He will have responsibility for planning, we will have responsibility for housing, and we will see what we can do together to improve the situation in London.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the transfer of 200,000 houses a year. The Local Government Bill contains compelling incentives for the continuation of the transfer of existing housing stock to social landlords. Is it the

823
Government's intention to force councils to continue, even when it is not financially viable for them to do so? We have heard precious little about resources today.
Mr. Prescott: No, local authorities will not be forced to transfer houses. It is optional for them, and they must secure the agreement of the tenants, so there are two checks on whether they go along that road. The figure of 200,000 is not a target that we expect them to meet. We are allocating expenditure to allow them to deal with the transfer of up to 200,000 houses.
I have shown that since we came to office, we have doubled the resources available, and I hope for more resources from the spending review. The money that we have put in and the changes that we are making will considerably improve housing and will ensure that many of the decisions must be agreed between the local authority and the tenants.
Ms Karen Buck: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a wide-ranging and genuinely exciting set of housing options? I was particularly pleased to hear him refer to changes in the allocation procedure, which will introduce choice and flexibility to people who are often totally disempowered by the present process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the investment in additional social housing is critical, particularly in London, where we currently house 40,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Can we build on the success of the rough sleepers initiative, so that under a Labour Government we will end the scandal of children growing up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend's view is consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about children and homelessness. I very much agree with her remarks about tenants having choice. Most of us who have dealt with the points system with our various councils understand it to be fair, but it is discriminatory. It leaves many people dissatisfied with the system. We are trying to improve choice so that the tenant feels part of the system and not that he is being told to take it or leave it, which has undermined a great deal of public housing.
I take my hon. Friend's point that the amount of investment in social housing in London is critical. Apart from the provision of housing, we look for social housing and mixed development in new development sites. I am delighted that 20 per cent. of the millennium village concept that we are developing at Greenwich will be affordable housing.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Deputy Prime Minister say a little more about housing benefit reform, into which a Select Committee is conducting a comprehensive inquiry? He said that this reform is the greenest part of his statement. When does he expect to come to a conclusion on the matter? He must accept that the present system distorts the market, as he has said so. I detected the hand of 10 Downing street in the lauding of the market heard in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is he prepared to consider fundamental reforms such as giving help to tenants so that they can shop around
824
rather than giving help and subsidies direct to the landlord? These will be fundamental reforms, but we need decisions quite soon.
Mr. Prescott: Many of the proposals in the Green Paper cover some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Anyone who has had to consider housing benefit and structural rents will realise that they raise complex issues. I have suggested before that, if we make adjustments to rents and housing benefit and to all the issues that would flow from that, there would be gainers and losers. That is my answer to those who ask, "How long will it take?" We must ensure that the period of transition during which change is introduced will be fair to all concerned. Fundamental changes will not come overnight. We want consensus. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman's proposals are mentioned in the Green Paper.
Ms Glenda Jackson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on approaching housing, or rather the lack of it, in such an imaginative and practical way? I congratulate him also on acknowledging that housing, be it public or private, is a national asset and that the nation must work to maintain it. At the same time, he has restated firmly and comprehensively Labour's commitment to social housing.
In central London, there is an increasing problem in the private sector, where exploitative landlords are increasing their rents year on year. Elderly and frail people, whose incomings are frozen, see their outgoings increasing every year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will address this issue with some speed. I follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in making a plea for a pilot private finance initiative for the Chalcot estate in my constituency.
Mr. Prescott: I hear what my hon. Friend says about special pleading. Presumably there must be proposed measures in the Green Paper that are welcome, and I am delighted that that is so. I wish my hon. Friend good luck with the application.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that housing is a national asset. We must have housing policies. Governments have been actively involved in the housing programme, with a commitment especially to social housing. However, there is clearly a difference between the parties in the priorities that we deploy in dealing with social housing, as we have seen today.
There is a major problem with the private sector and exploitative landlords. There are very good landlords but there are also bad ones, who get a great deal of publicity. We want to deal with them because we do not think that they are fair. As is mentioned in the Green Paper, sometimes bad landlords act in collusion with tenants. That undermines good will and good policy, and in some cases it is clearly fraudulent and criminal. We shall take whatever action we can to prevent it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that some of the worst areas in terms of the housing affordability gap are those where there is a disproportionate number of second homes that create an artificial market, such as Cornwall and the lake

825
district, where there are ghost villages in winter and where it is entirely uneconomic for the people to whom he has referred to buy or rent at the prices that prevail? May I ask him to review, as part of the consultation process, the opportunities that he can give local authorities to tackle the problem?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. There are difficulties. We have already made a start on 50 per cent. of the empty homes in our towns and cities. My colleague said at Question Time that we are considering the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has made.
The provision of housing in rural areas is an important issue. I recently visited one of the dale areas. A farmer complained that he wanted to convert a farm into two or three houses for local residents but was prevented by the planning authority's requirements, simply because he apparently said—I do not know whether it is true—that people would live in the houses and hang their washing on the line, and that a road would have to built. We must change such attitudes, because some rural areas as well as some urban areas suffer genuine problems. Housing is equally important in rural and urban areas.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the Green Paper that my right hon. Friend introduced this afternoon. I represent a constituency that contains 3,000 older empty terraced houses, and I urge my right hon. Friend to acknowledge the wide variation of housing problems in various parts of the country. We must ensure that our policy is flexible. I also urge him to press the Treasury to look again at reducing VAT on housing repairs and renovation, because that would do a lot for areas with older housing stock, which cannot be renovated because people cannot afford it.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I acknowledge the problem of the variation in housing in all our cities. I can recall the housing to which my hon. Friend refers from my visits to Burnley. The Green Paper tries to deal with all the different sorts of properties. Our policy is about homes for all, whether in the public or the private sector.
My hon. Friend's second point, about VAT, was a recommendation of Lord Rogers. We have considered whether the fiscal framework can assist in such programmes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement that he wants to consider the way in which the fiscal framework can help. The matter is not a complete write-off; we are continuing to consider it. I bear in mind Lord Rogers' recommendations in his urban regeneration report, which I commissioned.
My hon. Friend made two points; he could have made a third. We have agreed a settlement on overhanging debt to help Burnley to tackle its housing problems.
Mr. Pike: Thank you.
Ms Margaret Moran: As a former housing association director and chair of a housing committee, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to end the illogical investment rules for housing
826
associations and local authorities. It gives local authorities a genuine opportunity to use investment to tackle housing need in their areas.
What plans has my right hon. Friend to deal with the problem of the differences in rents between housing associations and local authorities and between regions? Often, similar properties have widely varying rents regardless of their condition. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle that and thus facilitate the provision of more choice for our tenants and residents, and end the scandal of the massive increases in council and housing association rents which happened under the previous Government?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her supportive remarks. I readily acknowledge her active part in housing. As she said, the local authority changes should have happened a long time ago. I am delighted to end that discrimination and place faith in local authorities to begin to build good quality houses in the public sector.
My hon. Friend's other important point is covered in the Green Paper. It is amazing to consider the different rent structures not only between local authorities and housing corporations but for the same sort of house in different local authority areas. The differences between regions are a genuine problem. We acknowledge that there must be a social rent that is below the market rent, but we need to establish uniform principles that apply to the rent structure. Tackling that would have consequential effects on housing benefit and on the role of housing finance to which we are committed in the Green Paper.
Ms Oona King: I too welcome the Green Paper and the way in which it moves housing further up the agenda. Did the Deputy Prime Minister share some of my incredulity when listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on the key workers scheme? He suggested that he could not perceive a difference between people in different parts of the country. However, in the north of England, nurses who earn £14,000 may be able to buy a four-bedroomed terraced house for £10,000. Meanwhile, a house in Tower Hamlets in my constituency has just gone for £500,000.
In the light of that, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that help will also go to other vital workers, such as hospital porters, cleaners and waste collectors, so that people living in areas with high increases in house prices get a chance to have a decent house and a roof over their head?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm words of support. She makes a powerful point about key workers. The proposal covers not only those workers whom I have mentioned, but people who are in difficult circumstances in areas of high-cost housing, which are not necessarily limited to London and the south-east. There are various key workers, such as hospital porters, nurses and teachers. We will leave local authorities and the appropriate bodies to make a judgment. We must clearly address that problem.
Key workers are an essential part of the programme; important workers need housing. However, I shall resist saying what I was going to add.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall resist calling any more questions.

Health Care Standards for Elderly Persons
4.26 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment or the provision of an inferior standard of care on the basis of age and to establish an inquiry into the extent of age discrimination in the provision of health services.
I am presenting the Bill to highlight the national problem of age discrimination in health services, including dental services, and to urge the Government to set up a national inquiry to investigate the massive evidence of discrimination and prejudice against the elderly. The Bill is backed by Age Concern, and has the wholehearted support of Help the Aged. I should like to thank everyone in those organisations for their dedication and commitment to the elderly. I should particularly like to thank Julia Lueginger and Caroline Gilchrist of Age Concern for their terrific support and expertise in helping to produce the Bill.
It is an open secret that elderly people are vulnerable and do not receive the same quality of treatment as younger people. They may not be as physically active as younger people, and may not be able to communicate as well. There is clearly prejudice at work, because the elderly do not always receive the respect that they deserve.
I am not saying that the national health service is, per se, discriminatory against the elderly—it is not. Thousands of caring auxiliaries, nurses, doctors and consultants fight day in and day out to give the best possible care and treatment to the elderly. I salute them, as I know that they work under great pressure. I have seen that at first hand, and I am amazed at how well they cope. Many older people have said that they have received outstanding care, but worryingly the multitude of evidence that has been sent to Age Concern shows that there is a case to answer.
The country was delighted with the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget of £2 billion of extra money this financial year, with a promise to drive up health spending towards the European Union average. That is long overdue, and I warmly welcome it. However, it must go hand in hand with more modernisation and an improvement in standards. I want measures to stamp out discrimination against the elderly, and a real commitment to improving health care standards for older people.
I appreciate the fact that the Government will publish later this year a national service framework for older people. However, I believe that an inquiry is still needed to establish the size of the problem, and to send a strong signal to pensioners that the Government are listening to them. It is not about better service decisions in the future, but about stamping out discrimination now.
This weekend, The Sunday Times reported the allegations of a junior doctor, Rita Pal, who came across examples of discrimination because of the age of the patient. I understand that a dossier containing the allegations has been sent to the General Medical Council. Two weeks earlier, an undercover Sunday Times reporter had found other cases of mistreatment of the elderly.
828
Since launching its campaign, Age Concern has been inundated with hundreds of detailed accounts of elderly people receiving poor to appalling treatment. Its report, "Turning your back on us", graphically illustrates the point. Four new cases provide examples of the continuing discrimination experienced by the elderly and their relatives.
The first case concerns an elderly lady from London. Her daughter reports that she suffered initially from a chest infection; however, when the daughter visited her in hospital, she found new bruises on her body. She also found that her mother sometimes received no assistance with feeding, that pills were left by her bedside, and that an oxygen tube was not plugged in. That elderly lady died.
The second case, in Nottingham, involves an 84-year-old lady who, at 75, was told by her GP that she was suffering from a build-up of cholesterol. However, she was allegedly told that the cut-off age for cholesterol treatment was 70. She never received the treatment on the NHS.
The third case is that of an elderly lady from Berkshire, who was admitted to hospital for a routine operation and, unfortunately, was then rushed into intensive care. It is alleged that she was moved out of intensive care early to make way for a 30-year-old woman. The elderly lady subsequently died.
The fourth case concerns an 81-year-old lady from Darlington, who suffered for seven months owing to a misdiagnosis by a GP and the local hospital. Doctors did not believe her desperate cries of constant pain, which they put down to arthritis and emotional distress. In fact, it was not all in her head: it turned out to be cancer.
Those cases and many more are subject to internal complaints procedures and ombudsman reviews. Each case on its own could be dismissed as an isolated one, but the sheer weight of cases adds up to something far more serious. There is clearly discrimination against older people in parts of the NHS, although it is not limited to the NHS; I would say that the problem exists throughout today's society.
We would rightly never stand for discrimination against people because of the colour of their skin, their sex or their sexuality. I fear that a lack of respect for older people is becoming endemic across society. Medical decisions should be made solely on a basis of clinical need. I believe that, as well as providing decent, fair standards of health care based on clinical need, we should ensure that we fulfil a debt of gratitude to that generation. A generation who survived Hitler's blitz deserve the best health care.
The elderly are not a drain or a burden on the health service; they are the pioneers who designed and built the NHS. In its campaign "Dignity on the Ward", Help the Aged draws attention to the need to change the views of certain medical professionals about the elderly. Some 1,300 people wrote supporting the campaign and highlighting appalling standards of care in—again—parts of the NHS.
We are not talking just about discrimination that prevents people from receiving treatment; this goes much further. We need to stamp out the second-class-citizen mentality that is sometimes found nowadays. Older people deserve respect. Sometimes they are frightened to speak out, fearing that their treatment will be stopped, or never started, if they complain.

829
Age Concern discovered from a Gallup survey that one in 20 people over 65 had been refused treatment, while one in 10 felt that they had been treated differently since turning 50. It has been found that four out of 10 coronary care units apply age restrictions to certain drugs, that two thirds of kidney patients over 70 have been refused dialysis or transplants, and that some clinical trials involve age limits. That is blatant, unacceptable discrimination.
I urge the Government to set up a national inquiry to investigate this national scandal. We need to establish the extent of the discrimination that is spreading across society, to identify the underlying reasons for it, and to come up with new ways of rooting out the prejudice and discrimination. We need to educate, and to raise awareness of the problems. Above all, we need to send a clear signal to everyone in the NHS that discrimination will not be tolerated.
As for those—I shall call them angels—in the NHS who care so well for the elderly: I thank them. We must aim to raise standards to their level—to be sensitive, patient and respectful to the elderly. As for the minority who discriminate against and abuse the elderly, I remind them of this: one day, they too will grow old. I urge the House to support the Bill and to end discrimination against the elderly in the health care services.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Dr. Vincent Cable, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Ms Linda Perham and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Health Care Standards for Elderly Persons
  HEALTH CARE STANDARDS FOR ELDERLY PERSONS
  Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment or the provision of an inferior standard of care on the basis of age and to establish an inquiry into the extent of age discrimination in the provision of health services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 103].
Orders of the Day

  Freedom of Information Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Freedom of Information Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 16, Schedule 2, Clauses 17 to 54, Schedule 3, Clauses 55 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 66, Schedule 5, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 84, Schedule 7, Clauses 85 and 86, new Clauses and new Schedules.—[Mr. McNulty.]

  Freedom of Information Bill
    Clause 1

      GENERAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      4.37 pm
      Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 1, line 7, at end insert'.—
      '.—(A1) The purpose of this Act is to facilitate public access to information held by public authorities.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—
      Purposes—
      '.—(1) The purposes of this Act are to extend progressively the right of the public to information held by public authorities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the need to protect interests specified in exemptions, so as to promote—

      (a) the accountability of public authorities;

      (b) informed public debate on public affairs;

      (c) public participation in the making of decisions; and

      (d) public understanding of the powers, duties and operation of public authorities.

      (2) This Act shall be interpreted so as to further the purposes specified in subsection (1) and to encourage the disclosure of information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.'.
      Mr. Lidington: It gives me real pleasure, and almost a sense of nostalgia, to participate for the first time in the House's deliberations on the Freedom of Information Bill. I recall that one of the very first Standing Committees on which I served as a newly elected Member, in 1992 or 1993, considered the Right to Know Bill, which was a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). At various times in his parliamentary career—under Governments of red, of blue and of palish pink—he has been a doughty champion of the public's right to know and of greater access to information.
      I think that there is a growing consensus both across the country and across the party political divide that a characteristic of a mature democracy is that we trust the people, and that that trust includes trusting people with access to information that previously might have been kept within the charmed circle of Whitehall and of parts of Westminster.
      Amendment No. 100 seeks to establish a clear purpose to the Bill, by including in it a statement of aims that should govern the decisions of those who, when the Bill is enacted, will be charged with its interpretation and implementation. We believe that that is important because

      831
      the Bill includes a considerable number of tests that have to be applied to categories of information that, either wholly or partially, are exempt from the presumption that they should be disclosed. There should be a clear statutory direction from Parliament to those who will have to assess individual applications for disclosure that the overriding purpose of the legislation is to enlarge and enhance public access to official information.
      The Conservative Government introduced the code of practice on access to Government information in 1994 and strengthened it in 1997. Although it was not a statutory document, it required public authorities to make information available, subject to a limited number of exceptions. The purpose clause was a significant element of the code. It was located at the beginning of the document and set out clearly that the approach of public authorities must
      in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
      The Bill is deficient in having no clear statement of its purpose. Our amendment would ensure that its principal objective was to give the public the right of access to information held by the Government. New clause 1 approaches that deficiency in the legislation from a different angle, using different language. It is a matter of fine judgment as to which form of words one prefers. We see no harm in the new clause. Those who have tabled it are approaching the issue in the same spirit as the Opposition Front Bench.
      The debate is not simply about the Conservative Opposition pointing to deficiencies in a Labour Government's Bill. The Public Administration Committee report in July 1999 said:
      We recommend that the Bill should contain a clear statement indicating what it is intended to achieve and indicating a presumption in favour of disclosure.
      That view was also expressed by the Data Protection Registrar, Mrs. Elizabeth France, who is due to become the first Information Commissioner under the Bill. In her response to the consultation document on the draft legislation, she argued that a straightforward purpose statement in the Bill would be helpful to all, especially those making decisions about disclosure in relation to any exemption.
      The Government responded to the Select Committee report with two minor amendments that changed the title of the draft Bill and made the clause on the right of access to information the first clause. The Select Committee, with its Labour majority, was not satisfied with those minor concessions. In a further report, the Committee concluded that there was still no presumption in favour of disclosure.
      A purpose clause was included in the non-statutory code of practice on access to information. Purpose clauses are common in overseas Freedom of Information Acts, including those of New Zealand and Australia, and they have been used in United Kingdom legislation, including the Arbitration Act 1996 and the present Government's Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I can see no persuasive reason why the Government should resist the introduction of a purpose clause. Even at this late stage of proceedings in this House, I hope that Home Office Ministers will listen to the united call from Members of all parties and from distinguished people outside the House with an interest in these matters and will conclude that the Bill should be amended.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is entirely right to say that the issues adumbrated in amendment No. 100 are also central to new clause 1, which has been tabled in the names of hon. Members of all parties. We are seeking the same objective, which I should have thought would conform with the Government's stated wish to ensure that the enactment of the Bill will effect a climatic change in the business of administration. There should not be an adversarial procedure between those who seek information and want to open matters up, and those who hold that information and want to keep it back.
      The Government's objective—enunciated in the White Paper preceding the Bill and in the statements by the Home Secretary and other Ministers—is to ensure that the public right to know is recognised in the code of practice and in law. In order to change the climate, it is very important that the Bill's purposes be set out clearly. That should not be done in narrow terms, or with a picky, legalistic approach to language. It should be done broadly, with the aim of carrying forward the right to know.
      The hon. Member for Aylesbury described how the issue had been treated in other countries. The legislation in New Zealand and Australia has been established for quite a long time and contains provisions similar to those proposed in new clause 1. It has proved to be helpful in those countries, and I draw particular attention to the experience in New Zealand, which I think was in the mind of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who originally brought forward the Government's policy on this matter. The provision has been invoked by the New Zealand courts in seeking to interpret the law, and that seems to be a very practical use of a declaratory principle in legislation.
      The language of new clause 1 closely follows the Australian legislation, which has been tried and has not been found wanting. The new clause goes slightly further than amendment No. 100, in that it spells out in some detail the purposes of the Bill under four headings. Those purposes are to promote
      the accountability of public authorities…informed public debate on public affairs…public participation in the making of decisions, and…public understanding of the powers, duties and operation of public authorities.
      Those objectives are all consonant with an open democracy.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the provision often been invoked by the courts in New Zealand? I simply do not know, but it is an interesting point.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not know how often "often" is, but it has been invoked on a number of occasions. It has achieved its purpose, in that it has indicated where the balance of the legislation lies. If there is a discretion to be exercised, the authorities should lean in the direction of recognising the public's right to know. In a sense, even if this had been cited only once—and I know that it has been cited more than once—it would have established, or helped to establish, as a matter of jurisprudence, that the Bill was leaning in that direction.
      New clause 1 also seeks to underline that the process is perceived as dynamic. We are not passing a law that will always be precisely reflected in the behaviour of

      833
      officials without change and without the benefit of experience. In cases in which discretions must be exercised, it can be used progressively, and perhaps more openly, once initial concerns about the consequences for administration of openness of government are mitigated by the evidence that it achieves the purposes set out in the new clause.
      I hope that the Minister will be strongly sympathetic to the purposes of the new clause, and will embrace it, for there is no mischief in it. The Minister may argue—as it was argued in Committee when similar attempts to introduce such a provision were made—that this is not necessary. I put it to him that it is necessary to remove doubt as to how the Bill is to be interpreted when issues come up for decision, and against what general rubrics such decisions should be taken.
      New clause 1 has perfectly good precedents in other British legislation. I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Aylesbury has said, but I will refer again to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration by Elizabeth France, who is to be the commissioner. Her evidence must be given the greatest possible weight, as she will have the task of policing the legislation and ensuring that it is effective. She has straightforwardly said, about the idea of having a purpose clause:
      I think it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions…
      She said in her oral evidence given in June 1999, question 187:
      I would agree with Lord Burns that officials will look in detail at what is written in the statute unless a very clear lead is given from the top of the public bodies as to what action is appropriate. If there is nothing there that tells them to weigh in the balance a general interest in disclosure then they will not do so.
      It is for that reason, above all, that we would do well to follow the precedents established overseas and incorporate them into the Bill.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who contributed so much to the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
      I urge the Government to be sympathetic to new clause 1 and amendment No. 100, both of which, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, seek to insert a general purposes clause in the Bill. I believe that to do so would set the tone of the whole Bill. That is what such clauses do in the legislation of New Zealand and in that of the other countries that we looked at for comparators.
      I believe that the tone that I seek is the tone that the Government want to set. That tone would emphasise that the Bill aims to empower and liberate and to give people rights to be informed. It should give people the right to know what is going on in our society. Surely there can be no better way to frame such legislation than to include a simple purpose clause setting out its aims and objectives, establishing a presumption in favour of the right to know.
      The Minister may say that the Bill is more complicated than that, which is true of such legislation in every country in which it has been introduced. There is a difficult balance between the rights of good government
      834
      and people's right to know, a point understood on both sides of the Chamber and by anyone who has studied freedom of information legislation. The principles are simple and clear, but achievement of freedom of information is difficult. To get the balance right while maintaining as the spine of legislation a presumption in favour of a right to know is the problem that a purpose clause would be valuable in tackling.
      Sadly, I fear that that is precisely why the Government will resist the amendment, as they did in Committee. I remind the Minister of what he said then:
      We must assume that such a clause would be given legislative effect by the commissioner, the tribunal and courts, and that it would therefore change the balance of rights and put a gloss on the Bill as a whole. That may be unpredictable and uncontrollable.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2000; c. 29.]
      Of course, a purpose clause would set a tone, but I think that it would put a constructive gloss on the Bill. I do not agree that it would be unpredictable and uncontrollable; plenty of controls are built into the Bill, and the commissioner will have plenty of powers.
      The Bill is understandably and, in most instances correctly, hedged about with caveats. Over the next two days, we shall deal with many difficult matters on which the balance is fine. If we are to do right, however, we must hold in our minds a general presumption in favour of freedom of information and the right to know. A purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill would help us to do so.
      The Minister may well be right to say that such a clause would change the Bill's balance, but I believe that it would do so constructively, ensuring that the Bill's thrust was positive and liberating, rather than reluctant. At present, I fear, the Bill has a grudging tone. That should not be so. The Government should be proud of it, and the people of the country should be liberated by it and proud of a Government who introduce it. However, wherever a balance must be struck between the rights of the public authority to withhold intellectual property—the information that it holds—and the rights of an applicant to have access to that information, the Bill comes down time and again in favour of the authority.
      Sometimes, that is right. We shall hear of instances in which that is an understandable and justifiable position. However, it rings through the Bill like a tocsin that the balance falls in favour of the owner of information rather than the applicant. A purpose clause would be an attempt to correct that balance. If the Minister is correct to say that such a clause would add a gloss, I have to say that the Bill needs one.
      5 pm
      There is much good sense in the Bill, and we want to get it into statute as soon as possible and in the best possible state, but if it is to be the liberating legislation that it ought to be, it needs a framework that states clearly that it is on the side of the applicant and of people's right to know. For that reason, I hope that the Government will think again about this issue and find a way to draft a purpose clause that will declare their interest, and the public's interest, in information at the very start of the Bill.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I agree with him that new clause 1 would give us the same protection, so

      835
      it is right to discuss it with the amendment. Although it is not enormously important which one is passed, it is important that one or the other be included in the Bill.
      Freedom of information represents the most strikingly unpredicted disappointment with the new Labour Government. There are lots of predictable disappointments, such as the fact that they have raised taxes even when they said that they would not and the fact that they have run the health service into an even worse crisis. I remember predicting those outcomes myself at the last election, but some disappointments were not predicted by anyone.
      Perhaps naively, I took seriously the new Labour Government's commitment to freedom of information. I was struck by the strong language of personal commitment used by the Prime Minister in that connection. The year before the election, he said that freedom of information was absolutely fundamental to how Labour saw politics developing in this country over the next few years. He said that it would signal a new relationship between Government and the people. I did not realise that that was nothing more than political hyperbole and eyewash.
      In many ways the Bill represents a retreat from the status quo and the previous Conservative Government's non-statutory code—which in my view was entirely inadequate—in important respects such as the obligation to state reasons for refusing information and the obligation that manuals issued by Departments of State should be made available to the public.
      The Bill is a substantial retreat also from the White Paper drafted by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Although I understand Labour Members' reticence about being too offensive to Ministers, I have no doubt that many of them, and millions of people across the country, share my enormous disappointment that the new Labour Government did not live up to their undertakings. To give him his due, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has a long and honourable record on this matter, and I am sure that he is one of those disappointed Labour Members.
      The right hon. Member for South Shields sacrificed his career for this issue. He probably does not want to say that this afternoon, but he may do. I have no doubt that he genuinely stood behind his White Paper and, when he was in the Government, said, "The new Labour Government must live up to our undertakings and the expectations that we have aroused. We must introduce radical freedom of information legislation to make real change, as the Prime Minister promised we would. We must therefore be prepared to take risks, if necessary, to change the inward-looking culture of the public service and bureaucracy in general, which is suspicious of the public." I have no doubt that he went on saying that and battling up to the point at which the new Labour Government got rid of him because that point of view was extremely unwelcome.
      The White Paper was buried and the right hon. Gentleman was fired, which is a pretty remarkable and memorable state of affairs. I do not think that anybody in this country who follows this matter, whether or not they are a supporter of a political party, can fail to have been struck by that and to share our serious disappointment.
      Nothing is more important than how a Bill starts. How it starts, its title and, in this case, an introductory clause or statement of intention not only alert the public to
      836
      its aim, but could give guidance to the courts, the commissioner and, indeed, the bureaucracy—to the executive government machine—about the Bill's real purpose. If the Government fail at that first fence and are not prepared even to take on board the reasonably worded amendment or new clause, those of us who have already suffered great disappointment will find that it has been thoroughly confirmed.
      That is particularly so because the argument for having words along the lines of the amendment and new clause has been pressed on the Government not from any party political point of view, but, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, by many people with a dispassionate, entirely non-party political interest in the matter, including Elizabeth France, the person who will be responsible for implementing the Bill.
      The Government will have to find incredibly good reasons to resist the amendment and new clause. Until we hear those reasons, many of us, in all parties, will continue to feel great disappointment and scepticism.
      I fear that the Government are planning to rip up their promise, not explicitly—as they have on taxation, tuition fees for students, the referendum on electoral reform and all the other matters—but subtly. They have introduced legislation that has been so emasculated that it is merely a facade with no substance, structure or reality behind it.
      I fear that that is a sign that, within the Government, where there are two tendencies—on the one side, the right hon. Member for South Shields, who has seriously argued for the opportunity for real change to be made, and on the other Alastair Campbell and the No. 10 media manipulation machine. The cause of manipulation of the media, being too clever by half and trying to fox and bamboozle the public by sophisticated modern spin-doctoring and public relations techniques, has won: in the Faustian conflict for the soul and character of the Government, the devil has won the day.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Following the previous contribution, perhaps we can agree to get it all out of our system to start with—we might then have a serious discussion about some of the issues. It is tiresome to have to repeat the argument, but we are here because the previous Government did not introduce a freedom of information Bill. We are here because, even after the Scott report, they refused to introduce such a Bill. We are here because, even though a Select Committee with a Government majority in the previous Parliament recommended such a Bill, they still refused to introduce one, so let us get that out of the way to start with.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I much resent the hon. Gentleman saying that my remarks should be put out of the way and then referring to the previous Government's record. I was one of those who lobbied hard during their time in office for a freedom of information Bill. We got the very inadequate compromise of the non-statutory code. He may remember that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) were among those who refused to support the previous Government. Indeed, we voted against them on the Scott report, so the hon. Gentleman's remarks about several of us on the Conservative Benches are distinctly offside.
      Dr. Wright: I pay warm and singular—or perhaps plural—tribute to the hon. Members who behaved in the

      837
      way that the hon. Gentleman describes in the previous Parliament. I have mentioned that on many occasions in the House. Unfortunately, there were not enough of them to persuade their colleagues to do the decent thing. The record is clear. I was prompted to mention it only because of the way he introduced his remarks, but it would be helpful to put all that to one side and concentrate on the matters at hand.
      There is a genuine mystery about why the Government have been so reluctant to proceed on purpose clauses. Had I been able to pick out an example on which I would have thought them most happy to move, it would have been that. A form of words—a declaration—at the beginning of the Bill would have indicated a direction and an intention, and the cost to them would not have been much beyond that. Why have we not made more progress? A Committee of this House and a Committee of the House of Lords have considered the matter, and the overwhelming evidence from all directions is that purpose clauses would be useful. Overseas examples showed that, and we were able to give examples of domestic legislation in which they have been used, although they are not common.
      We took devastating evidence from a number of sources. Perhaps the most devastating came from Lord Woolf, who is quoted in the Public Administration Committee report:
      As I understand it, one of the things that the Government is seeking to do, and on which they should be complimented, is they are seeking to change the culture with regard to freedom of information and I think that in that sort of situation a signpost at the beginning as to the general intent of the legislation can be very important.
      Quite simply, that is the point. A signpost at the beginning, as described by Lord Woolf, can be immensely important—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) got close to getting this just right—because so much depends on discretion and on judgment.
      The Bill, in all kinds of examples, requires people to exercise discretion in respect of weighing whether there is a public interest in disclosure. The purpose clause has been discussed in relation to the Information Commissioner or the tribunal or a possible court, but it would have most impact in changing the culture of public bodies and departments and the way in which officials think. The one universal opinion from around the world on the introduction of legislation of this kind is that the change of culture has been the most important consequence. That was said to me in Australia and New Zealand. If one wants to change a culture, one has to say that one is engaged in a cultural change. That is profoundly important.
      The culture of secrecy in this country has become a dreadful cliché, but it goes deep and wide in the public service because that is what it has been brought up on. With respect to the Minister, if a Government are saying, "We genuinely want to change all that", that is not a gloss but a profound and intended change of direction. We are asking public officials to balance withholding against disclosure in a way that they are not accustomed to, and stating at the beginning of the Bill where that balance is to be struck, wherever possible, would represent not simply a form of words but the animation of the exercise's
      838
      intention. That would send out a signal to people in every department in every public body as to what the Bill is about, what the Government intend and how the balancing exercise has to be carried out.
      A purposes clause would not be a gloss. It would set a genuine tone and represent a culture, and our proceedings would get off to a splendid start if the Minister set the right tone by saying that he was persuaded of some of those arguments.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am happy to follow the distinguished Chairman of the Public Administration Committee—the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—and I shall not bicker with him too much about what happened to a White Paper that never came into existence. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was right to point out that the expectations as expressed in that White Paper were held by many Labour Members of Parliament. That is important; it was not just the extraordinary work of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We must remember that the White Paper was signed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Cabinet. The world and his wife would like to know what happened between that great expression—sought by many for a long time—and the Bill.
      A purpose clause was one of the central reforms called for in Committee. Amendment No. 100 and new clause 1 are important for the reasons adduced by other right hon. and hon. Members. If I had to choose between the two provisions, I would argue for the new clause, because it sets out the key principles behind the reasons why we need and want freedom of information in this country.
      The new clause states:
      The purposes of this Act are to extend progressively the right of the public to information held by public authorities.
      It lists four reasons why that right is needed. The first is the accountability of public authorities, which is one of the most important justifications for freedom of information.
      In that context, I have often quoted Pope to the House:
      What can we reason, but from what we know?
      How can we reason if we do not know the substance or the essence of the issues that confront our public policy? As the Prime Minister pointed out, the Bill is about the stakeholder—about the relationship between the Government and the governed. That is an extraordinarily important proposition.
      There is an innate secrecy—no doubt, a culture formed by two world wars—and a climate formed by the fact that sections of the Official Secrets Acts marched through the life of our nation for most of the 20th century. We want to reverse those principles. Why are we the most backward of the advanced democracies—ancient and considerate of liberties and so on—in continuing to want secrecy in the conduct of public business? That has consequences for us all.
      The accountability of public authorities and those who hold office in them is an important interest. It certainly informed the White Paper, the Prime Minister's speeches before the election and much of the passion in the House.

      839
      The second reason for the right to information under the new clause is
      informed public debate on public affairs.
      I might almost call that an Alastair Campbell provision, because he constantly calls for informed public debate. Unfortunately, few of us live up to his standards of what is constituted by such debate. By and large, it is true that Governments do not fear ill-informed, uninformed or off-the-issue public debate, because they are the masters of information. What they find more difficult is equality of argument—where people are apprised of information available to the Government and there is thus reasoned, intelligent questioning and proper argument as to the best course for public affairs. That is why the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) supported the new clause: it will enable certain purposes.
      The new clause would have the benefit, which the Government claim to want, of making the public more generally educated as to what government is about. Why do we have a Government? What are the difficulties that confront them? What is the purpose of public society in general? As previously set out, the aims for the Bill were consonant with the Government's arguments of not so long ago, with the White Paper and, I think, with what every freedom of information Act strives for. The White Paper was such that it inspired the commissioner in Canada to say that the Government's proposals left Canada trailing in Britain's dust. Now that claim is simply risible and the Bill, as an end product, appears to be a deceit. It is designed to defeat the very purposes that we understood were the Government's intent when they introduced such an important Bill.
      All the arguments that I heard in the Select Committee on Public Administration, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, were for a purpose clause. We heard from Elizabeth France, whose views are not to be put lightly to one side because she is commissioned with the job of data protection, not freedom of information. How do we weigh this matter? Should it be completely consumed in the protection and privacy provisions? We need a public interest provision, but we need a foundation that helps to guide people in their interpretation of the Bill and assists them in understanding the purpose that lies behind it.
      Many of the phrases in the new clause derive from New Zealand's experience of freedom of information and from its Act. Eagles, Taggart and Liddell have written an important book, "Freedom of Information in New Zealand", in which they observe that the purpose provision
      ensured that the number, tenor and the generality of the exemptions would not overshadow the raison d'etre of the Act.
      The truth is that the Bill contains a strikingly huge number of exemptions, which eat away at the very principle of making available the information that is in the Government's gift. It is therefore important that we signal the tenor and the purpose of the Bill, so that those who interpret it do so in the understanding that the House of Commons sought to make available information and that the public interest lies in the availability of information rather than in its concealment.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I am tempted to call him my
      840
      hon. Friend on this matter—may recollect that, on a lovely spring morning in March 1998, he and I went to the office of the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We were in the company of Maurice Frankel, who has contributed so much to this issue. It is not a distortion to say that we came away from the meeting, if not elated, at least extremely pleased at what we had heard. We thought that, at long last, we would get a meaningful and significant—although perhaps not perfect—freedom of information Bill of the kind that had been promised to the electorate in 1997. We thought that that contract with the electorate was about to be fulfilled through the hard work of my right hon. Friend.
      I was not able to be on the Committee that considered the Bill, but that was not for the want of trying. By some alchemy, as has happened before, I was not selected. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) laughs knowingly. We shall not go into the reasons for that decision.
      I should like to ask two questions. The first follows on straightforwardly from the arguments of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). What is Ministers' assessment of how the proposed amendment could be used by the courts? If it is important in terms of legal interpretation, it is a significant and important amendment.
      My second question is of a slightly different nature. By what alchemy—by what magic—did responsibility for these matters ever fall into the clutches of the Home Office? That is an important question. It was one thing to have the matter in the charge of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it is quite another to put it into the clutches of that Department, which has, over the years, done more than any other to suffocate freedom of information. Now is the right moment to ask that question, and I am curious to hear the answer.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If the Government are to resist new clause 1, which I believe should be inserted into the legislation, the Minister faces a considerable burden—the need to overcome the arguments and to persuade people that the Bill will not be improved by its inclusion. It will not be sufficient to say that the new clause is not necessary: he will need to explain both why it is unnecessary and why it would cause mischief if it were included.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) posed a question that I had rehearsed in my mind before rising. The new clause would greatly assist the courts in determining Parliament's intention when they have to consider some challenge to the legislation—as sure as night turns to day, such a challenge will arise. Even if one reads the new clause again and again, it is hard to discover any purpose that could be served by resisting its inclusion, other than the desire to leave matters vague in the hope that, as a result, there will in future be some judgments in favour of deep conservatism in respect of disclosure of information.
      I hope that the Government will reflect, both now and if the matter arises in the other place, on how the Bill would be improved by the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister has a hurdle to overcome, in that the provision appears in comparable statutes of countries around the world, and that the commissioner-elect has

      841
      indicated that it would be useful. I hope that my hon. Friend will not rely merely on winning the vote, but will either win the argument and persuade us that the provision is unnecessary, or make a name for himself by indicating the Government's willingness to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I was not a member of the Standing Committee and, unlike the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I did not have a claim and seek to exercise it. However, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have combined to ensure that the important arguments are advanced in unison. We owe a duty to Parliament and to citizens outside this place to recognise that, on freedom of information above all other issues, if there is a choice to be made between the view of Back Benchers and that of the Government—regardless of which party is in government—one should trust the Back Benchers. Furthermore, if a case is backed by a coalition of senior and respected members of all three great parties of this country, the argument must be extremely strong.
      5.30 pm
      The second argument is legalistic. Legislation, even under new rules of interpretation, sometimes goes to the courts and is interpreted on the basis not of what we say in Parliament—although that can be taken into account more than it used to be—but of what is written on the page. Therefore, when it is necessary to establish what is behind the words, what is intended by the phrase, and what is meant by the clause or the Act, unless there is a purposes clause, there may be a legalistic interpretation, not an explained, intended interpretation.
      That is a good reason for including a purposes clause, especially in this sort of legislation. A judge or an information commissioner will be in no doubt about the intention of Parliament. Although the formulation may not be perfect, better a formulation that points him in the direction of the intention than no formulation, which leaves him to guess and gives the courts the power to make a restrictive interpretation.
      The third reason reflects the pertinent, though mischievously put, point made by the senior and persistent hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Bill has ended up with the Home Office as its captain, steering it through this place. We must be suspicious of government by Home Office on such an issue—as will be reflected in the debates on amendments today and tomorrow—because the Home Office is above all the Department of the security services, the Department of the police, the Department of the prisons, the Department of some of the courts, and the Department of the electoral system.
      If ever we ought to be suspicious that a Government Department will want to find ways of not opening up government, that Department is the Home Office. However enlightened are the people in it, the combination of civil servants, advisers and Ministers will in the end say, "We must be careful here. We are the Department that is looked to to preserve the interests of the state." The move from Minister who is free-standing and much more accountable to Parliament to Minister in the Home Office, whoever the holder of that office is, is bound to take with it some suspicion that we are confusing the duties of government with the proper assessment of Government.
      842
      I hope that we will heed the voices from the three parties that have argued coherently and effectively, and experiences elsewhere. I have not seen the Minister's brief, but whatever it contains, I hope that he will be brave, as I once saw a colleague of his, now the Deputy Prime Minister, be. He ripped up and threw away his brief, saying "I am not reading this rubbish. I am going to say what I think." I hope that the Minister will make a great a name for himself by liberating himself from the brief, and liberating Parliament from the Home Office.
      Dr. David Clark: I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak on the amendment, but I have been provoked so to do. When I introduced the White Paper to the House way back in December 1997, I felt that it was the right vehicle, and that it contained the right tone to create a new relationship between the citizens of this country and the Government.
      I did so in the knowledge that, just six months previously, the citizens had indicated, by the representatives whom they sent to this legislature, that they wanted change. I was conscious also that we were entering a new millennium and that we were one of the worst countries among western democracies for giving access and information to our citizens.
      That was the philosophy behind my intent. The purpose of the White Paper, in essence, was to change the culture of our political elite. I had no illusions about how difficult that would be, not only in central Government, but in all public administrations. However, I thought that it was the right thing to do.
      We devised a system that was set out in the White Paper. There has been talk this afternoon about lawyers and legal interpretation. They are important matters and good reasons why we may need a purpose clause. More important, however, is the need to get the message across from the House that with this legislation, we want to change the political culture of our society. We want to renegotiate the relationship between our citizens and our Government, and that can be done only by ensuring that the interpretation of the Bill is that the presumption must be in favour of openness and not of secrecy.
      I believe that new clause 1 is very much better than amendment No. 100. However, whether the new clause is accepted or not, it is important that the message emanate from this legislature loud and clear that we want a change of culture.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank all colleagues who served on the Committee that considered the Bill and those who have contributed to this debate. These are important issues, and in many ways they are difficult to get right. The Government have been listening with a great deal of care throughout the debates.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I might make a little more progress before I give way to my hon. Friend. I thought that I had been fairly uncontroversial. Actually, I am fascinated by how controversial I can be, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience in allowing me to intervene so early in his reply.

      843
      I have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and I have not heard a contribution to it that supports the Government's line in opposing the new clause and the amendment. Will my hon. Friend comment on why the Government do not appear to have any support that will be vocalised in the Chamber?
      Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for making what he will know is a helpful intervention. He was about to hear the arguments that are deployed against the new clause and the amendment. If there is a Division, he will find that my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel able to support the Government. That is how they will express their views.
      I was in the process of saying that we have listened carefully, particularly to the contributions that have been made by my hon. Friends and by Liberal Democrat Members, who made a number of constructive suggestions. As we continue to consider the Bill, I think that we shall find areas where the Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats and, on some occasions, even to Conservatives. It is all about getting the balance right and it is appropriate to debate how we do so. It is about balancing the needs for individual privacy, confidentiality and efficiency in government with the right of a citizen to have a statutory right to know what is going on. That applies not only to the Government but to other public authorities too.
      I am asked, "Why the Home Office?" by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He may well have joined the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in setting out a list of various reasons why he thinks that the Home Office is not the appropriate Department. They will know that the Home Office is the relevant Department in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and the electoral procedures Bill, which has now become the Representation of the People Act 2000. It is the Department that introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill to clean up the sleaze in politics in Britain. The Home Office, which has strongly improved our citizens' rights, is the right Department to make the constitutional change that we are considering.
      I always pay great attention to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I usually agree strongly with them. He is right that we need to change the culture of our political elite. We must get the message across, through the debate and the Bill, that we want to change that culture and renegotiate the relationship not only between the citizen and the Government but between the citizen and all public authorities. However, that requires not a purpose clause, but a Bill.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way shortly, but I want to proceed with the argument.
      I have described the alchemy whereby the matter was appropriately referred to the Home Office. The Bill will ensure that we can renegotiate the relationship between the citizen and the state on freedom of information.
      844
      The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who opened for the Conservative party—
      Mr. Lidington: Aylesbury.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that we should trust the people. For 18 years, the previous Conservative Government had no such wish to trust the people or to create a statutory right to know. That had to wait for a Labour Government. Conservative Members did not want a Bill; their amendment on Second Reading would have denied the measure a Second Reading. Some Conservative amendments, which we will consider later, try to restrict parts of the Bill. I shall therefore take no lectures from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about trusting the people.
      I want to deal separately with amendment No. 100 and new clause 1, which is a more serious proposal that I would like to consider at length. Amendment No. 100 is a purpose clause, which adds nothing to the Bill. The long title already explains more comprehensively than the amendment the purpose of the Bill, which is to
      Make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes.
      The amendment is therefore unnecessary. It achieves nothing and I oppose it mainly because it is pointless. The Bill's purpose is already stated in the long title.
      New clause 1 proposes a different, more ambitious purpose clause. Its supporters have argued for it in a different way.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend believes that the amendment is pointless and adds nothing to the Bill. Does he believe that the courts would share his opinion?
      Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that the courts would take that view. They would probably say that such an amendment merely created a confusing approach to the Bill. They would ask why we had a long title and a purpose clause that replicated each other. They would have to work out Parliament's purpose in including such a duplication. It would confuse interpretation of the statute.
      New clause 1 has a more ambitious purpose.
      Mr. Shepherd: On the long title, the Government weighed up representations for a purpose clause. They heroically changed the original formula, which read:
      Make provision about the disclosure of information
      to "make provision for". Intellectually, if they can change such a big word as "about" to "for", why can they not embrace an amendment that sets out clearly and indisputably the purpose of the Bill?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: I thought that I had just explained that to the hon. Gentleman. I listen with great care to his views on this subject, because unlike most Conservatives he has a long and strong record of supporting freedom of information, and I pay tribute to him for that. We want the Bill to express our view that the citizen should have a right to know, and I do not think that we need a purpose clause to make the Bill do what we want it to do.

      845
      I want to make some progress, but I shall take some interventions after I have set out the main body of my argument. I have heard the arguments, including the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Administration, that a purpose clause can be used to show clearly which of two or more competing values should be uppermost when a decision is made. However, I do not think that a purpose clause along the lines of new clause 1 is appropriate, and I shall set out precisely why.
      One must assume that such a clause would be given legislative effect by the commissioner, the tribunal and the courts, so it would change the balance of rights that the Bill seeks to achieve. It is not possible to say that in every case one right should trump another. The right of access to information must be balanced against the right to privacy and confidentiality. Too strong a presumption in favour of disclosure for certain purposes, however worthy, over other competing rights to privacy or confidentiality could lead us into conflict, perhaps with the Human Rights Act.
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress.
      The Bill must be set in the broader context of the Government's wider agenda for reform, including the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. It must be considered as a whole. We do not want to create provisions through a purpose clause that disturb the balance in the Bill and that may—we know not—bring us into conflict with the Human Rights Act.
      Openness does not have a monopoly on righteousness. Privacy and confidentiality have their proper place, and the right of the public to know must not place an unnecessary burden on business or undermine the proper and efficient running of government in the public interest.
      We know that a weak confidentiality clause in the United States legislation allows companies to use the freedom of information regime to obtain information about competitors. Up to 60 per cent. of requests under the US freedom of information legislation are from companies trying to find out what the Government know about their competitors. We must have a balanced approach to these provisions.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment. I want to go through my argument, and then I will happily give way to hon. Members.
      Such an emphasis on certain purposes could backfire. If business were inhibited from giving the Government commercially sensitive information, on the basis that it might be released under freedom of information legislation, it would affect the effective regulation of the financial sector, trade and commerce, which could be undermined. The public interest in freedom of information could conflict with the public interest in regulating business.
      The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) rightly referred to Elizabeth France's comments on this issue. We want her to be
      846
      the Information Commissioner. I am familiar with the arguments that Mrs. France put to the Select Committee on Public Administration when she gave evidence on the draft Bill in June last year. She argued for a purpose clause on the basis that
      it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions,
      and went on to say that a purpose clause
      fits also with my view that discretionary decisions should be reviewable in substance, the two are a package, if you like.
      It is important to remember that, when Mrs. France gave evidence, the draft Bill only permitted the Information Commissioner to specify the circumstances that an authority could take into account when determining the public interest. The draft Bill gave the commissioner no power to order or even recommend disclosure in the public interest. Moreover, it did not explicitly require authorities to comply with a requirement to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining an exemption. Mrs. France's arguments were therefore based on the understanding that a purpose clause would indirectly strengthen the provisions relating to discretionary disclosure, and underpin the commissioner's power to specify to authorities the matters that they should take into account.
      The discretion has gone, or will, I hope, have gone very shortly, when the Bill is amended. The Information Commissioner will have sweeping powers under our new provisions. The Government, however, accepted many of the criticisms made during the Bill's earlier stages. As a consequence, right of access was made the subject of clause 1, and the then discretionary disclosure provision in clause 13 was amended to give an express balancing of the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining an exemption. The discretion to which Mrs. France referred, and for which she required a purpose clause, has been replaced by an entirely different statutory duty that will not, in my view, require that purpose clause. The long title of the Bill was also amended in response to what was said by the Committee in the Lords.
      The Government intend to strengthen further the provisions dealing with disclosure in the public interest. The Government amendments tabled at this stage remove the discretionary element from decisions under clause 13, and oblige authorities to communicate requested information to applicants when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. That is a new statutory duty. The commissioner will also have power to issue decision and enforcement notices in respect of decisions under clause 13.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will in due course. Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until I deal with what he said earlier.
      I believe that our amendments remove the difficulties that Mrs. France experienced with the draft Bill, and also remove the need for a compensatory purpose clause.
      Mr. Fisher rose—
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I am facing a number of demands. I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Caithness,

      847
      Sutherland and Easter Ross first. I shall then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and after that I must make progress.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has tried to deal with some of the points that I have raised, but he has seriously misrepresented the views expressed by Elizabeth France to the Committee. She was not speaking about the discretion that she was exercising in the discharge of her duty, which has perhaps been affected by the Government's redrafting of the Bill—although I beg to suggest that the Government's own retained power to veto her suggestions vitiates the Minister's point. She was clearly referring to the discretions being exercised by others. She said that when, as the potential authority, she examined the Bill it would be helpful to know
      what I could use to hang a view that a discretionary decision had been improperly taken.
      Throughout his speech, the Minister has changed the whole emphasis of the Government's approach as set out in their White Paper "Your Right to Know". The presumption of openness—that was the language used by the Government in the White Paper—has become a balance that must be struck. There is no presumption of openness in anything that the Minister has said.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was quite a long intervention, albeit one on a technical matter.
      Mr. O'Brien: I have certainly not sought to misrepresent Mrs. France's views. Mrs. France was explicit about them, and the right hon. Gentleman must take it from me that I have done my best to reflect them. She was speaking of decisions made by others, particularly public authorities and Ministers.
      The right hon. Gentleman appears not to realise that we are not just changing the balance, but creating a new statutory duty of openness. When there is a public interest in a matter's being open, and when an exemption applies, the public authority will be obliged to make the information public, if it is outside the remit of proper secrecy in the public interest.
      We all agree that, in some circumstances, an element of secrecy may be necessary: I do not think any hon. Member would dispute that. Such secrecy may sometimes be in the public interest; but the balancing decision must be made, and when the balance comes down in favour of the public interest in terms of the right to know, no public authority will retain any discretion. There will be no discretion for Ministers either: they, and public authorities, will have to disclose the information. We have made a radical change in the law, and our amendments are, in substance, entirely different from what was in the Bill when Mrs. France spoke to the Committee.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I am interested by what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am not sure that he has got to the heart of what some of us were arguing.
      Clause 33 deals with the formulation of Government policy, an area in which there is no harm test. We have been told that the Bill is about changing the culture of Whitehall. Whitehall is here being asked to consider the public interest in relation to the formulation of Government policy. How are those in Whitehall to understand what the public interest is? How are they to
      848
      decide what can properly be withheld on a discretionary basis? How can they decide what is to be disclosed? What reference point is available to them?
      One of the aims of a purpose clause is to give those people the necessary information. It is there to tell them the purpose of the Bill, so that, when engaged in the balancing exercise, they can operate within a framework of intention; otherwise, the clause is vacuous.
      Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is wrong. We shall come to this later, and I shall heed any strictures from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but clause 13 draws attention to the need to create a balance. It establishes a statutory duty to give the public information when the public interest in that information being made public outweighs the public interest in its remaining confidential. Precisely what my hon. Friend wants is being done, not in a purpose clause but in clause 13.
      We introduced the provision in clause 13 because we feared that, in its operation throughout the realm of the Bill, the purpose clause might disturb a careful balance that we have sought to create between the various issues that I mentioned at the outset. I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference between my hon. Friend and me on this point. We want to bring about circumstances in which information is disclosed when that is in the public interest. When the public seek such information, they should have a right to request it, and the public authority will have a statutory duty to disclose it, provided that it judges that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in not disclosing.
      That is being done in clause 13. My hon. Friend wants it to be done in a purpose clause, but I hope he will see that, because a purpose clause could well apply to the whole Bill, there is an unpredictability about the way in which it would affect the other clauses. That is why we are reluctant to adopt his suggestion. I am not sure that we want different things, in practice: I suspect that we seek much the same end, but in different ways.
      6 pm
      Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps the Minister would recall that, in discussing this type of issue on Second Reading, he advocated the approach that he said had been taken in New Zealand, which he believed had
      concentrated less on the wording of the legislation than on the cultural changes and…achieved a greater degree of openness. Legislation is only part of the process. It provides the essential legal base, but creating a new culture of openness is in many ways the real test.—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 789.]
      My view is that the people who are pressing new clause 1 are concerned that, in the four months since the Minister made that statement, that new culture of openness has not been seen. Perhaps he could tell us what the Home Office has done in those four months to create a culture of openness, and why we should not request a legislative framework that forces it to create such a culture?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend how we have set about doing that. We published—at the beginning of February—the report of the working party on freedom of information in the public sector, which demands that public authorities begin now, before the Bill is passed, to open up their procedures to the public and to

      849
      ensure that they comply with a statutory right to know. If they wait until the Bill is passed, many of them will be caught out.
      The Government want to do precisely what I said in Committee, and precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is seeking to do: to change not only the culture in which Whitehall operates—it is a culture of much too much secrecy—but the types of culture that operate in far too many public authorities in the United Kingdom. Changing that culture is not only about passing laws, but about getting inside the organisations and changing them, as Canada has tried to do.
      The Canadian information commissioner has said that, after Canada's 15 years of freedom of information legislation, although it had strong laws, it had not achieved the cultural change. We want to achieve that cultural change not only in institutions of government, but beyond government. We are aware, however, that simply passing laws is not good enough: we have to change the culture as well.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I should like to make some progress, as I have been speaking for quite some time.
      Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister promised.
      Mr. O'Brien: I did. I shall give way, one last time, to my hon. Friend, and then I want to finish.
      Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister talked about unpredictability. However, unpredictability will be precisely the product of our failure to include a purpose clause in the Bill. The effect of omitting such a clause would be similar to throwing things up in the air and hoping that they fall in the right place. We could have enormous good luck and see the first freedom of information case being decided by a very radical judge—in which case there could well be weeping and gnashing of teeth in Government and in some public bodies. Conversely, a deeply Conservative judge could decide the first case. Hon. Members have a duty, when we can, to be precise in our legislation, and that is precisely what we are being invited to do in this debate.
      As for the Government always knowing best about legislation, on some occasions, are not the authors of legislation perhaps the legislators themselves? There is overwhelming support for some precision in this matter, and that support is buttressed by what has happened successfully elsewhere.
      Mr. O'Brien: The reason we are not prepared to go along with the new clause is that we are concerned that its very vagueness—my hon. Friend expressed his concern about vagueness—will affect the Bill in a manner that we cannot predict. Neither he nor I know how this purposes clause might be interpreted, but we do know how clause 13 could be amended.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I have said that I shall not give way.
      Mr. Fisher: The Minister has not given way to me.
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but it is the last time.
      Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that it is very clear how the purposes clause will be interpreted? It will be interpreted precisely as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) explained when moving it—in favour of a presumption for openness—and it is precisely for that reason that we wish the Government to consider it. The Minister pays tribute to himself for his amendments to clause 13—[Interruption.] I concur with the tribute to those changes. Although, unfortunately, the changes are undermined by Government new clause 6 and the veto, they are in themselves admirable.
      The Minister said that there was no difference between those who support new clause 1 and the Minister's position—but there is. He said that the new clause might apply to the whole Bill, and that is precisely right. Those of us who support new clause 1 want the presumption to run seamlessly through the Bill, so that it operates in the whole Bill. If the Minister cannot understand that, we have not prosecuted our case in the debate. However, he should be able to listen to his own words. Although he said that he wants a cultural change, almost everything that he has said in replying to the debate has been apprehensive about freedom of information and fearful of what will happen. He has been reluctant—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a closely reasoned debate, but the art of an intervention is that it be succinct. We have had some very long interventions, which I really am no longer prepared to countenance.
      Mr. O'Brien: I tell my hon. Friend that the Government's amendments to clause 13 will change the entire basis on which the Bill operates, and that they will do so in a manner that is careful, calculated and predictable. Good law needs to be careful, calculated and predictable. What is not predictable is to have a purposes clause that, with all its worthy ambitions, is somewhat vague. I simply do not know what the impact would be if we were to allow new clause 1 to become part the Bill, and I would rather not take that risk. It may not have the effect that either my hon. Friend or I wish it to have.
      There are places for purposes clauses, but I suggest that this particular Bill—which is carefully balanced—for all the reasons that we discussed in Committee, is not the place for one. That is our view. As I said, I do not think that there is a great issue of principle in the matter, because I do not think that the legislation's eventual outcome is much in dispute between most hon. Members and me. We should ensure that we create a Bill that works and starts to change the culture.
      I should like to deal with some of the points made by other speakers in the debate. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked whether I have any sympathy for the principles of the new clause.

      851
      The answer is yes. I have much sympathy for his objective, but I do not think that there is a great difference between his objective and ours. I also think that we achieve the objective, but in a different way, in clause 13.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that the Bill's aim was to empower the citizen to obtain information. He is right. Although I understand his views on the Bill, I believe that we can achieve his objectives by passing the Bill with the Government amendments.
      In a speech that amounted to little more than party political badinage, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—the sage of Grantham and Stamford, who seems to have left the Chamber—said that he had predicted all the faults of the new Labour Government. Although he seemed to criticise us for not going far enough, undoubtedly he also supported Conservative Front Benchers when they suggested that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The fact is that most Conservative Members do not want a Freedom of Information Bill at all.
      In the 1997 Conservative campaign guide for candidates, as a possible reply to those who ask for a Freedom of Information Bill, Conservative Members advised:
      The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
      That tells us the extent to which Conservative Members believe the Bill necessary.
      The Freedom of Information Bill is an important Bill. Although I have enormous respect for the very strong views represented by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and by many of my hon. Friends, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between us. Clause 13 will achieve most of what hon. Members want from the new clause and will do so with predictability, which is very important.
      Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
      Hon. Members: Aye.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am most grateful.
      I found the Minister's answers wholly unsatisfactory. We shall wish to divide separately on new clause 1 at the appropriate stage if there is an opportunity to do so.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about an alchemical process. Alchemy was the search to transmute lead into gold. We have witnessed the reverse process. The gold was in the White Paper produced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was entirely clear about the process. It was not a difficult balancing process in which every possible exercise of discretion was measured against particular tests of public interest. The idea was to change the balance and introduce a new presumption of openness—not just a presumption set out in a code, but a presumption of law.
      The Minister's central argument was about the balancing act. He used the word "balance" about 10 times. Because balance, rather than the presumption of openness,
      852
      has become the underlying principle of the Bill, we are right to be very suspicious about what the Government are minded to do.
      Mr. Lidington: The unanimity of the views expressed on both sides has been the remarkable feature of the debate—or perhaps I should say the near unanimity. The one discordant note has come from the Minister, who had to make his case without any support from his hon. Friends or from any other quarter of the House. That fact more than any other shows the weakness of the ground on which the Government are standing.
      As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has reminded us, the Minister said many times that it was all a question of getting the balance right. That is hardly the most controversial statement. He then repeatedly asserted that accepting the amendment or the new clause would impinge in some way on other rights and liberties of British citizens. However, he was far less forthcoming when it came to any detailed explanation of how that might come about.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I did not suggest that inserting the hon. Gentleman's amendment would impinge on the rights of citizens. If he is suggesting that I said that, he is wrong. I merely said that it would do nothing.
      Mr. Lidington: The thrust of the Minister's remarks was that inserting any purpose clause would put difficulties in the way of those charged with interpreting and implementing the legislation, because they would have to give priority to the duty of openness over their other duties on personal privacy or other forms of confidentiality.
      6.15 pm
      The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the powerful point that the purpose of the reforms of which he was the author was to change the institutional culture of Whitehall. No one who has supported the amendment or the new clause is criticising the professional civil service in Whitehall by agreeing that the institutional culture needs to be changed. Any Member of Parliament who has sought to craft a series of parliamentary questions to extract information that an unwilling Department did not wish to divulge is aware of the problem. The only people who are even more aware of the culture that needs to be changed are those of us who have ever been on the other side of the fence, sitting in Whitehall and having a share in drafting the answers to parliamentary questions.
      The case for a purpose clause remains strong. The Government have not provided an adequate explanation of their reluctance to accept such an amendment. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, the members there will note the near unanimity of support for a change in this House from the Back Benches and from all Opposition parties. In the light of the Government's refusal to take seriously the concerns that have been expressed this evening, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 339.

      Division No. 141]

      [6.16 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Allan, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Amess, David

      Horam, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ballard, Jackie

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Beggs, Roy

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Keetch, Paul

      Bercow, John

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brake, Tom

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brazier, Julian

      Leigh, Edward

      Breed, Colin

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lidington, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burnett, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chope, Christopher

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Madel, Sir David

      Cotter, Brian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James

      Maples, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mates, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Duncan, Alan

      Moore, Michael

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Norman, Archie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Paice, James

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pickles, Eric

      Fraser, Christopher

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Prior, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Randall, John

      Gibb, Nick

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marlon (Broxbourne)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hammond, Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harvey, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

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

      854

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Trend, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tyler, Paul

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles

      Steen, Anthony

      Waterson, Nigel

      Streeter, Gary

      Webb, Steve

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wells, Bowen

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Swayne, Desmond

      Whittingdale, John

      Syms, Robert

      Willetts, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Austin, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Connarty, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Corbett, Robin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cranston, Ross

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darvill, Keith

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davidson, Ian

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Denham, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Doran, Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Dowd, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burgon, Colin

      Efford, Clive

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Flint, Caroline

      Caplin, Ivor

      Follett, Barbara

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foulkes, George

      Chaytor, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clapham, Michael

      Galloway, George

      855

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Steve

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonnell, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Gunnell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoey, Kate

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Home Robertson, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

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

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hutton, John

      Mudie, George

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pike, Peter L

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Laxton, Bob

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Lock, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      856

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Roy, Frank

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Todd, Mark

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Touhig, Don

      Salter, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Truswell, Paul

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vaz, Keith

      Singh, Marsha

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Soley, Clive

      Wills, Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wilson, Brian

      Spellar, John

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wood, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stevenson, George

      Woolas, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wyatt, Derek

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. David Clelland.

      Question accordingly negatived
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Mr. David Lock): I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) Where a public authority—

      (a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and

      (b) has informed the applicant of that requirement,

      the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is supplied with that further information.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 45, 54, 89 and 90.
      New clause 3—Duty to assist—

      '.—(1) A public authority shall take all reasonable steps to assist any person in seeking to exercise any right under this Act.

      (2) For the purpose of subsection (1) a public authority shall have regard to any relevant guidance contained in the code of practice issued under section 44.'.

      Mr. Lock: This group of amendments deals with various procedural matters relating to requests for information. The first amendments to which I shall speak impose duties in various ways on authorities dealing with requests.

      857
      Amendment No. 44 clarifies the situation where authorities require further information from the applicant in order to identify and locate the requested information. In such a situation, the Bill does not require the authority to comply with clause 1(1) unless such further information is supplied. It was already implicit in the Bill that authorities had to inform applicants of what further information they required. However, the amendment makes it explicit in the Bill that in such circumstances, authorities are obliged to ask the applicant for such further information. If they do not inform the applicant of their requirement for further information, their obligation to comply with clause 1(1) still stands.
      6.30 pm
      The Government have tabled amendment No. 44 in response to an earlier amendment to clause 1, moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and I am happy to clarify the effect of the Bill in this regard. This is related to the Data Protection Act 1998, under which data controllers receive requests from members of the public for data that they hold. Amendment No. 89, therefore, inserts a new paragraph into schedule 6, which deals with further amendments to the 1998 Act, to make similar provision in that Act in respect of requests for personal information that fall within the scope of that Act.
      Amendment No. 90 is designed simply to tidy up the drafting of paragraph 1 of schedule 6 as a consequence of amendment No. 89. Because amendment No. 89 inserts a new first paragraph into schedule 6, it is no longer necessary for the existing paragraph 1 to refer to the Data Protection Act 1998 in full.
      Amendment No. 54 concerns the obligations that authorities have when refusing a request for information. The amendment will oblige authorities, when refusing an application for information, to inform the applicant of any internal review procedure the authority may have—or, indeed, to inform the applicant that the authority does not have such a procedure—and also to inform the applicant of their further right to apply for a decision by the Information Commissioner under clause 50.
      The amendment makes explicit in the Bill what was already implicit. The Government have brought it forward in response to one moved by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), while taking into account any internal review procedure that an authority may have. It is, of course, important that any internal review procedure be first exhausted before the application is made to the commissioner. The amendment therefore addresses all relevant aspects of the issue, and clarifies applicants' appeal rights in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 45 deals with the time for compliance. It places an upper limit on the Secretary of State's power by regulation to extend the statutory time limit for responses to applications beyond the 20 working days set out in clause 9(1). That upper limit—the longstop—is 60 working days from the day following the date of receipt of the application.
      The 20 working day time limit for responses set out in subsection (1) was introduced following the Government's acceptance of a recommendation of the Select Committee
      858
      on Public Administration. Let me be clear from the outset that the Government believe that 20 working days is the right period within which a response should normally be given to an application. I will go further—subsection (1) provides specifically that a public authority must comply promptly with a request for information. We consider that 20 working days is the maximum that it should take, but we shall look to public authorities to respond earlier than the 20th day when an application is straightforward.
      At present, the Government have no intention of extending the statutory time limit under regulations, but there should be provision in the Bill to do so if, at some future time, there is a genuine case for it. The power in subsection (3) is in reserve, and I repeat that the Government have no intention that it should be used except in exceptional circumstances. Regulations made under this subsection would not be appropriate, or indeed necessary, in respect of isolated cases, in which the Information Commissioner already has discretion to agree a different date. What is, however, needed is a power to prescribe a different day in the sort of situation in which, because of unforeseen circumstances, it would be unreasonable or impossible to deal with applications within the existing statutory deadlines.
      I can understand why right hon. and hon. Members have tabled new clause 3. It would place public authorities under a statutory duty to assist applicants and to have regard to the guidance contained in the Secretary of State's code of practice in so doing. The Government sympathise fully with the desire behind the new clause to ensure that applicants are helped to exercise their rights rather than obstructed or hindered. That is an important part of the change of culture to which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), referred to before the Division.
      When we replied to the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on the White Paper, the Government accepted the need for authorities to give such assistance. I hope that the amendments that I have outlined have convinced those who tabled the new clause that, where appropriate, the Government are prepared to impose statutory duties on authorities to give reasonable help to applicants. However, after reflection we concluded that the best way to do that was not through the creation of a general, and somewhat vague, statutory duty along the lines proposed. Statutory duties must be clear, definite and enforceable if they are to have legal meaning, which they must if they are included in the Bill. In that way, not only will authorities be sure how to follow them, but the enforcement body can be sure when duties have been breached and has a route to provide a remedy. When a specific action can be identified, a duty may properly arise. That is why the Government have brought forward amendments to impose duties on authorities in the specific instances that I have just outlined—for example, the duty to request further information, or the duty to inform the applicant of their rights of appeal.
      The new clause goes considerably further, and seeks to place a general, but insubstantial, duty on authorities that would be difficult to monitor and is so vague as to be difficult, if not downright impossible, to enforce. The content of the obligation is also so unclear as to leave authorities in an invidious position. What are reasonable steps in one situation may be different in another, depending on the type of request, the type of authority,

      859
      and the type of questioner. The sort of assistance that a large local authority or police service might reasonably give to an individual requester is different from the sort of assistance that a school governing body might reasonably be expected to give a parent-teacher association, and rightly so. Clearly, any duty in the Bill will apply to every public authority, however small, in whatever circumstances.
      It is good practice for authorities to give help where appropriate, in ways that are appropriate. That is why we have drafted the Bill to include a requirement that the Secretary of State's code of practice made under clause 44 includes guidance on
      the provision of advice by public authorities to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to them.
      This means that the sort of assistance that authorities should give can be described more broadly than is possible in a statutory provision. It also means that the commissioner, when issuing practice recommendations to authorities which have failed to comply with the code, can have regard to current best practice in making decisions, and not just to the strict letter of a statutory provision.
      In the light of the contents of the code and of the other amendments, I cannot invite the House to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Apart from the new clause, this is a group of Government amendments. Many of them are technical matters which the Government are using to amend their own legislation. We frequently find, with the pressure of time that the Government have imposed on themselves, that, at various stages during a Bill's proceedings, they say that they have got something wrong and have to tidy it up in response to pressure in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised a number of issues in Committee, not least in relation to data protection, as did many other members of the Committee.
      I know that there are many lawyers in the House, but I may be unique in having conducted data protection cases in the courts. I do not know whether the Minister has. He shakes his head. Having dealt professionally with data protection issues before I came to the House—and afterwards, when I was still on the Back Benches—I know how complex they are. On this occasion, perhaps we should accept that the Government have been sensible to realise that certain changes needed to be made to the Bill as it overlaps with data protection issues. There was much discussion in Committee about the views of the Data Protection Registrar.
      I do not want to detain the House on this group of amendments, among which are none from the Opposition Front-Bench team. However, I look forward with great interest to the speeches of those in the cross-party group which tabled new clause 3.
      There has been some concern. I have tabled written questions to Home Office Ministers asking when we might see the final code. The cross-party group is undoubtedly right to ask about the code. A draft code was placed before Committee members, but—by no fault of the Minister—even at this late stage, we have not seen the final code, which is of concern to the cross-party group, the Opposition, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, business, commerce, industry and representative organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry.
      860
      I hope that we shall hear about the code, but it is perhaps an issue best left to the cross-party group which tabled new clause 3.
      We do not propose to raise any further questions on these amendments, but shall have much to say later about other data protection issues.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak to the Government amendments as a surrogate member of the so-called cross-party group, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has temporarily gone elsewhere and will return shortly.
      Government amendment No. 44 groups logically with new clause 3, and I shall deal with those provisions last. I heard what the Minister said about amendment No. 45, and I accept that it is intended to set wide parameters although the Government intend a 20-working-day compliance period. The amendment provides an outer limit—a welcome fall-back position, which we understand and do not oppose.
      Amendment No. 54 effectively requires that public authorities who refuse to furnish an applicant with details must explain the appeal procedure. That is clearly welcome, and provides the citizen with access to pursue his or her rights where applicable.
      Amendment Nos. 89 and 90 amend schedule 6, and will, in opening the compliance procedure on personal information, have an effect similar to that of amendment No. 44 on general information. It is logical to amend the Data Protection Acts in addition to making provision in the Bill. The Data Protection Registrar, who will perform the balancing act on the public's behalf, should also have a duty not simply to say that information cannot be provided, but to put a case on the record. We accept that logical clarification.
      All three amendments benefited from debate in Committee, which is exactly how the Bill has been improved in small ways. I pay tribute to the Government for responding in that way.
      I shall leave it to other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is part of the leading and drafting team, to speak to new clause 3, but I have one point to make which links it to amendment No. 44. I understand the logic of the Minister's argument that specific obligations, such as providing that simply to say no to a request should be inadequate, must be clarified. Specific duties are better where possible. Amendment No. 44 is welcome for that reason, but the Minister implied that there was a difference of scale between small amendments in the right direction, such as amendments Nos. 44 and 54, and new clause 3.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made one point about new clause 3; I shall make two. Today's Order Paper contains a written question for answer today about the code of practice. The answer has not yet reached me, but I understand that more information may be available as a result.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Lock: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 44(4), which provides that
      Before issuing or revising any code under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Commissioner?

      861
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to finalise a form of the code before Royal Assent, and, therefore, before the formal appointment of the commissioner, because the required consultation could not have taken place?
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that point, but the Government have been helpful to Parliament in establishing the practice of publishing draft Bills and codes where possible. [Interruption.] If I read the Minister's lips correctly, he is saying, "We have." Certainly, today's written question implies that that is so. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) asked
      the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the draft code of practice to be made under Clause 44.
      Miracle of miracles, the draft code has doubtless been published this afternoon, just in time for our debate.
      Mr. John Bercow: The strength of the parliamentary question.
      Mr. Hughes: Indeed it is, although this one happens to be a planted parliamentary question, which is never quite so good, even if it is a convenient hook.
      Our slight difficulty is that, as parliamentary questions are answered from 3.30 pm and our debate began at about 4.30 pm, not many hon. Members can have found, read, marked, learned and inwardly digested the draft code in time to tell the Minister whether it is just as we like it. I accept that there has been progress; and I take the technical point that we cannot have a code of practice until the commissioner has been appointed, and that requires enactment of the Bill. However, I am not entirely comfortable about being asked to accept an argument that counters new clause 3, which was tabled several days ago, by use of a draft code that we have not yet seen. I am not being over-aggressive about that point, but it is unfortunate that we could not have seen the code earlier in order to decide how far it addressed the concerns in new clause 3. The other place can of course deal with these things, but we should have the maximum information available to us.
      My second point about new clause 3 is that it obliges hundreds of public authorities listed in the schedules to ensure that people are assisted rather than having difficulties put in their way. I have been in the House long enough to recall various Bills to open up local government or give access to medical and local government records. They are all about giving people rights to go to the town hall, ask for a photocopier, have copies made, and so on.
      All that is fine, and the small print is important. However, the new clause proposes that steps should be taken. I do not think that it is necessarily bad law or flawed to make a general proposition simply because, say, a patent agency will clearly act differently from, say, a water authority. The point is similar to one made during our debates on the purpose clause. The new clause would establish—much less controversially or complicatedly than the purposes clause would have done—an obligation across public authorities to help the citizen. We would be using statute to remind public bodies that they are
      862
      agencies of the public, not authorities over the public. "Public authority" is sometimes an unhelpful term for agencies intended to be systems that support the public.
      Mr. David Davis: They are public servants.
      Mr. Hughes: Indeed, they are public servants, funded by public money and answerable to the public. In this age, when the Government divest themselves of functions, that often makes it more difficult to get access to information. We must all be aware of that problem and I am sure that we all come across it regularly in our constituency work.
      I understand, but do not accept, the proposition that we cannot, in the Bill, assert the duty on the public authority to provide information. It is not impossible to take public authorities to court and to arbitrate, either internally through a commissioner or externally through a court. This country has come a long way in administrative law in the past 30 years, and courts are used to dealing with it.
      We hope that the Bill will reduce litigation; one of its purposes is to ensure that people do not have to hunt for information through the courts because they will automatically have access to it. I fear that there may be a series of legal battles ahead to establish those rights. Around the world, access to information from the state has not been achieved without such battles. However, it is not sufficient for Ministers to say that a general proposition and duty cannot be added to the Bill or that such a proposition and duty could not, when coupled with guidance, be adapted to different public authorities, large or small, or broad or narrow in their remit.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we share his concern that the Government's alteration of their stance and, in particular, their approach to the matter that he has raised, will not only increase complexity, which was discussed at great length in Committee, but lead to more litigation, at least in the first few years after the Bill becomes an Act?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me to my next point. One of the problems is that, following the history of the parliamentary drafting mechanism, we still legislate in a complicated way. As somebody who, like others, has trained as a lawyer but who tries to make sure that the law is accessible, I have to say that it is still difficult for citizens to find out what rights they have. One of the best ways to ensure that they know their rights is to have a proposition and an explanation of how they can avail themselves of their rights.
      That argument holds water for the reason that most countries in the world have a written constitution: such constitutions do not include every minutiae of right and entitlement against every agency of the state; they assert a proposition to which people respond. That proposition is a statement of the balance of power.
      I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that, despite having tabled amendments that we welcome, the fact that the Government are not yet willing to accept new clause 3 means that we will none the less end up with legislation that is more specific and particular. To assert different rights, one has to follow different procedures with different remedies and different appeals processes.

      863
      We are trying to make sure that we have a better educated and informed public who take more cognisance of the public debate, and that is not the way to go about it.
      This will be the first United Kingdom-wide Freedom of Information Act, so it should clearly tell people what their rights are without them having to go round the houses finding clues about how to exercise those rights, and it should not require a degree in law or parliamentary draftsmanship to understand the legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope that, on reflection, even if we and the Government have to do more drafting work—which we are happy to do—by the time that the Bill gets to the other place, the Government will have included not only a purposes clause, such as the one that we debated earlier, but a clause similar to new clause 3.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 3, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. I was emboldened to table the new clause, which is similar to an amendment that I moved in Committee, because, at that stage, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that he thought that the amendment was a good idea and he was sympathetic to its concept. However, he rejected it because he thought that, in spite of being a good idea, it would make bad law. I invited my hon. Friend to find out whether he could turn what he agreed was a good concept into decent law, and I am not sure whether he has been able to take up that challenge. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, we will find out whether he agrees with his ministerial colleague that the idea would make bad law.
      There is an important concept behind the new clause, which follows from our previous debate about a purposes clause. The duty to assist in the new clause is aimed to help with the Bill's implementation. In our previous debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that the Bill was breaking new legislative ground and would require a new culture to be engendered throughout government and public authorities, and that it would try to promote a new culture of confidence, curiosity and self-empowerment among people. The new clause is particularly directed at individuals.
      The Bill addresses different problems; it empowers individuals to gain control of their lives by finding out what information about them is held by public authorities. At the moment, they do not have the right of access to that information, and the lack of information often leads to enormous problems in their lives. The inhibition of not knowing the state of one's health and what is on one's medical records can curdle one's whole life.
      When I introduced the Right to Know Bill nine years ago, people throughout the country wrote to me with specific, tragic stories of having been denied access to their medical records. A woman had been under a misapprehension about her health because of a conspiracy between her general practitioner and her husband. They had the well-intentioned aim of protecting her from knowing about the state of her health but, for 10 years, she had been denied the knowledge of her medical condition and how she could deal with it. When she gained access to that information, her whole life changed, and she was able to view her condition and her life in a different context.
      The help that this Bill can give to individuals is very important, but it will be realised only if people genuinely have access to information and can make the legislation
      864
      work. All hon. Members know how complicated is the wording of Acts of Parliament, and the lawyers who advise companies, Departments and public authorities have difficulty enough interpreting the law, but individuals will find the Bill particularly unfriendly and difficult to understand. That is in the nature of legislation, so we should be doing everything that we can to make the Bill user-friendly and open.
      Even if the Minister is not able to accept the new clause, I hope that he will today announce a commitment by the Government to put new resources into promoting it. Whatever form the Bill takes when it finally gets into statute, we should be proud of many aspects of it, and we need to promote it and make sure that people understand its aims and what it can do to change their lives and their grasp of their future. We must make it as easy as we can for them to realise the goods that could flow from the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will announce a programme similar to the one with which the previous Government backed their charter mark. They were very proud of that and put resources into advertising it. We need exactly that commitment from our Government to promote the Bill.
      Mr. Hawkins: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's genuine tribute to my right hon. Friend's citizens charter. I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's points.
      I read carefully what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and he will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was the Front-Bench spokesman in Committee, was sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's points on these issues. However, when I was reading the report of the proceedings, it seemed to me that the Under-Secretary appeared to give pretty clear indications that the Government were sympathetic to those points. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it somewhat disappointing that the Government have not yet, despite those indications—they were not firm undertakings—accepted his arguments?
      7 pm
      Mr. Fisher: I live in hope that, when the Minister replies, there will have been a Pauline conversion on the road to the Report stage, but I am not holding my breath.
      The Government have both a duty and an opportunity to promote the Bill. Placing a duty on the large number of public authorities, Government Departments and local government departments that are covered in the Bill to assist the applicant, is the least that we can do. It is the most sensible thing that we can do to ensure that the good things in the Bill are available to individuals. Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister was at great pains to say that we must make the Bill practicable. He is right, but one of the ways to make the Bill practicable for individuals is to include a duty to assist. It is partly a matter of the attitude of those authorities, but it also has to do with some specific problems in the Bill. There are many hoops to be gone through and barriers to be climbed before we give people the information that they want.
      Mr. Bercow: Despite the hon. Gentleman's persistence and the eloquence of his advocacy over a long period, does he agree that a relatively small proportion of people

      865
      are, as yet, aware of the Bill? Would he care to hazard a guess as to the proportion of the good burghers of Stoke-on-Trent, Central who are aware of its imminent passage?
      Mr. Fisher: I agree. The subject has not yet grabbed the imagination of people. We do not have a curious, demanding culture in this country. Colleagues on both sides of the House who travel to the United States will know that the attitude of individuals there is to ask, "Why not?" They ask questions and are aggressive towards the state and authority. They demand their rights. There is no such attitude here. It is something in the water supply or, perhaps, in our culture—our zeitgeist. We do not have such an aggressive attitude towards life.
      By being much more passive and quiescent about the problems of the state, our citizens are denied their rights. The Bill seeks to address that, but the hon. Gentleman is right. I have had hardly a letter on the subject in 10 years. In fact, in 17 years in the House, I have hardly had a letter on it. It has not caught the public imagination, which is not to say that it is not important.
      To look at the matter in a different way, many specific pieces of legislation on information in local government and medical records were passed under the last Conservative Government. They have not been grasped and taken up by individuals. That does not mean that they are not important. It just puts greater onus on us to make the Freedom of Information Bill, which is the parent of all those Acts and brings them together, work; to learn the lessons at last of why the other Acts have not been taken up by people, as they should have been; and to ensure that the Bill is taken up.
      As I said in my previous contribution, the general tone of the Bill is grudging and reluctant. That is not just rhetoric. It contains specific barriers. Clause 1(3) entitles a public authority legally to turn down an inadequately identified request.
      Many requests for information are by people who are learning how to use legislation. They will not be adequately identified. People will not always know how to be clever enough to phrase their request in the right terms, but that does not mean that the request is not valid. The information might be available to them, but the clause allows authorities to turn the request down. Far from being given a duty to assist, they have an opportunity to refuse.
      Clause 7(1)(a) and (b) allow requests to be rejected if they are made orally, or if a correspondence address is not given. Those seem nitpicking reasons to turn down an otherwise valid application. The whole tone is against the applicant, rather than for him.
      Clause 11 deals with cost. No cost is given or defined, yet if an applicant makes a request that will cost more than the Bill eventually determines, that will allow the authority to turn it down.
      Under clause 15, a body from which information is sought is under no obligation to inform applicants of their right to appeal. Clause 50 allows requests to be rejected if an applicant is slow to complain, or suffered because of undue delay. Those are all specific things in the Bill that make it more difficult, rather than easier, for applicants to access information.
      866
      Given that those things remain in the Bill, surely they need to be balanced—I return to the Minister's earlier statement—by a duty to assist, so that, when authorities are presented with an application for information, they must be positive. They must go with the spirit of the application and help the applicant to get the application in order, if they possibly can.
      The code of practice, which is mentioned later in the Bill, is a welcome development, but it is not statutory, so it will not be enforceable. The new clause would put a statutory duty on public authorities to be positive and to help an applicant to get information. Surely, that is what is behind the Bill—what we all want to be behind it.
      I hope that the Minister will think again and give us some indication, if he cannot accept the proposal today, that between now and a later stage in the parliamentary proceedings on the Bill, the Government will see that it is a small gesture towards individuals who use the Bill. A statutory duty to assist would, however, send a big message that we were serious about getting the benefits of the Bill to all people.
      Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) uttered a great truth: this is, indeed, about the balance of power. That is why it is a particularly important occasion for the Commons itself. The Bill tries to draw a line between the responsibilities and rights of Government but, ultimately, these decisions are ours.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) reprised some elements of a powerful debate that took place in the Standing Committee. There is a reason to commend it. Having read the Bill, the man or woman in the street would come away bewildered and in a state of incomprehension. It is not easy to read. People cannot read it casually and understand what information they can get hold of, what they may not get hold of, what their rights are or what routes are open to them. New Clause 6 adds greatly to the confusion.
      I experienced a brief moment of ecstatic delight when I saw the Home Secretary come into the Chamber to speak to the Minister. I wondered whether he was inquiring about the meaning of some of the clauses. I do not say that glibly.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the balance of power. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central then talked about the climate in the United States and the view of citizens there about their relationship to Government. It made me reflect, but, in truth, in Aldridge-Brownhills the citizens' view of Government is not very different from that in America. It just so happens that the House of Commons is the last repository of deference in this country.
      The Bill would not stand serious examination for more than two minutes by those who believe in freedom of information. It has great swathes of exclusions and all the rest of it, which make it very difficult to understand the Bill's purpose—hence, we wanted a purposes clause, clear and undiluted—or to find one's way through it. The grouping of amendments under the title "Procedural matters relating to requests for information" gives an intimation of how difficult it is to pursue a consistent theme.
      The Government are rightly amending clauses 1, 9 and 15 and, through Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90, schedule 6. Changes are being made throughout the Bill

      867
      and a swathe of amendments has been tabled to deal with access to information, although I do not disagree that some of them are more or less useful. New clause 3 would create a binding duty on public authorities to assist people in exercising their rights. That is all. What is the big deal about that? In view of how extraordinarily difficult it is to understand the Bill, why would anyone oppose such a noble measure? It would assist the Government in the change of culture that they claim to seek.
      In truth, I do not know why I bother to talk to Ministers as if they had any role to play. Somehow, the Bill has been removed from them and from the House of Commons to suit the demands of an unstated body, whether that be bureaucracy or Whitehall in general. As has been said in previous discussions, we have undertaken an extraordinary journey during our consideration, which started with sunshine and light and no one dissenting. A White Paper was proposed, we had a debate in Parliament and everyone congratulated the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and commended the Public Administration Committee for the worthy and deliberative report that was produced under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—that splendid Member of the House who is now the leader in Wales, God bless him—but here we are, in reduced circumstances.
      So many compliments were heaped on the Government that they were embarrassed, but somehow, after a consultative process in which no one seemed to raise any substantial objections to the outline of the White Paper, we have ended up with this miserable little Bill. As well as being miserable, it is almost unintelligible to the people to whom it is meant to mean something.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are rather general. He would do well to be a bit more specific with regard to the amendment.
      Mr. Shepherd: Gladly, Sir, and I accept that rebuke.
      I was referring to clauses 1, 9 and 15, schedule 6, Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 and new clause 3. The need for assistance—a guide through the difficulties of the Bill—is implicit; indeed, it is self-evident. I would have thought that the Minister could have said, "We do not need to delay progress on Report. We gladly accept that our intention was to make such assistance available and we shall provide all the help we can to the citizens of the United Kingdom with what we think of as a flagship Bill." However, we have a mouse of a Bill before us. I recommend that the Minister read new clause 3, overthrow the view expressed in Committee by my good friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and accept our proposal.
      Mr. Lock: I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). How could I resist such an invitation?
      The issue is not and never has been whether public authorities should
      take all reasonable steps to assist
      people who want to exercise their rights under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said repeatedly that the Bill is being passed to
      868
      create a culture of openness, to give people a right to know and in order that it shall be used, not to set up barriers to prevent its use. We are not going through the motions without establishing a proper system for allowing freedom of information.
      The issue between the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—both of whom have worked for many years, and for much longer than I have been a Member of the House, to promote freedom of information—is whether that is best achieved through either a statutory duty of the sort described in new clause 3 or the operation of a code of practice, as described in clause 44.
      7.15 pm
      There are a number of simple and, I am afraid, technical reasons why the drafting of new clause 3 leads to one of two conclusions: either it is so vague that it would not achieve the laudable aim that we all share, or its vagueness would result in a duty being imposed that may be appropriate for some public authorities but disproportionate for others. What does "all reasonable steps" mean for a primary school that has to respond to a parent's request for information? The duty on that public authority, or on a single-handed general practice, would clearly be different from that on a Department dealing with a complex request. A code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under clause 46 would set out, cope with and reflect the assistance and the degree of flexibility required better than would a statutory duty.
      I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had to say. I have some sympathy for the way in which he put his case and I shall certainly reflect on it. I shall also ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I consider whether the duty to co-operate and to promote the underlying purpose is sufficiently reflected in the current drafting, whether the right way forward might be to strengthen the code of practice and whether there might be a way to introduce the issues that he raised, although not in that form due to the inflexibility that I mentioned.
      Dr. Tony Wright: When my hon. Friend reflects on those matters, will he also reflect on why it is possible for many other, if not most, freedom of information systems around the world to include some kind of duty to assist? Usually, a commitment to reasonable assistance is expressed. If everyone else can do that, why cannot we?
      Mr. Lock: We must operate within our own legal system, which is a common law system.
      One purpose of the amendments, inasmuch as they point to specific occasions on which there is a need to respond—for example, when inadequate information is given—is to ensure that the way in which a public authority responds to a particular situation is defined and is adequate to provide assistance.
      Mr. Fisher: Can my hon. Friend not see the irony in the fact that we are discussing the new clause because we found the code of practice introduced by the previous Government insufficient to address the problem, although it was well intentioned and had many laudable elements?

      869
      On the crucial matter of accessibility for the public, he is saying that he prefers a code of practice to providing a statutory duty. There seems to be an inconsistency.
      Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend sums up the defects of the previous code of practice. What lies between us is not the end, but purely the means. Clause 44 already contains the requirement to include in the code of practice guidance on assisting applicants. We must consider whether that is the right place to direct a public authority to assist applicants, or whether that requirement should be taken from the code of practice and included in the Bill.
      I have explained why a general duty in the Bill would not go any further than the code of practice and would cause problems for all types of public authority, whereas the code of practice itself is a more appropriate mechanism: it offers greater flexibility and can reflect the different types of public authority to which the Bill applies—a much wider category than that in the code.
      My hon. Friend suggested that there was a defect in the system in that, to date, few people knew of their rights to apply under the code; we should thus do more to ensure that freedom of information was publicised; and that should be a duty on the commissioner. However, I point out that it is already a duty on the commissioner under clause 46(2).
      My hon. Friend suggested that perhaps there was something in the water in Britain that prevented the public from knowing their rights. His constituents and mine are served by Severn Trent Water plc. However, although I certainly blame the company for overcharging and probably for making excessive profits, even I—as a critic of Severn Trent—could not go so far as to claim that it was dulling the inquiring minds of the populace.
      I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do much work over the coming years, but he should not minimise how radical the measure is. One way of ensuring that people will not know of, or exercise, their rights would be to undersell the measure—to minimise the rights that it will grant by talking it down. I urge him not to do that.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. However, it is pitiful to observe him being obliged—as I suppose he is—to spout such transparent nonsense in opposition to the new clause. Does he not agree that the fact that the interpretation of
      all reasonable steps to assist
      will vary from case to case does not invalidate the notion that the Bill should include an obligation to take all reasonable steps? Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing that he is in favour of public authorities taking all reasonable steps to assist so long as they are not statutorily obliged to do so?
      Mr. Lock: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman calls for a burden of regulation to be imposed on small authorities. We argued that the burden of regulation should be flexible and appropriate to the individual authority, not that it should apply uniformly to all authorities. If the hon. Gentleman understood the nature
      870
      of the imposition of statutory duties, he would realise that it is far more effective to ensure that the right amount of regulation is applied to authorities—an amount appropriate to their size and resources. That can be undertaken properly and flexibly only through a code of practice, not through a uniform statutory duty applying to all authorities in any circumstances.
      Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend clarify this matter for the House? Is he saying that the code of practice will specify the reasonable steps in each case—for a general practice, a primary school or the Health and Safety Commission? That would be a most voluminous and impossible document. Surely all we need is a duty to assist. We can argue about whether it is a code of practice or a statutory obligation—by now, my hon. Friend will have a clear idea of which direction the House wants the Government to take—but he cannot seriously be telling us that the code of practice will specify the degree of duty to assist for every authority of the 200-plus listed in schedule 1. That cannot be true. Before he digs a deeper pit for himself, I beg him to reconsider.
      Mr. Lock: The code of practice will give broad guidance on what public authorities of different sizes and with different resources and obligations are required to do to give practical effect to the rights afforded in the Bill. That is a more flexible, appropriate and balanced way to ensure that those rights are enforced. I urge my hon. Friend to accept that that is better than imposing an all-embracing duty such as that set out in new clause 3.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister imagine that he is a first-year A-level student who is asked to state the rights and duties that flow from the Bill? If we consider clause 1(4), for example, we see that an answer cannot be given without huge complexity. Clause 1 includes a statement of rights, but there is no statement of duty. Will he reflect on the fact that the new clause offers a statement of the duty on public authorities? That could then be illustrated in the lovely code of practice, which everyone could have as an extra Christmas present.
      Mr. Lock: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, the important point is that there are duties on authorities to comply with requirements and requests and that the authorities should ensure that they open themselves up. There is a statutory right to know and a duty on local authorities, schools and health authorities—all public authorities—to comply.
      The narrow question between us is whether the duty to assist in all circumstances for all the authorities covered by the Bill is better expressed flexibly through a code of practice or through an all-embracing, one-size-fits-all statutory duty in the Bill. We may disagree on that point. However, even though the hon. Gentleman may not agree with the route, I hope that he will accept that the outcome—by virtue of the commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me—will be the same, and that it might be in a form that is slightly better for all types of authority to handle.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6

      PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO WHICH ACT HAS LIMITED APPLICATION.
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 4, leave out lines 12 and 13.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 14, leave out "or amending".
      Amendment No. 35, in page 23, line 7, leave out clause 43.
      Government amendment No. 63.
      New clause 5—Power to remove exemptions by order—

      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that—

      (a) information of such description as may be specified in the order is not exempt by virtue of any provision of this Act as may be specified in the order;

      (b) any provision of this Act specified in the order by virtue of which information is exempt shall be repealed or shall apply only in relation to information of the description specified in the order;

      (c)any provision of this Act specified in the order by virtue of which the duty to confirm or deny does not arise shall be repealed or shall apply only in relation to such information, or in such circumstances, as may be specified in the order.

      (2) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases.

      (3) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

      Mr. Heath: This group is extremely important. The amendments and the new clause deal with a provision that crept into the Bill rather late; it gave the Minister extraordinary powers retrospectively to exempt information from the Bill.
      The House might think that the Bill was carefully considered in Committee; that is certainly the view of those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. We may hope that the Bill will be given proper consideration on Report and during its subsequent stages; that its checks and balances will be carefully examined and that there will be a consideration of what information should and should not be exempt.
      However, if the Bill's current provisions remain, all that scrutiny will have little long-term effect, because it will be open to a Minister—to the Executive—to say, "We heard what Parliament said; we know what was included and omitted from the schedule, but we have changed our minds and we want to amend the measure by order." That might occur not only if circumstances change since the measure's inception, but as a response to a specific request for information. A Minister could say, "I don't want that information to be made available, so we shall now make it exempt". Amendment No. 33 would remove the power, in effect, to exclude any information from any organisation listed in schedule 1 by order.
      Amendment No. 34 deals with a similar point. A Minister might want to ameliorate the Bill, not by removing a current exemption but by amending the measure. Again,
      872
      the capacity exists to invent a whole new protocol for a specific area of information, and to do it by order rather than to take what I believe is the right view—that, if a certain category of information is no longer appropriate to be exempt, it should simply not be exempt. The exemption should be removed.
      7.30 pm
      In Committee, the Minister came up with no convincing argument as to why the Government should have the power to amend. He seemed to imply that the provisions were simply a matter of good housekeeping and that they would keep Bill's operation tidy. He said that, in any case, a benign Government and a benign Minister would judge what it was appropriate to amend, and asked why anyone should be concerned. I have real concerns, because I do not believe that every future Government and every future Minister are necessarily benign in their intent.
      More importantly, I believe that the Bill is constitutionally important. We do not have a written constitution, so we must rely on legislation such as the Bill to provide our citizens with what rights they have. Those rights should not be fiddled around with at a later stage by a diktat from Government that would receive scant parliamentary attention if it ever came to the Floor of the House at all.
      I want a one-way process of amendment. I accept that there will be occasions when information which it seemed right to exempt from the Bill will no longer appear as though it should be exempt. That is fair enough, so let us have a provision that allows a Minister to remove categories of information from the Bill. Let us have a semi-permeable membrane and a process of osmosis in one direction. Let us not have the capacity to tighten up a Bill whose provisions for genuine freedom of information are already far too unhelpful. If such a provision were available to a Minister, it could make the situation that pertains at the moment worse.
      Amendment No. 35 deals with clause 43. We debated the clause in Committee and the tenor of the argument was, "We are all good chaps. We know how to operate these things. We can have substantial powers to amend legislation retrospectively because we will do the right thing, won't we? You will certainly know about it if we don't." I am sorry, but I think that clause 43 is bad. It will be slightly improved by Government amendment No. 63, which is a response to a point that I made in Committee.
      Mr. Mike O'Brienindicated assent.
      Mr. Heath: The Minister has been generous in acknowledging that, and I appreciate that the Government listened to one point that was made. However, the change is such a minuscule movement in the right direction in the context of the enormity of clause 43 that it does not satisfy me. The House should not accept that the retrospective powers available under the Bill should stand.
      I will not go into detail on new clause 5, because I imagine that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) will wish to say something about it. However, everyone agrees that this is an important Bill. We must get it right and ensure that retrospective capacities are not built into it for no apparent reason. They have appeared since the draft Bill was published and they could be the avenue by which a wholesale rewriting of the Bill takes place at a later stage.

      873
      As I said in Committee, if I were a civil servant or worked for a public body and saw that a Minister had the capacity retrospectively to exempt information in my possession, I would beat a path to his door and tell him why all the information in my possession should, of necessity, be exempt. I would find any number of legal and other arguments to make that case. I do not think that it is necessary to have such a capacity in the Bill. It would be better without it. I urge the House to support my amendment.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Clause 43 has been a cause of difficulty for a long time. It had a previous incarnation in the draft Bill as clause 36, where it caused no less difficulty.
      The clause allows the Secretary of State to exempt information at short notice simply by order. That provision can be used to trump any request that the Government have received, but that they cannot refuse under existing exemptions. The Bill explicitly permits an order to apply to information that is the subject of an existing request—a request that has already come in. On any test, that is an unacceptable provision. Given the huge number of exemptions in the Bill, it is hardly necessary. It is not as though the Government lack protection. The restrictions are not so loose that they have to put a cover-all in the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is narrowly drawn, so such a sweeping clause presents a difficulty.
      When the Select Committee on Public Administration considered what was then clause 36, it found it unacceptable. It said:
      We believe that it is altogether inappropriate to insert such a provision into a Freedom of Information Act. There is no such provision in any other Freedom of Information Act of which we are aware. We recommend that clause 36 is removed from the Bill.
      The House of Lords Select Committee spoke in similar terms. It said:
      We do not understand why, in a Bill with wide exemptions based on the class of information or the harm which its disclosure might cause, there needs to be a reserve power for a Minister to create a new exemption to deal with an unwelcome request for information, or why the new exemption should have retrospective effect to justify a refusal. In our opinion clause 36 should be deleted completely. If, despite this recommendation, the Government continues to believe that such a power is necessary, then it should be exercised in a specific situation only if the Information Commissioner agrees. At the very least the power should not be made retrospective.
      The Government have ignored those recommendations and, in so doing, have sought to explain that the provision is necessary to give them what they describe as the flexibility to deal with particular circumstances and problems that may come to light.
      My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, told the Committee considering the Bill that the Government needed clause 43 in its present form because
      there may be some areas of information that have not yet been considered, but would legitimately need protection. The Government should also ensure that they are able to protect, in the future as well as now, all information that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
      874
      One cannot accuse the Government of being dishonest. In rejecting an amendment that was designed to restrict the scope of the powers, he said that
      it would limit unacceptably the operation of clause 43. The Government would not have sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 2000; c. 386.]
      New clause 5 would introduce flexibility in another sense. One can proceed in two directions. One can remove the offending clause, which is the preferable solution as offered by an amendment. If the Government are not minded to do that, they should at least accept new clause 5, which simply provides the flexibility to remove restrictions. If flexibility is demanded, let everyone sign up to it.
      Almost everyone who has spoken so far has argued that the Bill is laden with restrictions. If, in the fulness of time, Ministers discover that the sky does not fall in and realise that, in the new culture that develops, fewer restrictions and less onerous provisions are needed, it will be useful to have an order-making power that enables the gradual peeling away of some of the restrictions. New clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to provide that specified information is not covered by a specific exemption; it allows him to repeal a specific exemption, or to apply it more narrowly to specified information only; it enables him to replace a class exemption with a harm-test exemption; and it enables him to remove or restrict the right of authorities to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of information.
      Were I in unworthy mode, I might say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; however, in worthy mode, I say that the new clause is cast in the spirit of flexibility that the Government say they want to introduce. New clause 5 will enable the Government to live up to their pledges and to strip away unneeded restrictions, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. David Davis: As the House knows, I do not approach the Bill as one who has a history of fanaticism about freedom of information. Given my periods of office in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Cabinet Office and the Whips Office—I would need only a period at the Home Office to have the full set of the most secretive Departments of State—my training has all been in the opposite direction.
      I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments until I was provoked by the Minister of State's comments on the first group. He appeared to tell us that he disliked the idea of introducing uncertainty into the Bill—uncertainty in that context meaning allowing the courts to make decisions on the basis of the distinct purpose of the Bill. However, he is asking the House to accept precisely the same degree of uncertainty, except that it will be him or other Ministers making the decisions, not the courts.
      Clause 43 is patently wrong and I shall not waste my time reiterating the powerful arguments that have already been made. Instead, I shall speak briefly about clause 6 and the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats that would remove certain parts of it. At first glance, the clause appears symmetrical, in that movement is possible in either direction; however, that is not how it would work. The first clue to that is that the power it contains is operated by order, not by affirmative resolution—not by a Minister coming to the House and asking whether we agree to changes, but by ministerial order.

      875
      That leads us back to one of the main forces that, in effect, gutted the legislation after the publication of the White Paper some time ago. That is the force toward secrecy prevalent in the Whitehall bureaucracy. I do not criticise individuals who work in Whitehall, because I believe that many talented, committed and public-spirited individuals work there, but I realise that the prevailing culture is such that it will lead clause 6 to become a one-way ratchet. I do not expect it to be used to extend freedom of information—quite the reverse. Let me give the House a brief example of such pressure.
      Some years ago, my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), attempted to bring into the public domain the massive overspends on the MI5 and MI6 headquarters. As the House will know, those matters were publicised only a couple of months ago; at that time, however, the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade the Government of the day to allow those matters to be made public. I, too, tried and failed to persuade the Government of the day to do that. Eventually, the two of us, together with the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), managed to persuade the Government to concede the right to publish National Audit Office reports on the matter.
      7.45 pm
      One might have presumed that the secrecy arose from serious security considerations. It fell to me to approve the excisions from the two NAO reports: I can tell the House that they amounted to about half a dozen lines. Why did it take 10 years, three Privy Councillors, two ex-Ministers and three Select Committee Chairmen to get the Government to make the matter public? The reason was not political—it had nothing to do with which party was in power; it had to do with the interests of Whitehall. Those reports revealed that the Cabinet Secretary of the day, the permanent secretary to the Treasury of the day, the permanent secretary to the Property Services Agency of the day and the heads of the two secret agencies involved had all agreed, for two years, not to tell the Prime Minister what was happening. On that basis, they managed to resist publicity for 10 years.
      I tell that story to illustrate my concern about this apparently symmetrical clause. The sort of pressures that, in the face of all our reasonable requests, combined to keep that matter under wraps for a decade by playing on the presumption made by most reasonable people on the other side of the argument that the reason was a security reason, whereas, in fact, it was an avoidance-of-embarrassment reason, will act to ensure that the effect of the clause is not uncertainty, but a one-way ratchet. For that reason, I commend the Liberal Democrat amendments.
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall be brief. I entirely understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Their amendments would remove the clause that gives the Secretary of State power to confer additional exemptions by order and to limit the legislation's application in respect of certain public authorities, and new clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to remove exemptions by order.
      876
      The Opposition have great sympathy with the amendments, because it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to have the wide-ranging powers conferred on him by the Bill to make information secret by order. We do not believe that the Government's concession is good enough: the Secretary of State should not enjoy such wide-ranging powers. I have no idea whether those who tabled the amendments intend to press them to a Division, but, should they choose to do so, the Opposition will support them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief in voicing my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and other hon. Members. I did not serve on the Standing Committee and, in that sense, I come fresh to the issue. I shall reflect on the importance of making the twin excisions to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) referred: getting rid of clause 6(3)(a) and clause 43.
      It is troubling that the Government want clause 6(3)(a) to remain part of the Bill and that we are contemplating allowing it to remain. It is drafted extremely simply:
      The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1…by limiting to information of a specified description the entry relating to any public authority.
      So the Secretary of State can say that freedom of information does not apply to certain types of information relating to any public authority.
      Schedule 1 lists the bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to which clause 6(3)(a) applies. It lists seven general public authorities: any Government Department, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales, an Assembly subsidiary under the Government of Wales Act 1998, and the armed forces. Then the schedule lists 29 varieties of local government body in England and Wales and one in Northern Ireland, ranging from councils to fire authorities. There are eight health authority structures covering England and Wales, and six in Northern Ireland. There are 10 school authorities covering pupil referral units, nursery schools, colleges, schools and halls of universities, and five similar authorities in Northern Ireland. There are nine police agencies—the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and so on.
      Part VI contains the greatest list of all. In an idle moment, I added up all the bodies. There are 341 public authorities in England and Wales, and 81 in Northern Ireland.
      To go from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Government could suddenly excise the duty in relation to the armed forces, for example, which would be a huge matter, but they also seek to take to themselves power to restrict information relating, for example, to the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, the Apple and Pear Research Council, the Covent Garden Market Authority, the Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies, the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine—
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: Not yet—the Great Britain-China Centre, the Place Names Advisory Committee, Sir John Soane's Museum, and the Unlinked Anonymous Serosurveys Steering Group.

      877
      To discover that those bodies exist is extraordinary. To discover that the Minister wants power to give such bodies, including the Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company and the Zoos Forum, the power to be exempted from freedom of information legislation, borders on the ridiculous. We must not allow the Government the power to keep the business of those bodies secret.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one or two of the bodies that he discovered in his detailed research deal with matters of great significance? When he considers the amount of taxpayers' money spent on Government hospitality, he will recall that grave concerns about that have been expressed from his Front Bench and from ours. Any Government are reluctant to be placed under scrutiny, so powers to exempt are extremely worrying.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's point applies to both ends of Government. The Government may want to cover up how much is spent on the drinks cabinet at No. 10, and they may want to cover up the advice given on BSE, drugs or international agreements. At both ends, it is dangerous. Of course there is a risk to the establishment, but there is no risk to good government, which is what the argument is about.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his delightful speech. Rarely do we hear a speech that is almost like a poem—a poem written by e. e. cummings, it seems. The House needed the light relief.
      I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the bodies that he mentioned are likely to be subject to deletion, as they do not have sufficient weight or seriousness. He will agree, as probably the only hon. Member who has studied the list and counted all 341 bodies, that many are likely to have crucial information that may be embarrassing for themselves or for the Government. I refer to bodies such as the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs, and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Does he agree that those all deal with matters about which the Government may want to delete great swathes of information when it proves embarrassing?
      Mr. Hughes: Both hon. Members who have intervened have made complementary points. We are asked to give the Government ridiculous powers to deal with information that is held by relatively unimportant bodies, but that may be embarrassing, and also powers to take away the citizen's right in relation to crucial issues, such as defence contracts, the Sellafield debate, genetically modified food, drugs labelling and food safety. Those are all issues on which the public send us cards and letters every day, telling us that they want to know what is going on. That is why I hope that having set off, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, down a road that promised transformation of the system, the Government do not suddenly get cold feet and behave in a way that will embarrass only themselves.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have much sympathy
      878
      with his argument, but with regard to a body such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, which is also on the list, there may be an experiment going on that the animal rights people want to target. We should be worried about possible danger, quite apart from embarrassment.
      The very length of the list means that the Government do not have access to the detailed daily functions of each body. That is the reason for clause 6(3)(a). However, like the hon. Gentleman, I should like some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that this is a provisional power which the Government will review some time in the future.
      Mr. Hughes: In his last words, the hon. Gentleman may have touched on the rift. I would be comfortable with a procedure that allowed a Select Committee or a body of the House, at the instigation of a Minister, to look at the list each year and see whether bodies should be added or removed. I am troubled that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome argued at the beginning, the power would be given to one Minister, without Parliament's approval, and without any checking mechanism, to make a decision not just prospectively, but retrospectively, and possibly after someone has asked for the information. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is several powers too far.
      Of course there may be concerns that certain matters need to be kept secret. There are national interests and national security considerations. Let us provide for that in a way that makes clear the guidelines and the parameters. Let us not allow a Minister, prompted by an over-cautious civil servant or a rumour in a newspaper, to say that information will not be available in relation to any organisation defined in the Bill as a public authority.
      Mr. Brian White: In making his valid criticisms, has not the hon. Gentleman demonstrated one of the strengths of the Bill—the range of bodies to which it will apply, for the first time?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, if I felt securely that those were organisations about which I would have information, but no, if having given ourselves the right to get the information, we give the Minister the ability to take it all away—so yes if the information is secure, but no if it is insecure.
      I did think that some light relief was needed. We have been here for four and a half hours, and we will probably be here for another four and a half hours tonight and again tomorrow. We are discussing serious business. The public should know the score. They need to know that the rights that they are getting in the Bill are not about to be taken away.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but it has become riveting. What provoked me to do so—I do not mean that pejoratively—was the intervention of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), when he said that this was a provisional measure.
      That glorifies the nature of Government and ministerial knowledge. It will never be possible for Ministers to know what is going on in the 341 authorities listed, either now or until doomsday. That is one of the reasons why I

      879
      believe, putting myself for a moment in the shoes of government, there is such a tremendous desire to retain the capacity for secrecy.
      Over the past 25 years, when secrecy has been blown for one reason or another, 99 per cent. of the time it has been of no account whatever, except in the positive sense of revealing to the public something that they ought to have known anyway. The number of occasions when such a blow to secrecy has led to consequences that could legitimately be said to have been damaging to individuals and their lives can be counted on the fingers of one hand. It seldom happens. That is why the obsession with secrecy needs to be challenged throughout the Bill wherever it appears.
      8 pm
      We must accept that the nature of government in western society—not only in this country—has been built on the secrets of government. That goes back over generations and centuries. The Government have had the courage to say in one breath that they want to do away with that secrecy, but in the next, they cannot quite bring themselves to do it. I hope that the Minister will have the courage to reconsider the implications. I am convinced that once the provisions are in place, they will be invoked. Apart from anything else, when they are invoked there will be no mechanism to challenge them. They can be invoked at will. If we are conducting a sea change in the way we conduct our affairs, we are doing so in an odd way by pursuing this route.
      It has been said that there will be certain categories that will always need to be exempt. I agree with that, and I do not suppose that there is anyone in this place who would disagree. However, if the view is taken that the Government do not know what is going on, so they must retain a secrecy clause in case something crops up that in their provisional assessment require them to impose secrecy, we shall never get anywhere. I hope that the Minister will reconsider. We are dealing with a serious flaw in the Bill.
      Mr. Shepherd: I shall take up the spirited and encouraging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, in view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 35, the purpose of which is essentially to delete clause 43. I give a cheer for "delete" because I think that it is one of the finest words in the legislative process. I commend those who have put their names to the amendment and I follow in their slipstream.
      I want the House of Lords to read clause 43. I want the whole of Britain to be aware of what it provides. I also want the Labour party to read and inwardly digest what it says. The clause is a monument to imperial self-righteousness. We have not thought about how we can contain information in all its manifestations. We have not yet encountered the spheres in which the ingenuity and imagination of the British public may make inquiries. It is a dreadfully uncertain circumstance to be in, when somebody has the audacity to ask for a piece of information for which we have not made provision in the Bill.
      We must take unto ourselves the ability to make an order. It is like Henry VIII, who had a clause that enabled him to say, "Whatever I say is law." The Government
      880
      take clause 43—remember the House of Lords, Britain outside the House and the Labour party—that provides that the Minister may make an order. Furthermore, in case the wretch who has asked for a piece of information asked for it yesterday, it can be stated in the order that it pre-dates whatever is the date of the application for the information. That is clause 43 in all its magnificence.
      We have joshed about the vigour and imagination of the Americans. I admire them for many things, but they have an obsession with psychology and psychologists. They have developed an expression that is deeply distasteful but that has moved into British public forms of expression: "This is anally retentive." Let us be clear, the entire Bill is anally retentive. If anyone wants an instance of that, it is in clause 43. The splendid amendment No. 35 that says "delete" should commend itself to the House, the House of Lords, the wider public and the Labour party. I cannot believe that we think so little of ourselves and our constituents that such a remarkable power should even have appeared in a Bill in a democratic country.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have seldom heard such great fear expressed about what seem to be fairly benign and sensible clauses. I shall give some examples, as I did in Committee. Let us take the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We needed to create it, and if it had been a public authority, it would have been subject to the provisions of freedom of information if the Bill had been in place. We need provisions to enable public authorities to be created, to alter in terms some of their functions and for the Bill to apply. When they cease to exist, or parts of them, we need to be able to remove those public authorities from the Bill's provisions. If we do not have these provisions, we shall be in some difficulty.
      I shall give another example that I gave in Committee. The BBC will be a public authority subject to the Bill's provisions. The BBC is particularly relevant here because its journalists will be able to claim an exemption from the provisions of freedom of information in respect of material held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.
      What if a court decision were to conclude that for particular purposes of definition areas that we might feel should remain the confidential prerogative of the journalists should be subject to freedom of information, and the journalists had to disclose their sources? I suspect that the BBC journalists would not be too happy about it and would want the Government to be able to act to deal with the situation. I suspect also that they would be mighty displeased if fears that the Government might misuse such powers had prevented the powers being in the Bill in the first place. That is my concern.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way when I have gone through some of the arguments. I recall that I promised in an earlier debate to give way to my hon. Friend, and I eventually did so. I shall do so again in due course. I shall run through the arguments so that we can properly debate the issue.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would be to deny the Secretary of State the power to make an order to limit information of a specified description in the entry in

      881
      schedule 1 relating to any public authority and the power to amend any such limitation. I understand some concerns. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggested in Committee that they were concerned that in future perhaps a less responsible Government, without our commitment to freedom of information, might abuse the order-making powers that are proposed in clause 6. The thrust of that concern was that large tracts of information might be removed at a stroke from the Bill by order, amending the entry in relation to a Government Department, for example, in part 1 of the schedule, or to any other entry or entries. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had a good time listing the possible changes. Some bodies may, in all innocence, be created, change, move on or be renamed. We should ensure that the Bill grants us the ability to do something about that. I understand hon. Members' anxieties.
      Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall first set out my argument and then I shall happily give way to him and deal with his points.
      I understand the anxieties but the fears on which some of them are based do not seem real. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would remove the power to limit or vary a limit in an entry in schedule 1. However, amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would go further than tackling hon. Members' anxieties. They would result in an all or nothing situation, with no scope for simple housekeeping changes to the small number of bodies listed in schedule 1 that are currently within the Bill's remit only because of the information that they hold. The amendments would also prevent future changes to existing entries in the schedule even when they were justified by a change in the circumstances of the public authority.
      I shall give another example of the power's ability to vary or limit the description of information caught by the Bill. The Bank of England might decide to expand its financial activities to include insurance. The bank is already included in schedule 1 because of some of its functions. A decision would need to be made about whether to include the new business. Without the provisions, we could not make such a decision.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that orders under clause 6 to remove information from the scope of the Bill were retrospective. That is not the case. The order-making power should not be confused with that under clause 43, which I shall consider shortly.
      The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) claimed that clause 6 provided for orders but not affirmative orders. Amendment No. 77 tackles that. I therefore hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman at least on that point.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also suggested that the Government could retrospectively allow a public authority that wanted to keep a secret to do that. That is possible, but only by an affirmative order after consulting the commissioner, whose view will be published. An order to create an exemption can be made only when specified prejudice applies or when the public interest requires an exemption to be made. An order
      882
      cannot therefore be made on the quiet. The clause does not provide for a ministerial power but for affirmative order procedure. Members of Parliament will be able to maintain a clear check on the Executive.
      We have tackled many anxieties about clause 6. Many of those anxieties are unrealistic. We believe that the restrictions for which amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would provide are too severe. The amendments go too far and are therefore unacceptable. The lack of a power to amend an entry by order to reflect changes in the functions of the authorities that schedule 1 lists would mean that the entries in that schedule would be fixed for all time. That would lead to inflexibility and undermine the basis of the Bill.
      We have listened to the views expressed in Committee, especially by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and we have tabled amendments Nos. 77 and 81, which deal with parliamentary procedures for orders under clause 6. We shall have an opportunity to debate them later. We hope that they will allay some anxieties.
      I shall deal with amendments Nos. 63 and 35 and then I shall take interventions. Amendment No. 63 was inspired by an amendment that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome tabled in Committee. The Government agreed to consider the wording of that amendment and gave an undertaking to table an amendment on Report.
      Clause 43(6) required the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner before making an order under clause 43 to create a new exemption. Amendment No. 63 would require the Secretary of State to publish any written representations to him by the Information Commissioner about the consultation before laying an order before Parliament unless the representations contained exempt information or information that would be exempt if the order were made. The Government accept that requiring the publication of the commissioner's representations would increase openness. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked for such a provision and the Government have listened and acted.
      However, there may be circumstances in which such publication would result in the disclosure of exempt information or information that would be exempt if the order were made. We believe that it is necessary to provide protection against such an eventuality. Amendment No. 63 would therefore achieve that.
      Amendment No. 35 would delete clause 43. The clause enables the Secretary of State to create additional exemptions by order. The clause includes two distinct order-making powers, which relate to two distinct circumstances. First, the Secretary of State can make an order about specific information, but only if the public interest in creating a new exemption outweighs the public interest in its disclosure. Achieving that balance shifts the argument and tackles the anxieties. We must consider the public interest when creating a new exemption.
      The Secretary of State can create a general exemption that does not relate to a specific item of information. In that case, the order must be so expressed that it provides exemption only if disclosure would be likely to have adverse effects on the public interest. In such circumstances, the adverse effects must be specified in the order.

      883
      The Government believe that it is necessary to retain a mechanism for creating new exemptions. There may well be information that has not yet been considered due to the number of authorities—up to 50,000—that the Bill covers—
      8.15 pm
      Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way in due course.
      The nature of information that will fall within the scope of the provision will be wide ranging and may legitimately require protection. The Government must ensure that they can protect that information in future as well as now.
      Let us consider the sort of information that we are discussing. The commissioner will know the information that will be subject to an order under clause 43. Her representations may include references to the information when she determines her view. It is right for that information to be outlined. The power to confer additional exemptions can be exercised only if the Information Commissioner is first consulted. When amendment No. 63 is accepted, the Secretary of State will be required to publish any written representation that the Information Commissioner makes to him.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have considered their powers relative to those of the commissioner in other clauses. Is not there an overwhelming case that the commissioner should have the right not only to be consulted, but to have the final say? If the commissioner had the final say, everybody would be more reassured. However, the Government, backed by their party in Parliament, have the final say. The commissioner is simply an adviser.
      Mr. O'Brien: We either have some respect for the House or we do not. The hon. Gentleman is trying to shift power away from those, like him and me, who are democratically elected to do our job in this place to those who are not democratically elected. There is a danger of enhancing an unfortunate democratic deficit. Enough already exists in this country. I am reluctant to accompany the hon. Gentleman down that road.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I want to raise two police matters that relate to schedule 1. The Minister referred to the Stephen Lawrence case. I invite him to pause and consider that we passed the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which will remove from hon. Members the opportunity to probe what are deemed to be police authority matters. The Stephen Lawrence case is especially relevant in that respect. In the early stages, when hon. Members were arguing that something was wrong, they were able to table questions in the House by virtue of the fact that the Home Secretary is the police authority. If the incident had happened in Essex or Kent, they would not have been able to do that. We are losing that power under the GLA Act, and this Bill lists certain police authorities.
      If the Stephen Lawrence case had occurred after the GLA Act and this Bill had come into force, we probably would not have heard of Stephen Lawrence, because we would not have been able to get some of those questions past the stewardship of the Table Office.
      884
      That is my first point. My second point is this.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an extremely long intervention. The hon. Gentleman must be very brief on his second point.
      Mr. Mackinlay: During both the Conservative Administration and this Labour Administration, I have expressed concern about the privatisation of some police forces. Some important police authorities, such as the Northern Ireland airport police, cannot be included in the schedule—it is neither in nor out. If it is good for police authorities to be included in the Bill, why has the Minister excluded some important police authorities that do not fall within the ambit of a public body?
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: On my hon. Friend's second point, we need the power to extend the provision if we consider that to be appropriate. The Bill contains a power to extend and include provisions. I refer him to clause 74.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: No. I am just about to come to my hon. Friend's point.
      Dr. Wright: On this point.
      Mr. O'Brien: With respect, I have not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), so perhaps my hon. Friend will let me answer it before I give way to him. I was about to deal with the issues he raised on new clause 5. I shall be happy to give way if he wants to intervene later.
      On the Lawrence inquiry, questions could be asked under the GLA Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is wrong about hon. Members not being able to be ask questions about the Stephen Lawrence case. Our view is that the Bill would have substantially assisted the Lawrence family in dealing with that case.
      New clause 5 will give the Secretary of State the power by order to remove or limit the application of any exemption in part II, or to remove or limit the exemption in respect of the duty to confirm or deny that that information is held. An order made under the new clause would require the affirmative resolution procedure.
      I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has felt it necessary to table this new clause, which could be seen as complementing the power under clause 43 of the Secretary of State by order to confer additional exemptions. However, I cannot support it for the simple reason that it is not necessary.
      If a public authority wishes to release information to the general public or to any individual, nothing in the Bill prevents that. Clause 76 contains a specific provision that nothing in the Bill will prevent a public authority from disclosing information that it wishes to disclose. Nothing in the Bill requires secrecy. There may well be provisions in other legislation that prevent disclosure, but not in this Bill. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that clause 74 provides an order-making power by which those other provisions may be repealed or amended. We are committed to considering such statutory bars and to introducing orders as appropriate.

      885
      The Bill provides the right of access to information, and specifies some circumstances in which the right will not apply. It does not serve to keep anything secret.
      Dr. Wright: I do not want to cross swords on this point. My hon. Friend is confusing the issue of removing structural restrictions with a more general point.
      My hon. Friend began to give us a treatise on the nature of democracy, and I am sure that we shall hear more of that later. Democracy has something to do with the wishes of the people. If people were offered a choice between the creation of additional exemptions by ministerial order and the creation of exemptions by ministerial order with the agreement of an independent information commissioner, which does my hon. Friend think the people would choose?
      Mr. O'Brien: The people of this country want to ensure that those who are directly accountable to them are able to do the job that they are elected to do. I am personally very uncomfortable with some of the arguments that have been voiced about the need to give unequivocal power to the Information Commissioner. It worries me that hon. Members are anxious to convince the electorate so as to get elected to the House in order to do something, but are then desperate to hand over the power to do things to unelected people.
      I accept that we give judges a particular role. As a result of clause 13, judges will have a strengthened role. That provides the right checks and balances in relation to freedom of information, and enables both those who are unelected but have an official role and those who are elected to do their job.
      The order-making power proposed in new clause 5 is unnecessary. I ask the House not to support the amendments, but to support the Government amendment, which deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We have listened to his concerns, and have responded to them in so far as we are reasonably able to do so. However, I cannot promise that some future Parliament will not abuse or misuse the legislation. We cannot bind future Parliaments: that is part of the price of our constitution and our democracy.
      The Government believe that the safeguards in the Bill provide constraints, and we would not seek to abuse them. The provisions that we are including in clause 43 and clause 6 are relatively benign. They are housekeeping measures, and we should not get overly worried about them. We should ensure that we have good laws that work, and that can accommodate changing circumstances as a result of the creation of new public authorities, or when bodies cease to exist or change their internal functions.
      Mr. David Heath: The Minister ended by saying that he would not be able to prevent a future Government from misusing or abusing powers. I agree, but it does not seem entirely sensible to give a future Government the instruments that would enable them to misuse or abuse the very legislation that we seek to introduce.
      We have had an extremely interesting debate. Most speakers have prefaced their remarks with the phrase "I did not intend to speak, but…". It seems that they
      886
      were moved either by a sudden burst of enthusiasm for the subject under discussion, or by the realisation of exactly what the Minister proposed. It is also instructive to note that not one felt moved to support the Minister's view, and the powers that he chooses to take.
      I agree that amendment No. 63 is a move in the right direction, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the arguments, but the amendment represents the most minimal move that he could make. I thank the Lord that I have secured some movement from the Government on the Bill, which has been improved slightly by our proposals in Committee and by what the Government have brought back today, but the minimum has been done to give a veneer of respectability to a power that would otherwise have no respectability. I do not accept for a moment that the Government have gone far enough.
      If I inadvertently suggested that retrospective powers applied to clause 6, I apologise. That was not my intention: when I referred to such powers, I was speaking to the whole group of amendments and the new clause.
      What I considered to be one of the most interesting contributions was that of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who suggested that this might be a provisional power. I would love it to be a provisional power. We would have no reason to table amendments if we could believe that the power would expire in a little while so that the Government could check that they had got the legislation right and bring it back to Parliament, but that is not the case.
      Mr. McWalter: As my name has been taken in vain a couple of times, let me point out that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—the powers in clause 43 could easily wither on the vine.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Heath: I would love to see a piece of legislation with a self-destruct gene built into it, allowing elements to disappear if they were not used after a while. Unfortunately, that is not the way in which legislation tends to work. Once the power is in place—once the hon. Gentleman has voted to support it, if he chooses to do so—it is there for Ministers to use until Parliament decides otherwise.
      The Minister's defence was similar to his defence in Committee. It was that these were benign provisions, enabling him to ensure good housekeeping. He suggested that they were necessary because some of the bodies listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) might need to be added or removed. In fact, that is done by clause 3; this section deals not with bodies but with the information that they hold, and with whether it is exempt from the provisions in the Bill.
      The Minister was unable to give examples of his concerns—concerns that we could consider, and either include in the Bill or not. He wants to have an undefined power to pass, with the help of a docile House of Commons, an order restricting the power of the citizen to gain access to information that he or she wants, and even to frustrate the will of the courts. Let us suppose that a court reached a decision with which a Minister did not agree. Where would we be if that Minister could not change the law immediately, in order to frustrate the will of the court?

      887
      I am not sure that that is acceptable. I could have accepted it if the Minister had proposed a review that would enable the Houses of Parliament to do their job properly in discussing amendments that must be made to allow a review of the classes of information that are exempt, but he has not done that; he wishes to persist with provisions that give him or his successors powers to make retrospective legislation. I cannot accept that, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 319.

      Division No. 142]

      [8.33 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Amess, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Harvey, Nick

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Heald, Oliver

      Ballard, Jackie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Beggs, Roy

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Horam, John

      Bercow, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Keetch, Paul

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Brady, Graham

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Key, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burnett, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burstow, Paul

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Livsey, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Collins, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Day, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Madel, Sir David

      Duncan, Alan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maples, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Faber, David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fabrteant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Moore, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Norman, Archie

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Oaten, Mark

      Fraser, Christopher

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gale, Roger

      Öpik, Lembit

      Garnier, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Page, Richard

      Gibb, Nick

      Paice, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Pickles, Eric

      Gray, James

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Green, Damian

      Prior, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Randall, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      888

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Robertson, Laurence

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Ruffley, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Trend, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyler, Paul

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wardle, Charles

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Soames, Nicholas

      Webb, Steve

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Steen, Anthony

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Streeter, Gary

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Tom Brake.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Austin, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Connarty, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cranston, Ross

      Benton, Joe

      Crausby, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Best, Harold

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Betts, Clive

      Darvill, Keith

      Blackman, Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Denham, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Doran, Frank

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Edwards, Huw

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Efford, Clive

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burgon, Colin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Caton, Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Cawsey, Ian

      Galbraith, Sam

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Galloway, George

      Chaytor, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Church, Ms Judith

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clapham, Michael

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      889

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Macdonald, Calum

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grant, Bernie

      McLeish, Henry

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gunnell, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Maxton, John

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Merron, Gillian

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heppell, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hill, Keith

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

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

      Hoey, Kate

      Home Robertson, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hope, Phil

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Norris, Dan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hurst, Alan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Illsley, Eric

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rammell, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Linton, Martin

      Roy, Frank

      Lock, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      890

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Timms, Stephen

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Tipping, Paddy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Todd, Mark

      Singh, Marsha

      Touhig, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Snape, Peter

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Wareing, Robert N

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Watts, David

      Spellar, John

      White, Brian

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wood, Mike

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 9

      TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 5, line 23, after 'subsection', insert `(1A) or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where the authority has notified a third party in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) that it has received a request for information which relates to the third party's commercial interests, the third party shall have a period of 10 working days to make representations in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) (1)(a), and that period of 10 days shall he disregarded in calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.'.
      Government amendment No. 101.
      Amendment No. 99, in clause 41, page 22, line 36, at end insert—
      '(1A) Information is exempt information if it was supplied to a public authority by a company or other commercial organisation before the coming into force of this Act'.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 22, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      `(2) Information is exempt information if it was supplied to the authority in confidence by any person and its disclosure under this Act would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of that person.

      891
      (2A) Information is exempt information if it has been consistently treated as confidential by the authority and its disclosure under this Act would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of the authority.'.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 38, after "to", insert "substantially".
      Amendment No. 38, in page 22, line 39, at end insert—
      '(2A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (2) if or to the extent that—

      (a) it relates to the quality or safety of the goods or services produced or supplied by the person referred to in that subsection or the conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied; and

      (b) the prejudice to that person's commercial interests would result from the exercise of more informed choice by persons seeking to acquire those goods or services,

      unless the information is inaccurate.'.
      Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 41, after "to", insert "substantially".
      Amendment No. 104, in clause 50, page 26, line 41, at end insert—
      ', or whether representations made by the complainant in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) have been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of that section.'.
      Amendment No. 98, in clause 62, page 31, line 19, leave out ",40 or 41" and insert "or 40".
      New clause 8—Extension of meaning of "data subject"—
      '.—(1) Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (basic interpretative provisions) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
      (2) In the definition of "data subject", after the word "individual" there is inserted "or company".
      (3) The definition of "personal data" is omitted and the following words are inserted—
      ""personal data" means data which relate to—

      (a) a living individual, or

      (b) a company (but only where those data are held by a public authority),

      where the individual or the company can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual or company and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.".'
      New clause 9—Notification of third parties—
      '.—(1) Where a request for information is received by a public authority and that information relates to a third party's commercial interests the public authority shall—

      (a) without delay notify the third party of the request for information and the extent and nature of the information relating to the request and give the third party a reasonable opportunity to make representations regarding whether the information requested falls under an exemption as listed in Part II; and

      (b) have due regard to any such representations before discharging the duty to confirm or deny and before communicating the information or giving a notice under section 15.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

      (a) "third party" means anyone other than the person making the request of any public authority; and

      892

      (b) information shall be taken as relating to a third party's interests if that person provided the information to the public authority, is identified in the information and is reasonably likely to be affected (at any time) by disclosure of the information or of its existence.

      (3) Where, after due regard has been given to any representation made in accordance with subsection (I), a public authority is to any extent not relying on a claim that information is exempt information in reaching its decision, the public authority must, without delay, give the third party a notice which—

      (a) states that fact;

      (b) specifies the exemption in question; and

      (c) states why the exemption does not apply.'.

      Mr. Hawkins: The Opposition consider this group of amendments and new clauses to have special importance. When the Under-Secretary dealt with this matter in Committee, he cited the interests of business—including small business—in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It seems that the Under-Secretary may not respond to the debate, although he is in the Chamber. However, I wonder whether the Government may be embarrassed by the fact that they are flying in the face of the interests of business, both small and large.
      When the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was winding up the debate on the previous group of amendments, he had an exchange with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about the question of self-destruct mechanisms. It struck me that the idea of mechanisms self-destructing came from a television programme entitled "Mission Impossible". Given the lack of support enjoyed by Ministers this evening, it is clear that the Government are embarked on just such a mission with this Bill, so it is not surprising that they reject the idea of self-destruct clauses.
      However, I shall begin with the matters covered by new clause 8, which is linked with amendments Nos. 102, 103, 99, 98 and 104. The Data Protection Act 1998 gives companies—small or large—no rights to ensure that information held on them by any public authority is correct.
      The Bill would give the public wide powers of access to information on any company that works with any public authority. The amendments in this group would broaden the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that companies have the same rights as individuals to ensure that information held on them is correct.
      That is simple justice. For example, information held on people by credit reference agencies causes great unease, but individuals have the right to ask the agency what information it holds about them. They can correct what they can prove to be wrong.
      We believe that freedom of information demands a degree of reciprocity in this regard. Companies need to be able to ensure that the information held on them is correct. When he responds, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether he can think of any good reason why companies should not have the right to check.
      Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the original US freedom of information legislation contained no provision such as he proposes? After several court cases, that element became a key part of the US legislation.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was aware of that aspect, and I was going to speak about

      893
      the history of what has happened in other jurisdictions. However, the hon. Gentleman and I have served on the parliamentary information technology committee, and I know that he shares my interest in matters such as data protection.
      As I said earlier, I may be the only hon. Member to have conducted cases under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the courts. However, once again, the Opposition's argument has the support of a Labour Back Bencher, who I hope will join me in pressing Ministers on this matter. We have yet to hear a Back-Bench Labour Member supporting the Ministers on any of these matters. Once again, the Minister is under friendly fire from his own side. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is absolutely right, and I am glad to have his support. I hope that many other Labour Members will also support the idea of simple justice.
      If business organisations do not have the right that we propose, incorrect or inaccurate information on companies, be they small or large, could be released into the public domain following a freedom of information request under this measure. We believe that any freedom of information legislation should mean that more information relating to the dealings between public authorities and business is released as long as, and only so long as, that information is accurate. Therefore, our welcome for the Government's proposals is subject to the exemption of information that could harm a commercial interest and to our concern that businesses must have a right to check on the accuracy of the information and correct it if there are mistakes. Because of accident or incompetence—not malice—records may, on many occasions, be incorrect. Things may be mistranslated. In many business fields, the accuracy of record keeping cannot be perfect. If more information is to be released, it must be checked for accuracy.
      Under the Bill, a third party that may be affected by the disclosure of information has no right to be notified of any application for disclosure. Once again, we think that that is wrong. We believe that third parties should be given the right to be notified, in advance, of any application for disclosure that may affect them. It is also vital that third parties should then have the opportunity to make representations on whether that information is covered by an exemption. Can the Minister think of any good reason why that should not be the case? In no way would new clause 9 give commercial organisations a veto over whether information should be released. It simply means that no company, small or large, would have to rely on an action for breach or confidence or other legal remedy after the information was disclosed. We think it wrong for any company to seek to shut the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted.
      Mr. Lock: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Will he let me know two things? First, where does new clause 8 provide that information shall be disclosed only if it is accurate? Secondly, how is a public authority to judge whether information that it holds is or is not accurate in a dispute about its accuracy? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said from a sedentary position,
      894
      this is not a difficult argument to follow. If the Minister will be patient, I will, I hope, address the points that he has raised. However, it is for the hon. Gentleman to respond to our suggestions. If he is prepared to come back, tonight or at a later stage, or even in another place, and deal with our amendments and new clauses in a different way, addressing the issues, we will be very pleased. We are not suggesting that all our proposals are perfect. However, we have done our best, working with business organisations, to address the issues. If the Minister says that he is prepared to address these vital issues—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham helpfully said, they are not difficult—we will consider carefully what the Government propose. So far, however, there has been no attempt by the Government to address our concerns over the Data Protection Act 1998, reciprocity, the notification of third parties and the rights of companies, small or large.
      Business organisations are concerned about that matter. For example, the CBI, which the Government are keen to cultivate, said:
      Individuals are protected by the Data Protection Act. But what protections are there available to business? Under the Bill as it currently stands, business does not even have a statutory right to be notified when sensitive information about that business is to be disclosed. It has no right to object to its disclosure, no right to appeal the decision and no right to apply for compensation.
      To return to the helpful point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, all those guarantees are provided by the United States Freedom of Information Act, as they are in Australia.
      The Minister must justify the Government's failure to learn from experience in other jurisdictions. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said that that the same error was initially made in the United States, and had to be corrected after many battles. Why are the Government repeating such mistakes? The Government claim to be a friend to business, but the CBI certainly does not think so. Unless the Government change their mind and accept our amendments or something akin to them, they will upset business seriously.
      Business must be certain that any Freedom of Information Act will contain safeguards to ensure that damaging or commercially sensitive information is not be released.
      Mr. Bercow: The potency of my hon. Friend's argument should be clear to all hon. Members, with the possible exception of the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that protection is especially important for companies because, unlike individuals, they have no recourse to the ordinary laws of libel?
      Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he has worked with many business organisations, particularly the Small Business Bureau and the Federation of Small Businesses. Small businesses with limited financial and legal resources are particularly hard hit by the Bill. I do not doubt that the Minister, who has practised law for many years, will have represented many business organisations, and I wonder whether, if he thinks about it for a moment, he is terribly comfortable with what his ministerial superiors have asked him to put before us tonight. We shall wait to hear from him.

      895
      Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are connected with the proposed new clauses, and insert a period of 10 working days. We are not proposing a massive change, or a lengthy period. The Minister will find it difficult to say that there is anything wrong with that.
      Amendment No. 99 deals with a matter vital to any Member of Parliament. I do not exaggerate by saying that one of the first principles learned about Parliament by any schoolboy or schoolgirl is that there should be no retrospective legislation. Hon. Members on both sides—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) sits on the Labour Benches, for example—have frequently spoken of the serious problems raised by retrospective legislation, yet the Bill applies retrospectively. Information supplied by business to any public authority before the Bill is enacted would be covered.
      9 pm
      All hon. Members will understand from their dealings with any business, small or large, that businesses require stability, and an important part of that is ensuring that the laws that apply to a business's actions will be the same as those that applied when the business originally took those actions.
      All the advocacy that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I can command leads us to say firmly that the Bill should not apply retrospectively to commercial information previously provided to the Government, voluntarily or as required by statute, on the basis of assurances of confidentiality, because that information was, by definition, provided under a different regulatory environment. It is wrong in principle for the Government to say that information provided 10 or 20 years before the Bill is introduced will be covered.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend further, but does he agree that there is an analogy between the argument that he is advancing and the position on the disclosure of information provided to journalists in confidence? Earlier, it suited Ministers to say that it would be wrong to put journalists in a position of having to divulge information with which they were provided on a confidential basis. If that is so, surely the same principle applies, as my hon. Friend has eloquently argued, for businesses, which have divulged information on the basis of assurances of confidentiality.
      Mr. Hawkins: Once again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is certainly not troubling me at all; I greatly welcome his intervention because he, like me, was carefully listening to an earlier debate. He is absolutely right to draw that parallel and point out that Ministers cannot put forward, on these amendments, an argument that is inconsistent with their earlier arguments. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
      It is important to say that, even if the Government were to accept our amendments and new clauses or something akin to them—now, at a later stage, or in another place—that would not totally veto any such information from the past being released because there would still be a provision or exception allowing the Information Commissioner to recommend that information given in the past should be released in the public interest. Our amendments would not mean that such information could
      896
      never be released, so we are being moderate and reasonable in proposing this control and preventing retrospection.
      It is important for the Bill to set a precedent so that businesses can carry on giving information to public authorities in the knowledge that the rules will not change again in the future. I recognise that the Government cannot bind their successors, but the point of the Bill is that the Government are encouraging the greater provision of information. If they make it more difficult for businesses to trust them, they will find that businesses are far more reluctant to provide information to public authorities or to the Government themselves. We strongly argue that the amendment is in everybody's interests.
      The Campaign for Freedom of Information may not often share objectives with organisations such as the CBI, but it is unlikely that those who are arguing, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have done for many years, for the provision of more information would want business, as a result of the Bill, to be much more reluctant to provide information to the Government or a public authority.
      Amendment No. 98 deals with the availability of historical records, and is connected to the argument for the previous amendment. As I have said, the Opposition believe that more information should be released, but it is also important to recognise that business must be protected from provisions that could result in commercially sensitive information being placed in the public domain. That information could affect the very existence of small or even medium-sized businesses.
      The Bill contains an exemption for information that would prejudice the commercial interests of a commercial organisation. We accept that. However, under part VI, any information covered by the exemption would be released after 30 years as an historical record. Amendment No. 98 would ensure that sensitive commercial information would not be released automatically after 30 years. It is a little like the rules in relation to Cabinet discussions and such matters.
      We believe that the contents exemption to ensure that damaging information is not released is sufficient. If information is not damaging to a commercial organisation, it should be released. However, if it is judged that the information covered by the exemption and release is not in the public interest, it should not automatically be released after 30 years.
      It is perhaps a double safeguard: a double negative. There is a danger that, if companies knew that, whatever information they supplied to public authorities would be released to the public, even after 30 years, it might yet again affect the frank and open relationships that the present, or any future, Government would wish to have with business.
      I deal briefly with some of the amendments from what has been referred to as the cross-Bench group of hon. Members: Nos. 37, 31, 38 and 32. We want the Government to explain their amendment No. 101 in dealing with the cross-Bench group's amendments, which raise important issues. I do not want to deal with them in detail because others from the group will do so adequately, but the points are extremely serious.
      I return to the point that the Minister made earlier. We do not claim that everything in our amendments or new clauses is perfect. There may be ways in which the

      897
      Government, parliamentary draftsmen and Government advisers can improve them. We want the principles underlying these four matters to be dealt with: the protection of companies under the Data Protection Act; what has been sometimes called reverse freedom of information, although I prefer to call it reciprocal freedom of information: notification of third parties; avoiding retrospective legislation; and historical records, where a public interest test should be added.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said about principles and about the information that is to be held, or not held, disclosed or not disclosed. Can he help me by giving an example of what information should be held for a longer period?
      Mr. Hawkins: It is difficult to give specific examples, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand. Under the Government proposals, something would normally be released after 30 years. I put the question back to him. Is it not sensible to have a public interest test, so that, if a company says, even after 30 years, that there is still a public interest in not disclosing that, it will not happen? It might severely embarrass someone's personal life.
      As the hon. Gentleman and most hon. Members will be aware, family matters can be connected with the operation of family companies. Personalities are involved in such companies. Disclosure could be deeply embarrassing for that family, even after 35 or 40 years. A public interest test could be built in as an additional safeguard. We are talking about all companies, not just multinationals; that may be where the media focus, but it applies to all companies. I hope that I have given close enough to an example to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Rogers: It is not close enough. I cannot think of any information that needs to be withheld, for example, with regard to a private family company and that might be subject to a public interest test. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give a more substantial example of the information that could not be disclosed.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman any further. I was trying to deal with something that could arise, but it is not just the Opposition Front-Bench team that thinks that it is important. Those matters have been raised with us by the CBI on behalf of its members. I hope that he will realise that it is not doing that for the fun of it. It thinks that there is a serious purpose here.
      In summary, the amendments deal with important issues and we hope that the Government will take them on board.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I come at the issue from a different angle, although I am trying to follow the arguments being made from across the way. To me, clause 41 looks like an extraordinary blanket exemption and, as a citizen and a consumer, I would like it to be tested more rigorously. Let me give a recent example so we realise that we are not talking about abstracts.
      Before Christmas, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions a couple of questions: which MOT testing
      898
      stations were on a final warning from the vehicle inspectorate and which garages had lost their licence to carry out MOT tests in each of the past five years? I shall compress the answer by reading the essential sentence:
      To publish the identities of Authorised Examiners withdrawn from the scheme could be prejudicial to any of their other business interests unconnected with the MOT testing scheme and therefore a list of those withdrawn from the scheme is not published.—[Official Report, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 530W.]
      That is how commercial prejudice provisions operate in respect of something that might matter to us. Indeed, when I received the figures, I discovered that last year 143 of those establishments had their licence withdrawn and 1,058 were put on a final warning. Over the past five years, 767 had their testing licence withdrawn and some 6,701 had been warned. We are not having some arcane argument. We must consider whether an exemption for commercial interests should be extensive or blanket or whether that exemption should be tested.
      The problem is that the exemption is wholly unable to be tested against public interest considerations. Clause 41 applies to any information from any source. There is no sense that what is protected is information that belongs even to a particular company. A public authority could withhold test results obtained from its own laboratories or from independent sources. The information need not even be confidential. Information previously released by the authority or by the company could be withheld. A company might have disclosed information for one purpose and yet want to withhold it under that provision for another. The exemption would permit that, and it puts the avoidance of commercial prejudice above all other considerations. That is the fundamental point.
      Companies or authorities that behave badly should be prejudiced, which is the whole point. That is exactly what a public interest consideration is designed to do. The Bill allows information to be withheld to protect companies from facing the consequences of their own malpractice. It is not difficult to find examples of how that might work. The absence of a binding public interest test will deny the public the essential safeguard in that respect. Of course we know that we have to protect proper commercial interests, but that must be balanced against a workable public interest test.
      9.15 pm
      Of course, an authority could reveal exempt information if it chose to do so, but sometimes authorities fail to recognise that there is any public interest in telling the public what is going on, or they might have a direct incentive not to disclose because they could incur criticism as a result. The discretionary nature of the test opens the door to collaboration and collusion between regulatory authorities and companies.
      The exemption is unsustainably broad when compared with similar provisions in other freedom of information legislation. Amendments No. 37 and 38 would simply insert a public interest test. Commercial interests are important and need protection, but they must be weighed against other matters. That is the sensible course to take.
      Amendment No. 37 would raise the threshold—it would allow information to be exempted on grounds of commercial prejudice. To become exempt, information would have to be supplied in confidence and would have to prejudice unreasonably the commercial interest of the person who supplied it or of the public authority holding it.

      899
      Amendment No. 38—my preference—would ensure that information relating to the safety of goods and services or information that would lead to consumers making a more informed choice could not be exempted on commercial interest grounds. I am not one of those who thinks that commercial interests do not matter, but I do think that commercial interests and their protection need to be balanced against other interests—especially those that protect consumers or allow them to exercise proper choice based on full information. At present, the clause offers blanket exemption, but that needs to be balanced. The amendments offer that balance.
      Mr. David Davis: I reiterate the points that I made earlier. Freedom of information is about better-informed debate, a strong democracy and a better-performing Government. The amendments bear an important relationship to that.
      I do not want to talk at length about the Conservative amendments, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He raised some important issues of principle. I am glad that he told the Minister that he would accept other draftings of the amendments. Although the principles of accuracy and reciprocity in freedom of information are significant, I shall not dwell on them.
      Like the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I want to make some observations in support of amendments Nos. 37, 31, 38 and 32. Earlier, I referred to my ministerial experience, but I was in business for twice as long as I was a Minister. If it is true that between two thirds and three quarters of what is claimed as secret really is secret, a large fraction of the remainder—what is described as secret merely to prevent embarrassment—comes under the category covered by these provisions.
      When I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, the use of commercial confidentiality in government prevented me from answering parliamentary questions and debates as I wanted to do. That was because civil servants said, "You can't say that, Minister; it's commercially confidential." I came to the view that, in many cases, it was not so much commercial confidentiality as avoidance of embarrassment.
      That view was reinforced rather than weakened by my business experience. The demands made of Government by many businesses were greater than any made of a large private sector customer. I am talking not only about Great Britain, but about north America. In both cases, businesses supplying a major customer under contracts similar in size to those for Governments would fully expect that, for example, pricing information would be in the public domain, because that customer would need to be able to say to a competitor, "You have to beat this price, or this quality or this service level." There has been much disingenuous argument by businesses and it has not served them, the British economy or the British taxpayer well. It has become a serious issue for reasons that I shall come to shortly.
      My point about an inappropriate exercise is not undermined by the Minister's comment that 60 per cent. of American inquiries on freedom of information are raised by commercial companies. We should understand that America is a different economy; it is much more vigorous on competitive issues than the British economy. Apart from being highly competitive, the economy has
      900
      different competition laws in which businesses are forbidden, on pain of prison sentence, to talk to each other. I operated in that environment and, in such an environment, any source of information on a competitor is chased vigorously. Therefore, the comparison does not apply here. It is clear that the freedom of information arrangements in America have not stopped it being the most vigorous economy in the world; the reverse is true. There are many massive contracts between business and government in the United States.
      The principle behind the amendments is important. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, but I do not wish to concentrate on them. I want to focus on the fact that the previous Government and this Government have taken on board the private finance initiative, contractualisation and a whole swathe of measures that put the delivery of public services very much more in the private sector than ever before. One danger of that is that it takes the delivery of public service out of the reach of Parliament and accountability to the House.
      Partly because of that, delivery of the service is also taken out of the reach of the individual citizen. The brilliant example of the testing stations given by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase showed perfectly in a single parable how important the issue is. It will get more important over time as the Government bring the private sector into education, into health eventually—I am sure that it will happen—and into all the sectors that matter to both sides of the House. Therefore, it is crucial that the information that relates to the provision of services in those sectors is not hidden behind a commercial confidentiality barrier.
      The issue comes up even before the Public Accounts Committee. When members of the Executive give evidence, we often hear them say, "We can't tell you that because it is commercially confidential." In most circumstances, the Committee does not tolerate that response. Of course information is sometimes commercially confidential but, when we press the point, more often than not the argument is used as an avoidance of embarrassment clause. For that reason, I strongly support amendments Nos. 38 and 31.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and to support his point that commercial confidentiality is often cited as a means of avoiding embarrassment.
      I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). The definitions of commercial confidentiality in the Bill are too widely drawn and do not take into account the wider public interest. It could be argued that the Bill draws the definition more widely than the one that is currently used. However, commercial confidentiality often provides an opportunity not to answer a question, especially if that question has the potential to embarrass.
      I shall use an example that I first cited on Second Reading. On 8 November, I put a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport seeking information about sales of tickets to the dome—a matter of some contention, especially just before Christmas. The information was not available at that time, and I received a holding answer stating that I would receive a proper answer as soon as possible.

      901
      On 21 December, in response to further parliamentary questions asking why it was proving so difficult to say how many tickets had been sold in various places, I received an answer stating that the Department had tried to answer my question in
      as open a way as possible—[Official Report, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 562W.]
      but that my questions could not now be answered because the matter was commercially confidential. It had apparently taken more than six weeks to determine that there was a problem of commercial confidentiality in answering questions about how many tickets to the dome had been sold in various parts of the country.
      I received a letter, dated 26 January, that went into more detail about why the matter was commercially confidential. It stated that the New Millennium Experience Company
      recognises its public remit and responsibility, but it is the professional judgment of its Board that…targets can only be met if the company operates in a commercial manner. NMEC is competing in the crowded and highly commercial market place of visitor attractions and its competitors do not publish detailed statistics of forward sales.
      Taking that at face value, I wondered why the company later published a sales survey that illustrated where tickets had been sold and where they had not. I could not understand why the real figures were commercially confidential, but a survey illustrating where sales were most likely to be made was not.
      Mr. Lock: May I refer my hon. Friend to a couple of provisions in clause 41 that illustrate how the structure works? Information that is commercially confidential under clause 41(2) would fall within the category of exempt information only if prejudice to commercial interests were also likely. Even if that were so, the ability to refuse to disclose would apply only if the company or the public authority overcame the second barrier set out in clause 13, of carrying out the balancing act between the public interest in disclosure and the public interest in confidentiality. The Bill, once enacted, will greatly enhance the chances of confidential information such as my hon. Friend describes—and to which, in my view, he is perfectly entitled—being disclosed.
      Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that intervention, especially for saying that I am perfectly entitled to the information. I wonder why, in our joined-up Government, I am not getting it from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
      I asked the Library for its opinion on whether the Bill would make my obtaining the information that I sought any more likely. The answer was that it was at least as unlikely that I would get the information, so long as the Minister concerned chose to agree that the information was commercially confidential. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the Minister's intervention, which I will quickly quote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in the hope that the answer for which I have been waiting for five months will eventually be delivered. I am glad that the intentions of open government have percolated to the Lord Chancellor's Department, if not to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Lock: I should not lead my hon. Friend to premature joy. Unfortunately, until the tests set out by the Bill are incumbent on Ministers, Ministers must operate under the present regime. That is more restrictive than the regime that we propose to introduce under the Bill. It is causing the blockage of which my hon. Friend complains, and I sympathise.
      Mr. Jones: That is one interpretation of the difficulty in obtaining the information that I require.
      My argument may be regarded as unduly cynical, but if the ticket sales for the millennium dome and the associated public expenditure—almost £1 billion, or possibly even more—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says from a sedentary position that that was lottery money, meaning that it is not public money. It is the public's money. If that is not a valid question to be raised in Parliament, I do not know what is.
      If the figures showed an even distribution of ticket sales across the country, somehow I think that not only would I have got an answer, but it would have been published prominently. The real reason that I have not been supplied with the answer for such a long time is that it is publicly and politically embarrassing. The purpose of the Bill should be to ensure that Ministers cannot hide behind commercial confidentiality to conceal their embarrassment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I shall add one point to comments made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and then say a word or two about amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
      I refer to the protection that the Bill appears to give to the commercial interests of the private sector and to the public sector. The debate is about amendments to clause 41, which deals with commercial interests. The clause states:
      Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret
      or
      if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
      That is the breadth of it.
      Much more of what was the public realm is going out into private hands—for example, parts of the Prison Service are being run as private prisons. It is nonsense for the Government to promote policies such as naming and shaming—by announcing that school X is on special measures, school Y is not performing well enough, or the SATs tables for school Z are this, that or the other—but not to put into the public domain commercial information about a private organisation that may potentially run a school in the future or perform some other function in government.
      The legislation is going in contradictory directions. Public policy is moving many more things into the private sector, yet we are giving the private sector greater protection than the public sector. That is fundamentally inconsistent. The examples given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and others are clear about the difficulties and the extremely subjective definition of what is in somebody's commercial interest and what the test is. I hazard a guess that the figures for the number of tickets

      903
      sold for the Dome in different parts of the country may not have been available when the hon. Gentleman asked for them in a parliamentary question because they had been managed by the promoters and owners of the New Millennium Experience Company on a monthly basis, so that they could package them in other information. To some extent they have revealed the information, but in their own time and on their own terms.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: No.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says no, but certainly the promoters and owners have tried to manage the information. They did not go as far as he thought, but they have been trying to control the information so as not to allow it to come out when the hon. Gentleman was seeking it. He may wish to correct me.
      Mr. Jones: The information that has been released relates to total ticket sales. I was seeking information on regional ticket sales. There may be a good or better story to tell for the one but not the other. That is why we have only one piece of information.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that. There are two sides of a coin. We have information only on total ticket sales, but even that has been managed. Had the hon. Gentleman asked questions about the general and the particular, he might have found that he did not receive information about the general when he wanted it because it was being managed for a time that was convenient to the commercial interests of the company.
      Mr. Hawkins: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) for not hearing what he said. I was briefly absent from the Chamber. However, a fascinating example has been given.
      Does the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agree that another form of packaging in this instance—it is often wise to stick to the same example—may be the difference between ticket sales that were at no cost and ticket sales that raised money? I suspect that, with school trips being brought forward and schools being offered free trips, the Government, in this context of managing information, are treating as ticket sales tickets that were offered free of charge, and that that will emerge later when the Dome accounts come to be examined. I suspect that information has been packaged in a way that is not really proper.
      Mr. Hughes: That is certainly a possibility.
      Four of the amendments before us are in two groups. Interestingly, they were described by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) as cross-Bench amendments. It is an interesting concept that once we have a coalition in this place, we shall become cross-Benchers and depoliticised.
      Mr. Hawkins: Cross-party groups.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that the hon. Gentleman meant that.
      Mr. Rogers: It is not so difficult for Liberals.
      Mr. Hughes: No, it is not so difficult for Liberals.
      904
      Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 seek once again to ratchet up the threshold. They are simple because they seek to insert "substantially" as the prejudice test. We shall come later to what the prejudice test should be generally in relation to the public sector. The amendments seek to ensure that we get that test in the private sector. Potentially—I refer to clause 41—there would be prejudice to
      the commercial interests of any person
      if almost any information were revealed. So far, both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have heard nothing from the Minister to suggest that the test does not effectively allow the maximum concealment of information and the minimum threshold possibly available for people who have to pass it.
      This issue may not be put to the vote tonight, but I urge colleagues to say that, if we are to have the ability to get information about the public sector elsewhere in the Bill, we must ensure that clause 41 has parallel provisions. In the interests of a traditional or old-fashioned view about commercial interest, we should not lack awareness of the modern world in which people regularly seek and obtain information and act accordingly on the basis of other people's commercial practices. We must not give protection to the commercial sector that is not given elsewhere.
      Mr. Bercow: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the alleged disparity of treatment between the public and private sectors. To approach the issue from a slightly different vantage point, does he agree that commercial organisations should have rights that are equal to those of private individuals to know exactly what information is held about them at a given time by a public authority?
      Mr. Hughes: I agree with that proposition. I do not want to get distracted, but there are different tests for individuals' rights to information and protection of privacy, and the rights of corporate organisations. The same harm is not caused to a corporate organisation as can be caused to an individual. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the right to know what information is held should be guaranteed.
      We are considering yet another example of the Bill failing to get it right. The Government bizarrely resist change and defend interests that are not theirs, or are not usually those of the state. I hope that they heed the widespread all-party view, which, for the fourth consecutive debate, shows that it is them against the rest. It would be surprising if all the rest were wrong.
      Mr. White: I shall not support the amendment that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) tabled, no matter how often he prays me in aid, because, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I am a serial loyalist. That is why I am grieved about amendment No. 7 and new clause 6, which we shall consider later.
      We have not learned the lessons of what happened in the United States. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made about commercial confidentiality are correct; we have not got the balance right. Evidence to the House of Lords said that there would be a code of practice, which would set out a duty to consult with commercial interests.

      905
      The Bill will lead to much litigation about breaches of confidence. I suspect that those on the Front Bench are happy about that because they are lawyers. However, that is the wrong way for the Bill to develop. There is a problem in achieving the right balance between commercial confidentiality and the release of commercial information. The Minister should reconsider that balance.
      Mr. Rogers: I am confused about what is in hon. Members' minds when they present their arguments. The easy method of separating public interest and commercial confidentiality and the interests of private companies has been blurred substantially in recent years. I was a spokesman for defence procurement for a time. Trying to get to the heart of enormous defence contracts and finding out what was happening to billions of pounds of public money was impossible. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows that even members of that Select Committee cannot gain information on specific aspects of public procurement.
      Private finance initiatives have been extended. Huge projects are being introduced. The right hon. Gentleman knows about them. Where is public accountability and consideration for the public interest in those matters? The Government have got it almost right. They are trying hard to bring all the secrets and conspiracies out of the closet. They are trying to expose the cosy relationship that existed between the previous Government, of which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was a distinguished member, and private industry.
      Under the previous Government, we witnessed the revolving door syndrome whereby civil servants and military defence people left government only to appear the following day on the boards of big companies that had just been awarded contracts. I should hate to make even a rough calculation of the number of Conservative Members who shifted out of Government posts and landed on the boards of big companies. There is a lot of hypocrisy—[Interruption.] I am not pointing the finger at anyone. A lot of hypocrisy has been shown in the debate. I have still to hear any concrete reasons for why companies should have a 40-year exemption from having to divulge information when there is a lower limit for highly sensitive aspects of national security.
      I do not claim that the Bill is perfect. It may well have to be amended and tested in the courts. However, most legislation evolves in that way, especially on subjects such as that which we are discussing.
      I shall support the Government on this issue, and I hope that most of my hon. Friends will do the same. I am not sure what these cross-party alliances are about. We have seen them in action in the Welsh Assembly, so we know what a disaster they are. I can tell my hon. Friends that inclusive politics has run its course. With all due respect to the Liberal Democrats, these days they are merely on the side.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Lock: This has been an interesting and good debate. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. We are dealing with amendments that
      906
      confront the complex issue of how to deal with commercially sensitive information and information provided in confidence.
      Before I address the amendments in detail, I refer hon. Members to the structure of clauses 39, 40 and 41. Clause 39 deals with information that is exempt if it has been provided under a legal duty of confidence. If at the time that the information was provided—or subsequently, because of the circumstances—there was a legal obligation of confidence, that information is exempt and is excluded from the balancing act under clause 13.
      By definition, information under clause 41 is information that has not been provided by the public authority under a legal duty of confidence to respect the confidentiality of that information and not to disclose it to third parties.
      Clause 41(1) refers to information that constitutes a trade secret. A trade secret is a well known term of art in-law. Clause 41(2) refers to information being exempt
      if its disclosure under this Act…would be likely to…prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
      I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the Bill includes a prejudice test—a harm test. The Confederation of British Industry asked for a harm test, as opposed to a substantial harm test:
      We believe the test for disclosing information should be one of simple harm and not substantial harm. Any attempt to limit the ability to withhold information to that which may cause substantial harm to a business may prevent the voluntary disclosure of information to Government. Without proper assurances, we do not consider that the Government's approach will achieve the objective of two-way openness and trust.
      We have listened to the CBI, which is why the harm test in clause 41(2) is not a substantial harm test, as has been suggested.
      Even if the information would prejudice a company's commercial interest, clause 41 comes within the balancing public interest test under clause 13, as I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). The relevant provisions are in clause 13(3) and(4), which deal with the balancing act to decide whether the public interest in disclosure is greater than the public interest in confidentiality. That can be judged only according to the circumstances of the individual case.
      I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 37, 38, 98 and 99. We are faced with two conflicting sets of amendments. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would restrict the amount of information to which clause 41 applies, whereas amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would increase the amount of such information. The Government are in the middle, and all I can say with confidence is that these two sets of amendments cannot both be right.
      I shall take the four amendments in turn, and then explain why the Government have taken the middle path between them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who made a thoughtful contribution, will accept that we are addressing the problems that they have raised but by a slightly different route.
      Amendment No. 37 is a complex amendment which would restrict the exemption either to information that had been supplied in confidence and whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the supplier's commercial

      907
      interests, or to information that had been treated as confidential by the authority and whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the authority's commercial interests.
      That represents a change from the Bill as drafted, in two respects. First, there is the introduction of the concept of unreasonableness to the prejudice test; secondly, there is the question of the status of the information—whether it has been supplied or held in confidence. The amendment would restrict the commercial interests that could be taken into account to those of the supplier of the information or the authority itself, which is highly limited.
      I consider the amendment unnecessary, inappropriate and too restrictive. It is unnecessary because information provided in confidence is already covered by clause 39, and therefore does not need to be covered again by an amendment to clause 41. It is inappropriate because it introduces the concept of unreasonable prejudice. The distinction would be difficult to make in practice. We agree that some such concept is required, and that the mere fact that information might prejudice a commercial interest is not enough to justify the restriction of the information per se. The public interest test arises not in the context of unreasonable prejudice, but through the application of clause 13 and the balancing act required therein.
      In that respect, amendment No. 37 is unnecessary, but it is also too restrictive. It seeks to limit the exemption to information whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of the supplier of the information, or the authority itself. That ignores the issue of information that is supplied in confidence by one person, but whose disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of a third party. For example, a trade association might supply a public authority with commercial information about a firm. The disclosure of that information would have no effect on the trade association, but it could have a devastating prejudicial effect on the commercial interest of the firm. We must recognise the need to protect third parties' commercial interests when it is in the public interest to do so, but not otherwise—hence the requirement for clause 13 to apply.
      The amendment is over-restrictive, in that it requires a public authority to have consistently treated the information as confidential before being able to invoke the commercial interest exemption where it would be the authority itself whose commercial interests were prejudiced. That would provide a very narrow exception, and would place an undue burden on public authorities in the managing of dealings with suppliers, private finance initiative contracts and so on. A range of information might in particular circumstances, at a particular time, prejudice an authority's negotiating position or the public interest in regard to value for money; but at other times, when it would not do that, it might be disclosed perfectly properly. Information that authorities have at one time will not necessarily be inappropriate for disclosure at another time. Again, that is a requirement of the balance provided by clause 13.
      The amendment also fails to take account of circumstances in which an authority itself has generated information, but its disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of another party. Such information could include, for example, expert forecasts of whether a business were likely to succeed, or opinions on whether it were properly managed. The amendment would remove
      908
      protection from such material, which it is necessary from time to time for public authorities to generate, especially when considering whether to enter into a PFI contract.
      We must remember that there is no locus—no standing provision—for the seeking of information. We should bear in mind the experience of the United States. I accept what was said by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, but I am sure that some commercial entities will seek the information. Not to allow the disclosure of such information when it is prepared with a view to analysing the commercial competence of a company would be prejudicial, and would not constitute the proper exercise of a freedom of information regime.
      Amendment No. 38 seeks to limit the exemption further by disapplying it when information relates to
      the quality or safety of the goods or services produced or supplied by the person
      who supplied the information in confidence,
      or the conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied;
      and when
      the prejudice to that person's commercial interests would result from the exercise of more informed choice by persons seeking to acquire those goods or services.
      Information that relates to the quality or safety of goods or services, however, may include, for example, manufacturing processes by which the quality or safety of a particular product is assured or a firm's plans for promoting or marketing a particular product when the quality or safety are to figure in the promotion. Such information would be of interest primarily to a firm's competitors rather than to the general public. The Government's view is that a freedom of information regime should not allow one company to steal a march on its competitors merely because, for one reason or another, information had to be passed over for the operation of a proper regulatory regime.
      Amendment No. 38 is unacceptable also because the phrase
      conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied
      is capable of over-wide interpretation. It could range from manufacturing processes to conditions in supply contracts and marketing plans. Again, it could include information that would be not only of great interest to a firm's competitors, but not in the interest of the general public to know.
      The second limb of the amendment seeks to set out the purpose of the disapplication—the exercise of more informed choice. However, that is also capable of very wide interpretation. Factors affecting consumer choice include price, quality, the product's environmental impact, origin, and location at the point of sale, how it is marketed and many other factors. The effect of the second limb would be to remove the protection of exemption from any commercially sensitive information that touched on those or other factors.
      We think that that range of information is too wide, and that the better route is through the public interest balancing test, in clause 13—in which those factors can

      909
      be taken into account, although the existence of any one of those factors does not preclude considering the overall balance in determining whether it is in the public interest to disclose that information.
      Amendment No. 38 also requires the public authority to make a judgment on whether the information is accurate. However, the authority may not know whether the information is accurate, and the cost ceiling for charges made under the freedom of information regime is designed only to cover finding and retrieving the information. The public authority should not have to go to further unlimited lengths in verifying the accuracy of information. If information is disclosed by a public authority under the duty and is subsequently found to be inaccurate, the manufacturer could subject the decision to legal proceedings, thereby placing severe burdens on a range of public authorities on whom the duty was placed. I remind hon. Members that the provisions of clause 13 apply, and that those are the better route.
      By contrast with those two amendments, the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, amendments Nos. 98 and 99, seek to restrict the scope of the exemption. I shall be able to consider those amendments with greater brevity.
      Amendment No. 98 would have the effect of allowing the exemption in clause 41 in relation to commercial interest to apply in perpetuity. That is unnecessary. The circumstances of commercial life change so rapidly that the Government are simply unable to foresee any circumstance in which a company's commercial interests would still require protection after 30 years. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for raising that issue with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who could not think of a single example to justify the amendment. That fact alone should persuade hon. Members that the amendment should not be supported.
      Amendment No. 99 would effectively introduce a new exemption that would apply to information that was supplied to a public authority by a company or other commercial organisation before the Freedom of Information Act came into force. That formula is capable of extremely wide interpretation. The amendment would cut swathes through the Bill and would in part reverse the policy of retrospection in relation to commercial information alone, although of course clause 13 would still apply. That would be nonsensical, as information should already be available under the non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information that was introduced by the previous, Conservative, Government.
      The fact that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is making that proposal demonstrates his own view on the strength of the code that the previous Government introduced. His view seems to be that any obligations to provide information under the code are not to be relied on; that companies that have not sought to rely on those obligations can be ignored; and that we should start at year zero with the Freedom of Information Bill. We do not take that view. It is not a workable system. There will be a reasonable lead time before the legislation takes effect. Companies know what the regime is and should have known since 1994, when the code was introduced.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That at this day's sitting, the Freedom of Information Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Lock: Hon. Members might be interested to know that when the code was introduced there was no such ban against retrospective action. The Conservatives are asking for a measure that they did not consider sufficiently important to include in the code that they introduced.
  The amendments pull in opposite directions. Some of them would reduce the scope of the exemption to increase the rights of consumers at the expense of the rights of business. Those amendments would deter firms from sharing commercial information voluntarily with public authorities. The other amendments place prime importance on the rights of business at the expense of the citizen's right to know, which would disadvantage the general public.
  That shows how difficult it is to balance the right to know with legitimate rights to privacy and confidentiality. The Government are taking a mediating role between those two opposing sides and ensuring that the public interest is properly taken into account through the operation of clause 13. As a result, particularly after the amendments to the provisions governing disclosure in the public interest, the Government have ensured that freedom of information will make a difference to consumers while ensuring that it will not unduly damage the commercial position of private companies or individuals.
  The Bill will for the first time give consumers a right of access to a wide range of information. It will ensure that information is released when that is in the public interest. Freedom of information will lead to better informed and more involved citizens, while giving the commercial sector certainty in conducting its business, confident that the Government will not attempt to know its innermost workings.
  I was going to deal with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central but he is not in his seat, so I shall pass on. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 would introduce the word "substantial" to the exemption. It is difficult to place a specific meaning on the term "substantial" or to quantify the amendments' practical effects, but as I said earlier, that is not what the CBI wanted. If the word means a lot or a great deal, information that was damaging to a lesser extent would have to be disclosed with no need to show that the public interest required such damage to be caused. That is unacceptable. It would clearly be irresponsible and would not provide a proper balance between the public interest in disclosure and the maintenance of the exemption. The qualification of the term is unnecessary. The Government have consistently said that "prejudice" means prejudice that is actual, real and of substance. It is an ordinary word

  911
  used without qualification in many Acts. The word is also familiar to the courts and those involved in the day-to-day interpreting of legislation.
  We must not forget that the judgment of whether the disclosure of commercial information would be prejudicial to a given interest will not rest with the authorities. The commissioner and the tribunal will be required to consider individual cases to determine whether there is prejudice. If the commission reaches the view that there is no prejudice, the public interest test does not apply and the information must be disclosed.
  Under amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104, companies would have to be given information in advance if their rights were to be affected. Public authorities will consult third parties, where such rights exist, to protect themselves from the threat of legal action. At present such rights must be enforced by the third party at its own risk. The Government do not consider that it would be right or necessary to create a new route for the enforcement of private legal rights, the costs of which would fall on the public purse. Where there are no legal rights at present, the Bill does not create new ones. It would be good practice for public authorities to consult third parties if they might be affected by a disclosure, but a statutory duty to do so would be cumbersome and onerous.
  For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments and I hope that they will not be pressed.
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall be extremely brief—unlike the Minister, who solemnly read out his advisers' note.
  The Minister said that the Government have listened to the CBI. We say that they have clearly not listened hard enough, as they are rejecting proposals that are vital to the interests of business.
  The Minister claimed that he was steering a middle course between the amendments tabled by the cross-party group and those tabled by the official Opposition. However, that is disingenuous, as the Bill came before any amendments were tabled by anyone. To paraphrase Tennyson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade", there are cannon to right of the Minister, and cannon to left of him, but he charges on—on to perdition and destruction.
  The Minister said that the code instituted by the previous Conservative Government did not deal with retrospection, and claimed that as some sort of justification for what he is doing. However, does he not understand that the Bill amounts to retrospective legislation? There is all the difference in the world between dealing with retrospection by means of a code, and dealing, by means of an Act of Parliament, with retrospective effect.
  Mr. Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the code is fundamentally weak and that it has no effect? Is he worried about this matter because the legal rights contained in the Bill have legal value, while the code does not?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, of course that is not what 1 am worried about. I am saying that business is right to be worried when any Government—and this Government in particular—introduce legislation with retrospective effect. The Minister knows the arguments put forward by the Opposition, the CBI and other business organisations.
  912
  The Government are plainly wrong. They are flying in the face of all the views expressed by business and the Opposition. I invite Conservative Members, and members of the cross-party group as well, to support the amendments, which we intend to press to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 347.

  Division No. 143]

  [10.7 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Harvey, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Ballard, Jackie

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beggs, Roy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Keetch, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Brake, Tom

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brazier, Julian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Breed, Colin

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lidington, David

  Burnett, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burstow, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Faber, David

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Oaten, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Green, Damian

  Rendel, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence

  913

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ruffley, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Trend, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyler, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Viggers, Peter

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

  Wardle, Charles

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Church, Ms Judith

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  /Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cranston, Ross

  Best, Harold

  Crausby, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dawson, Hilton

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobbin, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Edwards, Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cawsey, Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  914

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Steve

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grant, Bernie

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McWalter, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marek, Dr John

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

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

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Norris, Dan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter L

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  915

  Pope, Greg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stringer, Graham

  Purchase, Ken

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brian

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Snape, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wyatt, Derek

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 45, in page 5, line 34, after "day", insert—
  ', not later than the sixtieth working day following the date of receipt,'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Clause 13

      DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURES
      Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 13, leave out from "authority" to end of line 34 and insert—
      'which is to any extent exempt or whose disclosure is not required by virtue of section 11.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
      916
      Amendment No. 2, in page 7, line 36, leave out from "whether" to "to" in line 37.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 42, leave out from "whether" to first "to" in line 43.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 2, leave out from "shall" to end of line 5 and insert—

      '(a) inform the applicant whether it holds information, and

      (b) communicate the information to him,'.

      Government amendments Nos. 49 to 51, 53, 72 and 73.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 75, page 37, line 21, at end insert—
      ', or the information is information which could be communicated to the applicant in accordance with section 13'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 37, line 26, at end insert—
      'or which could have been communicated to him in accordance with section 13'.
      Government amendments Nos. 74 and 75.
      Dr. Wright: Several times in our proceedings, the relevant Minister has said, "I am sure that there is not very much between us. We disagree only about the means; we are all together on the ends." It is pleasing to come to a part of the Bill about which there is genuine agreement. The Government have vastly improved clause 13. Indeed, by changing the clause, they have fundamentally rebalanced the Bill—not, unfortunately, entirely satisfactorily, but the changes to clause 13 are a good start.
      I had intended to speak at some length, but I shall be brief because I suspect that the Home Secretary, who is now with us, will say something to us shortly about the connection between clause 13 revisions and new clause 6, which we shall discuss later. However, couple of points must be made. I have already welcomed the Government's amendment to the clause. They are moving from a discretion to a power for the Information Commissioner, and that is wholly positive.
      We have tabled amendment No. 1 because clause 13 still exempts whole areas from the public interest test. Originally, the public interest test did not apply to six areas, and two more have been added to that list. Clause 19 exempts information that is already reasonably accessible to the public. Clause 21 exempts information supplied by bodies dealing with security matters and clause 30 exempts information supplied to a public authority by a court, tribunal or inquiry. Clause 32 exempts information that would infringe parliamentary privilege. Subsections (1) and 2) of clause 38 exempt personal data about the applicant and clause 39 exempts confidential information. Clause 42 exempts disclosures prohibited by statute, and clause 43(2) deals with information exempted by order.
      It may seem necessary to exclude each of those areas from the Bill, but that is wrong for two reasons. It is wrong in principle because the public interest test should be universal. It is proper to have exemptions but it is also proper to have the public interest test apply across the board.
      As I say, it is wrong in principle to take another category of material and to say that it is outside the public interest test altogether. It may seem an unexceptionable area, but it is not. If I had the time and inclination, I would bore the House with an explanation of why some of these things are more interesting than they seem.

      917
      I give simply a couple of examples. It might seem entirely sensible to remove the category of bodies dealing with security matters from any public interest consideration. The bodies that are listed include those with some security functions and other functions. For example, one of the bodies, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has some security functions, but deals also with football hooliganism, credit card fraud and counterfeiting.
      To make the point, I hope graphically, in the run-up to Christmas 1998, NCIS issued a press release warning shoppers about counterfeit toys, including fake Furbys. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to see why a whole spread of its activities should not be subject to a public interest test.
      Similar considerations apply to clause 39. The legal obligation to confidentiality is said to be the reason for the exemption from a public interest test. That obligation has been thoroughly breached by the Government in relation to the Food Standards Act 1999, which gives the Food Standards Agency wide powers to obtain information about
      food premises, food businesses or commercial operations being carried out with respect to food.
      In pursuit of its functions, which include providing information to the public to assist them making "informed decisions about food" it is free to publish
      any information in its possession (whatever its source).
      In doing so, the agency must
      consider whether the public interest in the publication of the advice or information in question is outweighed by any considerations of confidentiality attaching to it.
      Therefore, the legal obligation to confidentiality is expressly over-ridden in the Food Standards Act. I could go through—happily for everyone here, I shall not do so—the other provisions, which would demonstrate something similar.
      The point is that, although it may seem straightforward to take those rather large categories of information away from the public interest test, it is indefensible to do so. The public interest test should be universal and go across the board. That is the thrust of amendment No. 1. The other amendments in our joint names, as we have got used to describing them, simply take away remaining discretionary elements from clause 3.
      I say again that I very much welcome the Government's amendments in that area. We now have a rather different Bill. Unfortunately, the good things that are given in clause 13 are taken away in new clause 6. No doubt the Home Secretary will tell us about that, too.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Jack Straw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) for the manner in which he has moved the amendment and particularly grateful for the endorsement that he has given. He and his colleagues must claim some credit for the fact that, as he says, the Bill has been vastly improved and fundamentally rebalanced.
      This is the first opportunity that I have had today to speak on the Bill. When the proper process of parliamentary debate and amendment has taken place on
      918
      the Bill—it is a very important part of the process on this Bill, as on any other—the House will end up with legislation of which it can be justly proud and which contains much greater access to information than many of those who had reservations about the Government's intention and Bill originally feared.
      10.30 pm
      My hon. Friend referred to remarks and proposed changes in respect of the basic scheme laid down in new clause 6, which I intend to bring to the House's notice in a moment, but first, as they are fresh in our minds, I shall deal briefly with the points that he raised on amendment No. 1 and describe how the basic scheme of the Bill works. Under clause 1, there is a statutory duty to disclose information. Under part II, there are a series of exemptions and exceptions. Some are class exemptions—for example, in respect of policy advice to Ministers—some are total exclusions, which, most notably, include the security and intelligence agencies, and there are others. Most are determined by a prejudice test.
      The first and most important thing to say about that part of the scheme of the Bill is that where there is a dispute about whether information that is sought comes within the exemptions or exclusions under part II, the matter goes to the commissioner and—subject only to appeal to the tribunal and, in very limited circumstances, to a court—the commissioner's decision is final. Ministers have no discretion whatever—no veto, no override, nothing. If the commissioner orders a disclosure and says that the information is not exempt or excepted, it has to be disclosed. It is only when the commissioner or the tribunal have themselves said that information that is being sought is not required to be disclosed under clause 1 and part II that the question of the so-called discretionary disclosure under clause 13 kicks in. Amendment No. 1 relates to clause 13. I shall deal with the points made by my hon. Friend, but the background is important.
      Originally under clause 13, we proposed that the commissioner would have a power to make a recommendation for disclosure, but not an ability to order it. The disclosure test, which is first on the public authority, is one of balancing the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in the information not being disclosed. As a result of many representations, not least those made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and many other hon. Members, I recognised the concern in the House about the fact that in the scheme of a statutory right to know it looked slightly odd that there should be provision only for the commissioner to make a recommendation. It was up to the public authority whether to accept it. Two objections were made to that: the first was that only a recommendation could be made and the second, which flowed from that fact, was that the level at which a decision would in practice be taken by the public authority as to whether to accept the recommendation might be quite low.
      As a result of the representations, we have in many ways fundamentally changed the structure of clause 13, except in one respect. We have strengthened the tests—that is a matter for another debate in respect of factual information—but we have made it a duty, not a discretion, on the public authority to consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in the matter not being disclosed. Where the public authority

      919
      decides that the balance of public interest is in favour of disclosure, it is under a duty to disclose. If it comes to a contrary view, the matter can go to the commissioner and he can order disclosure. That is the scheme of the Bill.
      I shall come to whether there should be an Executive override, so-called, and at what level that should be raised, but before I do so let me come directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase in respect of amendment No. 1. As the House will see from subsection (2) of clause 13, those discretionary disclosures—which would be significantly changed by these amendments and new clause 6—cover every clause in part II, apart from those read out by my hon. Friend.
      I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that any exemption might set off an amber light, if not a red one, for him. However, each exception to the disclosure regime in clause 13 has a straightforward explanation—one that I hope will meet the approbation of the House.
      Under clause 19, if the information is already accessible through other means, the public authority should not be required to disclose it. For example, if people want information that is in the telephone book, they should go to British Telecom and not to a public authority. On the other hand, if the information is not reasonably available from the original source, but is available from a public authority, it would be possible—under further amendments that we are tabling—for someone to apply for it under the Bill.
      My hon. Friend referred to provisions on information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters. He implied that he accepted that that was satisfactory in reference to the security and intelligence agencies per se, but that other bodies were included in the definition for the purposes of the measure. He mentioned specifically the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
      I went into that matter in considerable detail and it will be apparent to the House that I have some day-to-day knowledge of the workings of NCIS. Although the service deals with intelligence gathered from the police, the Inland Revenue, the immigration and nationality directorate and the Department of Social Security as well as from the intelligence agencies, the sources of that information are not separately identifiable. To include NCIS under the clause while the agencies are excluded would thus be to provide those wanting access to information held not only by NCIS but by the intelligence agencies a direct route to such information. That would be far too dangerous for the operation of those agencies and for their intelligence gathering.
      It is not widely understood—there is no particular reason why it should be—that the National Criminal Intelligence Service is that and that alone. It gathers intelligence; it does not prosecute.
      Mr. Mackinlay rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall happily give way when I have made my case. [Interruption.]
      NCIS gathers intelligence, but at the point when an investigation could take place, the matter is passed over to, for example, the national crime squad, which is composed of seconded police officers and operates in a similar way to a normal police force.
      Subsection (2)(f) of the clause applies to clause 39, which relates to information provided in confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase referred to
      920
      the Food Standards Agency. There is a difference between information given in confidence under a statutory requirement to provide it, for example, to the FSA—where people are required to give the information in any event and it is for the agency to determine whether to make it public or to maintain confidence—and information that is supplied according to the common law duty of confidence. It is to the latter that subsection (2) refers. We cannot have a situation in which people provide information in confidence—with the common law obligation going both ways—but that confidence is inadvertently broken as a result of the operation of clause 13.
      The other area, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, is the most worrying of all in terms of the overall effect of amendment No. 1. It relates to information that is protected by the Data Protection Act 1988. The Act protects private information while the Freedom of Information Bill is there to bring information out into the public. There is a natural and profound tension between the two and they are, in a sense, different sides of the same coin. If information is protected under the Data Protection Act, we cannot possibly get into the situation where there is, none the less, a discretion in the public interest to break what is a fundamental obligation not to disclose that information. That would not only be wrong and against the Data Protection Act, but against European Community law, a point that will appeal considerably to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). In addition—this point will appeal to the whole House—disclosure of such information would break the European convention on human rights. I am happy to say that that convention has the genuine approbation of the whole House.
      Mr. Dalyell: On the difficult issue of data protection and in relation to what my right hon. Friend has just said in the most careful language, what is the position in Scotland where, at the Mound, they are sailing off in a rather different direction? Are we to have two approaches in these islands to the same difficult matters?
      Mr. Straw: I was trying to find my copy of the Scottish White Paper. However, as far as devolved matters are concerned, what Scotland does is a matter for Scotland. Let me make it clear that devolution may mean similarity but, fundamentally, it means difference. If Scotland decides to do something different, I celebrate that fact—I do not regret it—even though that fact can sometimes be used in an argumentative to persuade me to do something similar. Although, as I read it, the Scottish Executive, to some extent, started from a different port and went in a slightly different direction, it is catching a similar wind to us. We may end up at roughly a similar destination.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for neatly allowing me to return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, and that he touched on rather delphically. It relates to the issue of Executive override. As I said earlier, on Second Reading, a number of my hon. Friends suggested that the provisions in clause 13, as it then stood, were not satisfactory because too much discretion was in the hands of Ministers. In turn, my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that there was no such discretionary regime proposed in the Scottish Executive's White Paper, which had helpfully come out just a few

      921
      days before. Instead, it had provisions for an Executive override, so that there would be an equivalent to clause 1 on the duty to provide information and then the equivalent to part II in which there are exemptions and exclusions and a duty to provide information if ordered to do so. There was also a discretionary provision in which there was a balancing test between the public interest in favour of disclosure and the public interest against. The commissioner would be able to order that. However, Scotland took the approach that there would ultimately be a right of Executive override in 15 areas where, notwithstanding a decision by the commissioner or his equivalent to order disclosure, the Scottish Executive meeting collectively could decide to issue a certificate overriding that order because they felt that it was in the public interest to do so.
      Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Straw: May I finish my point? I will then happily give way. We have broadly—although not in every particular, for good reasons—adopted that scheme under new clause 6 and the other amendments. We have moved away from discretionary disclosure: we have placed a duty on the Minister to release the information if he or she judges that public interest is in favour of disclosure, not against it; and we have given the commissioner the power to order disclosure.
      10.45 pm
      The issue remains of what happens if, notwithstanding the commissioner's order, the public authority continues to believe, for sound reasons, that the information should not be disclosed. Most regimes that we have surveyed have some sort of Executive override of one sort or another, and we propose to have one. In the Bill, new clause 6 and the other Government amendments, we propose that the decision in respect of any public authority, other than a local government authority, should be made by a Minister of the Crown.
      That category of public authority would include central Government Departments, national health service trusts and police authorities, which are partly local authority and partly not. Any Executive override decision in respect of such bodies would have to be made by a Minister of the Crown; but, in respect of a local authority, it would be made by designated local councils or council committees. That designation would be made by order because the precise form of local government organisation is in a state of flux, and arrangements have to be provided that take that into account.
      However, I have received representations to the effect that decisions in respect of the Executive override both by central Government and, separately, in respect of local government, would not be made at a high enough level. Where central Government is concerned, I accept the burden of the argument that has been put to me. Therefore, I propose—it will have to be done in the other place, but it will be done—that those parts of the amendments that speak of Ministers of the Crown will be replaced by a definition of a Cabinet Minister; the House will readily recall that such a definition is already, for quite separate reasons, set out in clause 23(3) of the
      922
      published Bill. In future, such decisions will be made by a Cabinet Minister or the Attorney-General, rather than by any Minister of the Crown.
      The second issue relates to collective responsibility. Ministers make two sorts of decisions. The vast range of decisions are made collectively and Ministers are collectively responsible for them in any event. However, some decisions are, by legal expectation and practice, made not collectively but in a quasi-judicial role; it happens that most of those decisions fall to be made individually by the Home Secretary of the day, but I make no claim as to the quality of the decision making. Each year, the Home Secretary has to make many decisions on, for example, setting tariffs for mandatory life sentence prisoners and their final release date, extradition matters, and other matters on which I could speak at length.
      It is neither possible nor necessary to write into the Bill that the decisions made by a Cabinet Minister must be made only after consultation and agreement with all of his or her Cabinet colleagues—not least because some of the decisions are quasi-judicial. In practice, it would be an extremely unwise Cabinet Minister who chose to issue an exemption certificate amounting to a veto of a decision made by the commissioner to order disclosure without consulting his or her Cabinet colleagues. That might lead to that Cabinet Minister's speedy demise and the receipt of his or her P45 by return of post.
      To reinforce those arrangements, I propose that there should be written into the ministerial code—which is a published document available in the Library of the House and, I believe, on the internet—guidance on how decisions relating to Executive exemption certificates should be made and the way in which other colleagues should be consulted, other than on quasi-judicial decisions. I hope that those two changes, one that will be written into the Bill and one that will be made public, are to the approbation of the House.
      Before I take interventions, I shall detain the House briefly on the question whether local authorities at any level should have a right to issue exemption certificates.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way before he leaves the subject of central Government. Why is he straining at a camel and sticking at a gnat? He speaks about Executive override as though there was no difference between the Scottish proposals and his proposals. There is a great difference, and there is a great deal of overseas evidence as to what that difference is.
      Where there has been collective decision making about Executive override, as in New Zealand, there has not been a disposition on the part of Government to set aside the recommendation of the commissioner, but where the decision has been taken by an individual, as in New Zealand prior to the amendment of the law, there have been many cases of confrontation between the commissioner and the Government.
      If the Home Secretary is prepared to set out rules for consultation with Ministers in an informal way, I find it difficult to understand why he should not go the whole way and simply follow the New Zealand pattern.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is slightly ungracious about what I said. With regard to the principle, the effect of what I am proposing will be what happens

      923
      in New Zealand. I accept that there will be a significant difference, which I believe is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase was good enough to say that the Bill had been vastly improved.
      There will be a significant difference in the occasions on which public authorities would routinely have rejected a recommendation from a commissioner under clause 13, which may have been many, and the number of occasions under the new proposed structure, including the changes that I announced this evening, where a Minister would have decided to consult his or her Cabinet colleagues and then publicly have issued an exemption certificate.
      The briefing that I have had about the position in New Zealand is that an individual decision was taken on seven occasions. Since decisions have been taken collectively, that figure is down to one. I do not believe that there will be many occasions when a Cabinet Minister—with or without the backing of his colleagues—will have to explain to the House or publicly, as necessary, why he decided to require information to be held back which the commissioner said should be made available. The changes that I am suggesting will make a significant difference in practice to the behaviour of Ministers.
      Dr. Wright: Lest my approbation be misunderstood, let me say that I was registering the progress that had genuinely been made. I was not expressing contentment at the destination that we have now reached. Will my right hon. Friend explain the link in the chain of reasoning, to which he has not referred? Why does he think that he needs the override provision?
      We celebrate the change to clause 13 and the power that the commissioner has been given. However, if a Minister does not like a decision made by the commissioner, he can still appeal to a tribunal, go to a court on a point of law, or have judicial review. Why, on top of all that, do the Government think that an override is required?
      Mr. Straw: That is a point of detail. The possibility of an Executive override means that a Minister will not be able to appeal against a decision by the commissioner. Such a provision would otherwise be otiose. I accept that if we removed the Executive override, we would need to provide for an appeals mechanism.
      I apologise for using a nautical analogy again, but we are in uncharted waters. Overseas experience is helpful but only up to a point. We are dealing with different systems. As I said on Second Reading, Freedom of Information Bills are no panacea; they cannot replace good government. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who visited Australia with the Select Committee to examine freedom of information, pointed out that, if a regime goes too far, people in government wrongly take evasive action to avoid a trail of accountability or to prevent the existence of records that can be disclosed.
      My hon. Friend said that the Select Committee was told about the extensive use of Post-it notes and a system whereby documents that Ministers and officials wanted to remain confidential were put into a trolley, sprinkled with holy water, ordained as Cabinet documents, wheeled into the Cabinet room and thus excluded from disclosure.
      We want a system that works properly, with the grain, and in the context of this country, where there is higher observation in practice of legal requirements than in other
      924
      countries. Circumstances could arise in which Ministers genuinely considered—we are talking about fine judgments—that the public interest overrode the commissioner's judgment about disclosure or non-disclosure.
      Ministers would have to be on firm ground to do that. They would have to acknowledge that it was only a matter of time before the information that they sought to withhold came out. They would also have to judge whether, when that inevitably happened, it would be easier to explain the original decision.
      I have undergone a practical on the subject. It related to the medical reports of the thorough examination by four senior medical practitioners of General Pinochet. As the House knows, I made an obligation of confidentiality to Senator Pinochet. Notwithstanding that, I was asked to release the records to the requesting states. I refused to do that because I believed that my obligations to General Pinochet overrode the unquestionable public interest in the disclosure of the documents. Even though it was a matter of considerable debate and advice, I believed that because I had made a solemn pledge of confidentiality, I could not override it in the public interest.
      It would have been convenient for me to release the reports because their contents significantly added to the public understanding of the reasons for my decisions in the case. As the House knows, the divisional court held that I had made the right decision, but the Court of Appeal decided that the public interest in publication overrode my decisions to abide by the obligations that I had made.
      To continue with the analogy—[Interruption.] At no stage in the array of legal advice that I received—
      Mr. Shepherd: What about data protection?
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position. I promise him that none of the legal advice that I received about General Pinochet's medical report referred to data protection.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase has asked me for a specific example. That is the most real example I can think of, because we are dealing with a new regime for the future. As it happens, because of the exceptions covered by clause 13(2), to which his amendment refers, that is information given in confidence and would not be covered by discretionary disclosure. But for that, the commissioner might have felt that the information should have been made available. I am sure that, in extradition proceedings, there will be requests for information held by the Secretary of State to be made available. In that case, the relevant Secretary of State could have come to a decision off his own bat, because it was a quasi-judicial decision that the public interest in not disclosing information overrode the public interest in disclosing it.
      11 pm
      I can give my hon. Friends two reassurances. First, although the degree varies, most FOI regimes, although not all, have some Executive override. Secondly, with the changes that are already before the House in the form of amendments and new clauses, and those that I have specified this evening—
      Dr. David Clark rose—
      Helen Jackson rose—
      Mr. Straw: May I go on? This regime will not be used all that often, and only in extremis.
      Dr. Clark: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am not a great enthusiast for Executive overrides. He has heard me put that argument before. However, given the Government's strong feeling that there should be some form of Executive override—I welcome the concessions that have been made this evening—my right hon. Friend is making rather heavy weather of it. One of the raisons d'etre of this legislation is to put the code on a statutory basis. We felt that that was vital as the codification and advice was unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State is now proposing to move the Executive override up from a Minister to a Cabinet Minister and by code—not by law, but by the ministerial guidance—suggest that he consults his colleague. That is unsatisfactory.
      We have the example of New Zealand. I know it is a smaller country and its Parliament is unicameral, but it has had some years' experience and it is based on the Westminster model. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker
      (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very long intervention?
      Mr. Straw: I am not making heavy weather of this issue, but, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that he is. I have put on record what we are proposing to do by way of an amendment. I have also said that these decisions are a matter of collective responsibility, except if the Secretary of State or other Cabinet Minister has a quasi-judicial function, and that will be specified in the ministerial code.
      We are different from New Zealand and other countries in that, unlike them, we do not have a written constitution.
      Mr. Giles Radice: New Zealand does not have a written constitution.
      Mr. Straw: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior wisdom, but I hope that I have dealt with the point.
      Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the extreme defensiveness of public authorities when they have made a mistake? When they make a little mistake, they are a little defensive, but when something big goes wrong their defensiveness is significant. I am concerned about their defensiveness when a big mistake is made, such as at the disaster at the Hillsborough football ground. The commissioner may issue an order and be absolutely clear that information on that disaster should be made public, but the public body may naturally be so defensive that it appeals for a ministerial override to give it time. Does my right hon. Friend believe that his proposal will do what those of us who have been concerned with the Hillsborough tragedy would like it to do? We would like to feel that this Bill
      926
      would not have led to the years and years of unsatisfactory disclosure of reasonable facts that ought to have been made available quickly.
      Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about what happened at Hillsborough. As she will know, I arranged the scrutiny of events there, under Lord Justice Stuart-Smith.
      I said earlier that no freedom of information regime anywhere in the world was a panacea for bad government. I also agree with my hon. Friend that when mistakes are made, public authorities become defensive, although there is one exception to that rule—the Home Office. Over the centuries, the Home Office has become so used to human error that it just gets on with things and improves situations.
      I also believe—this is probably the wisdom of Home Secretaries past and present—that it is the worst thing of all to end up being defensive if mistakes are made. That just makes life more difficult. If a mistake is made, the best thing to do is, in Lord Healey's famous phrase, stop digging.
      Let me return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). A freedom of information regime cannot be a panacea, and people should not believe that it can be; but, in the case of Hillsborough and in many other cases that have been raised, a regime such as that in the Bill would have helped—and if, God forbid, such a terrible tragedy occurred in the future, would help—to ensure the provision of much more timely information. Much of the information about Hillsborough that has subsequently emerged would have had to be made available much earlier, up to the point at which it would not prejudice an investigation.
      Mr. Radice: My right hon. Friend's proposal is clearly an improvement, in that the decision will be taken at a higher level than that of a Minister who is concerned with protecting his or her own reputation or the narrow interests of a specific Department. That is crucial. According to the New Zealand model, involving a collective decision by the Cabinet, a decision about the public interest is indeed a decision about the public interest. That is what we want to put in the Bill.
      As I have said, my right hon. Friend's proposal is a great improvement. I suggest that he now try to find a form of words such as "collective responsibility" or "collective action". An explanation can be made elsewhere, but the requirement for a collective decision should be in the Bill, because it is the collective element that will ensure the proper balance of the public interest.
      Mr. Straw: An amendment in respect of Cabinet Ministers will have to be tabled in the other place. I shall reflect on what my right hon. Friend says, although I am advised that there are complicated reasons why it is not possible to enact it. Sometimes complicated reasons turn out to be no particular reason at all. My right hon. Friend must, however, bear in mind my point that some functions are quasi-judicial.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I apologise to him and to the House for my sedentary remarks about him not allowing us to intervene later.

      927
      A few moments ago, the Home Secretary said that the National Criminal Intelligence Service was not covered by the provisions, but I should like to explain to him why some of us want to push the envelope on the matter. NCIS has an interface with our security and intelligence services, but—unusually in a principal western democracy—there is no parliamentary oversight of the jurisdiction of any of those services. If we were able to subject NCIS and some of the security and intelligence services to the Bill's provisions, it would go some way to mitigate the fact that there is no proper parliamentary oversight of them. If we had proper parliamentary oversight, we probably would not have to push the envelope. However, we have to deal with that double deficiency.
      Before the Home Secretary says that we have the Intelligence and Security Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I should point out that the membership of that Committee is selected by the head of the security services—the Prime Minister. It is selected not by Parliament, but by the man who is in charge, and that just cannot be right.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's last point is his worst one. There are arguments in favour of having a Select Committee on intelligence and security agencies. However, selection of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been established by an Act of Parliament, is done through the usual channels. In case he has not noticed, selection for Select Committees is done by the same people, through the usual channels. He therefore made a distinction without a difference.
      My hon. Friend also mentioned other western democracies, but I do not know which ones he had in mind. When I think of paradigms of transparency in terms of the relationship between intelligence and security agencies and Ministers and Parliament, many European countries do not come to mind as being at the top of the league table. Our security and intelligence agencies necessarily have to work in secrecy, but, in practice and in statute, they are subject—
      Mr. Mackinlay: What about Australia and the United States?
      Mr. Straw: I thought that my hon. Friend was perhaps thinking of some of our closer neighbours, such as France.
      Mr. Shepherd: What about parliamentary democracies such as Canada?
      Mr. Straw: Yes. There are slightly strengthened arrangements in some countries, but less strong arrangements in others. However, I think that our arrangements are pretty satisfactory.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should remember that NCIS was established by an Act of Parliament that Labour Members supported, and that there is a service authority that operates very similarly to the police authority.
      Mr. Fisher: Before the Home Secretary finishes, will he say something more about local authorities? In the past half hour, he has moved a great deal, and it has been an
      928
      extraordinary experience for the House to see a Home Secretary reshaping a central part of the Bill while on his feet, and doing so with considerable confidence. Many of us also think that he is moving in the right direction, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) that much work will have to be done, after today, in drafting those provisions.
      The Home Secretary will appreciate, however, that he is leaving local authorities in a very strange position. He has now qualified the Executive veto that was proposed in new clause 6, but he has left local authorities with the ability to exercise precisely such a veto. Local authorities can exercise a veto unrestrained by anyone else, so that they are put in a position unlike that of Departments or public authorities. Is that really what the Home Secretary intends to do? Does he really intend, for example, to provide whoever succeeds in becoming London mayor with the ability to veto a decision of the Information Commissioner? I cannot believe that that is what he intends to do. While he is in this very inventive and constructive mood, I urge him to find some way of dealing with the problem of local authorities.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Straw: I take my hon. Friend's compliment as intended. It is in the nature of Home Office Bills, particularly constitutional ones, that they are subject to amendment. That is an important part of the process. That was true of the Human Rights Act 1998. The debates were less well attended because the issues were less controversial, but there were some distinguished contributions from both sides. The Bill was improved by the dialectical process on the Floor of the House. As a result, those on the Opposition Front Bench formally supported its Third Reading. It is important that the Act has such all-party support.
      My hon. Friend invited me to talk about local authorities. I was trying to do that about 20 minutes ago, but I thought that it was important to take interventions first. In the arrangements for Executive certification, we decided that it was important that only elected individuals—Cabinet Ministers at central Government level and councillors at local government level—should be able to issue certificates. Any way of judging the public interest other than through a commissioner has to be carried out through systems of democratic accountability, not indirectly through the decision of an official, however well qualified that official may be. There is consistency between our proposals for central Government and local government.
      For reasons that I explained earlier, because the systems for running local government are in a state of flux, with different authorities choosing from the range of options with which my hon. Friends will be only too familiar—I shall come to the London mayor in a second—we have had to provide that the level at which decisions are made by councillors will be specified by order. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and other legislation already make extensive arrangements for information to be made available to local authority voters. The arrangements are different, because local authorities operate differently from central Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies. In many respects they are already more extensive.

      929
      My hon. Friend should not have too many worries about the Greater London Authority, because the Greater London Authority Act 1999, passed with the approbation of the House, provides extensive arrangements for access to information.
      On my hon. Friend's direct point, we have three options. The first is to keep the arrangement as it is; the second is to prevent local authorities from issuing exemption certificates because the decisions are not of the same level as would arise for central Government; and the third is to accept that an exemption certificate might be needed in certain circumstances, but to say that the decision should be taken by a Minister rather than the local authority. I am pleased to tell the House that I have ruled out the third of those options, because if exemption certificates are issued the individual or body with an interest in the information being withheld should be prepared to stand up and answer for it. I am not in favour of Ministers making the decision for local authorities.
      I understand the strength of the arguments, but I am not in a position to give a definitive answer on the other two options tonight, because this is more complex than the other issues that I have referred to, important matters of principle though they were. What I will say to my hon. Friend is that we will take the proposal away for consultation, both within and without Government, and we will return to it in another place.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I wish to take the Secretary of State back to the response that he gave to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). He has promised to take advice about including in the Bill an obligation to make Executive override a matter of collective Cabinet responsibility. Will he ask those advising him why it has been possible in New Zealand for that obligation to have statutory force, given that New Zealand has the same system of common law and very much the same constitutional traditions as this country?
      Mr. Straw: The answer is yes, I will.
      I have been on my feet for quite a long time, but I hope that my explanation will prove useful to the House. I urge Labour Members to support the Government amendments in the group but—with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase—not amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is just a point of inquiry really. Much of the Home Secretary's contribution was addressed to new clause 6, which is a very important element in respect of the reform of clause 13. When will the House be allowed to discuss those remarks—now, or when we reach that section of the list of selected amendments that covers discretionary procedure and the role of the Information Commissioner?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary's remarks were relevant to the matters discussed by the House in the past few minutes. There will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss new clause 6 when we come to it.
      Mr. David Heath: We have witnessed an extraordinary spectacle this evening. The Home Secretary has spoken to
      930
      a group of amendments to fillet out one that he or his colleagues intend to put before the House at a later stage. He has given ground at such a rate that one wonders whether he has gone beyond his own try line—or even beyond his own dead-ball line.
      The right hon. Gentleman is moving in the right direction, and long may it continue: it is a direction that Liberal Democrat Members have pressed on Ministers throughout the Bill's progress through the House. However, he has not gone far enough, so we must press him further.
      When I first thought about speaking to this group of amendments, I anticipated that I would echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) in proposing amendment No. 1. I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's comments, but that is not surprising, as the amendment is also in my name. However, I also support the Government amendments in this group, as they recognise some of the arguments made in Committee and in subsequent weeks. The Government have moved to remove some of the extraordinary discretionary powers originally contained in clause 13.
      Clause 13 is the crux of the Bill. It aroused the greatest controversy in Committee, for the very good reason that it could have undermined the entire thrust of the Bill and all the good elements in it. As I said, I was intending to support the Home Secretary's conversion to that view.
      What worried me was new clause 6. It was an Executive veto and, as such, entirely unacceptable in the context of the Bill. I suspect that it will still be unacceptable even when we see it in its final form, as outlined by the Home Secretary. It will still substitute an Executive opinion for that of an independent observer—the commissioner—and for one from a court or tribunal. A court or tribunal could consider the matter in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described. I was surprised that he used the case of General Pinochet as an analogy, because he described a process by which the courts overturned the right hon. Gentleman's instinct and decision not to release information. The new clause substitutes that approach for the application to the courts, which would be far more satisfactory.
      I question the right hon. Gentleman when he ascribes to Ministers in this situation a quasi-judicial function. I do not believe that Ministers have a quasi-judicial function. This is an administrative function. If it were quasi-judicial, Ministers should immediately disqualify themselves from consideration because they are party to the decision. It is they who will be put at an advantage or a disadvantage.
      Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
      Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but what worries the public is that a public body or a Minister will be tempted to avoid disclosure in order to disguise embarrassment. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). The public are worried that the motivation for not releasing information that is described as being in the public interest is because of an underlying factor which the public body or the Minister in question considers outweighs public responsibility. We must address that point if we are to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
      There should be no question of the mayor of London having the authority to sign such a certificate. There should be no question—[Interruption.] The right

      931
      hon. Gentleman is making strange grimaces. I heard him say that he was considering the matter. I am putting to him something that he should consider—that it should not be for a local authority to issue that certificate. It should not be for a committee of the local authority or—in terms of the amendment that is to be debated either later tonight or tomorrow—an individual within that authority to make that decision. That cannot be right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to his colleagues who have indicated their support for that approach, because it is an important issue. I hope that he will also listen to the intimations that this should be a collective responsibility. That is the only safeguard within an Executive veto that may arrive at the right result. Otherwise, his proposal will be wholly objectionable.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that no freedom of information legislation guarantees good government—it is not a panacea. He is absolutely right, but it sure as hell helps. That is the thrust of all the arguments that right hon. and hon. Members have been making during the Bill's progress. Of course we are delighted that there is to be freedom of information legislation, but we want it to work. We want it genuinely to provide freedom of information. Many of us still have strong doubts that clause 13 in particular, even as amended in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, will achieve that result.
      To a certain extent, the debate has been hijacked by the Home Secretary's mini-statement. I am delighted that it has, because it moved the debate forward. However, I have one small and specific point for Ministers: why is amendment No. 46 in this group? It is the odd one out.
      The other amendments move in the right direction, but amendment No. 46 goes to the contrary, and I should be grateful for some explanation of the rationale behind what seems a retrograde step. I welcome many of the amendments, but we must have a substantive debate on new clause 6 when we reach it. Serious questions remain to be answered about whether the Bill will do the job that we want of it.
      11.30 pm
      Dr. David Clark: You quite rightly pulled me up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I trespassed on your generosity in my intervention. I shall detain the House for only a few sentences to conclude what I was saying in a more appropriate form.
      Many of us welcome the way in which the Home Secretary has moved away from having an individual Minister with Executive override powers to having a Cabinet Minister and a collective ministerial decision. Perhaps we could formalise matters in statute rather than a code. When my right hon. Friend considers how to change the Bill in another place, perhaps he will consider what happens in New Zealand, where decisions on Executive override are made formally by an Order in Council. The Cabinet takes a collective decision, and the result is published in the official gazette.
      Because of the existing legislative model in New Zealand, we know that that process works. It provides a longstop in cases in which a Cabinet feels that it should intervene, and it formalises decision making in a way that would meet the objections of many hon. Members.
      Mr. Hawkins: I, too, shall be brief. It struck me as extraordinary that the Home Secretary, taking his first part
      932
      in these proceedings, should spend so long on convoluted rituals before addressing the points raised by his hon. Friends. A long way into his speech, he referred to Lord Healey's remark about people who are in a hole stopping digging, but I felt that he was speaking autobiographically. As he came under more pressure from his hon. Friends, there was undoubtedly, in his own words, a natural and profound tension.
      I noted how long it took the Home Secretary to reach his main point. The further change of policy was not mentioned until he was 19 minutes into his speech, most of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said—
      Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: No, I said I would be brief, and I shall certainly not give way to an hon. Lady who was conspicuously absent from our proceedings until a very late stage.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I have not. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hawkins: No. I said that I would be brief. I certainly shall not give way to the hon. Lady.
      Fiona Mactaggart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not been conspicuously absent. I was absent while the previous group of amendments was discussed because I had no interest in it, but I have participated in the rest of the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether Members attend debates is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Hawkins: It struck me that the Home Secretary was indulging in convoluted rhetoric in an attempt to satisfy his hon. Friends. I was reminded of the sophistry that gave us angels dancing on the head of a pin.
      The Secretary of State referred to victims of Executive override and Ministers who might get P45s by return of post. It struck me as particularly significant that he was responding to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whose work on this legislation was so sadly ignored by the Government when they introduced the Bill, and who was himself a victim of Executive override.
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wanted a specific answer about Government amendment No. 46, which he said did not fit with the rest of the group. I want to ask the Home Secretary about a different amendment, No. 74, which seeks to delete clause 77 on copyright, designs and patents. Unless I missed the mention of it during his lengthy remarks, I do not think that he referred to it at all. I am puzzled about why that clause should suddenly be deleted, and I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with that.
      Clearly the Home Secretary has failed to convince the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and many of his other hon. Friends, and the minor change that he has introduced tonight is obviously extremely unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Straw: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been raised.

      933
      The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked me about amendment No. 46, which removes from the scope of clause 13 information that is exempt by virtue of clause 11. The exemption in clause 11 applies where the cost of complying with a request under clause 1 would exceed an appropriate limit, which we are minded to set at £500. The cost of complying with a request is the cost of locating information, plus disbursements, but authorities may charge only up to 10 per cent. of those marginal costs. I can continue that explanation if the hon. Gentleman wants me to do so.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked about amendment No. 74, which removes clause 77 on copyright. Section 50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that where the doing of a particular act is specifically authorised by an Act of Parliament, the doing of that act does not infringe copyright. Clause 77 was necessary because section 50 would clearly not have applied to disclosures under clause 13, as such disclosures would have arisen out of a discretion rather than a statutory duty. However, as a result of the changes to clause 13, which alter the discretion to a duty, disclosures under that clause will now be made under a statutory authority, so clause 77 is no longer needed.
      Mr. David Heath: I return the Home Secretary to Government amendment No. 46. I have not yet heard why information under clause 11 should be exempt from the public interest test. Why is he saying that cost is the only relevant test?
      Mr. Straw: There is a perfectly sensible arrangement, which is accepted by the House, that there is no duty on the public authority to provide information that can be provided only at a genuinely disproportionate cost. Most information is plainly available and the question of cost does not arise. Amendment No. 46 will ensure that the other provisions relating to disproportionate cost also apply to clause 13. That is the top and bottom of it.
      Mr. Heath rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Home Secretary; we are after all considering a serious amendment on Report. I agree with him about disproportionate cost, but surely the exemption should be contingent on the public interest not outweighing that cost. There may be circumstances in which what would normally be a disproportionate cost would be outweighed by the public interest. Why cannot the two considerations be weighed in the balance?
      Mr. Straw: We did not think that there would be such circumstances. It will be open to the commissioner. If she encounters a series of situations in which she genuinely believes that the arrangement is wrong, she may make representations for change. However, if it is accepted by the House, as I think it is, that there must be some limit to the cost of complying with an information request—bearing it in mind that there is also a limit that will be
      934
      much less than the gross cost of complying: what is charged to the person who is seeking the information—that must apply to clause 13 as much as to the rest of the Bill. It is for the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he accepts that argument or not.
      I will look at what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) says, but I do not wish him to hold out too much hope that we will be able to achieve that. I do not profess to as much familiarity with the arrangements in New Zealand as some of my hon. Friends. I profess to considerable familiarity with arrangements here.
      I honestly say that what I have said today will certainly ensure, as a matter of law, that certificates are formally made by a Cabinet Minister. The law will require that to be the case. Then, with the exception of matters that are within the quasi-judicial category, where an individual Minister must make that decision, the other decisions are made collectively. Typically, they have been made by Cabinet committee, not by Cabinet. This country is about 15 times the size of New Zealand. Government is, therefore, significantly more complex. Decisions must be made at that level, but it will be a collective decision.
      As I have said, I hope that what I have said has the approbation of the House. It is not directly germane to it, but I hope that, in the light of the detailed explanations that I sought to provide to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), he will consider withdrawing amendment No. 1.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I can immediately put my colleagues out of any discomfort by saying that we never intended to divide the House on that part of the Bill. Indeed, we came here largely to celebrate the changes that the Government have made to clause 13.
      We were not prepared for the extraordinary parliamentary spectacle that we have just enjoyed. I think that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) struck the wrong tone. We have experienced not, to use his phrase, convoluted rhetoric, but Parliament doing its job and a Minister responding to Parliament doing its job. It is all too infrequent that a Minister responds to concerted and, I hope, intelligent pressure.
      It has been interesting to watch, as it were, the oral redrafting. We have enjoyed it. To be frank, I am not sure whether, on reflection, we shall think that enough has been said yet. I am not sure yet that those of us who dislike the idea of the veto are persuaded that a veto of any type is acceptable. Some of us might be persuaded if we could toughen the hurdle: raise it sufficiently, so that it became a collective Cabinet hurdle, rather than a ministerial hurdle. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment that he will go away and think about that.
      While my right hon. Friend is being so generous, I would add one more consideration: when other systems retain an override or a ministerial certificate in such cases, they confine it to areas of what might be called key state interests: for example, defence and international relations. The problem is that the override goes across the board. As we have heard, it takes in local authorities, too.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend mentions local authorities. Does he agree that that is a crucial element of what we are talking about? If the

      935
      Home Secretary has been gracious enough to bump the executive veto up from Minister to Cabinet Minister, he might also reflect that the decision should be bumped up to cabinet in local authorities, or at least to their leadership.
      11.45 pm
      Dr. Wright: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but we have some loose ends to attend to. Until tonight, we had none and that counts, in parliamentary terms, as progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has guaranteed us a sleepless night. I congratulate him on the progress that we have made so far and look forward to progress resuming tomorrow. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 7, line 18, leave out from "(2)," to end of line 19.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Equality (Disability, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 59) on Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 2000-01 (HC 361), which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

11.46 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: We come again to a money resolution on a very interesting Bill that occupied the House a couple of Fridays ago. The money resolution is more interesting than usual. Although the wording is cast in terms of the sort that we have become used to, we have also become used to the fact that Ministers never do the House the courtesy of speaking to the money resolution and explaining what its contents might be. That means that the more curious of us have to ask a number of questions to elicit information from them. It is a pity that things are done that way round, but that seems to be how they prefer it, so I am very happy, as always, to ask my few modest questions to try to find out from the Minister what lies behind the money resolution.
We are discussing the potentially significant Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill and—we are used to this—the money resolution is opaque. It does not tell us how much money we are being asked to vote, but in some ways it is worse because it refers to the authorisation of
the payment out of money provided by Parliament…
That is the key phrase, as ever. The House is being asked to authorise expenditure of taxpayers' money. The money resolution goes on to refer to
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which tinder any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
In the usual way, we are given no indication at all of the amounts involved. That would be interesting enough, but as the Minister knows—he sat through the debate on the Bill, which took about five hours—we failed to get any indication at all of the scale of expenditure that might be involved and hence might give us a clue as to the scope of the money resolution. I give a few brief examples from Hansard, which will probably suffice. The Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), was asked how much expenditure might be involved. He said:
I would be stupid to give a figure that would be used in evidence against me. We can pluck any figure out of the air.
That is not an encouraging start for a House anxious to know exactly what amount might lie behind the money resolution. The promoter was coy on the subject—I put it no higher than that.
I decided to seek further guidance and inspiration from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)—a senior and experienced Member who is also an architect. He is, moreover, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works.

937
One would have thought that he had enormous knowledge of such matters. On the subject of what the Bill might involve in costs and in public expenditure, my hon. Friend said:
the Bill contains no guesstimate of its cost. I believe that it will cost a considerable amount of money…I would estimate the cost at approximately £500,000 million a year.
I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend said, or intended to say—I can only quote the words in Hansard. That is the first figure on the record from an expert—£500,000 million a year is what the Bill might cost the taxpayer. He continued:
I also estimate that a programme of eradicating fuel poverty and ensuring that all the housing stock is satisfactorily insulated would take 15 years.
We are talking about an expenditure programme of 15 years that may cost the amount estimated by my hon. Friend.
Ms Joan Walley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the cost of fuel poverty? What would it cost not to take action to ensure that households are not in fuel poverty, leading to ill health? Is he aware of the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York? The foundation has estimated that fuel poverty has a huge effect in terms of ill health and its costs to the national health service.
Mr. Forth: I refute the whole concept of fuel poverty. It is nonsense, as I tried to point out in some of my interventions in the debate. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before I could make the speech that was bubbling up inside me.
Fuel poverty is nonsense. I am much more interested in food poverty, for example. The average family spends much more on food than on fuel. Many families cannot even afford enough food. During the debate, I cited figures that showed that the lowest decile of families by income spend the same proportion of their income on alcohol and tobacco as they do on fuel. Much nonsense is talked about fuel poverty; I am not convinced of it as a concept, so I do not feel that it is relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet added:
My view is that we need to insulate 5 million houses in England more effectively and at the top end, although I hope that the figure may not be so great, as many as 8 million throughout the United Kingdom.
Although no one has yet given a definitive or authoritative figure, we are beginning to realise that the Bill might involve the expenditure of large sums. However, for reasons that I am beginning to understand, the Minister has not yet given us a figure; nor did the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West—for reasons that I also understand.
We have to look further for inspiration and guidance on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Front-Bench spokesman on that occasion, said:
if the House supports the Bill—as I hope that it will—we need to think through the taxation and spending consequences.
That is an understatement if ever I heard one. I agree with him; it would be desirable to think through those consequences. I would have thought it more desirable to
938
do so before Second Reading or before we approve the money resolution. If not, the House will be asked to sign a blank cheque. That would not be a responsible way to undertake our duties.
I then looked to see whether the Minister gave any guidance in the debate about what he thought the Government might be committing themselves to were we to support the Bill and the money resolution. I am afraid that I looked in vain. He had much to say about current programmes of different types and he pointed out:
According to recent estimates, at least 4.3 million households have difficulty with fuel bills.
That was a modest use of words; the phrase "difficulty with fuel bills" is a fair way of putting it. I do not necessarily disagree with that, although I would not want to get involved with the ludicrous concept of fuel poverty. However, he offered no more clues as to how much he thought the Government might commit themselves, and therefore the taxpayer, to as a result of the Bill.
I was slightly encouraged—I hope that the Minister will not disappoint me when he replies—when he said:
We have to consider provisions for bringing the measure into force and, bearing in mind the Government's current spending commitments and reviews, we want to consider carefully the references to time scales and targets.—[Official Report, 10 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1306-354.]
That was the kind of responsible statement that we have come to expect from him. However, there was still no clue as to whether the expenditure involved in implementing the Bill might be within the scope that the Government can afford.
We are in an unusual position. A Bill has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and it received enormous praise and support on Second Reading. However, it received all that support with no one having any idea how much money would be required to implement its provisions properly. For fans of the concept of fuel poverty who think that it is a real problem that must be tackled, I am left with the thought that they must have gone away from the Second Reading debate, in which they expressed their concerns eloquently, wondering how the Government would solve the problem. The Bill gave no sign of how that would be done and the Government did not say how much taxpayers' money they would commit to fulfilling the high aspirations expressed in it. Indeed, my hon. Friend, the Bill's promoter, was not able or prepared to tell the House what he thought would be necessary to fulfil its purposes.
The terms of the money resolution ask the House to give the Government an apparent blank cheque. It refers to
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
That has all the appearances of a blank cheque. Nothing in the Bill tells us how much might be required and nothing in five hours of debate told us how much money would be involved to deal with the alleged problem of fuel poverty. Will the expenditure be focused and specific or will it be general and blanket? We have no idea of the answer.
A cynic might say that the Bill will commit the Government to very little other than expressing rather vague targets. In the remarks that I quoted, the Minister gave a hint that, even then, the Government might want to reconsider the targets and move them around a bit,

939
so that they are not too taxing and do not involve a commitment in the foreseeable future. That is one interpretation.
There is a quite different interpretation. To deal adequately and properly with the problem of so-called fuel poverty, enormous sums of money would have to be spent, and spent quickly, to tackle the problems that were described so eloquently by many hon. Members on Second Reading.
We are in a peculiarly difficult position. We are being asked to vote for an unknown sum of money that could vary from not very much, if little comes out of the Bill and the problem of fuel poverty is hardly dealt with, to an inordinately enormous sum of taxpayers' money. Perhaps it will not be as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet suggested, but it could be several billions of pounds over a period of years if the problem is to be dealt with effectively. We just do not know what is involved.
I suggest that, unless the Minister is now able, having given the matter some reflection, to give us a far clearer idea of how much spending might be involved, the House should not give its assent to the money resolution. It should not do so until further consideration has been given to the extent of the taxpayer's involvement and commitment in the aims set out under the Bill. That is the only responsible attitude that the House can adopt.
It cannot be right for the House of Commons, on behalf of the taxpayer, to agree to the form of words before us, given that hon. Members have no idea of the extent of the commitment involved. That is my simple plea. I hope that, unless the Minister is able to provide a full and convincing explanation of what is involved, the House will not give its assent to the money resolution.
12 midnight
Mr. David Maclean: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to the House for not having been present for the Minister's opening remarks on this important subject.
Mr. Forth: He did not make any.
Mr. Maclean: In that case, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for not having been here to hear the bulk of his most erudite and interesting speech.
Mr. Forth: You can guess it.
Mr. Maclean: I was not paying attention to the Annunciator, because I assumed that the Government would want to make more progress tonight on the Freedom of Information Bill.
The money resolution relates to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. I draw the attention of the House to clause 2, which is entitled "Duties of the appropriate authority", subsection (2)(a) of which states that the strategy that the appropriate authority has to draw up should include
measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure the fitting of a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures to the homes of persons in fuel poverty.
940
We know that estimates of the number of homes of persons in fuel poverty range from 1 million to 4 million. However, the more homes are insulated and upgraded, the greater will be the number of people caught in the net of a new definition of fuel poverty—inevitably, as is the case with any definition of poverty, the threshold will be lowered over time.
Britain is urged, over a 15-year period, to catch up with Finland, Sweden and other countries that are regarded as having higher standards of home insulation, but I assume that those countries will not stand still during that period. As technology improves, so will their methods of home insulation, with the result that, in 15 years' time, we shall be told that, despite implementing the marvellous programme set out the Bill, Britain still lags behind other, more sophisticated and better insulated countries and that we must embark on further energy efficiency programmes.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on the way in which he steered his Bill through Second Reading. Even though he has not had the privilege of serving as a high-ranking Minister, despite being an admirable Parliamentary Private Secretary to other Ministers, on that occasion, he displayed the skill envied by Ministers of being able carefully to avoid answering all questions about the cost of his Bill. He said that cost was a matter to be considered in Committee, addressed in due course, discussed on Report. His masterful answers did not, however, satisfy those of us who are concerned about the cost implications of the Bill.
Given that clause 2(2)(a) refers to
a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures
for up to 4 million homes in this country, is it any wonder that some conclude that, over the time scale envisaged, the cost might total as much as £15 billion?
Mr. Tom Brake: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Government amendment has been tabled that would delete that "comprehensive package"?
Mr. Maclean: That makes it all the more important that we get a firm statement from the Government on what the cost will be. I have been considering my hon. Friend's Bill. My concern, if I may say so in the nicest possible way, is that it is incredibly well meaning, but it lacks teeth.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend as he advanced his Bill in the House, and I was convinced that there was some merit in some parts of the Bill. I have been contemplating amendments to the Bill on Report which would give the targets some proper teeth—amendments that would specify sums of money. I was worried that my amendments would be out of order because the Government would probably not table a money resolution and I would not be able to advance them.
Now we have a money resolution, it is appropriate for me to consider amendments that would give the Bill some financial muscle and some certainty, so that the 4 million people out there in fuel poverty are not misled into thinking that the Government have supported a Bill that will make things better for them, only to find that it has no teeth.

941
However, we find that the Government intend to delete the comprehensive package. When my hon. Friend proudly told the House that the Government were supporting his measure, was he aware that he would be stabbed in the back by them?
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Maclean: I give way to my right hon. and erudite Friend.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is starting to persuade me that the open-ended nature of the money resolution could be to the advantage of the Bill. If my right hon. Friend persuades me that we need to toughen the Bill up and make it effective, rather than waffle, an open-ended money resolution would provide the vehicle whereby large commitments could be made, so that the alleged problem of fuel poverty could be properly addressed. If my right hon. Friend works a little harder, he might take me with him.
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and erudite Friend always has a certain logic about him. He may initially have been opposed to the Bill when it was introduced in a different form, without the considerable experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West brought to it. My right hon. Friend may have been opposed to the Bill because of the excessive burden that it may impose on the taxpayer for no apparent gain. Now, I believe that my right hon. Friend was concerned about the Bill because he thought that it might be meaningless.
The Bill was well sounding. It seems that the Government supported it only because they thought that it had no teeth. Now they are proposing to weaken it further by removing the word "comprehensive". If the Government are planning to support my hon. Friend's Bill and put it on the statute book because it will not cost them a penny, that would be gross sabotage of the Bill and would make a mockery of the money resolution that we are putting through tonight.
That will leave the 4 million people out there, alleged to be in fuel poverty, and mislead them into thinking that the Government are planning expenditure on the measure, hence the money resolution. The good news is that I may persuade my right hon. Friend to support me in the amendments that I am considering to my hon. Friend's Bill, to put some proper financial targets into the measure.
If the Government wish to remove the word "comprehensive" and insert the words "half-hearted or wishy-washy strategy for a partial programme of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures here and there in the country, whenever we feel like it in the future", I must tell them that alternative amendments will be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. I look forward to my hon. Friend supporting them. His Bill is important.
We spent a whole day one Friday ensuring that my hon. Friend's Bill got through and was not sabotaged by the wreckers on the Government side, who block so many Bills on Friday. My hon. Friend had to do his utmost to persuade the Government Whips Department not to block
942
his Bill and to let it through. We all know the record of those on the Government Front Bench on blocking Bills on a Friday.
We spent six hours ensuring that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West proceeded to Committee. Yet it appears that the Government have tabled amendments that make a mockery of the money resolution. What is the point of including in the Bill a money resolution that states:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly for Wales under this Act; and any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act
if the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the first clause, which would make a difference to those in fuel poverty?
Clause 2(2)(b) provides for
measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure that households in fuel poverty have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy.
We can speculate that if 4 million homes are to be insulated to the Swedish or Finnish standard, it will cost £4 billion or £5 billion. However, neither the Government nor the briefing material from the special interest groups provide an estimate of the cost.
What measures would appropriate authorities deem suitable to ensure that households in fuel poverty
have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy?
What does
access to appropriate fuel tariffs
mean? It must mean that tariffs for those in fuel poverty are cut or reduced. That means an element of subsidy, or heating payments, which must come from the taxpayer, not the appropriate authority. We therefore require a statement from the Government that outlines their calculations of the cost of the fuel tariff subsidy if clause 2(2)(b) is to be effected. I intended to explore the matter on Report.
The phrase, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsmen, had incorporated in the Bill seemed cleverly and carefully worded. However, it does not have teeth. I wanted to consider clause 2(2)(b) in a little more detail. However, I wait to be advised about whether the Government have tabled an amendment to delete that provision. If so, it would underline the cynicism that the Government have displayed towards the Bill.
Clause 2(2)(c) requires the appropriate authority to devise a strategy on
any other energy efficiency measures which in the opinion of the appropriate authority will reduce the extent of fuel poverty.
What could those measures be? What would they cost? Are we debating an important money resolution when the House is not sure about the cost of clause 2(2)(c)? The Minister, with the excellent briefing that one receives from Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials, doubtless has some calculations. Perhaps if we had made further progress on the Freedom of Information Bill, we might be in a position to exact those details from the Government.
What does the Minister's brief say about the Department's estimated cost of clause 2(2)(c) and "any other efficiency measures", which may reduce fuel poverty? The Government

943
must have an estimate of the cost. If those costs are too high in the Government's opinion, I suspect that they will either table an amendment to delete clause 2(2)(c) or insert a further delaying clause on Report. I suspect that it will suggest that the final implementation target will be set in the far distant future. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West would not like that; it would be a cynical Government move to provide for local authorities to draw up strategies, which will be put on the shelf to gather dust.
Clause 2(3) suggests that
The targets shall include a final target date…by which as far as is reasonable practicable no person will live in a home which cannot be kept warm at reasonable cost and shall also include at least one interim target.
When considering the money motion and the costs that the taxpayer could incur under the Bill, we must have an indication of the time scale in which it will operate.
Mr. Forth: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Minister said on Second Reading:
We have to consider provisions for bringing the measure into force and, bearing in mind the Govemment's current spending commitments and reviews, we want to consider carefully the references to time scales and targets.—[Official Report, 10 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1353-54.]
My right hon. Friend may be asking too much, because the Minister has said that the Government will have to consider carefully—and we know what that usually means—the references to time scales and targets. I suspect that the time scales and targets may not survive the Committee stage.
Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to remind me of the Minister's implied threat. It was a serious threat. He said in the nicest possible way with his usual ministerial smile that he would have to consider carefully the time scales and targets. We all know that that is ministerial speak for "we cannot have those time scales and targets, so we will have to remove them or delete them from the Bill."
The Government may remove my hon. Friend's modest proposal that the appropriate authorities should include a final target date. My hon. Friend does not even require that it should be the 15-year time scale that we used to hear about in other Bills. To ensure that he had the Government on board, he was so reasonable that he did not pin them down even to a 15-year time scale, yet they find even that unacceptable. If they find the rather loose phrase "a final target date" unacceptable, it must be because they are concerned about the overall cost in the time frame that they have in mind.
The Government are under a clear obligation to spell out what the costs would be if the Bill were to be implemented over five, 10 or 15 years. The total implementation costs may have been grossly exaggerated—that is possible, even with the excellent advice that my hon. Friend was given. Since the Bill received its Second Reading, I have had letters from insulation companies. They do not call themselves that—they are new millennium sophisticated heating companies. They say that they have the perfect solution to the problems addressed by my hon. Friend's Bill. They urge me to support it because they hope to sell 50 million highly efficient fuel condensing boilers and a lot of loft insulation.
944
I do not impugn the integrity of those companies, but many of them believe that they will make a lot of money from the Bill, if it is enacted, in a reasonably short time scale. The taxpayer will have to pick up that tab, and the Government may be exaggerating the overall costs.
If the cost of this measure turns out to be £2 billion over 20 years, it is reasonable, but if it is £15 billion over five years, that is an enormous cost. Given that the taxpayer is being fleeced by the Government, those costs would be unacceptable. The Government must give the House an idea of the overall cost of the four different, crucial provisions in clause 2(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d). When we have that figure, we will be in a position to make a judgment on whether the cost would be acceptable to the taxpayer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it were incurred over three, five, 10 or 25 years or a century.
I know that the Government have made those calculations. The Government could not have reached a view on the Bill in the Cabinet Sub-Committee, and the Treasury would not have consented to its getting as far as this, unless the Government had had fairly clear figures relating to the anticipated costs. The Minister would not be receiving his instructions from Cabinet Committee A or from the Treasury to pull the teeth of the Bill—to extract references to, for instance, a comprehensive plan, and to make the other amendments that we shall see—unless the Treasury had a fair idea of what the costs would be.
Given that both the Treasury and the Minister's Department have a fairly accurate idea of the costs, and that the Minister is therefore under instructions to remove the parts of the Bill that will require money, I believe that the Minister has an obligation to share the information that he has with the House. Otherwise, by the time we return to the Bill on Report, I shall probably have drafted amendments to specify costs in the Bill, to try to help my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West to ensure that the 4 million people out there experiencing fuel poverty are not misled.
I shall also draft amendments putting in a sensible time scale. I may be opposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I suspect that we may have some fairly vociferous arguments on that Friday; but I want to ensure that, if the Government are going to kill the Bill by stealth, we have a fair idea of exactly what costs they find acceptable.
I may table amendments suggesting that the costs should range from perhaps £5 million per annum to £500 million per annum, and I shall want to hear from the Minister the level at which the Government find the costs acceptable. Then we may have an indication of whether they are taking the Bill seriously, or whether they are involved in an elaborate charade involving their officially supporting in the House a Bill that could have serious financial implications for them and pretending to the public and all the lobby organisations out there that they are supporting a Bill that will one day eradicate fuel poverty, while making dashed sure that they table amendments in Committee and on Report to remove the vital parts of the Bill that deliver the solutions.
If the Government are going to remove parts of the Bill that relate to financial targets and costs, they have involved us in a big charade tonight by tabling a money motion that is absolutely meaningless. Money motions are important: they represent the one control that the House

945
has, theoretically, over the Executive. But the Executive, of course, is backed by a large Labour majority, and can drive through money motions if it wishes to do so.
The Minister has written books about honesty and justice in our legal system. The Minister has a reputation for seeking out the truth. The Minister has a reputation for supporting freedom of information. Given all that, I should have thought that the Minister would wish to put his folder on the Dispatch Box and read out the figures that he has relating to the costs of the Bill.
The Minister will, of course, want to share those figures with the House. If he does so and they are reasonable, Conservative Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who may wish to oppose the Bill one day because he considers the costs excessive—may be highly embarrassed.
If the motion is not to prove meaningless, and if it is to be voted through by the Government's huge majority, the Minister owes it to us to tell us the costs of implementing clause 2(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d). Let him give us the overall ballpark figures; then my right hon. Friend might be able to support the Bill, and I might be persuaded to withdraw some of my amendments to put the figures into it.
12.24 am
Mr. David Amess: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) probably thought that he was helping me, but I think that he rather fed my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) with some fuel.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for missing his opening speech, but I think that he may have been slightly disingenuous in not mentioning that I had invited both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border to serve in Committee, which will begin considering the Bill tomorrow.
I also sent my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst quite a detailed analysis of the overall costing. He will know that that showed that, in many cases, savings would pay for the programme's costs. Private finance also could be used. Transco and Scottish Power have already launched various schemes. Today, I received a letter from the Electricity Association, which will help with the project. I also know that, on Second Reading, the Minister said that the measure would not cost anything extra. I very much hope that the Minister will reinforce that point today.
12.26 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): I thought that I had drawn the short straw when I heard that I had to be in the Chamber at this late hour, but the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) are a class act, and it was well worth waiting for.
The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), enshrines commitments and mirrors
946
measures that we already have in hand. For that reason, we do not believe that anything in the Bill would increase public expenditure above and beyond current commitments. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was quoting from my Second Reading speech, but he seemed to overlook the sentence that said that the Bill was unlikely to have any financial implications.
As hon. Members have suggested, the Bill may not require a money resolution. However, it is important to note that amendments may be tabled at some stage that would require a money resolution. It is of course difficult to be certain, but if an amendment were tabled or circumstances arose in which consideration of financial issues was necessary, we would not want to restrict debate on the Bill simply because the resolution had not been agreed to beforehand.
Therefore, although in the Bill's current form we believe that it is unlikely to create a charge on public funds, we should not dismiss the possibility that the Committee chairman night need to put the question on charging provisions. Agreement of the resolution would enable a full and careful examination of the Bill to occur. It is the usual courtesy for hon. Members to agree and support such resolutions on private Members' Bills, and I trust that they will support this one.
Agreement to the resolution does not commit the Government to additional expenditure—[Interruption.] I knew that that would cheer up the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it will not be news to him, because I said it in my Second Reading speech. Unaccountably, he omitted that bit when he was quoting from my speech. However, the resolution will allow the Committee, which meets tomorrow, to consider the Bill and to consider any concerns that the Government may have on any financial implications and the control of public expenditure. I commend the resolution to the House.
12.28 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: As I understand it, the Minister said that the Bill can be considered in Committee and become law without the money resolution, and that the money resolution only allows amendments to be made to the Bill. If the resolution were not agreed, it could create a dilemma for my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who may want to move amendments to the Bill.
I—with the encouragement of Worthing borough council—want the Bill to become law. We should like to see far fewer people in fuel poverty, and the creation of targets in achieving that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.

Family Law Act 1996
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
12.29 am
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I address the House on an issue that affects many families and children. Divorce is a deeply painful experience for the couple, their children, their parents, their family, their friends and the taxpayer.
The recent Economic and Social Research Council document "Family and Household Change in Britain" by Alison Wertheimer and Susan McRae says that, with more than 40 per cent. of marriages ending in divorce, the increase in marital breakdown in Britain is a major political and social concern. Britain heads the European league table. There were 145,200 divorces in the United Kingdom in 1998. It is mildly encouraging that the figure is lower than it was in 1991, but it remains an enormously important issue.
Divorce is a particularly important issue when children are involved. It scars the lives of many. Children and their families suffer alike if there are on-going resentments, arguments and distress. Through my work as the chairman of a juvenile court for many years, a researcher into child poverty and an executive member of the Children's Society, as well as my work as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, I have long witnessed first-hand the pain and suffering that divorce can cause.
I hope that the House has seen the recent document by Bryan Rodgers and Jan Pryor, "Divorce and Separation: the outcomes for children", based on an analysis of 200 research reports from the United Kingdom and overseas. The document's key argument is that it is the process rather than the event of the divorce that is so damaging. Family conflict before, during and after the process and the parental ability to recover from the distress of separation affect children's ability to adjust. Quality contact with the non-resident parent can greatly improve outcomes.
The adverse effects are well understood. They include poverty and poor housing, being poorer as adults, behavioural problems, performing less well in school, needing medical treatment, leaving home early, becoming sexually active, pregnant or a parent at an early age, depressive symptoms, high levels of smoking and drinking, and drug abuse during adolescence and adulthood.
After enormous consultation and great care, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was one of the great social reforming Lord Chancellors of the past century, began an ambitious process of divorce law reform. He introduced the Family Law Act 1996. His vision was that before couples take steps towards divorce, they should
be aware of the enormous emotional, social and economic upheaval involved in divorce and, very importantly, the services available to help and support couples.…It will communicate the facts that will help people make decisions on a basis of knowledge.
The 1996 Act is widely regarded as one of the most radical and far-reaching reforms of family justice in the past century. It became law on 4 July 1996 after a stormy passage through Parliament, not without controversy. It is one of the characteristics of the former Lord Chancellor that, in the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act
948
1996, he was prepared to follow through principles that would protect children and their interests and safeguard them from damage and harm.
The aim of the 1996 Act was to meet the twin objectives of saving saveable marriages and promoting a conciliatory approach to divorce if divorce is the only option. It marked a significant shift in divorce legislation, acknowledging divorce as a process rather than a concrete event. That is an important feature of the Rowntree distillation of the 200 research surveys.
A conference at Dartington last September brought together leading figures of the legal and welfare world. They debated the issues surrounding the Family Law Act 1996. Their conclusions have been summarised in an important book entitled "No Fault or Flaw: The Future of the Family Law Act", published by Jordans. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department have studied it carefully. In the book, Lady Justice Hale elegantly identifies the key principles of the Act: the introduction of a genuinely no-fault divorce; the principle that, as far as practicable, arrangements for the future should be made before rather than after the divorce is granted; the provision of reliable, neutral information to both parties to the divorce and to their children; and the availability of good-quality mediation services.
Part I of the 1996 Act covered general principles, part III covered mediation and legal aid, and part IV covered domestic violence. They have all been implemented, but part II—which covers divorce and separation and which contains the most extensive and perhaps controversial provisions, including the provision of information—has not.
Part II contains arrangements for information meetings, on the principle that parties to a divorce should be given quality, objective and factual information at an early stage. It provided for a preliminary cooling-off period of three months after an information meeting, during which there could be no divorce proceedings. It provided for an extension to that period of six months, and required that parties' financial arrangements should be finalised in advance. Under the Act, divorce could be granted only when all the final arrangements had been finalised and were in place.
Sections 13 and 14 in part II gave the court specific power to adjourn proceedings at an interlocutory stage, to consider the opportunity of the parties to take part in mediation.
Part II carried the hopes of many for a new future for family law resolution. It would have resulted in an increase in co-working of all family law professionals, and facilitated a conciliatory approach and a greater awareness of the victims of domestic violence and of the welfare of children. In addition, it would have brought about a refocusing on saveable marriages and the exploration of those cases suitable for mediation. It would also have encouraged greater individual responsibility by the parties for the steps taken in the divorce process.
Adults needed—and still need—help rather than preaching. Children need to be considered as real people and active participants, rather than passive recipients of adults' decisions. Justice Hale has shown that there has long been consensus that those facing marital breakdown need better information. There is an even stronger belief that children need access to good-quality and

949
age-appropriate information from a neutral source. However, disagreement about the best way to achieve those objectives led the former Lord Chancellor to decide that the options should be considered and tested in a number of pilot studies.
In opposition, the Labour Party repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the Family Law Act 1996, and especially to part II. On 2 October 1998, the present Lord Chancellor reaffirmed that commitment in a speech to the closing session of the fourth European conference on family law. He said:
Support for marriage and the family is at the heart of the Government's strategy for modernising Britain.
He added that the key objective of the Act was to
provide for couples contemplating divorce to be encouraged to consider whether their marriage is really over and to consider whether marriage counselling might be helpful before they take the final step to divorce…The second objective underlying the…Act is that, where all attempts to save a marriage have failed and the marriage broken down irretrievably, it should be brought to an end with the minimum of distress to the parties and any children affected.
He continued:
Mediation is a powerful means of achieving this policy objective.
He said that he was
keen to promote the use of mediation in family disputes, particularly to resolve conflicts over property, money and children, and between couples who have decided to divorce or separate. The effective use of mediation can reduce bitterness or acrimony. That is good for the individuals who are divorcing: good for their children; and good for the wider society—for the taxpayer funding those public services which have to pick up the pieces.
The Government made much of the pledge to the family unit. The document entitled "Supporting Families" also anticipated that part II of the Act would be brought into force. On 8 March 1999, the legal correspondent of The Times, Francis Gibb, said that
the Government is to go ahead with a shake-up of the divorce laws after research has shown that compulsory information meetings for people intending to divorce could save thousands of marriages.
The Lord Chancellor is expected to announce within weeks a date next year for implementing…a main aim is to encourage couples to settle disputes over children and finances amicably and outside the courts.
Only a month before the Lord Chancellor's announcement, the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law, set up by the previous Lord Chancellor to advise Ministers on the implementation of the 1996 Act and chaired by Sir Thomas Boyd Carpenter, appeared fully to accept that implementation of part H would go ahead.
During the year, the board considered the on-going research on pilot information meetings that was being led by Professor Janet Walker of Newcastle university. It stated that it had
continued to be impressed by the quality and the depth of this research.
However, on 17 June last year, the Lord Chancellor declared that the Government were delaying the implementation of part H. The official reason was that time was needed for more research into information meetings. This has bemused and shocked the academic and legal worlds. The Government are not known to hesitate before rushing into legislation without any
950
preparation. The Act had received massive preparation, research and consideration. When it comes to disintegrating the United Kingdom and reforming the House of Lords, it matters not where the Government are going. When it comes to preparation in advance, think not of it but walk in and see what happens afterwards. However, on this vital issue, for some reason, with no known explanation, and misusing the research available, the Government suddenly stalled.
Describing this, David Hodson, a distinguished lawyer from my area and who is vice-chairman of the United Kingdom college of family mediators, said:
It brings into mind the words said by the original patron of divorce professionals Henry VIII: "His promises, as he was, mighty; But his performance, as he is now, nothing".
Since then, there has been an outcry that the research findings were misinterpreted and misused by the Lord Chancellor. The chairman of the Law Society's family law committee, Hilary Siddle, is said to have been very surprised by the Lord Chancellor's decision
which was clearly at least partly political.
The Government's motives have been widely and seriously questioned.
In his statement in June 1999, the Lord Chancellor expressed his disappointment at the results of the pilot information meetings. I, along with many others, have studied closely the magnificent summary of the research directed by the eminent Professor Janet Walker, from the centre for family studies at the university of Newcastle, on which the Lord Chancellor claims that he based his decision. The research was overseen by an advisory body, chaired by Sir Peter Barclay.
The Lord Chancellor has appeared extraordinarily uninterested in the findings of the research carried out by Professor Walker and her team. Many are worried that this valuable research has been shelved because it does not fit in with the Lord Chancellor's view of what is comfortable. Information meetings were to be the first step for couples on the road to divorce. They were said by the Government to be the primary reason for delaying implementation. However, despite the Government's interpretation of the research, I understand from Alan Sealy, co-ordinator of the family courts consortium, with which I am associated, that the meetings were widely concluded to have been highly successful. The objectives of the pilot information meetings were to provide information about the various options and services available, and to direct attention to the issues that should be considered when contemplating steps to end the marriage.
The findings show that the attendees declared themselves to be better informed about the issues, particularly the impact of divorce on children, and about the services on offer, particularly mediation. The overwhelming majority of people valued information meetings. More than 90 per cent. attending the first 14 pilots found them useful in various ways.
This was a significant study. Some 5,522 married people attended an individual information meeting, while some 2,132 married people attended a group information meeting. Group meetings, scarcely surprisingly, were not as well received as individual meetings.
The Lord Chancellor's Department expressed disappointment in the outcomes of the findings on the use of mediation and solicitors. However, the pilots were not

951
designed to divert people into mediation and away from solicitors. The evaluation was not designed to test diversion. The goalposts were moved after the research was under way. If that is now the Lord Chancellor's intention or wish, there is no difficulty about altering the framework for information meetings.
The pilots and the research were in fact designed to examine different ways of providing information as laid down in section 8 of the 1996 Act. They were designed to find out how people responded to that information and how they used it. There was no presumption in favour of mediation, which could be expected to have a significant impact on the percentage of people using the mediation service during the pilots.
For no apparent reason, the Lord Chancellor expressed an expectation that between 40 and 60 per cent. of people might use mediation, but it is unclear where that estimate has come from. Informed researchers and mediators agree that the figure is much too high. Perhaps when the Minister responds, she could clarify where the estimate comes from. There is a general view that between 15 and 20 per cent. would be the best-case expectation of the numbers using mediation if the Act were implemented in full.
The research showed that there was some confusion about what mediation was supposed to achieve. Some found it difficult to distinguish between mediation and marriage counselling, but 57 per cent. of people said that they would consider going to mediation if they considered it appropriate in future.
The use of mediation is a key element of the 1996 Act. Over the years, I have worked closely with the Sheila Griffiths, chairman of the Surrey mediation forum that serves my constituency, and the rest of the team. I have been enormously impressed with the forum's work, but there is a degree of cynicism, and a feeling that the Government's primary interest in mediation is to reduce pressure on the legal aid fund—now the community legal services fund. As a former Minister, I have no objection to saving the taxpayer money, but most people are dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the Government's commitment to and support for mediation services. Much more could and should be done. Mediation has only recently become part of the culture of divorce.
Mediation can eliminate unnecessary and protracted legal conflict. It is in the parents' and the children's interests to avoid entering an adversarial court battle until all other options have been exhausted. However, awareness of the value of mediation and its value as a method of dispute resolution remains. We are in a transitional process in which mediation will become more familiar and commonplace. The Lord Chancellor expressed disappointment at the number of people still saying that they would be likely to consult a solicitor. That was an extraordinary remark. Information meetings rightly encourage people to consult solicitors as providers of legal advice, and mediators routinely encourage their clients to see a solicitor. The use of solicitors and mediators are not exclusive options, and consulting a solicitor is the usual and traditional way to pursue a divorce.
In short, a tremendous opportunity has been ducked and delayed. Serious concern exists about what non-implementation of part II of the Act will mean. Again I cite David Hodson, who said that there would be: no
952
shift away from fault-based divorce; no passage of time and consideration; no statutory compulsory provision of information; no provision to offer a meeting with a guidance counsellor; no provision of legal aid for marriage counselling for those eligible; no requirement that all arrangements for the future in respect of children, property and finance should be made prior to the granting of a divorce; and no power for the court to give a direction requiring each party to attend a meeting with a mediator.
It is sad that the opportunity has been missed. I hope that the Minister can convey to her Department just how appalled people in the family law community are about the irresponsible step that has been taken. The Government are only too aware of the problems of the Child Support Agency. People's refusal to co-operate over child support is closely connected to their bitterness about the divorce process. It is interesting that a former Lord Chancellor, who, like me, happens to have had the good fortune to remain married to the same person for a considerable length of time, should feel deeply and strongly about ways to make divorce more civilised. An opportunity has been delayed and avoided, and I hope that the Minister will reassure people by making it clear that a civilised, enlightened and constructive measure will be properly and responsibly implemented.
12.48 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on winning an opportunity to debate divorce. Like me, she may have been a little anxious that we would be here much later in the morning, but we have now a good opportunity to debate a serious matter. I congratulate her on the way in which she presented her case. I agree with a large part of what she said, and the principles underlying the Family Law Act 1996 were, as she rightly said, supported by all parties.
I must take issue with the right hon. Lady over her interpretation of the decision taken by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor last June. However, I am grateful to her for faxing her document to my office today and for the helpful way in which she has approached the subject. I hope to reassure her on some points, but should her draw attention to two comments on information meetings in her document.
Towards the bottom of the page on which information meetings are discussed, it is recorded that during the debate it was said:
The apparent simplicity of this new provision is deceptive. Most people know what information is, and most have some idea of what going to a meeting is like. Yet putting these two elements together and transforming the concept of an individual information meeting from a "good idea" into reality has not been straightforward.
The document goes on to say:
The Lord Chancellor's recently expressed disappointment with the research findings in respect of the pilots illustrates this problem.
On rhetoric and reality, it says:
The evaluation of the pilots suggests that sometimes the elements of the information meeting may clash: saving marriages is an objective distinct from securing civilised divorce.
It is that part of the decision that was made last year that I want to expand on this evening.
As the right hon. Lady said, the Family Law Act 1996 requires all divorcing or separating couples to attend information meetings, the purpose of which is to inform

953
couples about the issues that they would have to face, the options open to them and the services available to help them. It will also, as the right hon. Lady rightly pointed out, make them aware of the enormity of the decision that they are contemplating.
The interim results of the research into the pilot information meetings were found to be disappointing in a range of respects. That was particularly so given the great hopes that had been attached to the provision of compulsory information meetings in part II, and the effect that it was expected to have in saving marriages or, where that was not possible, in persuading people to settle their differences through mediation rather than by resorting to lawyers and the courts.
Sadly, the numbers of people taking up the offer of a meeting with a marriage counsellor and the numbers of people who attempted mediation after attending the information meeting pilots were lower than we had expected, and that disappointment was increased by the fact that those participating in the pilot information meetings were all volunteers. Requiring unwilling conscripts to attend a compulsory meeting might perhaps produce even more disappointing results.
It is worth emphasising that it was the preliminary results that the Government found disappointing, not the research itself. We are extremely grateful to all the voluntary bodies and others who helped to provide the pilot information meetings, and to the people who volunteered to attend. We are grateful also to Professor Janet Walker and her team at Newcastle university who have been conducting the research for us. There is certainly no criticism of any of them. However, the point of piloting a new initiative such as part II is to find out whether it works as intended, and whether it achieves the results that were desired. The evidence so far is that the information meetings as piloted have not achieved what we hoped they would.
Those results are only the preliminary results of a research project that continues, however. The right hon. Lady felt that we had shelved the research, so I want to reassure her on that point. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has not made any final decision, but has decided to wait until the final research results are available, which will be this summer, before deciding how to proceed. As he explained in a speech given to the UK Family Law Conference at the time, family law is too sensitive and important for the Government to want to rush ahead with implementing legislation on a doctrinaire or speculative basis, without the best empirical information available, coupled with informed professional advice.
The least that a responsible Government could do before making a final decision on part II is to await the final results of the very extensive piloting and research that the right hon. Lady's Government commissioned, and for which the taxpayer pays. When we have those results, the Lord Chancellor will be in a position to decide how to proceed and to consider whether, for example, further research is necessary to do justice to those difficult questions.
The focus of divorce reform should not be based on dogma concerning fault or no fault divorce. Divorce law enables people to divorce on a no-fault basis after two
954
years apart, with consent, if that is what they wish. It is true that most people who divorce prefer to do so on the basis of adultery or unreasonable behaviour, rather than waiting two years. Even so, fewer than 10 per cent. of divorce cases are fought out through the courts. The vast majority are uncontested and dealt with on paper under the special procedure. The focus should therefore not be on the dogma, but on the principles that are set out in part I of the Family Law Act.
I take the opportunity to confirm that the Government remain committed to those principles: first, the institution of marriage must be supported as the best proven method of bringing up children, within a stable family relationship, by two parents; secondly, the parties to a marriage that may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practical steps, by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage; and thirdly, a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end with minimal distress to the parties and to the children affected, and with questions dealt with in a way designed to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances.
All the work that the Government are doing in that area is intended to support those principles.
May I reassure the right hon. Lady further? I want to identify the work that we are undertaking. It is in three main areas: the provision of information for divorcing and separating couples; increased funding for marriage and relationship support agencies; and the further development of family mediation.
I will say a little more about each of those areas in the short time that I have. The provision of information to divorcing and separating couples is obviously sound. The interim results of research into the information meeting pilots have shown that the people who attended thought that the provision of information about marriage, mediation, the divorce process, the effect of divorce on children and so on had been extremely valuable to them.
Although the meetings were not as successful as the Government wished in terms of saving saveable marriages and diverting people to mediation, there is a need to provide information to divorcing and separating couples and to the children affected. Outside part II, therefore, we are taking forward the development of a series of leaflets that were originally used in the pilots, which will be made available later this year to divorcing and separating couples through the courts and other outlets: for example, citizens advice bureaux and doctors' surgeries.
We have asked the research team to undertake some further work, following up people who attended the pilot information meetings. The purpose of that work is to tell the Government how the information influenced people's behaviour later in the process. For example, we will learn whether information about the benefits of mediation would be more useful later in the process of divorce and separation.
On saving saveable marriages, the Government support marriage politically and financially. We recognise that marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and it remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain, but we recognise also that not all children are born to parents who are married.

955
It makes sense to seek to save saveable marriages and other relationships, especially where there are children. To that end, we are significantly increasing the money that my Department spends on marriage and on relationship support in England and Wales: to £4 million in 2000–01, rising to £5 million next year.
Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Surrey Family Mediation Service. I was impressed by the quality of its work; I commend it. We are committed to
956
supporting its development and are conscious of the expertise of people in that sector. We are listening to them carefully.
The service is one of more than 250 mediation services that have concluded contracts with the commission—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute to One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Shipbuilding (River Tyne)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
10 am
Mr. Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject, and I do so at a time of considerable difficulty for shipbuilding, ship repair and the offshore fabrication yards on Tyneside. Fifteen years ago, as many as 30,000 people were employed in the maritime industries in the north-east, but that figure has been halved. Current estimates suggest that many of those jobs, as well as about 7,000 jobs in related industries, may be under threat. The sector has been dealt a double blow by the maturity of the oil and gas industry in the North sea and generally diminishing defence budgets. Although most people welcome the peace dividend, it nevertheless makes life more difficult for the yards that compete for defence contracts.
Let me make it clear from the outset that we are proud of our maritime heritage in the north-east. Some of the world's greatest ships were built in the north-east. Shipbuilding is part of the great triumvirate, with coal mining and iron and steel, which dominated the region for so long. More recently, it has been estimated that as much as 80 per cent. of the North sea oil platforms involved companies in the north-east as either a prime contractor or supplier. That means that the north-east has a significant concentration of people with the skills and expertise to compete on the world stage.
The north-east is perhaps unique as a region in that it still has all the people, companies and components to design, build and fit out a ship from beginning to end, yet the average age of the work force in those industries on Tyneside is about 49. However, shipyard workers recognise that previous success, the glories of our past and having the skills and expertise to build ships offer no guarantee in a global marketplace. I make it clear, therefore, that this debate is not about recognising shipbuilding as a traditional or sunset industry, but about claiming that shipbuilding and the maritime industries are part of the new economy. Far from being outdated and old-fashioned, the maritime fabrication industries incorporate high technology and world-class skills. We in the United Kingdom are still recognised as being among the best in the world, and we expect the Government to acknowledge that fact.
When the Shearwater platform left AMEC in Wallsend last month, it did so on time and to price. Its owner, Shell, recognises it as a world-class product. Much of the kit on that platform was the result of innovation and creativity that began with the design and grew as the development took place over months and years. That is part of the innovation and creativity of the new economy.
158WH
North Tyneside college, which serves my constituency, has just opened a £2 million high-technology engineering centre which will support the development of specialist engineering skills in the shipyards and the maintenance facilities along the River Tyne. The centre gives training up to national vocational qualification level 4. That includes something called mechatronics, which is a new one on me. Mechatronics develops multi-skilled engineers who can turn their hand to any area of engineering; it is part of the new economy. The facility will support any purchaser of the former Siemens factory in my constituency; it is an investment in the new economy. Companies such as Cammell Laird and Swan Hunter have invested in the new economy and have taken on many apprentices. They are training young people—in some cases, in traditional skills that are to be employed in the new economy. They believe that those skills are relevant to the new economy.
The real issue, however, is how the shipyards on the River Tyne can survive and their skills be renewed to allow the sector to take advantage of future opportunities—and there will be such opportunities.
Mr. A.J. Beith: I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the economic significance of shipbuilding on the Tyne, and I hope that he recognises that its significance extends far into the region. I hope that he recognises that people who work in the yards—including those with particular skills and creativity—and small businesses that subcontract within the industry are found throughout Northumberland, far beyond the radius of Tyneside itself.
Mr. Campbell: I do indeed recognise that. The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well—the matter concerns not only the whole of the north-east, but other regions.
There are clear signs that there will be future opportunities. The Association of European Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers forecasts rising demand in the industry in the early part of this decade. Some forecasters predict the need for more than 2,000 new ships each year until 2010. Four out of five of those will be needed to replace ships in ageing fleets. An upturn is forecast in offshore oil and gas extraction, which will create demand for floating production and storage offshore vessels, which will replace platforms in some respects. A growing consensus suggests that between 25 and 30 FPSOs will be needed, but forecasts suggest that as many as 120 new vessels will be needed worldwide—some, perhaps, in the North sea. The movement of goods in the European Union favours a rise in the number of ships. The number of people in this country who take cruises doubled in the 1990s, so there will inevitably be demand for cruise liners of all sizes. I do not suggest that all those ships could be built on Tyneside. However, there will be demand, and it is important that Tyneside's shipbuilding capacity survives so that the sector can make use of its skills and take advantage of the opportunities that I have described.
I accept that many of the answers to the problems that the shipyards and offshore yards face lie outside the Government's remit. However, I raise these issues as a

159WH
constituency Member of Parliament. I no longer have shipyards in my constituency, but, many of my constituents and their families rely on the work provided by the yards along the Tyne. It is fair to ask what the Government can do and to get them to do it.
Let me give some examples. The Government can place Ministry of Defence contracts with UK yards. The commitment in the strategic defence review to develop and rebuild our ageing fleet is welcome, but it is also important to ensure that we bring that work forward so that it is on stream. In that way, we will ensure as far as we can that there is continuity of work in our shipyards while they look for other opportunities and alternative contracts. I urge the Government to bring forward the two alternative landing ship logistic vessel contracts, which have the capacity to generate 4,000 jobs; 2,000 directly and 2,000 in the wider community.
Companies in the north-east ask for nothing more than the opportunity to bid for the order. Like us, they are confident that Tyneside yards can deliver quality work, reliability and value. In relation to MOD contracts, I shall refer to roll on/roll off ferries, which have caused controversy in the past few days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has recognised that United Kingdom yards have the expertise and capability to build such ferries, and I welcome that. Even at this late hour, the three British yards with an interest are doing unprecedented work on a proposal involving co-operation and sharing work between yards. They are confident that they can compete commercially with foreign yards.
The MOD rightly requested that bids for such ferries include proposals for building them in UK yards. Will the MOD actively consider any further proposals and do all that it can within the rules, guidelines and the law to bring the work to British yards? Such news would be welcome in the north-east of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. All our companies ask is that they be allowed to compete on a level playing field.
There is concern that overseas yards subsidise work to win orders. A leading offshore company in the north-east told me that it is currently bidding for a major overseas order for FPSO vessels and is in direct competition with Korean yards, which may receive a subsidy of more than 20 per cent. Ironically, there are strong suspicions that International Monetary Fund Money—which originates, in part, from the pockets of European taxpayers—is used to subsidise Korean yards. Pressure is being put on the Korean Government in relation to that. However, in the circumstances, I would press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the shipbuilding intervention fund remains available for British shipyards beyond the end of the year.
Furthermore, we have been told repeatedly that the real work of the contract is not on the hull of the vessel but on the kit that goes inside. Therefore, British offshore yards could be helped to compete in world markets by imaginative application of the shipbuilding fund—perhaps to the top side of FPSOs, demand for which is expected to grow.
The Government could also announce a review of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I share concern about the future of UK pits, and welcome my right hon.
160WH
Friend the Secretary of State's efforts to secure that future, not least for the last deep-mined pit in the north-east. However, once that decision has been taken, I hope that there will be a review of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. That would be welcomed in shipyards and offshore yards along the Tyne, as it would act as a spur to the development of gas fields in the UK sector and generate activity in offshore yards.
I would also urge a review of how licences are awarded. It is frustrating that companies may be awarded a licence, only to sit on it until the price of gas or oil is right for it. New licences should be awarded only after companies offer a clear schedule for extraction. I do not seek or expect answers to my questions today, but I want my hon. Friend the Minister to consider them.
I shall speak plainly on another matter, which challenges the Government as much as the companies involved in shipbuilding and offshore on the Tyne. Some companies live for the next contract and do not plan for difficult periods. We are in one of those periods now.
One of the workers on the Shearwater platform, which I visited recently before it left the Tyne, said to me, "Platforms are like relatives at Christmas. You like to see them come, but you like to see them go." The assumption is that another visit will inevitably follow, yet in challenging circumstances we cannot be sure that that will happen. The yards on Tyneside need a sustainable future, which means establishing a long-term vision in a time of short-term pressure. Never has there been a stronger case for the stakeholders on Tyneside—employers, employees, trade unions, higher and further education and the regional development agency—to work together, a development that I urge the Department of Trade and Industry to encourage and support.
The first step might be to commission a study of future opportunities to discover how Tyneside can best position itself to exploit them. The issue of employment and training could be addressed, perhaps leading to continuous employment for some of the shipyard workers for the first time. What a difference that would make to their pensions and mortgages. It would also allow overheads to be cut and training to take place in the quiet periods, which would make the yards on Tyneside more competitive. Such a forum could also explore the possibilities of diversification, through decommissioning or recommissioning, alternative energy supply such as offshore wind farms, and the servicing of offshore platforms.
The centre of gravity in the North sea is shifting southwards; it costs as much as £30 million a year to service a single platform offshore, and in the Great Yarmouth area a partnership of the kind that I mentioned is being created in response to the opportunities presented by decommissioning and recommissioning. Tyneside should learn from that lesson.
The Government have already made an important contribution by helping individual companies to identify potential markets and by helping with export orders. A major offshore fabrication company told me that the Secretary of State is extremely supportive of its efforts to win orders and it is grateful for the Department of Trade and Industry's initiatives. We

161WH
must ensure that that support continues and grows, for the benefit of all the yards, so that Tyneside can develop as a centre of excellence for the maritime industries.
There is great anxiety about the current situation, but also confidence that there will be future opportunities in the maritime sector, provided that the yards get through their present difficulty. I urge the Government to do all that they can to help the companies and the work force in their efforts to ensure that there is a future for the industry, and for its work force and their families.
10.18 am
Dr. David Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend from across the River Tyne in North Shields, the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), on his perspicacity in securing the debate, which could not be more timely, in the general and the particular sense. There is great dismay in the north-east on the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees, about remarks emanating through persons unknown at the Ministry of Defence that United Kingdom shipyards no longer have the skills to build a roll on/roll off ferry. That sort of ignorant comment, based as it is on falsehood, demoralises the work force. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that that is not the Government's view and that the Government still believe that the UK retains the capacity to build merchant and naval ships in UK yards. I emphasise that because there are people based not a quarter of a mile from the Palace of Westminster who simply do not understand the regions. It is therefore apposite that we, as representatives from the regions, are able to redress the balance here; that adds to the value of the timing of the debate.
I continue on a consensual note by stating a fact: Britain is an island. As such, 90 per cent. if our trade is conducted by sea. The basic logic, therefore, is that it would be crazy of us to throw away our capability to build ships to transport some of that trade. Equally, in the North sea, the Irish sea and elsewhere, there are oil and gas fields within our sovereign area. It would seem crazy not to retain the capacity to build and decommission those oil rigs—but I will come back to that.
There has been a dramatic change in the River Tyne. All of us who know anything about the river know that the trade fluctuates—like a relative at Christmas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said. I support my hon. Friend's call for a long-term strategy for the maritime capabilities on the Tyne and other rivers. He was right also to cite the fact that other rivers and estuarial areas in the UK have faced up to long-termism better than we on Tyneside have done. Mea culpa. I accept that. We must do better.
However, I doubt that anyone could have foreseen the dramatic downturn that has occurred in the River Tyne work force. In 1997, an estimated 14,000 people worked in the various yards on the River Tyne; now there are 800. The Aker McNulty yard is in my constituency. Three years ago, 5,500 were employed there; now there are 300. What applies to that yard applies to AMEC, Austin and Pickersgill, Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter and so on. The "so on" is so important because, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, this debate is
162WH
about not only the river and the people who work in the yards but the wider region and the other skills that service direct work on the river. I make this point on behalf of my constituents: there has been a massive reduction in employment opportunities in our region. The latest Government figures show that male unemployment in South Shields, where industry is largely male-dominated, is 19.8 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister will therefore appreciate our concern at the plight of our industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said that it is not easy to put that right. We know that no one can simply wave a magic wand. We know that the Government are constrained by European Union rules and regulations. I hesitate to say this, but it would not be understood on Tyneside if the British Government awarded a contract to build roll on/roll off ferries to a German company at a time when another German company had dealt such a devastating blow to another part of our manufacturing base in the west midlands. I appreciate the difficulties in the EU, but other countries find ways around this problem.
Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge, Mr. Heseltine, that the Tees would find it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what form of address the hon. Lady used, but it was not the right one.
Ms Taylor: I accept your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that people on the Tees would find it extremely undermining if contracts were awarded elsewhere? They, too, have a skilled work force and unemployment problems. Over 13 per cent. of the men in my constituency are unemployed and seeking employment, so I ask my right hon. Friend to include the Tees in his comments.
Dr. Clark: I will gladly do so. I welcome the support of my neighbour from Teesside. Although we are talking about the Tyne today, clearly we are also talking about the whole of the British shipbuilding industry. We know that there are problems on Teesside, Clydeside, Merseyside and elsewhere. This is a national problem and we need a national policy to tackle it. I want to focus on Tyneside today because that is where my constituency is.
What has so annoyed people on Tyneside about the MOD's comment is that we manage to retain, albeit only just, that critical mass of expertise, capability and companies to build ships. We are still in the process of doing so. Indeed, we have the design staff. We have the skilled personnel, although it is ageing. The average age of the men in the yards is 49, which is far too old. We have just got going again, trying to retain and retrain apprentices. There is a lot of ground to make up to start moving from the short-termism of the past. The past should not be the guide to the long-termism of our future. We still have that critical mass, yet, if orders are not forthcoming soon, we fear that we will shall lose it.
One of the complaints of the Tyneside workers it that they are forced out of the region. I guarantee that, whenever I catch a plane from Heathrow, Gatwick,

163WH
Amsterdam, Brussels or wherever, I will meet Tynesiders or Teesiders flying home for a month's break after a period working in Norway, Holland, the middle east or elsewhere. They constantly ask me why they have to go abroad to ply their trade. The skills exist on the Tyne and Tees, and many of these workers would come back and work there if they could.
I cannot add much to the general points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, but I can make a few more points about decommissioning. We are talking about interchangeable skills. They can be used in shipbuilding and in the fabrication of oil and gas rigs. Equally, they can be used in the decommissioning or the recommissioning of oil and gas rigs. The longer term must dominate our thinking at the moment, but to retain our capacity in the long term we are looking for answers in the short term. After about five years there will be a glut of decommissioning or, ideally, recommissioning work from the North sea oil rigs when they are forced to close down, as they must under international law. Some of that work should come to the British yards.
Experts advise that, although most oil and gas rigs are in the British sector, very little decommissioning or recommissioning will be carried out in British yards—unless something dramatic happens—because of the complexities relating to ownership of the facilities. The experts say that all the work will go to Norway or Holland. That is unacceptable. We built most of the rigs and we can take them apart. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider that.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about whether Aker McNulty, a company operating in my constituency, had applied to the Government for assistance to allow it to carry out research into the task of decommissioning. The company applied for a research grant of £2.5 million in the belief that thousands of jobs on the River Tyne could be retained in the long term. I understand the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend, who was not able to offer such a grant. I understand, however, that the application may not yet be completely dead.
Just two weeks ago, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking about the prospects for success for a grant application from the parent company of Aker McNulty—a Norwegian company—on the basis that the benefits of any research funded by such a grant would be applied only to British yards. I can see that the Government might be worried about using British taxpayers' money to create a centre of excellence in research on the River Tyne, only to find that the parent company takes the benefit from that research across to Norway, and that most of the physical work of decommissioning or recommissioning is done there. I am not asking for an answer on that issue today, but my hon. Friend the Minister might consider it.
I associate myself completely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said, and I reiterate the point that he made. I have been speaking about Tyneside, because that is the subject of the debate, but we all know that what I have said applies also to Teesside, Wearside, Clydeside, Merseyside and other places. It is very important that the alternative landing ship logistic order is brought forward. I understand that
164WH
it has already been delayed. We might not win the order on the Tyne, although I hope that we do, but it would help us to retain that critical mass. My hon. Friend mentioned the roll on/roll off contract. I have made my views known about German companies—that is especially relevant at present.
The DTI is carrying out a review of the operation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and is considering ways of making it more flexible. The difference between the rate for borrowing money in the United Kingdom and that for the euro makes that all the more important. We can be rather smug about how we have a better rate of exchange against the euro and about how its value has fallen, but the bottom line for industrialists is that the base rate in Europe is considerably lower than in this country, and it is easier for industrialists there to borrow money. That is a problem, and I hope that the Government will take it into account.
My key point is that all the stakeholders in the north-east of England—employers, trade unionists, local authorities, Members of Parliament—accept that there must be a long-term future for our river-related industries and that, perhaps, in the past we have not worked together as we should have. If there is to be a long-term future—and there can be a future in shipbuilding and in the oil and gas defabrication industry—we need to plug the gap in the short term. We look to the Government to help us to work with industry in producing innovative ideas that will ensure that the industry will be retained, so that, when there is an upturn in the shipping industry and the decommissioning work starts, we are in a position to win some of that work, and to provide work for our constituents, who feel rather let down at the moment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. We have about 55 minutes left and five hon. Members, including the Minister, have indicated that they wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will be allowed sufficient time to wind up this important debate. Moreover, one hon. Member arrived a little late today and I hope that he will bear in mind my request when he contributes.
10.35 am
Mr. Doug Henderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on securing this debate on a crucial issue for the Tyneside region. I echo the points that he has made, and also those raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark): Both made an excellent case for shipbuilding on the River Tyne.
My constituency would not traditionally be described as a shipbuilding constituency; one has to go back about 100 years to find ship assembly taking place there. However, it contains many companies that feed into the shipbuilding industry, and many of my constituents work either on the assembly side of the industry, further down river, or for subcontractors in my constituency. Shipbuilding on the River Tyne is therefore a crucial issue for the people of Newcastle upon Tyne, North.
It would be an omission if I did not pay tribute to the workpeople in the existing shipbuilding and oil rig industry on the Tyne. I felt a great sense of warmth when

165WH
several of my hon. Friends joined the unions on Tyneside in a demonstration of their support for the shipbuilding industry. Tribute must be paid to those unions, including my own union, the GMB.
We were told by the previous Government that the future of the British economy was dependent on the service industries. That might have been true for parts of central London, but I can assure you, Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished Minister, but he may not be au fait with the way in which to address the Chair in Westminster Hall. It is either Mr. Deputy Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Henderson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked for guidance on that matter from my colleagues, and I am afraid that I was misguided. Although I was always happy with "Mr. Winterton" in other parts of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker is a most appropriate form of address in this Chamber.
We were told of the importance of the service industries. I know that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who might contribute to this debate on behalf of the Opposition, took a different view on that issue. Others in the Conservative party also disagreed with their Government's view that we could all work in the service industries. That was good, as it strengthens the alliance of those who believe that manufacturing, in its broadest definition, is the key to the success of our economy if we are to be an exporting and trading nation.
The Government believe that manufacturing is a key sector in our economy, and they instinctively believe that shipbuilding should play a crucial role in building and rebuilding the base of our manufacturing economy. However, they need to consider further the advice that they are given. I am not convinced that that advice identifies shipbuilding as a crucial part of the British economy for areas such as Tyneside. I believe that it is an industry with a future. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said that predictions suggest that there will be a growth in the demand for ships to move goods and people around the world in the years ahead.
The issue that we must face as a nation is whether we are to be a shipbuilding nation. The decision will be crucial for Tyneside. If we are to be a shipbuilding nation, what must we do to make sure that we are in game? The answer is simple. First, we must have the capacity and the investment in future technologies, including e-commerce and other major developments. Without that, we are in difficulty. Secondly, we must have a pool of people with the skills, the application and the commitment to the industry.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, the average age of skilled work people in the industry is 49. I do not think that 49 is particularly old, but I am sure that we all recognise that it would be better for the future of the industry if that average could be reduced and more young people learnt the skills of tomorrow to give the industry a future.
That is where the emphasis must lie. The Government must ensure that we have that capacity, if they believe, as we do, that shipbuilding has a future and is crucial for
166WH
the economic prosperity of areas such as Tyneside, and they must take action to ensure that the skills are retained.
I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all hon. Members who wish to speak should have an opportunity to do so and I do not want to take up too much time. The Government may wish to consider two additional points, which have been partly covered. First, there must be close liaison between Departments on Ministry of Defence orders so that the Government's aims are carried out, rather than the aims of one Department. There must be close liaison between the Treasury, the DTI and the MOD on the way in which orders will emerge, the time scale and the investigations that have taken place to ensure that there is a level playing field and that all bidders for the orders operate on the same terms. It is incumbent on the DTI to demonstrate at the end of the process that the playing field was level. I am confident that, if it does, those who bid for the orders in the British sector will be extremely competitive, including bidders from our own river.
Secondly, I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth about the international context. There is often reluctance in international agreements such as the trade association agreements between the European Union and Korea to give manufacturing industry a place in discussions as a priority. I am not saying that discussions should not focus on what is important for Frankfurt or for the City of London, but the trade association agreements must also pay more attention to the implications for important industries such as shipbuilding. They are not dead, burnt-out, old industries: they are new and vital industries which are capable of adopting all the new technologies to deliver what we want.
That is why the terms of the agreement between the South Koreans and the European Union are not acceptable. They need to be reviewed and, when they are renewed, a far tougher line must be taken on the subsidy that the Koreans give sectors of their manufacturing industry compared with the subsidies given in the European Union. If the Koreans are not prepared to enter into agreements on that basis, the International Monetary Fund should not take a relaxed a view as it has done on the support that it gives to countries such as Korea. I am not anti-Korean, but any country that competes with us in a manufacturing sector should compete on the same terms.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear those points in mind, as I suspect that he has sympathy with many of them. He has a difficult task, especially in liaising with other Departments, but I am confident that he will fight hard for our cause on Tyneside and I look forward to his response.
10.44 am
Mr. Jim Cousins: Taking your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be extremely brief.
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). This is an important moment for us, and we should remind ourselves that the

167WH
shipbuilding industry, associated industries and even universities—my constituency is one of the largest centres of education and higher education in maritime industries in the country—all depend on the existence of significant industry on Tyneside. We are not talking about an industry of the past; it has to change, but it will be an important industry in the future. The impact of economic and environmental change means that, in future, ships and all the structures in the sea will have to be of a different order, with different capabilities, and be able to work with different technologies. Maintaining access to the opportunities that arise from that is crucial and provides the real subject matter of the debate.
I wish to make two further points to underline the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. First, the age of the work force is important. Gone are the days when a man with a hammer typified employment in these industries. Secondly, the Government must increase their support for training to higher levels—up to NVQ3—so that young men and women have access to employment opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North drew on his own experience when he spoke about that.
The Ministry of Defence does well—in terms of product and people—from the north-east, which provides one of the great recruiting grounds for the British armed forces, yet the region contains almost no significant MOD employment, either uniformed or civilian. In view of the region's current difficulties, our people will not expect us to put up with that for much longer. They will expect us to put pressure on the Government to ensure that in future the MOD has a significant presence in our region. It cannot be right that so much of our defence industry—now very sophisticated and based on modern electronic technology—is concentrated in the south-east of England. As I said, that will not be acceptable to us in the future.
10.47 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) for my late arrival.
Following the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), I approach the subject with some humility. I represent a prosperous area of the south of England, which has relatively low unemployment. I doubt whether many hon. Members will have heard of the Twickenham shipbuilding industry, but it came as a shock to discover that it now employs more people than some of the great names of the past, such as Swan Hunter. It has become a niche industry and Twickenham has a working boat yard that produces river passenger boats. More important—and reinforcing the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central—a large and growing consultancy is doing much of the research and development, design and software work for the industry. The industry is developing there, but not on Tyneside.
I wish to focus on the major public policy issues. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) raised the key issue of subsidy competition, which is important
168WH
for two reasons. First, it is damaging to industries on the receiving end of unfair competition. Secondly, it is damaging to all Governments, who are reaching into a potentially bottomless pit to sustain their respective industries in a world of overcapacity.
I emphasise the importance of the potential Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development agreement, which brings together not just the European countries, but Japan and now Korea. It is not Korea but the United States that is blocking the OECD agreement. Congressional obstruction is preventing us from reaching an agreement to stop this damaging process. I hope that the British Government will emphasise that in trade negotiations with the United States.
Although Korea has replaced Japan as a major player in the shipbuilding industry, the growing force is China, which is rapidly increasing its role. It has an enormous reservoir of labour, much of which is highly skilled, and an opaque system of Government support. It is crucial that China is quickly brought within the World Trade Organisation so that the WTO's disciplines are applied to its shipbuilding industry. If it is not, another industry will founder on what is often unfair, non-market-based competition.
The right hon. Member for South Shields briefly touched on the economic fundamentals. The appreciating exchange rate—15 per cent. overall since the Government took office and 33 per cent. since the trough in 1966—has caused a loss of competitiveness that swamps any benefit that the industry might gain from the subsidy in the intervention fund, which is 4.5 per cent. for big vessels and 9 per cent, for smaller vessels. The over-valued exchange rate and high base rates put the industry, including manufacturers who are not on the Tyne, such as Harland and Wolff a few years ago, at an enormous disadvantage, as they do to much of our manufacturing industry. That problem will continue until the exchange rate is stable and competitive.
My concluding point is a personal one. Although Twickenham is far removed from the industrial problems of the Tyne, my first venture into public life was as a representative of a ward on Glasgow city council. Most of my constituents worked in the upper Clyde shipbuilding industry before it collapsed. I saw at first hand the effect of a contracting shipbuilding industry on a population of highly skilled mainly male workers, many of whom were middle aged and would never work again.
The lessons of the Clydeside experience—the importance of self-help—should be borne in mind for the Tyne. The Scottish Development Agency did a great deal to turn around the Clydeside economy by encouraging regeneration and pulling together the region's stakeholders. Retraining was crucial. The Government should be generous about retraining. If people might never work again, it pays to invest in trying to get them back to work by providing them with lifetime skills. I urge the Government to be broadminded about intervening in the industry. They should look to the future rathere than the past, and not walk by on the other side.
10.52 am
Mr. Richard Page: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on his luck in getting chosen in the ballot and on choosing this important subject for debate. We should all be grateful to him for raising concerns that are felt on both sides of the House. Although I am now a soft southerner, I was the Member of Parliament for Workington. I am only too well aware of how deep rooted shipbuilding is in the psyche of the north for economic reasons and of the mental well-being of the people who work and live there. We fully recognise the fears of the Tyne's shipyard workers and the problems that affect the whole shipbuilding industry.
Since 1997, the Tyne's order books have collapsed. If reports are correct, employment has decreased from nearly 14,000 to about 800. I say that with some diffidence because we know that there has been a move to temporary working, so it is difficult to pinpoint those figures. Nevertheless, there has been a savage reduction in employment. Having built four fifths of the installations in the North sea, the Tyne has been reduced to pleading for the development of marginal oil fields and the award of an MOD contract for the landing ships to save what is left of that construction capacity.
The bidding results for the two major orders are now eagerly awaited. The first contract is for up to five alternative landing ship logistic vessels worth £350 million. Both the Swan Hunter shipyard at Wallsend and Cammell Laird at Hebburn have made a bid for them. Cammell Laird is also bidding for a £240 million contract to build the six MOD ro-ro vessels. However, hon. Members have been remarkably tactful in referring to controversy about an MOD official's statement that Tyneside, Glasgow and Belfast lacked the expertise to undertake that ro-ro contract. If those remarks were made, they were unwise and prejudicial to the chances of the Tyne yards in the competition with respect to that order. As a wider issue, how will it look when British shipbuilding companies try to bid in the marketplace if MOD officials say that the skills and abilities are lacking? How will it affect Cammell Laird when it bids for orders in the Philippines? It is highly damaging and the Minister should firmly deny that the official had the authority or knowledge to make that comment.
Hon. Members have asked about fairness of competition, particularly from Korea. The Minister will know that Members of Parliament who are concerned about shipbuilding have signed an early-day motion about the fairness of Korean contracts and bids. The figure of 20 per cent. has been mentioned. In 1994 an agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the OECD to eliminate subsidies in world shipbuilding, including the elimination of contract aid in the EU, the lifting of the Jones Act in the United States and, perhaps most important, the acceptance by Korea of an unfair pricing clause. Although that was signed in December 1994, the failure of the US Congress to ratify it so far has meant that it has not come into force. What are the Government doing—including any action that they are taking with the European Commission—to get the agreement ratified and speedily implemented?
Matters have been made worse by the weak euro vis-à-vis the pound. The latter's strength against the euro and the far eastern currencies will make it that much more difficult for our shipbuilding companies to obtain
170WH
orders. This morning, for the first time, the euro's value dipped below 60p. That trend cannot be helpful to our shipbuilding industry.
The fact that we are having this debate—particularly with respect to fabrication—reflects badly on the Government's managerial skills. Their clumsy and ill-thought-out review of taxation on North sea exploration inevitably led to oil extraction companies, which perceived the impact of advance corporation tax and the windfall tax, reviewing their whole programmes. I know from my previous incarnation how marginal some of those programmes were in many respects. The number of orders for fabrication has decreased. Fewer wells have been drilled in the North sea between 1997 and 1998.
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the financial regime for the North sea has been examined to determine whether help can be given to those fabrication yards involved in making floating rigs for use to the west of Shetland. Platforms are not the right technological solution for extracting oil in the deep sea. What is being done to ensure that those oil extraction companies have the confidence to explore around the west of Shetland and Rockall? Licences have been granted to explore the deep water around Rockall and such exploration needs the new technology.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) mentioned decommissioning and the hon. Member for Tynemouth mentioned the loss of fabrication, but the Minister must realise that we will not be able to take advantage of any decommissioning if the ability to fabricate is lost. A huge amount of potentially profitable work could be lost if we do not ensure that our fabrication and shipbuilding capacity is in place.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth rightly mentioned training the young. I am one of the few Members who did not go to university; I did an industrial apprenticeship in mechanical engineering. I would not have swapped that training for all the universities under the sun. Newcastle university has a large engineering department, but without a career path or employment opportunities, the young will not take the first steps to learn about engineering. If skills are not constantly refreshed, we shall have no shipbuilding and fabrication industry.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
Tyneside does not want ministerial day-trippers; it wants positive action from the Government.—[Official Report, 12 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 804.]
He also said:
Tyneside is not using special pleading, but asking for fair play. Shipbuilding is vital to the manufacturing and industrial base of Teesside. If the Government thought that the people of Teesside would sit back and let shipbuilding die, they have made a grave error.—[Official Report, 19 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 331.]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
It is with enormous sorrow that I take part in the debate on Britain's manufacturing base to plead with the Government that they do something to save what is left of the shipbuilding manufacturing base on Teesside. No community deserves better from the Government.—[Official Report, 24 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 533.]
I hope that the Minister will answer those questions; I look to him for a response. Several hon. Members have said, very generously, that they do not expect answers

171WH
today; they have asked him to think about the problems. However, the problems are not new; they have grown during the past few years, so there is no reason why he should not answer the questions today. He should give the people of Tyneside some confidence for the future, not knock the problems into the long grass. The hon. Member for Tynemouth asked several very pertinent questions, but he did so delicately. I appreciate his position, but no such restrictions have been placed on me and I hope that I have added to those questions. On behalf of the workers on Tyneside and those in shipbuilding throughout the country, I ask the Minister for some answers.
11.3 am
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on securing this debate. I am pleased that so many hon. Friends and hon. Members from Teesside are present for what, until the previous speech, has been a fascinating and constructive debate. Debates in Westminster Hall are meant to be less confrontational and it is vital that this issue, more than any other, should not be turned into a Punch and Judy show. I shall respond to the important matters raised by my hon. Friends in the debate, and to the Opposition's petty political point scoring.
The issue is critical to people who live and work on the Tyne. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth referred to two important matters on which I shall respond: the prospects for shipbuilding on the Tyne and the prospects for the Tyne's offshore industry.
I reiterate the comments about the excellence of Tyneside shipyards and their importance to the local economy. As hon. Members have said, the debate is about the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry, although we are referring specifically to the Tyne. I am acutely aware however that all shipyards in the United Kingdom face difficult challenges. There is fierce international competition for orders and global overcapacity of about 30 per cent. The United Kingdom's primary competition is from other European Union countries; I shall refer later to Korea. The contract for Queen Mary II was lost to a French shipyard, which, until the end of the year, has the same subsidy arrangements as are enjoyed throughout the European Union. The challenge is not just from Korea.
It is encouraging that, despite those challenges, the industry has not lost confidence in its future, as was shown recently when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened Cammell Laird's new dry dock and began the process of building a second. My right hon. Friend probably did more for shipbuilding and ship repairing in a week than the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and his hon. Friends combined in their lifetime.
There have been several important developments in the past couple of years. Shipbuilding, ship repair and conversion on Merseyside are reviving. Late last year, Cammell Laird won the contract for the conversion of the Costa Classica cruiser, the biggest cruise conversion ever, which is worth £60 million. Conversion is more labour intensive and therefore creates more jobs than
172WH
shipbuilding. Appledore in Devon recently rescinded 300 redundancy notices after receiving a letter of intent for the second Irish navy fisheries protection vessel.
The United Kingdom remains among the market leaders in Europe, especially for ship conversions. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the fact that the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry has a future, and the key to its future success is its competitive performance. The Government are committed to working closely with the industry to help it to face the challenges and to achieve the improvements necessary to win the contracts that it needs.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who in 1998 set up the first shipbuilding forum, which met around the table in the Department of Trade and Industry. It is remarkable that that had never happened before. We asked the shipbuilding forum, which includes Cammell Laird and A & P Tyne, and representatives of suppliers, customers, trade unions and Government, to tell us what the industry needs. It made 40 recommendations, including a recommendation to enhance Government financial support for the shipbuilding industry.
Much progress has been made. Cammell Laird won the contract on Merseyside because we extended the shipbuilding intervention fund to include conversion, something that the previous Government had never done and without which Cammell Laird would not have won the contract. We have enhanced the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme in direct response to a recommendation from the shipbuilding forum. We have also funded a suggestion from the forum that there should be an industry-led study tour of the Netherlands, where the shipbuilding industry has done things differently over the past 20 years. Shipbuilders there collaborate in order to compete, and their investment in skills and training started many years ago. They have carefully examined how they involve the supply chain, which is more crucial to shipbuilding and ship repair than to any other industry. To give due credit to those in the UK industry, they came back from that study tour with many ideas and with a positive approach to the changes that could be implemented in this country—that is benchmarking at its best.
We continue to work closely with the industry through the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association on competitiveness and productivity issues. As hon. Friends have mentioned, we offer the industry significant financial support. We continue to pay the maximum rate of shipbuilding intervention fund for new ships. We have agreed to allow an element of up to 9 per cent. profit in the fund calculations—the third recommendation from the shipbuilding forum's first meeting in 1998 to have been implemented by the end of 1999.
We have brought the DTI scheme into line with our European competitors' practice in several other ways. If there is evidence of any European Union country winning a contract by bending the rules on the shipbuilding intervention fund, we need to know about it, as the DTI has often said. No evidence has been produced to suggest that that is happening.
We have extended the scope of the fund to conversion contracts. We have extended access to several previously excluded yards. Military yards were excluded from SIF

173WH
assistance, and we have changed that in response to an industry recommendation. We have enhanced the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme by providing support for loans in US dollars and euros in response to an industry recommendation.
We recognise the industry's concerns about unfair trade practices, in particular, in Korea—and we should be clear that such practices exist. At least a couple of yards in Korea would, on any impartial analysis, have been declared bankrupt years ago, but they continue to operate. In response to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, I should mention that we continue to make vigorous efforts to address the industry's concerns. However, we must acknowledge, as the industry does, that Asian shipyards—in particular, those in South Korea—are more competitive than European yards and possess several strengths, such as a highly efficient equipment supplier base. Even without the distortions caused by what are definitely unfair trade practices, European yards would still face a gap in their competitiveness with Asian builders. It is important to say that, because the industry must ensure that it does not fall into the trap of believing that there is only one problem in the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry and that there would be no others if it were resolved. The industry should not delude itself on that issue.
Nevertheless, unfair trade practices are unacceptable and remain a real concern. We continue to strive for a remedy. Thanks to pressure from the Government, the Commission has engaged for the first time in bilateral talks with Korea, with a view to reaching an agreement on the EU industry's concerns. There are positive indications that Korea will accept an agreement, including a consultation mechanism on unfair trade practices.
In the longer term, the only viable solution to anti-competitive practices is to establish effective international trade disciplines, as embodied in the OECD shipbuilding agreement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said. I reiterate that our efforts on that have been frustrated by the failure of the United States—which, for obvious reasons, has a great deal of influence over South Korea—to ratify the 1994 agreement. Nevertheless, we continue to pursue our objectives.
I am determined to work closely with the industry on Tyneside and throughout the UK to help it to equip itself to meet the tough challenges of the market, boost its competitiveness and improve its success. The Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association shares the industry forum's objective of doubling output and building 50 to 60 ships a year within five years. It also aims to improve the annual turnover derived from repair and conversion by at least 30 per cent. Those are realistic targets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said, it has been forecast that more than 2,000 ships will have to be built every year for the next 10 years, excluding tankers and bulk carriers, which are not built in Britain. The industry is taking a positive approach to that market.
We agreed with all other European Union countries—with the support of the industry and the trade unions—to abolish the shipbuilding intervention fund from 31 December 2000. We made that agreement
174WH
on the basis that the SIF has been in existence for 30 years and has had little effect on helping the industry in this country or the rest of Europe.
The SIF provides up to 9 per cent. assistance; by contrast, the gap in the Asian yards is about 20 per cent. It was thought that, rather than carrying on with the SIF, focusing on research and development, building the skills base and improving training would be a step forward for the industry. That has been approved and the EU directive was changed accordingly by a new regulation in 1998. However, only two weeks ago, I met industry representatives who are anxious that the SIF should remain at least until concerns about Asia—and especially South Korea—have been met. Representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions made the same point when I met them last week.
We shall give those issues serious consideration. The rest of Europe has agreed to abolish the SIF, so hon. Members will accept that we should lead the charge or support it. It may be difficult to change tack now and overturn the position on the SIF, as that would require a recommendation from the Commission. More important, we have told the industry that we must have clear examples of how maintaining the SIF will help us, particularly to get contracts in the face of competition from Asia and especially South Korea. We are still listening to arguments about changing tack on SIF.
I turn to the prospects for the offshore industry. If I have time, I shall address individual points raised by hon. Members, but first I must put on record our ideas and concerns about the offshore sector. As with shipbuilding, it is important to acknowledge the high levels of skills and experience on the Tyne available to the offshore sector. There is a strong tradition of providing complex engineered structures for oil and gas fields in the North sea and abroad. About 80 per cent. of the top sides for more than 70 offshore oil and gas fields in the UK sector of the North sea were fabricated in north-east yards.
However, it is clear that the days of large fabrication orders for the UK continental shelf are over. The offshore discoveries available for development now are only a fraction of the size of earlier fields such as Brent, Forties. It is unlikely that there will be many more huge orders like that for the Shearwater platform, which recently left the Tyne. There is widespread recognition in the industry that there is overcapacity and a need to rationalise; yet there are still orders to be won, even if those for the United Kingdom continental shelf are smaller. The majority of orders are likely to be for smaller platforms and facility work associated with sub-sea development or floating systems, but there is no doubt that the Tyne, and indeed the whole of the northeast, has the capability of producing the quality products required.
A point was raised about the commissioning and decommissioning of oil rigs, which the local industry is considering. We are at a competitive disadvantage with countries such as Norway and Holland, which have the heavy lift barges, but, as we have the necessary skills, the idea now is to work in partnership with the Norwegians or the Dutch so that there is work for Tyneside. That important development is being pursued by the Northern Offshore Federation.

175WH
The work of the oil and gas industry task force last year led to improvements to the offshore licensing regime, actions to improve the UK industry's competitiveness and additional relief from capital gains tax. All those actions were designed to stimulate activity on the UK continental shelf. The task force initiatives are being monitored through its successor, known as PILOT. The task force requested that an oil and gas fabrication support group be set up. A meeting took place last month which was attended by more than 40 representatives of fabricators, the unions, enterprise agencies, training organisations and central and local government. A number of the representatives were from the north-east.
The group examined the opportunities for work from the UK contintental shelf and from export markets, particularly for FPSOs. It also considered prospects in other sectors, including decommissioning, offshore wind power generation and shipbuilding. Regrettably, it was clear that the alternative markets will not produce the volume of work necessary to sustain fabrication activity in the UK at anything like the level of previous years, but it identified major areas of work.
We are also working with the leading agencies in each area. One North-east, the regional development agency in the north-east, has already created an action group for the region, which is chaired by Kevin Curran of the GMB. The national fabrication support group will work with the action group to ensure that any options for maximising employment are considered and pursued.
Two more specific points have been raised recently in the north-east. The first concerns offshore licensing procedures. The licences are awarded on the basis of an agreed programme of work to explore thoroughly the petroleum potential of specified areas on the UK continental shelf. The ability to retain the licence beyond specified points depends on a commitment to future work.
The Government are well aware of the importance to the UK economy of continued exploration and development work on the UK continental shelf. That is why officials have written to the managing directors of companies holding licences on the UK continental shelf that have fallow blocks and fallow discoveries in their portfolios, asking them to review their plans for the licences and to report back by Easter. That is another major initiative that addresses the concerns raised in the debate.
The second specific point relates to gas-fired power stations. Suggestions have been made to have a moratorium on power stations. No moratorium is in place, but there is a stricter consents policy for the oil and gas sector. That is a short-term measure to protect energy diversity and security of supply while the electricity market is reformed. We were aware of concerns that a large-scale switch to gas was taking place in a distorted market, with gas-fired plant coming in even though it was more expensive than the coal that it displaced. Hon. Members will be well aware of those issues.
We must level out the market so that it can function effectively, balancing supply and demand in economically sensible ways. To avoid making things
176WH
worse, we have temporarily restricted consents for new power stations until the market is sorted out. I cannot say how long the stricter consents policy will last, as relaxation is tied in to the programme to reform the market, but the Government are determined that it will last no longer than necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth made a number of important points, one of which was about the age profile, which was repeated by others in the debate. I agree that 49 is a young age, but it is older than I thought it was 20 years ago. The industry is addressing the problems, almost for the first time, and recognises a serious skill shortage. Modern apprenticeships have begun only recently and it will be some time before they address that problem, but everywhere I go the people in the industry to whom I talk single it out as a major difficulty.
My hon. Friend also said that the maritime industry was a classic example of the way in which high technology and new technology were married to traditional industries and said that the knowledge-driven economy was as much about manufacturing as about mobile telephones: there is no difference in its effect on industry. He also recognised the problems that were outside the Government's remit.
Perhaps I can quickly answer the points made by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for South-West Hertfordshire about the strong currency. In 1997–98, even before there was any reason to consider the strong pound as a factor in these matters, UK yards won just two contracts of a total of 342 won in the rest of the European Union. The shipbuilders and ship repairers do not constantly refer to the strong pound as a problem, but recognise that there are many things that they must do to be more competitive. For the past 50 years, Germany has prospered with a strong currency. Strong currencies do not lead to failure, they are a symptom of long-term economic improvement, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said on 23rd March 2000 in The Birmingham Post.
The crucial points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and others were about the Ministry of Defence contracts. It does not need me to say this, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is bigger and uglier than I am—certainly big enough and ugly enough to look after himself—has made it clear that nobody from the Government said that we did not have the skills in the UK. Not only do we have the skills, but we have skills, talent and commitment in abundance. Therefore, I am happy to set the record straight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth also made the important point about the DTI working closely with the MOD and other Departments on these issues. We do that exhaustively, not just on shipbuilding but on aerospace, where the DTI needs to feed in industry's views. Smart procurement means that the contracts will be awarded fairly and on a competitive basis, although the ALSL order will definitely go to a UK yard because it involves a warship. As far as I am aware, although it is a matter for the MOD, invitations to tender for the ALSL went out in March and close in mid-May. It is difficult to see how we can bring that time scale forward, but I shall raise the matter with the MOD.

177WH
As regards the SIF and the suggestion that a forum should be set up on Tyneside to bring all the industry players together, that is an interesting idea. I am attending a meeting of the industry forum tomorrow and I shall float that idea—"float" being the operative word—to obtain its view on whether it thinks that that might dilute or detract from the national industry forum.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made a number of important points. I agree that the skills and abilities undoubtedly exist in the UK, and his point about Aker McNulty will be carefully considered.
This has been an important debate. I have not mentioned other enterprises on Tyneside. Youth unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent.; tourism in Newcastle has now taken off, and is among a number of developments happening in the city. Shipbuilding may not be the life blood of the Tyne, but it is certainly still the heart beat, and the Government very much appreciate the need to support the industry.

Mobility Benefits (Northern Ireland)
11.30 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I express my appreciation through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Madam Speaker for having given me the opportunity to initiate this debate. It concerns a subject of great importance to many people in Northern Ireland, namely the recent claims that the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland is subject to widespread abuse. However, I do not believe that the Motability issue can be taken in isolation. It must be examined as part of the wider duties of Members of Parliament who are elected to represent constituents and their interests. They are also elected to vote supply and to protect the public purse, especially from fraud.
Northern Ireland has faced a 30-year terrorist campaign in which economic warfare played a significant part, through the destruction of the business districts of our towns and cities. There has also been the growth of a mentality among those who opposed the Government that they should take as much as they could from the state. This, coupled with the various terrorist groups' protection rackets and other illegal money-raising activities, led to the establishment of a Mafia state in many parts of the Province, despite the best efforts of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. To make matters worse, the black economy has grown as more and more people have sought to defraud the taxpayer by doing the double and claiming benefit to which they are not entitled.
The central service agency has 1,805,812 people registered with it, yet Northern Ireland's population is only a little more than 1,700,000. Who are the extra 100,000 people? Where are they? What is being done to discover the reason for the imbalance and to root out the fraud that doubtless accounts for much of the discrepancy? It is against that wider background that we must examine the circumstances in which the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland finds itself.
The scheme benefits 22,000 people in Northern Ireland who receive disability living allowance. It therefore provides some of the most vulnerable people in society with the means to get about and lead a semblance of a normal life. In early March, Motability wrote to all the people in Northern Ireland who benefit under the scheme to inform them that the future of the scheme in the Province was in doubt due to suspicion of widespread fraud and abuse, including claims that some of its cars have been used as taxis and for drug smuggling. I was told in a letter from Motability that
some people anecdotally refer to our cars as "DSS taxis".
That is the world in which we live and I am trying to find out more about it.
Some of the statistics that I received from Motability are quite staggering. For example, the vehicle accident rate for the scheme in Northern Ireland is more than double that for the rest of the United Kingdom. Settled claims awards in Northern Ireland are almost treble the amount elsewhere in the UK, and 72 per cent. of the scheme's personal injury claims in Northern Ireland involve seven or more people, compared to 28 per cent. in the rest of the UK. As a result, insurance losses alone amount to some £650 per lease, effectively costing disabled people using the scheme in the remainder of the

179WH
United Kingdom some £70 per lease and raising serious questions about the scheme's long-term viability in Northern Ireland.
After I heard from constituents and others in the Province who were concerned about the letter that they had received, I wrote to Motability, to the Department of Social Security and to the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland. The DSS said that it was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Department. On the other hand, Motability is a charity. Does it receive any public money, or is everything that it does done through the disability living allowance? I happen to believe that when a fraud is being perpetrated on our community, even if it is a stand-alone charity that depends on public funds, there must be some accountability to the House. These allegations have caused a great deal of distress to many people throughout Northern Ireland, including my constituents.
On 21 March, after I received a letter that had been delayed in the post, I saw an edition of "Spotlight" on BBC Northern Ireland that raised the issue of a suspected widespread fraud and abuse in the operation of the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland. It made for interesting viewing. It even included footage of a car belonging to a Sinn Fein Member of the now suspended Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr. Alex Maskey, parked outside Castle buildings, Stormont. Anyone who has seen Mr. Maskey will wonder just how he qualifies as disabled. I understand that he had an injury in the past, but certainly there are folk who would love to be disabled if that constitutes disability. His mobility seems to be unimpaired. He does not appear to have any difficulty in getting around. He also refused to answer questions unless he could see them in advance and consult his solicitor.
I accept that there may be problems in the way that the Motability scheme operates in some parts of Northern Ireland. However, I cannot accept that the only course of action is to abandon the whole system and punish the innocent along with the guilty. Surely someone, whether in the insurance world or in Motability itself, could carry out some checks. Why are insurance claims made for cars with annual mileages of over 30,000 that suddenly are burnt? In the normal run, that would be a high mileage for a Motability car. Is it just anecdotal that two Motability cars with five passengers in each managed to bump into each other with resulting claims for whiplash and so on? Such claims should be investigated much more carefully. That is preferable to paying out and then challenging innocent people that, if these things do not stop, the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland will have to be stopped.
I know some of the dodges that have gone on in the past. By now, the people who work in insurance and in Motability and, for that matter, those who administer disability living allowance should also have an idea of what is going on. Such abuse and misuse must be rooted out and reported to the lawful authorities, so that a proper investigation can be carried out and the guilty brought to justice. In Great Britain there have been successful prosecutions of people who have defrauded Motability. Why has this not happened in Northern
180WH
Ireland? I understand from Motability that a major investigation is under way but surely these offences should have been drawn to the attention of the police much earlier. The innocent should have nothing to fear and should not be caused alarm and distress. Let us not forget that these people are some of society's most vulnerable.
have alluded to one of the main problems, which is that no one seems prepared to accept responsibility for the Motability scheme in Northern Ireland except Motability itself. I raised the matter with the Department of Social Security and was told to refer it to the—erstwhile—Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I have no difficulty with the introduction of better controls and eligibility checks to ensure that only those who are genuinely entitled to benefit from the Motability scheme do so. However, I object to the tone and the manner in which the issue has been raised. The suggestion that they be deprived of an asset that enables them to live a reasonably mobile life has created an atmosphere of fear and alarm among many totally innocent people.
I should like to know who has responsibility for rooting out fraud and corruption in the operation of the Motability scheme particularly and in the public sector generally. 1 urge those in charge of the Motability scheme in the Province, and anyone else who has information about or evidence of fraud or abuse, to present it to the police. The bad apples can be then weeded out and dealt with in the courts instead of every person in receipt of Motability benefit being stigmatised by unproven allegations and living in fear of the scheme being withdrawn. I have had anonymous letters from people living in difficult areas who support tightening up but are concerned that they and others will suffer if, as rumour has it, the scheme is withdrawn. Where there is a pattern of abuse, the people who administer the compensation and the insurance should be cautioned to take care rather than pay out the easy way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of cases in the past 30 years of people who had jobs awaiting them who simultaneously obtained social security benefits for their families. We were told that families were not receiving social security benefits when they were, and we were later told that to have admitted it would have endangered the life of some official. Surely such a decision should have been taken at ministerial level, not by an official.
11.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on raising this important issue. His comments show that he agrees that Motability plays an important part in some disabled people's lives and in some instances provides a vital service by giving them greater mobility. He has said that we should be careful to ensure that the scheme remains available to all disabled people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who have a genuine need. Currently 21,700 people benefit from it.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Department for Social Development did not have direct responsibility for Motability, which is a voluntary, nonprofit-making organisations. However, as he asked a question, I should tell him that Motability received for

181WH
1999–2000 a grant of £4.7 million from the Exchequer towards administration costs which included a contribution from the North Ireland Office.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South rightly said, we pay the mobility component of the disability living allowance to Motability at the customer's request. I accept that, because we do so, we have a responsibility to ensure that payments are not fraudulently misused. It is important to put the situation in Northern Ireland into context. It has been alleged that fraud and abuse is higher in Northern Ireland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman referred to a recent television programme and a letter sent to all customers by the director of Motability. However, disability living allowance fraud in Northern Ireland is about 2.4 per cent., which is lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the statistics relative to the size of the population. I wrote to him on that complex matter yesterday, and I do not have time to go into it in detail now. However, I hope that my letter will enlighten him on the source of the discrepancies between the two sets of statistics that he quoted.
It is wrong to portray Northern Ireland as more involved in social security fraud than other parts of the United Kingdom, but having said that, it is important not to take that statement as a sign of complacency. In the past two years, there has been considerable investment in tackling benefit fraud, resulting in savings of about £72 million, which should rightly be spent on vital public services.
In the financial year that has just ended, 341 people were prosecuted for benefit fraud, although not in respect of the benefits that we are discussing. However, it shows how seriously the Government take the issue. The emphasis must be on preventing fraud. As a result of our efforts to reduce DLA fraud in Northern Ireland, the number of rejected claims has increased and the number of applications has fallen. That shows that a message has gone out; people realise that fraud is unacceptable and that, if they make fraudulent applications, they are likely to be caught. There is no other explanation for the fall in applications and the increase in applications rejected.
I want briefly to return to the letter dated March 2000, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, from Mr. Noel Muddiman, the director of Motability, to all customers. The letter threatened to review the scheme's operation in the Province and stated:
If we are unable to drastically reduce the level of fraud and abuse in Northern Ireland…this could include the option of Motability totally closing down the scheme in the Province.
As I said, benefit fraud in Northern Ireland is lower than it is in the United Kingdom, partly as a result of the action taken to detect fraud. Twenty-one cases of suspected fraud were referred to Motability in the year that has just ended. Three of those concerned received written warnings, one person's car was removed completely, one person's lease was not renewed and three cases were unproven. The remainder of the cases are still under investigation. It is clear that action is taken and that the strongest possible action is taken in proven cases as regards the use of the car.
It was unfortunate that Motability singled out Northern Ireland—in particular because our officials
182WH
had advised it that doing so would be inaccurate and misleading. Of course, no circumstances justify fraud, and I would not seek to do so. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Motability customers are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, genuine and deserving cases.
I want to respond directly to the allegations made in the recent television programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In common with all right-thinking people, I deplore any abuse in the Motability scheme. Our officials work closely with Motability, and we are determined that that will continue. Motability is investigating the cases highlighted in the programme, and it will pass its findings to the RUC if it feels that it is appropriate to do so.
I had not intended to refer directly to any of the allegations, and I am sure that you understand that it would be inappropriate for me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some of those matters are under investigation. However, I should slightly correct one point that the hon. Gentleman made about Assembly Member Alex Maskey. As I understand it, there was no suggestion that Alex Maskey was disabled; the programme suggested that he was a nominated driver for a disabled person. I do not say that to undermine any investigation into the use of the car, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment. However, it is important that we get the specific nature of the allegation right. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not seeking maliciously to misinform anyone, but he might inadvertently have done so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Did I understand the Minister to say that Mr. Maskey was the nominated driver for a disabled person? I want to be clear about the arrangement because it is part of the problem. Nominated drivers are using cars for their own purposes, rather than to drive people who have the right to use them.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right—I did use the phrase "nominated driver". I did so to make it absolutely clear that Alex Maskey is a nominated driver for a disabled person. I do not want to go into the complexities of why he was using the car when the programme was filmed, because I do not have the information to hand. That would be inappropriate, given that the issue might be the subject of an investigation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that no one in Northern Ireland is prepared to take responsibility for investigating abuses. I have given him some statistics to demonstrate that that responsibility has been taken on and that it is being taken seriously. The Social Security Agency is not directly responsible, but it works directly with Motability to improve co-operation on the scheme through an arrangement to which I shall refer in a moment. It is important to urge them to continue to work together.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome those assurances. My concern is on two levels. First, did Motability refer any of the issues to the police? No prosecutions were undertaken. I could understand it if people were not found guilty in court, because the case would have to be proved, but I cannot understand why no prosecutions

183WH
have been undertaken. Secondly, I am worried that some folk in the public service are not taking care in carrying out their work. I asked the Minister how many people were on the central service agency's registers and a clever person gave me a list of doctors, for which I had not asked.
Mr. Howarth: On the latter point, that response was a genuine mistake. It was an inaccurate answer to a parliamentary written question. Although officials provided the information, I take responsibility for the answer. I would not blacken the name of officials. My experience of working with civil servants in Departments in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office is positive. I am grateful for the help and support that I receive.
As for the lack of prosecutions, Motability and the Social Security Agency work closely with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The hon. Gentleman will understand that such cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Nevertheless, appropriately drastic action was taken in some of the 21 cases to which I referred. The matter is taken seriously, but getting enough evidence to remove an individual from the scheme requires a level of proof different from that required for a court case. However, I am sure that that option has not been ruled out when appropriate evidence is available, and I would want it to be kept as an option in such cases.
I am mindful of concerns about the operation of the scheme and of my responsibilities. I have established a task force of departmental officials and Motability representatives to consider ways in which co-operation, which is already good, can be improved and the scheme can be made even less open to fraud and abuse. I shall keep a close eye on that work; I hope that that will improve matters. Although that step is necessary, we should not take a disproportionate view of the problem. The hon. Gentleman rightly conceded that the overwhelming majority of people who receive vehicles through Motability are in genuine need. They are proper and deserving cases. It would be wrong to start a campaign against people who are legitimately in receipt of help. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. However, by the same token, it is important that evidence of systematic abuse or abuse by individuals is properly investigated and, if proven, appropriate action taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we take such matters seriously and, where sensible or necessary, act appropriately.

Western Sahara
11.59 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. It comes at a crucial time in the history of Western Sahara. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) cannot be here, because of child care commitments for young children. She has done much to raise in the House of Commons the issue of Western Sahara and the Saharawi people, as did Lord Redesdale before he fell victim to the cull of hereditary peers.
Today's debate is important because of the serious danger of war breaking out again in Western Sahara. Jane's Intelligence Review has discussed current problems there and the danger of war if a referendum is not held in the near future, within the timetable established by the United Nations to bring about a peaceful solution. A heartfelt editorial in Africa Commentary states:
It is obvious that the Saharawis have lost confidence in the UN because of its inability to organise the referendum. But at the same time, the Saharawis are not prepared to accept anything that does not respect their right as an independent people.
What will happen after May 31 is anybody's guess. The feeling is that the UN is abandoning the territory. In his latest report on Western Sahara the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, expressed "doubts about the possibility of achieving a smooth and consensual implementation of the settlement plan".
It is for those reasons that I have been keen to raise the issue today. Hon. Members will be aware that an early-day motion that I tabled last week expressed concern at the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Moroccan forces and for the safety of Saharawi citizens fleeing violent clashes in towns across Western Sahara in March. A case of great concern, also, is the issue of British military export licences for items including CS gas grenades and rubber bullets for Morocco, in contravention of criteria 2 and 4 of the European Union code of conduct on arms exports.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I apologise for my breathlessness. I am not very fit. The hon. Gentleman has touched on something about which I am particularly concerned. He must know that several agencies believe that there is a substantial risk of armed conflict in Western Sahara in the near future, especially if the referendum does not go ahead. Does he think that the Government have contravened criterion 4 of the European code of conduct in selling the arms to Morocco?
Mr. Corbyn: The evidence that has been given to me is that we have—perhaps the Minister will deal with this when he replies—because it could be considered that they are being used for internal repression or to control the situation in Western Sahara ahead of a possible UN referendum.
Mr. George Galloway: There are few occasions on which I would disagree with my hon. and good Friend, but I am genuinely puzzled about this part of his speech. I shall have something to say about the broader issue, if I may be allowed, but Morocco has one of the best human rights records in the Arab world and beyond. That is recognised by Amnesty

185WH
International. Also, it happens to have—though one would detect no hint of it in my hon. Friend's discourse—the only socialist Government in the middle east, as well as a new king, who is trying to use a new broom to solve some of the problems from the past. It is rather strange for a progressive Member of Parliament to mount such an attack on Morocco at this, of all times.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) replies, I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that it is normal for hon. Members who want to participate in a straightforward half-hour Adjournment debate to clear it with the hon. Member who initiated the debate, the occupant of the Chair and the Minister. I am not sure if that convention has been honoured in this case.
Mr. Corbyn: I am surprised and disappointed at my hon. Friend's intervention. My examination of what has happened in Western Sahara and Morocco's behaviour since 1974 is not an attack on Morocco as a state, or a blanket criticism of everything that happens in Morocco. It is specific to the right of the people of Western Sahara to determine their future in accordance with United Nations policy and the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, or MINURSO.
In 1974, Western Sahara ceased to be a colony of Spain—Spain withdrew. In 1975, the then king of Morocco personally led 350,000 people to occupy Western Sahara. The People of Western Sahara did not wish to be occupied; they wished to be independent, and they made that very clear. There followed a brutal war, in which many people died. Eventually, a large number of people from Western Sahara escaped to refugee camps in Algeria; they still live there.
In the 1980s, the United Nations became involved, because it was, quite rightly, concerned about the loss of life. MINURSO was established in 1988, and managed to obtain a ceasefire in 1991. The proposal—then, as now—was that there should be a referendum on the future of Western Sahara. Thus, the Saharawi people would have the right to determine their future.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue of who may vote in the referendum—crucial to the outcome—may not be one of human rights? The possible attempt by people who, clearly, have no right to vote in the referendum to add their names to the roll is crucial in the context of plans to ensure that a referendum can be carried out in a way that is fair to the Saharawi people.
Mr. Corbyn: The question of who votes in the referendum is, obviously, central to the long-term objective and to the result of the referendum. The agreement made through MINURSO was that the 1974 Spanish census should be used as the basis for deciding who would be eligible to vote in a referendum on the future of Western Sahara. Names were put forward, and the Moroccans also put forward the names of large numbers of settlers whom they had moved into Western Sahara.
186WH
For the past nine years, there has been a great deal of dispute about who would be on the electoral roll and, thus, eligible to vote in the referendum. MINURSO has sent people in, registration has taken place, appeals and objections have been heard and dealt with. One gains the impression at every stage, that Morocco has been desperate to prevent the referendum. That is depressing, because holding a referendum in the near future represents the best hope for preventing another armed conflict in Western Sahara.
Morocco should, at least, understand that many people around the world are looking carefully at its behaviour and would challenge the assertion that Western Sahara is an integral part of Morocco. Indeed, I received a letter only yesterday from the Moroccan ambassador making that claim, to which I replied that, as far as I was aware, Western Sahara was not an integral part of Morocco. History will bear me out on that. The area was not an integral part of Morocco before colonialism, and has been an integral part since the end of colonialism in 1974 only because of the military occupation.
I ask the Government to say what role they are prepared to play in promoting a peaceful settlement. The EU Africa summit is taking place in Cairo. I do not know what discussions are going on between Morocco and other states, but I know that the Organisation of African Unity—peculiarly and uniquely—has supported the case for independence of Western Sahara, and has never supported any kind of border change or any independence movement in any other part of Africa, other than those seeking to break away from European colonial powers. It is significant that the Organisation of African Unity has supported the right of the Saharawi people to determine their own independence in a referendum.
James Baker has been appointed to look into the situation, has undertaken some discussions, is due to visit Morocco again in the near future and will be in touch with all parties. However, circumstances are becoming more desperate. Many refugees live in camps in Algeria. The Polisario have toured the world trying to gain diplomatic support for their efforts to bring about a peaceful solution. They have gained considerable support in many European capitals and among legislators in the United States and other parts of the world. They argued that MINURSO must be allowed to bring about a settlement.
Morocco now has a new King and a new Government. Now is the ideal time to turn back from
the policies of 1975—invasion, landmines, massive walls around Western Sahara—and to encourage a UN-supervised settlement to bring about a peaceful solution to the region's problems.
Last year, I was privileged to attend the UN referendum on the future of East Timor. Many lessons can be learnt from that experience. The Indonesians did not want the referendum to take place. There were continual delays and the UN made great efforts to bring about a peaceful solution. Registration was continually delayed, so it was not clear who would be eligible to vote, whether the occupied military forces could vote and so forth. The circumstances are similar, as Portugal withdrew from East Timor at about the same time as Spain withdrew from Western Sahara.

187WH
Kofi Annan played an important role. He recognised that unless the UN took action and insisted that the referendum took place on a particular day, the delays and the killing would continue—a disaster waiting to happen would happen. The referendum did take place and the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly for independence. Partly due to a lack of support and the lack of an effective policing presence on the ground, a humanitarian disaster took place immediately after the referendum. East Timor is now trying to recover through a reconstruction programme but, sadly, nothing can bring back the people who died.
I do not want to see a similar outcome in Western Sahara, but the alternatives are stark. If we continue to delay holding a referendum and allowing the people of Western Sahara to decide their own future, what will happen? No entreaties from the leadership will stop the people being fed up with living in refugee camps in Algeria; with living on food parcels from western agencies, welcome though they are; or with having to bring up their children in refugee camps. Their pressure may lead back to war.
I hope that the British Government and Morocco fully understand the dangers. What are the alternatives: to continue to delay and prevaricate, spending huge resources on the military occupation of Western Sahara; to continue to be criticised heavily throughout the world for what goes on specifically in Western Sahara; or to come to the table and bring about a peaceful solution? I hope that the British Government will ensure that MINURSO has sufficient resources to carry out its duties and that a date is set for the referendum, which should be before 31 July this year, even though it is one of the hottest periods of the year; and ensure that it actually takes place.
It is essential to learn the lessons of the referendum in East Timor to ensure that registration is accurate. I believe that it is—or at least, after enough years of discussion, debate, challenge and counter-challenge about the names, there is reason to believe that it is. We must see to it that there are sufficient staff on the ground to ensure that the campaign and the voting are fair and open and, crucially, that there is sufficient international policing to ensure that whatever the result, it is accepted and respected by all sides and that there are no militia activities of the tragic kind seen in East Timor last September and October. I make no apology for raising this issue, which I have raised many times since being elected to the House in 1983. I raised it for the first time at about three o'clock in the morning some time in 1984; the Chamber was not packed at the time any more than this Chamber is today.
I believe that we have an opportunity to bring about a peaceful settlement to the situation facing the last colony in Africa. The possibility exists for the United Nations to establish itself firmly as a facilitator of a peaceful transition for the people of Western Sahara as they decide their own future. I hope that the Moroccan Government will recognise that if they continue their delaying tactics, they will not do themselves much good in the court of public opinion around the world because doing so will lead to greater isolation. The best way forward is to allow the UN to settle the problem. I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond
188WH
satisfactorily to the concerns that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and I and many others have about the supply of arms to Morocco. I hope above all that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me and others—most importantly, others—that sufficient police and resources will be available to ensure that the referendum takes place in the time frame that has been suggested, and with sufficient security to allow a fair voting system for all and, above all, respect for the result of the referendum. The alternative, tragically, will be that many more people will lose their lives, many more arms will be exported and there will be no peace.
12.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for securing the debate. I know of his great interest in these matters, and he spoke with enormous passion. I am glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and for Southampton Test (Dr. Whitehead) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) here for the debate. It is fairly unusual to see my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on different sides of the Chamber, but I suppose it shows the intense rivalry that exists among various groups and the strong passions that the issue arouses.
The war in Western Sahara has been called the forgotten war. With this debate we are doing our bit to ensure that the issue is kept on the international and domestic agendas. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North raised a number of points about this long-standing dispute. I shall come back to some of them at the completion of my speech.
I shall begin by explaining the Government's policy on Western Sahara. Even by African and middle eastern standards, Western Sahara is one of the more intractable problems. Time does not allow me to dwell too long on its history. I have not been exposed to all shades of opinion in the region, nor have many hon. Members, so it is worth looking at some of the background.
When Spain withdrew from Western Sahara in the mid-1970s, there followed a bitter and protracted conflict between the two main claimants to the Western Sahara, Morocco and the Polisario Front. The conflict drew in other countries in the region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said. Suspicions became entrenched and the economic potential of the whole region was put in the deep freeze.
The conflict in Western Sahara benefited no one citizen and no one country in north Africa. It merely held back its people's aspirations for a more stable and prosperous future. After 15 years of conflict in Western Sahara, the United Nations took on the role of making peace and finding a just and durable solution. We should recognise the contribution that the UN has made to the peace process in the region. The UN remains the one organisation with an unchallengeable reputation for objectivity in this difficult dispute. The British Government do not take sides in the Western Sahara dispute. We have consistently supported the UN mission in Western Sahara. We have provided civilian administrators, peacekeeping contingents and substantial funds to underpin them.

189WH
We continue to believe that a just solution to the problem depends on the people of Western Sahara having the right to express their will at the ballot box. We also believe that a durable solution requires all parties to be constructive, flexible and committed to peaceful means. Any violence from whatever quarter harms the search for peace, and those who provoke violence only weaken their own cause.
I share my hon. Friend's desire to see a just solution for the Saharawi people, including those in the refugee camps in Algeria. At the same time, a solution must be workable and durable. It cannot ignore the regional political environment. We share the widespread international concern that, after 10 years, a UN-sponsored referendum to resolve this problem is still a long way off. To make clear what Britain stands for, I can do no better than quote the UN Secretary-General. He said that the implementation of the UN plan
has been impeded by fundamental differences between the parties over the interpretation of its main provisions. Of these, the issue of the establishment of the electorate has been, and may remain. a core problem which could eventually prevent the holding of a referendum as provided by the plan. The … two parties seem to share the belief that the composition of the electoral body will predetermine the outcome of the referendum. At different times. therefore, one or the other party has withheld cooperation from the identification procedures, in the belief that they may eventually skew the composition of the electorate.
Neither we nor the UN believe that Morocco alone has undermined the settlement plan. The Secretary-General made that clear in a report on 17 February, and the UN, which is active on the ground, is better placed to assess those issues than part-time observers sitting in western capitals.
Despite the various obstacles that both sides have at times put in the way of a solution, the UN has remained impartial throughout. We continue to have every confidence in the UN staff. British officials regularly visit their offices in the region and admire the work that is being done there in very difficult circumstances. There are those who complain that the UN mission in Western Sahara and the Secretary-General's statements are partisan. Those people usually want the UN to be partisan in their favour.
A number of commentators on Western Sahara, including some in the House, have questioned the UN's handling of voter registration for the proposed referendum. We believe that the registration criteria for the referendum are a matter for the UN. To date, the UN has investigated 198,469 applications to vote in the referendum. It found that 86,386 were eligible. A substantial proportion of those who were rejected have appealed, as they are entitled to do under the settlement plan. The UN has now begun the task of investigating the legitimacy of these appeals, as it must if we are to ensure that the process is free and fair.
My hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations criteria for appeals, and I do not want a long, legalistic debate on the matter. The UN is best placed to decide what is allowed within the letter and spirit of the plan.
At its latest extension of the United Nations mandate in Western Sahara, the Security Council called on James Baker, the Secretary-General's personal envoy, to engage the parties to find a way through the problem. We expect him to visit the region soon. We urge all sides to listen to what he has to say and to respond positively to him.
190WH
It has been suggested that the United Kingdom has been selling arms to Morocco, which enables it to suppress human rights and to assert a territorial claim, thus breaching the European Union code of conduct. I assure hon. Members that we examine all export licences for Morocco carefully and adhere to the EU code of conduct. Yes, we have approved exports of some riot control equipment; hon. Members will know that the quadripartite commission on arms exports is currently examining some of the licences. I also assure hon. Members that we have no evidence that the Moroccan police have used such equipment to suppress human rights and/or to assert a territorial claim. It is an on-going process; we monitored recent incidents in Laayoune and Smara and found no evidence that such crowd control equipment was used. No non-governmental or other organisations have produced verifiable evidence to support such claims.
I want to say a few words about recent reports of incidents in Western Sahara. There was an incident in Laayoune, Western Sahara last September, when protesting students were joined by a group of local workers with separate grievances. Regrettably, local police response was heavy handed and we clearly registered our concern at the time. The Moroccan king responded swiftly to news of the incident by setting up a royal commission on Western Sahara. That was a decisive, mature and laudable response; the Interior Minister responsible was removed shortly afterwards.
The initial press reporting of the incident was partisan and designed to raise tension in the region. For example, it alleged that there were several deaths, but no evidence supporting that claim was provided. There were also incidents in Laayoune and Smara in March. One incident began when youths stoned UN vehicles and the Moroccan police intervened to protect UN staff. British officials were in the area soon afterwards and spoke to several contacts on the ground. Their assessment was that press reporting of the incidents had exaggerated the true picture.
Mr. Corbyn: Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I deplore the incidents that took place and hope that peace will continue to be maintained in the region. When does my hon. Friend expect that it will be possible to hold a referendum on the future of Morocco? When does he expect James Baker to report to the Secretary-General?
Mr. Vaz: We fully support James Baker's mission and ask others to do so too. We shall have more information when he is in the country; he shares the British Government's view that there should be a referendum as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned Morocco's record on human rights, which has improved dramatically recently, as has the professionalism of its police. Morocco's record on both counts is probably the best in Africa and the middle east. My hon. Friend should not just take my word for it but listen to what Amnesty International and other NGOs say on the subject. Yes, some problems remain, but the Moroccans are openly tackling them. We must give credit where it is due. We should also take seriously allegations of human rights abuses by the Polisario Front.

191WH
I conclude by restating the key elements of our policy: we remain committed to a just and durable solution to the problem, which is acceptable to the Saharawi people. We do not take sides; we will not support one side's claim over the other. We will continue to back the UN Secretary-General in his efforts to find a way around the current impasse in the UN settlement plan. We have assured him that James Baker has our full support on his visit. We urge all sides to respond positively to Mr. Baker's mission.

Education (Developing World)
12.30 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am pleased to have a chance to raise the issue of education in the developing world. The debate comes at an appropriate time, as those who have followed The Guardian campaign over the past couple of days will know. It also comes on the second day of an action week that has been organised by the Global Campaign for Education. That is a joint initiative, which involves Oxfam, ActionAid, Save the Children and the National Union of Teachers. Activities will be staged in 76 countries to raise awareness about the scale of the education crisis which is developing.
I acknowledge the hard work that is being done and the campaign research that is being carried out. Oxfam, in particular, has done a lot of work to bring the most recent concerns to light. I thank its representatives in my constituency, who have regularly attended my surgery to raise this and other issues.
It is perhaps grossly inappropriate to talk about bringing the issue to light, because the concept of achieving universal primary education is not new. Ten years ago, at the Jomtien world conference, 155 countries pledged to ensure that all the world's children would have access to basic education by 2000. It is now 2000, and it is clear that those countries have been unable to keep that pledge. The current figures suggest that 125 million primary school age children across the world are not in school; that is double Britain's entire population. Those children are denied their right to education, which is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It is unacceptable that, 50 years after that declaration was established, many of the world's children are missing out on basic education.
At the end of the month, there will be an opportunity to pay more than lip service to solving the problem. In a little more than three weeks' time, a United Nations conference on primary education will take place in Dakar. It will, I hope, deliver a strategy to meet the new target of achieving universal primary education by 2015. It also represents an opportunity for the Government to take an important leadership role, and I welcome the Prime Minister's article in The Guardian this morning, which set out clearly some of his personal objectives on the issue. Achieving those will, however, involve mobilising the resources of the international community and promoting the will among Governments to provide primary education for all their children.
The Government are well known in this country for their catchphrase "Education, education, education". The Prime Minister and the Government now have a good opportunity to take that message on to the world stage.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the wars and civil wars that are raging all over the world, and in Africa in particular, are one of the factors that militate against children receiving primary education? I am thinking of southern Sudan, where the most recent wave of the war has already lasted for 12 years and where children have received hardly any education. We often hear about education being carried on in the refugee camps, but does my hon. Friend not

193WH
think that the Government should pay more attention to the education of children at a time of war? Otherwise, whole generations will go without any education.
Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, a lot of evidence links military conflict to the lack of education. Let us hope that increased access to education will lead to a decrease in conflicts as individuals consider ways other than conflict to deal with their difficulties.
Achieving primary education for all by 2015 is one of the United Nation's major goals for the 21st century. Other organisations and agencies are also committed to that. I was at the United Nations in New York last November and also met representatives from the World bank. I was taken by their commitment to use their resources to tackle education issues. However, the problems are enormously difficult ones for Governments throughout the world to tackle.
In much of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, classes are taught in dilapidated buildings without roofs, toilets or access to clean water. Millions of children are taught in classrooms that do not even have basic equipment such as a blackboard or chalk. The fact that children miss out on education lies at the heart of the poverty cycle, frustrating economic growth and human development. Getting education right is the key to tackling the serious problems gripping the developing world, including poverty, HIV/AIDS and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, civil conflicts.
It is significant that girls make up two thirds of the 125 million children currently not in school. The international community has set a target date of 2005 to close the gender gap. That will involve more than simply throwing money at the developing world. Increasing the number of school places will not, on is own, close the gender gap, because important demand-side factors need to be individually addressed. For example, girls in many parts of the developing world are required to work at a young age to help to support their families. Oxfam quote a 1994 study of rural families in northern Ghana, which discovered that girls were often the sole breadwinners in the family.
The role of women in many developing countries is still narrowly defined in terms of marriage and child rearing. Families often view girls as a short-term investment that provides no return, because they marry and move away and someone else benefits from it. Consequently, very little value is placed on girls receiving an education.
Such cultural barriers cannot be removed through primary education programmes alone. However, they must be challenged if the benefits of education are to have a knock-on effect on the other problems in the developing world. In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, where 86 per cent. of women are literate, female life expectancy is 73. That is in stark contrast to Uttar Pradesh, where less than 25 per cent. of women can read and female life expectancy stands at 45. The generational impact of educating girls suggests that they marry later, have fewer children, provide better care and nutrition for their families and seek medical attention more promptly. There are real gains to be made by closing the gender gap.
194WH
Where are the examples of this happening in practice? Last week, I met Bill Katenga Kaunda, the secretary general of the United Democratic Front in Malawi, a very charismatic individual. He told me how, when his country became democratic and he took control in the ruling party, its priority was "education, education, education". It has put that into practice by abolishing user fees for primary education, which has had an enormous impact. That has also happened in Uganda, where the development budget should more than double from $60 million in 1997 to $125 million by 2002. That is an inspiring example of what can be achieved when political will is combined with aid and debt relief. Meanwhile, in Sri Lanka, the introduction of flexible school hours to allow girls to do their household tasks before going to school has increased attendance. Dealing with such practical issues can lead to success.
Universal primary education cannot be achieved only by addressing the individual circumstances of each developing country. In Pakistan, for example, the Government spend 27 per cent. of their budget on defence and only 4 per cent. on education. That suggests that the problem there is less a matter of finance than of the national Government's political will. In contrast, Tanzania spends six times more on debt repayment than on education, which shows that debt relief and extra resources would make an impact in helping education in that country.
How much money is needed to achieve education for all, and who would provide it? UNICEF estimates that it would cost about £4.5 billion a year over 10 years to achieve universal primary education. It was reported—rather amusingly, I thought—in the national press yesterday that this figure represents less than Americans spend in a year on cosmetics. The total amount is equivalent to four days' global military spending. Oxfam proposes that half the money should be raised by national Governments and the other half by the international community.
For developing-country Governments, that would involve increased resource mobilisation, the redistribution of wasteful public spending and the reallocation of money in education budgets towards basic education. Meanwhile, the international community would be able to provide more money through a combination of debt relief, increased aid, contributions from private capital and the reallocation of aid from higher to lower levels of education.
Many charities and organisations have been working hard to address the education crisis. I was impressed on a recent visit to the BBC World Service to see the valuable projects that its trust carries out in countries such as Tanzania, Somalia and Zambia on issues such as leprosy, smoking and sexual health. Those are welcome initiatives.
The article in the national press this morning by the Prime Minister was encouraging. I know that Oxfam and other organisations have launched campaigns saying that the Prime Minister himself should go to the conference. I recognise that he has pressing issues to deal with, both domestic and international, and that it is wrong to put pressure on him to go, but it is encouraging that in today's article he says that he wants to prevent Dakar from becoming another international talking shop, and we welcome the commitment that he will raise this issue at the G8 summit later this year. Can the

195WH
Minister give us more information about the issues that the Secretary of State for International Development will raise at the Dakar conference, now that it has been confirmed that she will attend on behalf of the British Government?
The Prime Minister's article sends a positive message that the Government understand the key issues involved and want to achieve universal primary education and eliminate the gender disparity. However, it is still not clear whether they will use that position to play an international leadership role in this matter, and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort on that. If they do not, in a debate in 10 years' time we shall look back on the Dakar conference in the same way as we are looking back at the Jomtien conference of 10 years ago. That is not acceptable, and I hope that the Minister will give us more encouragement to build on the good news in the Prime Minister's article this morning.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for the knowledge and concern expressed in his speech. Having listened carefully to everything that he said, I shall try to respond to all his points and answer his questions.
I also want to congratulate the all-party group on overseas development and the non-governmental organisations that support it on the excellent meeting on "Education for All" which was held in the House of Commons last Thursday, when we were privileged to have President Museveni from Uganda as the main speaker. He made clear his country's commitment to achieving universal primary education by 2003. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated at that meeting the Government's determination to provide strong support to developing-country Governments who are fully committed to providing effective primary education for all. I shall expand on that later.
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the spotlight that Oxfam's global action plan for education and the excellent "Read the World" campaign in The Guardian have shone on raising our awareness of the plight of about 130 million children who should be and are not receiving education. Education opportunity for all, especially at the primary level, is not just a fundamental human right but a precondition for progress in development and the reduction of poverty. To deny children education puts a massive block on their country's development prospects.
The development case for investing in primary education is, as the hon. Gentleman said, unanswerable. Education helps people to become more productive and to earn more and leads to improvements in health, nutrition and child mortality. People are enabled to transform their own lives and their own society, and acquire the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, as well as the capacity to use that knowledge and information.
As the hon. Gentleman said, those benefits are even more pronounced in the case of girls. Research into girls' education shows that women with as little as four years of education are more likely to have smaller,
196WH
healthier families, to work their way out of poverty and to send their children to school. World bank research suggests that the education of girls is the single most valuable development intervention that a country can make, but we must overcome ingrained attitudes in some countries towards the education of girls and the perception that it is a waste of resources.
The hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) will remember the expression used by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in our debate last Thursday. He said that, on its visit to the sub-continent, the Select Committee on International Development heard the expression
educating a girl is like watering another man's garden.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 133WH.]
We must overcome that attitude if we are to achieve our aim. I thought that last Thursday's discussion was extremely valuable. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Winchester has had an opportunity to read the debate in Hansard, but I commend it to him.
All the evidence about the development benefits of investing in primary schooling should help us to forge greater political will behind the goal of universal primary education. That is one of the key targets in our White Paper; it is a goal that is increasingly accepted. The political will is building up, but greater effort must be put into it.
The Government believe that four things need to be done if we are to make gender equality and universal primary education a reality and to achieve the UPE target by 2015.
First, we need a sustained commitment from the Governments of the developing countries to universal primary education.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in looking at the balance of developing countries' budgets, we must address the issue of resourcing for education and the need to increase the resources that developing countries commit to primary and basic education. The hon. Gentleman gave a particular example. The developed countries can also play a vital role. Through the Department for International Development budget, the British Government have current commitments to education of about £800 million, a substantial amount, of which 77 per cent. is for basic and primary education. Two thirds of those resources are concentrated in 11 of the poorest countries of sub-Sahara Africa and south Asia.
Thirdly, we must move away from the project-based approach of schools with Union Jacks on them—the gift of the British people—to a sector-wide approach, giving the country resources that enable it to provide all the basic primary education that it needs. We must co-ordinate the work of the different development donors around a focused, agreed strategy drawn up by the Government of the country concerned. They know the country's needs; they can best assess them and draw up a plan. We must drive forward with a new, more collaborative agenda for education and development co-operation generally, which means all the relevant donors working together with developing countries in a much more joined-up way.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Uganda provides an excellent example. In collaboration with key partner agencies and the Government of Uganda, the DFID has

197WH
played a key role in establishing this sector-wide approach to education, resulting, in 1998, in its largest ever commitment to a programme in Africa—£67 million towards the education sector support programmes. That will provide flexible budget support to the Government for five years. That is spelled out in more detail in a country study in the briefing document produced by the Department. If hon. Members have not already seen it, I hope that they will take the opportunity to look at it.
The fourth thing that we must do if we are to achieve universal primary education by 2015 is to link education policy with the country's wider development strategy, including policies on health, sanitation, livelihoods and rural transport. Members of the Select Committee know the importance of that. Countries cannot and will not secure universal primary education if they focus simply on education. They must deal with the other aspects.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Dakar forum. He is to be congratulated on initiating this debate in the run-up to the forum, which is to be held on 26 to 28 April. Governments, development agencies and non-governmental organisations from the north and south will have an opportunity to re-commit themselves to education for all and to achieving the target of universal primary education by 2015 and the gender equality target in primary and secondary education by 2005. As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will lead the British delegation. Hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know of the strength with which she can deploy these arguments. With gender equality being an important issue, it is good that a female Secretary of State is leading our delegation.
We are working closely with the forum convenors to ensure that the process leading up to Dakar and the conference itself focus on a set of key objectives—specific actions that will extend educational opportunity for the millions of children to whom the hon. Gentleman and I have referred. In preparing for the forum, the DFID has drafted a paper entitled "Education for All: The Challenge of Universal Primary Education", which will be published on Friday. I shall send a copy to the hon. Members who are here today, and it will be available to other hon. Members who would like it. We plan to consult widely on the document, and I hope that those hon. Members who are here and others will let us have their views.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the Government believe the Dakar forum should pay particular attention to. We think that it should analyse why some countries, particularly some of the poorest, have managed to achieve considerably more than others since the 1990 world conference in Jomtien. We have set seven priorities for Dakar.
First, there must be collective reaffirmation of the "Education for All" goals, allied to focused strategies for their achievement, and particularly the attainment of the international development targets.
Secondly, it must be reaffirmed and stated in Dakar that developing country Governments must give priority to basic education. As the hon. Gentleman said, in some cases that will involve changing their spending priorities.
198WH
Thirdly, Dakar must send a clear signal that the international community will back the developing countries' reforms. The new framework for action should make it clear that funding agencies will allocate significant additional resources to primary and basic education, provided that the developing-country Government are committed to that objective and have put in place appropriate policies. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, some of those additional resources can and should be made available by debt cancellation, in which Britain is again taking the lead. No Government seriously committed to universal primary education should be thwarted in achieving that ambition by a lack of resources. It would be terrible if countries could not achieve it because they did not have the necessary money, so we in the west must make a commitment to making that money available.
Fourthly, Dakar should focus on gender equality. We must move beyond the language of awareness to the language of action, as we heard last Thursday.
Fifthly, sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia should be accorded international priority.
Sixthly, we need better monitoring of progress towards the goals and targets. That requires investment in developing national capacity for monitoring, allied to efficient international monitoring systems. We must be able to see that we are making progress. We heard on Thursday about phantom schools, so monitoring is vital.
Seventhly, Dakar should seriously consider whether the existing inter-agency "Education for All" structure will be adequate for its future purpose.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's article in today's edition of The Guardian. That article illustrates my right hon. Friend's commitment to the issue. Of course, it will not be possible for every Prime Minister to attend, and I understand that other European Heads of Government will not be attending. It is right that the key Ministers should attend, and our Secretary of State has the Prime Minister's full backing. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the Okinawa summit, he will himself be involved in the follow-up to Dakar, and he has already made it clear that we must make the best possible use of new information and communication technologies in education. He wants Britain to take the lead in ensuring that those technologies are used to bring the world together, not to widen existing divisions, and that they are used to deliver real practical improvements in education in the developing world. ICT-based distance learning can be cheaper, better and more accessible than traditional teaching methods, and the internet provides new ways to share information and knowledge and to pool experiences. Wireless technology, which I have seen in operation, can be used in areas with limited—or no—telecommunications infrastructure. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked DFIID to put together a project team including people from the private sector and the development NGOs to take the work forward. Already, we have had significant support from Cisco Systems, and that is an important element in our overall strategy.
Universal primary education is the fundamental building-block of our support for education in developing countries, but primary education cannot

199WH
stand alone in an education system. We need a balanced view of the whole education sector, including the provision of adult literacy and lifelong learning. In many developing countries, it is not unusual to find that less than five per cent. of the work force has some form of secondary schooling. Such a lack of skills is clearly a drag on the development of the economy, as well as on the individual's earning capacity, but the answer is not that donors should invest large sums in the construction of secondary schools, providing expensive bricks and mortar, but no recurrent funding to pay for teachers and books. We have been down that road before. Along with relevant Governments, we need to look at different ways to provide education at that level that are more efficient and less costly. Distance learning, which uses new technologies to extend access to secondary education and skills training, is one possibility. For many years, we have supported the commonwealth of learning, which provides training, institutional networking and expertise in distance course development for Commonwealth countries. Information technology provides major new opportunities to increase access to such courses.
Trade and investment can have a much greater impact on development than aid, as the Select Committee pointed out. Developing countries must create the conditions to attract investment; that is the only way to achieve the growth necessary to reduce poverty by their own actions. A skilled labour force will facilitate such
200WH
investment. Too many poor countries suffer from a desperate shortage of skills and of unemployed graduates. Those skills cannot be provided without some kind of policy framework or institutional base, which is why we have committed £25 million over the next two years to a new skills for development initiative. The initiative will facilitate the stimulation of the entrepreneurial skills required by the poorest countries to allow their economies to grow.
I return to the principal subject of our debate—the provision of basic, primary education for all. Although the internet and new technology are hugely significant potential tools for spreading educational opportunities, many people may never learn to read, and millions of children may not have the opportunity to go to school unless we take more effective action. The hon. Gentleman said that, if we look back over the past 10 years, we do not see a huge improvement. Over the next 10 years, there must be a real improvement. In 2000, we have a great opportunity to do that; the start of the new millennium is the moment to turn all the fine words uttered at United Nations conferences and in the Chamber into action, into real deeds. The Government are strongly committed to bringing the benefits of educational opportunity to those millions of children—especially, to the girls—and to helping the spread of skills and knowledge, so that all countries can accelerate their development, reduce poverty and give everyone the chance to realise their potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Ministers responsible for regulatory reform; and if she will make a statement. [117920]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Ministers for Regulatory Reform in the key regulatory Departments are:HM Treasury—Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo MP)
  Department of Trade and Industry—Minister of State (Patricia Hewitt MP)
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Whitty)
  Department of Health—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Hunt)
  Home Office—Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mike O'Brien MP)
  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—Minister of State (the right hon. Joyce Quin MP)
  Department for Education and Employment—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Margaret Hodge MP).

  Ministers for Regulatory Reform in other regulatory Departments are:
  Department for Culture, Media and Sport—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Janet Anderson MP)
  Department for Social Security—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Hugh Bayley MP)
  Ministry of Defence—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Dr. Lewis Moonie MP)
  Lord Chancellor's Department—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Jane Kennedy MP).

  The Ministers were appointed to drive forward the better regulation agenda throughout Government. They are charged with:
  removing any regulations which are outdated or burdensome, and;
  ensuring that any necessary new regulations are introduced at the least cost to business.

  On 30 March the Prime Minister and I met Regulatory Reform Ministers at Downing Street to discuss progress.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in her Department for each financial year since 1992. [117469]
  386W
  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts,Official Report, columns 392-93W.

  Knowledge Network Computer System
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) who will have access to the full Knowledge Network Computer system; [117033]

  (2) what information held on the Knowledge Network Computer system will not be placed on the internet; [117034]

  (3) if information relating to opposition parties will be held on the Knowledge Network Computer System. [117097]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Access to the full Knowledge Network will be restricted to Ministers and civil servants (including Special Advisers).

  On the question of availability of information from the Knowledge Network, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 23 March 2000, Official Report, column 691W and to the letter sent on 24 March from the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service to the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, a copy of which I am placing in the Library of both Houses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Footballers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 42W, if it is the Government's policy to (a) support or (b) oppose the exemptions from EU employment law which are being sought by UEFA in its negotiations with the European Commission. [117625]

  Ms Hodge
  No specific proposals have yet emerged from the EC. The Government expect that all member states would have the opportunity to discuss any possible changes to EU employment law. Consultation with national sporting bodies and other interested parties would be an important element of this.

  Disability Equipment and Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has made to the Audit Commission's report, "Fully Equipped", on the provision of disability equipment and services. [117367]

  Ms Hodge
  I welcome the contribution to improving services for disabled people of the Audit Commission's report "Fully Equipped", which was addressed to the Department of Health.

  The hon. Gentleman may wish to refer to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 29 March 2000, Official Report, column 336, regarding the Government's intentions following publication of this report.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117421]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitley (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has made of the relative attractiveness and cost of study at United Kingdom higher education institutions compared with those in(a) developed anglophone countries and (b) other members of the European Union, for overseas students (i) in receipt of and (ii) without bursaries from public funds. [117363]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government commissioned the British Council last year, as part of the initiative to bring more international students to the UK, to research the relative attractiveness and the actual and perceived costs of studying in the UK compared with other developed anglophone countries. No distinction was made between students with or without bursaries. The summary of this research, the Brand Report, is available on the EducationUK website at www.educationuk.org. We have made no similar studies on other European Union member countries.

  Young Children (Hearing Loss)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the current responsibilities of his Department towards supporting the language and educational development of children under two years of age with a recognised hearing loss. [117364]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is for local education authorities to make educational provision for children of statutory school age, and those over the age of two with a statement of special educational needs, including those with a hearing-impairment. Where appropriate, local education authorities may also make special educational provision for children under two years of age.

  Teachers of the Deaf
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many teachers enrolled on mandatory courses leading to a qualification as a teacher of the deaf in each of the last five years; [117365]

  (2) how many teachers undertook a mandatory course to train as a teacher of the deaf on a self-funding basis in each of the past five years. [117366]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect this information.

  School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of extending free school meals to(a) all
  388W
  families in receipt of working families tax credit and (b) families in receipt of working families tax credit with less than half the average family income; [117142]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of extending free school meals to families where a parent is in receipt of the disabled person's tax credit. [117143]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Department does not collect information on the cost of providing free school meals. We estimate that the annual cost in England of extending free school meals to children in full-time education (a) whose families are in receipt of working families tax credit would be over £400 million; (b) whose families are in receipt of working families tax credit with less than half the average family income would be slightly lower than £400 million; and (c) from families where a parent is in receipt of disabled person's tax credit could be in the region of £0.5 million.

  We have no current plans to extend eligibility for free school meals (which would require primary legislation), but we are working closely with Group on ways of increasing take-up by entitled pupils.

  Standard Assessment Testing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will use the number of pupils eligible for free school meals as a criterion for determining in which group a school is placed for the purpose of evaluating SATs results. [117229]

  Jacqui Smith
  My officials already use eligibility for free school meals as a criterion in the presentation of the Autumn Package of pupil performance information to schools.

  The Autumn Package, in conjunction with the Performance and Assessment (PANDA) Report for schools produced by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), allows schools to compare their Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 SAT results with other schools with similar eligibility for free school meals.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) England and (b) each local education authority in Hampshire the number of additional free early years education places that would be required to meet the Government's target of free places being available for 66 per cent. of three-year-olds by 2002. [115965]

  Ms Hodge

  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: We shall have created 190,000 new free early years education places for three-year-olds by March 2002, at a cost of £390 million over three years. This will meet the national target of providing 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds in England with a free place.

  The following table shows the estimated number of new places required in the local education authorities in the county of Hampshire to take the number of free places available in their areas to the level of the national target.
  389W
  The criteria for distributing places have not yet been decided for 2001–02. The distribution will take account of factors such as social need. As a result, individual authorities may have higher or lower proportions of free places than the national average.

  Number

  Hampshire

  9,174

  Southampton

  1,080

  Portsmouth

  828

PRIME MINISTER

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to information derived from interception of communications of United Kingdom citizens where that has been undertaken by foreign powers, and where Her Majesty's Government's policy would not have allowed such an interception to have been initiated by any of the security and intelligence agencies. [116902]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The Interception of Communications Acts make clear that the interception of communications on a public telecommunications network in the United Kingdom may not lawfully be carried out without a warrant signed by a Secretary of State. These arrangements will be enhanced by the provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, now in Standing Committee.

  It would be unacceptable for our Security and Intelligence Agencies to ask foreign agencies to undertake on their behalf interception which our agencies could not lawfully carry out themselves. They do not do this.

  Paternity Leave
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his policy on paternity leave; and if he will make a statement. [117292]

  The Prime Minister
  The Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 give both employed parents of a child born or placed for adoption after 15 December 1999 a minimum entitlement of 13 weeks unpaid parental leave during the first five years of parenthood. These regulations implement the Parental Leave Directive and reflect the Government's wish to help the parents of young children strike a better balance between their work and family commitments. The Government encourage employers to improve on these minimum requirements where this accords with the needs of employees and is compatible with the efficient running of the business.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to publish the agenda of the Council of Ministers and make a statement to the House in advance of Council summit meetings. [116722]
  390W
  The Prime Minister
  We give the House each month a forecast of EU business in the months ahead, including details of the agenda of Council of Ministers meetings when available. We will maintain established procedures for briefing Parliament before and after European Councils.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the comments concerning the future of BNFL posted on the Speakers' Corner section of the Downing street interactive website. [116998]

  The Prime Minister
  The comments have been noted.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter of 13 March from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells regarding the Deputy Prime Minister. [117789]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has passed the hon. Member's letter to the office of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for reply. My right hon. Friend has asked for advice from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will reply to the hon. Member when he has received that advice.

  European Council (Lisbon)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the personnel who attended the European Council in Lisbon on 23 to 24 March, indicating their functions in each case. [117115]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The composition of the United Kingdom Delegation was as follows:

  Myself

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  The Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs

  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Vaz).

  In addition to HM Ambassador to Lisbon and the UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, the delegation comprised five No. 10 officials and one Special Adviser, six Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, five HM Treasury officials and a single official from each of the Cabinet Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security. An official from the Northern Ireland Office also travelled with the delegation for my bilateral meeting in the margins of the Council with the Taioseach. A further British official attended the European Council in his capacity as President of the Economic Policy Committee.

  Staff from the British Embassy. in Lisbon and UKREP Brussels provided further support to the Delegation. I, and my colleagues, were supported by the usual number of administrative, security and secure telecommunications staff associated with a visit abroad by the Prime Minister or a senior Cabinet Minister. This is in line with the practice adopted by previous Administrations.
  391W
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister using what mode of travel, and when,(a) he, (b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (c) the Foreign Secretary returned to the UK from the European Council in Lisbon on 24 and 25 March. [117141]

  The Prime Minister

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I returned to the UK by air on Friday 24 March 2000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer returned to the UK by air on Thursday 23 March. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs accompanied his French counterpart on a French aircraft for a meeting in Paris on Friday 24 March and returned to London by air that evening.

  All travel was undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics that have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [116202]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department's new website www.culture.gov.uk was launched on 28 February.

  It is designed to meet customer requirements—allowing new and regular visitors to discover more about the cultural assets of this country and the role of the Department within Government. It is a portal site which guides the browser through an array of governmental, public body and other cultural and sporting sites. The Department's news releases, publications, consultation papers and extensive contact information are all available on the site.

  The site cost £80,000 to redevelop. This included costs for:

  tendering the work;

  site redesign and development;

  the introduction of a text only version of the site to help users with visual disabilities;

  the introduction of a search engine; and

  the incorporation of a previously separate lottery site which allows browsers to have access to information about every lottery award made since the introduction of the National Lottery.

  The cost of the site redevelopment was met from the Department's 1999–2000 publicity budget—which was within budget for the year.

  The operation of the site was within the budgeted £40,000.
  392W
  The new site averages 34,000 hits per day, or just under 1,000 visitors per day.

  Expenditure in future years to maintain the site is as given above. There are no current plans for further redevelopment of the site.

  Information on the costs of non-departmental public body sites could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Cultural Distinctions
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to provide support for regional cultural distinctions. [116162]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is the policy of my Department to encourage greater devolution of responsibility and support to the regions. I therefore fully support, for example, the policy of the Arts Council for England to bring decisions on funding closer to those most affected by them by devolving many responsibilities to the regional arts boards. Furthermore, the Regional Cultural Consortiums have been given the task of producing regional cultural strategies which will set out how they can best support and promote each region's distinct cultural identity.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117420]

  Janet Anderson
  1 refer the hon. Member to the written answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, listing the Ministers for Regulatory Reform in the key regulatory departments.

  My Department is working with a wide range of other Government Departments to identify ways of easing regulatory burdens on industries and bodies which DCMS sponsors. My Department is also actively examining many of the regulations for which it is responsible. In particular, the independent Television Commission is currently conducting an audit of all its regulatory requirements with the aim of regulating with a lighter touch.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in his Department for each financial year since 1992. [117476]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government Art Collection (GAC), part of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, acquires and displays works of art by British artists in major Government buildings in the UK and around the world. In so doing it plays a significant role in promoting British art and culture across diverse and international environments.

  The cost of purchases, transport/installation and the conservation and framing of works of art in the Collection

  393W
  are met from the GAC's Annual Programme Vote. Within this overall figure, the amounts spent on each of these elements varies from year to year:

  £

  Year

  Upkeep (Conservation and Framing)

  Purchase

  1992–93

  148,204

  137,843

  1993–94

  141,022

  122,542

  1994–95

  142,200

  127,155

  1995–96

  158,177

  82,471

  996–97

  123,285

  122,826

  1997–98

  104,100

  137,000

  1998–99

  108,300

  126,600

  1999–2000

  87,350

  184,672

  The GAC operates across Government, lending its works of art for display in a variety of Departments. Within any given year the number and disposition of its works of art within any given Department varies according to circumstances. It is therefore not possible to break down the figures for upkeep and purchase of works of art in the Collection in relation to the individual Departments in which they are displayed.

HEALTH

  Unused Drugs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the quantity and value of unused drugs returned to pharmacists for disposal for each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [116365]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the quantity and value of unused medicines is not collected centrally. It is important both that patients take the medicines they need, and that they are not prescribed more medicines than they need, since this wastes money which could otherwise be used to benefit other patients. We have put in place a number of initiatives to reduce the quantity of unused medicines, such as making regular review of patients' medication by general practitioners a condition for payment of the Sustained Quality Allowance and funding pilot schemes where pharmacists manage repeat prescriptions, including checking that patients are taking the medicines that they have been prescribed and actually need further supplies. We will consider extending this initiative if the results of the pilots show that this reduces waste.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was collected from prescription charges in the last year for which figures are available. [116876]

  Ms Stuart
  In 1998–99 prescription charge revenue in England, including fees from the sale of pre-payment certificates, was £341 million.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the income received from prescription charges by constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [116878]
  394W
  Ms Stuart
  Information about charge revenue is not collected in England in the form requested.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the administrative cost of changing prescription charges by 10 pence. [116877]

  Ms Stuart
  These costs are not identified separately within the administrative costs of the Department and National Health Service bodies in England.

  Pharmacy Strategy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the preparation of the pharmacy strategy; and if he will make a statement. [116696]

  Ms Stuart
  We are considering how pharmacists can best contribute to our agenda for the modernisation of primary care, in the light of the National Priorities Guidance for the National Health Service we published last December and the key challenges set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on NHS modernisation on 22 March 2000,Official Report, columns 982–83W.

  Antidepressant Drugs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost in the last year for which figures are available to the National Health Service of the prescribing of drugs to combat depression. [116977]

  Ms Stuart
  The net ingredient of prescription items dispensed in the community for antidepressant drugs in England in 1998 was £279 million. Information on antidepressant drugs dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  The data are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed in England and exclude prescriptions written in England but dispensed outside England.

  The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Antidepressant drugs are contained in the British National Formulary section 4.3—antidepressant drugs.

  The data do not include dispensing in hospital or private prescriptions.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical negligence cases and (b) clinical negligence cases related to radiotherapy treatment, have been settled out of court in the past two years by each health authority; what has been the cost to health authorities of settling (i) clinical negligence cases and (ii) clinical negligence cases related to radiotherapy treatment, out of court over the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [117269]

  Ms Stuart
  Historically, data on numbers of claims have not been collected centrally.
  395W
  The total costs for all clinical negligence claims for the last available two years are:

  1996–97: £235 million

  1997–98: £144 million.

  Figures for 1998–99 are not yet available. It should also be noted that, due to changes to accounting practice required by the National Audit Office, these figures are not directly comparable.

  It is not possible to say what proportion of clinical negligence claims are settled out of court, or which relate to radiotherapy treatment.

  Meningitis Vaccinations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the cost to the NHS of providing a nationwide meningitis vaccination programme and (b) the total number of people for whom such a programme would be clinically appropriate; and if he will make a statement. [116681]

  Yvette Cooper

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Meningococcal infection can affect anyone of any age. However, the greatest number of cases and deaths occur in the under 18s and hence the prioritisation within this age band. By the end of the year the new meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine will have been offered to all under 18s. The cost of the programme will include vaccine purchase, distribution and local implementation through schools and primary care. We will not know the full costs until the programme is completed later in the year.

  National ME Centre
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many beds are currently available at the National ME Centre; [117515]

  (2) how many people are currently waiting for a bed at the National ME Centre; and for what periods of time they have been waiting. [117516]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The National Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Centre and Centre for Fatigue syndromes is not a National Health Service organisation but a registered charity which is based at the Disablement Services Centre at Harold Wood Hospital.

DEFENCE

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Defence Agency status of Military Survey and the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. [117834]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 10 May 1999 I announced that the Military Survey and Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) Defence Agencies were to be merged into a single combined Agency,Official Report, columns 19-20W. The Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency (DGIA) will be launched today.
  396W
  DGIA will be based at four main UK sites: Feltham in West London, Brampton near Huntingdon, Tolworth in Surrey and Hermitage near Newbury. The Headquarters will be Feltham alongside its largest business unit, the Defence Geographic Centre. DGIA will have some 1,700 staff; over half will be civilians and all three Services will be represented.

  The Agency will act as the Department's centre of excellence for the production of imagery intelligence and geographic information in support of current military operations, defence planning, general intelligence requirements and wider Government interests.

  The Agency has the following Key Targets for the year 2000–01.

  Key Target 1
  To satisfy operational requirements for imagery intelligence and geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the Agency and its customers as follows:

  (a) For imagery intelligence, providing at least 95 per cent. of requirements overall, while delivering not less than 98 per cent. of Priority 1 tasks.

  (b) For geographic support, providing 100 per cent. of geographic products and services essential to support current operations, both from the Agency's UK based capabilities and its deployable units.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve the required level of operational readiness in line with Defence Planning Assumptions, while continuing to meet those deployable element outputs required under Key Target I.

  Key Target 3
  To satisfy strategic and contingency requirements for imagery intelligence and geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the Agency and its customers as follows:

  (a) For imagery intelligence providing at least 85 per cent. of requirements overall, while delivering not less than 92 per cent. of Priority I tasks.

  (b) For geographic support, completing at least 90 per cent of a customer endorsed programme of work for geographic products and services.

  Key Target 4
  To demonstrate a 1 per cent. improvement in the coverage of geographic information holdings and to maintain their quality for Defence use in comparison with the baseline established in 1999.

  Key Target 5
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  Copies of the DGIA Framework Document and the Agency's first Corporate Plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Reservists
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if reservists will continue to be called out to support military operations in the Balkans and the region of Iraq. [117835]

  Mr. Spellar
  A new call-out order has been made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 which allows the call out of members of the reserve forces to continue so that they may support operations in Yugoslavia and in the region of Iraq. The call-out order has effect until 31 March 2001. Since NATO operations commenced in the former Yugoslavia, the reserve forces have historically
  397W
  provided some 10 per cent. of the total UK manpower in theatre. As in previous years, only volunteers for these duties will be called out.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117413]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Radiation (Chatham Dockyard)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will provide the information promised in his answer to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford of 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 205W, concerning the number of former Chatham Dockyard workers who have received compensation under the no-fault scheme. [117664]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Israel (Training Exercises)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans has he to send British forces to Israel for joint training exercises. [117562]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: There are no such plans at present.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings have been held with Israeli Government officials and his Department in the United Kingdom in the last year. [117563]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: During the past year there have been numerous meetings between MOD and Israeli officials in the UK and a wide range of issues were discussed. Similar meetings and contacts will continue this year.

  AGM-154C Joint Stand-off Weapon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact which a US decision to outfit its AGM-154C Joint Stand-off Weapon with BAe Systems' Bomb Royal Ordnance Augmented Charge would have on the UK defence industry; and if he will make a statement. [116937]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although no decision has yet been made by the US authorities, the selection of BROACH as the preferred warhead for its Navy's Joint Stand-Off Weapon would be an important success for the UK defence industry. If successful, there would be new jobs created in both the UK and the US.

  DERA
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which overseas countries the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has offices; and what are their functions. [117080]
  398W
  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 4 April 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about overseas offices of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  DERA has offices in Brussels and Moscow. The Brussels offices was established to develop DERA's commercial business and status in mainland Europe. This includes support to the European Commission and NATO. The Moscow office was set up as part of the DERA Programme for Partnership in Technology (PPT). The programme establishes and develops contacts between DERA scientists and those in the Russian Federation working in related fields. In some cases this has led to joint research projects being set up to the benefit of both partners. More information about both these offices may be found on the DERA website (www.dera.gov.uk/dera) under "Who we are" and then "Organisation".
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Israeli Ballistic Missile System
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had in the last year with his Israeli counterpart on ballistic missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [117559]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Neither the Secretary of State nor officials have held discussions with the Israelis on ballistic missile defence within the last year.

  Craigiehall
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the area is of office space in the Craigiehall building to be occupied by Command HQ civilian and service personnel; and if the trade unions have been given this information; [116054]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the risk assessment relating to the Craigiehall building to be used for Army 2 Division Headquarters under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992; [116045]

  (3) how many personnel and what volume of office equipment can be safely accommodated in the Craigiehall building; [116052]

  (4) how many (a) civilian and (b) service personnel are planned to occupy the Craigiehall building following the transfer there of Army 2 Division Headquarters; and if this information has been disclosed to the relevant trade unions; [116037]

  (5) if he will estimate the numbers of (a) civilian and (b) service personnel planned to occupy Craigiehall; [116051]

  (6) what investigation has been carried out in the Craigiehall building, which is to house the Army Headquarters 2 Division, to establish the extent of the use of asbestos in its fabric and whether it is safely inert; what alterations to the interior of the Craigiehall building are planned that could disturb existing asbestos installation; at what cost; and what are the health and safety implications for his Department's personnel being accommodated there; [116036]
  399W
  (7) what load-bearing tests have been carried out in the Craigiehall building to establish whether it can safely accommodate the personnel and equipment needed in the reorganised Army Headquarters 2 Division; when and by whom the tests were conducted; what the findings of the tests were; and whether the report of the tests was disclosed to the trade unions; [116039]

  (8) what representations he has received concerning the proposed accommodation to be provided for Army 2 Division HQ at Craigiehall; [116053]

  (9) what is the total office space in the Craigiehall building to be occupied by Army Command HQ civilian and service personnel; and when the trade unions were given this information. [116038]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the move of the Headquarters 2 Division from York to Edinburgh, a total of up to some 262 staff posts are planned to be accommodated within Annandale Block, which is the Headquarters 2 Division HQ Building, Craigiehall. Of this total, some 204 are civilian and 58 military. Some 35 of the total number work for organisations other than Headquarters 2 Division. All these staff can be safely accommodated within the building.

  The gross floor office space of the building, excluding corridors, is approximately 4,000 sq m, some 3,475 sq m of which will be utilised by Headquarters 2 Division staff. It is not possible to provide a meaningful figure of the maximum number of personnel and amount of office equipment that could be safely accommodated within the building, as the occupation of each room would be dependent on individual circumstances. Planning for reorganisation of accommodation within the building has been undertaken with due regard to The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations and the Approved Code of Practice 1992, Regulation 10 (Room Dimension and Space).

  The presence of asbestos as an insulator behind convected heating panels and in ceiling tiles of the building was identified in December 1997. Although it was judged to be safely inert, it was nevertheless recorded as a potential hazard and brought to the attention of all staff. In line with the requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, Regulation 3 (Risk Assessment), a reassessment was carried out on Annandale Block in early 1999, and the judgment was that it remains safely inert.

  In addition, a Legionellosis Risk Assessment relating to the building was carried out in February this year. The assessment made a number of minor recommendations to comply with statutory obligations, and implementation of these recommendations is now in hand.

  Currently, alterations relating to the reconfiguration of the reprographic room in Annandale Block are being carried out at an estimated cost of £3,400. Safe systems of work have been applied and all necessary precautions have been taken in accordance with the control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) 1992. No further work is currently planned for the building.

  An intrusive structural survey has been carried out in March this year by Posford Duvivier Scotland Ltd., Edinburgh on behalf of the Estate Adviser Scotland and
  400W
  this confirmed that the structural integrity of the building and, in particular, the steelwork remained sound. The survey made a number of recommendations about the positioning of heavy objects such as filing cabinets on the upper floors with which the Headquarters is complying.

  The health and safety of personnel accommodated within the building, and indeed throughout the HQ 2 Division, Craigiehall remains a high priority. This will remain the case.

  No formal representations have been made concerning accommodation at Craigiehall. Prior to the move of the Headquarters 2 Division from York to Edinburgh, a formal consultation document associated with the restructuring, which included cost data, was given to the national and local trade unions in October 1998. Local trade unions have been kept informed of office moves within the headquarters of HQ Scotland, Craigiehall, including internal moves within Annandale Block, on an informal basis.

  National Missile Defence System
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence of agreeing to the use of facilities in the United Kingdom as part of the proposed national missile defence system. [116748]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have not received a request from the US regarding the use of facilities in the UK as part of the proposed US National Missile Defence system, nor would we expect any until after a US decision on whether or not to proceed with deployment of such a system. We would consider such a request carefully, taking account of any implications for UK defence.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates on which he has met representatives of the US Administration in connection with United States plans for their national missile defence system. [116862]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed the issue with representatives of the US Administration on a number of occasions, including during recent talks with US Defense Secretary Cohen and others in Washington between 24 and 27 January 2000, and with US Deputy Defense Secretary Harare in London on 21 March 2000.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what requests he has had from the US Government for the use of facilities in the United Kingdom as part of their proposed national missile defence system; [116747]

  (2) if the US Government have requested the upgrading of facilities at (a) Fylingdales, (b) Menwith and (c) other sites in the United Kingdom as part of proposals for their national missile defence system. [116749]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 209W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117425]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am the Minister responsible for regulatory reform in the Lord Chancellor's Department. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Walter Monckton Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Public Record Office held discussions with Oxford University with regard to the opening of the papers of Walter Monckton at the Bodleian Library on 1 March. [117072]

  Mr. Lock
  The Public Record Office held no discussions with Oxford University with regard to the opening of these papers. One inquiry has been received from Oxford University about the extent to which papers relating to the abdication of Edward VIII held by the PRO were open to the public.

  Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for appointing members of an appeals tribunal for the hearing of applications on the granting of an incapacity benefit. [117095]

  Mr. Lock
  Vacancies are advertised in the national press and professional journals. Appointment is on the basis of interview and of consultation with the relevant professional community. The Lord Chancellor appoints the candidates who best demonstrate that they meet the appropriate published criteria.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost of legal aid for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in each of the last three years. [117048]

  Mr. Lock
  An estimate is not possible as the Legal Services Commission does not separately identify applications made for legal aid by asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. However, the amount paid out for Legal Advice and Assistance in respect of all Immigration and Nationality matters, over the last three years, was as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  48.8

  1997–98

  35.2

  1996–97

  26.1

SCOTLAND

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117417]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am the Minister with responsibility for regulatory reform within the Scotland Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas and Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the financial difficulties caused to public utility ETM customers when extra emergency credit is given to them without advanced notification; and what is being done to safeguard their interests in the future. [114627]

  Mrs. Liddell

  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: At the end of 1999 the Office of Gas and Electricity Management (Ofgem) asked energy suppliers to increase temporarily the amount of emergency credit (where this was available) to people using electronic token prepayment meters, so as to ensure that vulnerable customers would be protected from loss of gas or electricity supplies over the long Christmas/Millennium holiday period. For example, the amount of emergency credit available on Centrica (British Gas) after prepaid supplies had been used up was increased from £2 to £10. Ofgem decided that it would be unwise to publicise this measure—which would in some cases effectively increase consumers' level of debt because they would consume extra energy which would need to be repaid—and so the advance publicity before the holiday period merely encouraged customers to ensure that they had sufficient prepaid credit to get through the holiday, and advised them of the availability of charging points over the period.

  In the event, a relatively small number of customers used a significant amount of emergency credit, such that some of the money they spent after the holiday to recharge payment cards was taken up in repaying this emergency credit rather than providing new supply. This may have come as a surprise to some customers—although the information displays on the meters would have warned them of the increased emergency credit level; and they were not obliged to use it.

  The need to ensure continuing energy supplies to vulnerable consumers over the long Christmas 1999/ Millennium holiday period was very much a "one-off" problem, and the extension of emergency credit was designed to resolve any potential difficulties arising from it. The level of emergency credit has now reverted to the pre-holiday norm. Ofgem will ensure that if such a measure should be needed again, there will be a more proactive campaign of informing customers of the change.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in his review of the law and practice relating to insolvency. [116705]

  Dr. Howells
  A consultation document setting out proposals to reform the law relating to personal insolvency will be published shortly. A report on the work of the joint DTI/Treasury Review of Company Rescue Mechanisms will be submitted to Ministers in April and there will be a further consultation on the subject as soon as possible after that.

  Ice Cream
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with ice cream manufacturers, other than Birds Eye Walls, concerning the decision of his Department not to implement the Competition Commission's recommendations against direct distribution; and for what reasons he rejected this recommendation. [116829]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 28 January that it was a drastic step to prevent a company from distributing its own products and he was not convinced that the Commission's remedy was necessary. He has not had discussions with any ice cream manufacturers concerning this decision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the recommendations of the Competition Commission in relation to the Birds Eye Walls ice cream inquiry, which he(a) has rejected and (b) will only partially implement, indicating the reason in each case. [116755]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted undertakings from Birds Eye Walls in line with the interim measures recommended by the Competition Commission. No other final decisions have been taken with regard to the remedies recommended by the Competition Commission.

  My right hon. Friend will announce his decisions as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2000,Official Report, column 720W, what information he has sought from the European Commission in respect of the prospective publication date of the report of the Commission's Euratom Safety team visit to Dounreay in March 1999. [116972]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The report of the Commission's verification visit in March last year to Caithness (Dounreay) is a matter for the Scottish Executive which has the lead for envionmental matters in Scotland. I understand from the Scottish Executive that finalisation of this report might be expected within the next three months.

  Atomic Energy Constabulary
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions the United 404W
  Kingdom Atomic Energy Constabulary has conducted investigations into alleged criminal malpractice in each year since 1990. [116999]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UKAEA Constabulary is responsible for the policing of the nuclear licensed sites operated by BNFL, UKAEA and Urenco, including the protection on site and in transport of nuclear material. They therefore are responsible for investigating all the normal range of criminal offences on those sites, e.g. theft (the vast majority) and car crime. The figures are published in the UKAEA Constabulary's Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The total figures for 1999–2000 (to date), which are not yet published, are 206 offences of which some 155 are theft.

  Mixed Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to assess the merits of the report, Fundamental Deficiencies in the Quality Control of Mixed-Oxide Fuel, released by Green Peace International on 27 March. [116987]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not received a copy of the report. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has independently investigated and reported on the MOX fuel quality assurance data falsification issue on 18 February. A copy of this detailed report is available in the Library of the House. The Government consider that BNFL should respond to HSE's recommendations constructively, fully and by the 18 April deadline set by HSE.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will meet a delegation from the Socialist Environment Resources Association to discuss the future of British Nuclear Fuels. [117000]

  Mrs. Liddell
  If I receive a request from the Socialist Environment and Resources Association for a meeting I will give it due consideration.

  Car Pricing
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) e-mails, (b) letters and (c) other responses he has received on the issue of car pricing from members of the (i) public, (ii) consumer groups and (iii) industry since September 1999. [117713]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a large number of representations on the issue of car pricing, primarily from members of the public, but also from car manufacturers, car dealers and consumer groups.

  Retail Measures
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to issue a statement informing retailers of the legal requirements regarding the sale of goods in imperial and metric measures; and if he will make a statement. [117660]

  Dr. Howells
  Under legislation made in 1994, goods sold loose by weight—mainly fresh foods—have been required to be priced and weighed in grams and kilograms from I January 2000.
  405W
  The Government have publicised this in a number of ways:

  (i) holding roadshows for local authority trading standards officers and providing stocks of DTI leaflets for use in the local authority education programme for retailers

  (ii) a publicity campaign in the summer of 1999 consisting of the issue of free leaflets for traders and consumers and wall charts showing weight comparisons

  (iii) the placing of advertisements in the trade press in the period just before Christmas 1999 aimed largely at small retailers

  In total over 275,000 "selling metric" retailer leaflets (including over 6,000 in languages other than English), over 860,000 "shopping metric" consumer leaflets (including 30,000 in languages other than English) and over 140,000 wallcharts have been issued. In addition information is available in Braille and audio form.

  Company Accounting
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he plans to take in the light of the recent consultations on the statutory audit requirements for smaller companies and other simplifications of small company accounting requirements. [117867]

  Mr. Byers
  The consultation on the statutory audit showed wide support for a significant increase in the threshold below which companies were not required to have a full statutory audit of their accounts.

  I intend to raise the audit exemption threshold to the maximum level allowed under EU law—£4.8 million turnover. This will be achieved in two stages.

  I shall lay an Order before both Houses as soon as possible which would raise the threshold to £1 million this year. This will bring the benefits to the majority of small companies as soon as possible. It has the potential of relieving up to 150,000 small companies from the burden of the statutory audit. We estimate the potential savings as up to £180 million a year.

  I intend at a later date to lay a further Order to raise the threshold to £4.8 million, in the light of the conclusions of the independent Company Law Review on small companies. The Review group is considering whether, for companies in the range of £ 1 million to £4.8 million turnover, the audit should be replaced by a lighter, less costly form of assurance. I shall take their final recommendations into account before proposing what, if any, statutory requirement should replace the full audit for companies in that size range.

  In addition, I have decided to simplify and reform the law on dormant companies, following a separate consultation. These proposals will relieve the regulatory burdens placed upon dormant companies. The key changes are to:

  remove the requirement for dormant companies to have to pass a special resolution not to appoint auditors;

  require dormant companies which act as agents for other companies to disclose that fact in their annual accounts;

  disregard the payment of certain statutory fees for the purposes of claiming dormancy.

  I have also decided that the current thresholds in the Companies Act which define small and medium companies for accounting purposes should be changed to the maxima allowed under EU law. However, this change
  406W
  will be made as part of the implementation of wide-ranging proposals on small companies which we expect to emerge from the Company Law Review.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent to promote British trade and investment in Sri Lanka annually since 1997. [117645]

  Mr. Caborn
  British Trade International (since 1999—previously the Department of Trade and Industry) has given financial support to British companies going on trade missions to Sri Lanka, as follows:

  Number of:

  Year

  Missions

  Companies participating

  Expenditure (£)

  1997

  5

  109

  70,200

  1998

  2

  42

  27,600

  1999

  4

  84

  54,000

  Other expenditure to encourage trade and investment in Sri Lanka is part of our regional programme for the markets of Southern Asia. The following indicates expenditure on promoting Sri Lanka as part of that programme:

  £

  year

  Expenditure on Southern Asia

  Of which expenditure on Sri Lanka

  1997–98

  214,916

  29,660

  1998–99

  177,086

  50,413

  1999–2000

  160,639

  39,017

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will review the stricter consents policy on the construction of gas-fired power stations. [117227]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As the Government made clear in their October 1998 Energy Sources White Paper, the stricter consents policy is a temporary measure to protect diversity and security of supply while distortions in the electricity market are removed. The Director General of Electricity Supply is keeping my Department informed of progress in addressing the competition issues and the Government expect that the policy will be relaxed as soon as they conclude, on the basis of that advice, that the reform programme is under way and the distortions removed.

  Oil Fabrication (Scotland)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet the work force of the Barmac oil fabrication yards in the north of Scotland. [101437]

  Mrs. Liddell

  [holding answer 6 December 19991: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so at this time.
  407W
  I, however, have met with interested constituency MPs and trade union representatives since the announcement of job losses by Barmac.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117419]

  Mr. Ingram
  During suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, I am responsible for regulatory reform.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many applicants were identified as being suitable for appointment as Chairman of the Appointments Commission; when the appointment will be made; and if she will make a statement. [116125]

  Mrs. Beckett
  A short list of applicants to be interviewed for the position of Chairman of the independent and non-statutory Appointments Commission has now been drawn up.

  The plan is still that the appointment should be made around Easter although the priority will be to get the best person for the job.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Grimsby (Employment)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State for Europe's letter of 21 March on the threat to employment in Grimsby, if he will list the industries and firms in which the threatened workers are employed, and how many such jobs will be lost. [116832]

  Mr. Vaz
  Britain in Europe's research was based on a national estimate of British jobs dependent on servicing EU export markets. The figures were broken down by constituency based on share of national employment within that constituency and its industrial breakdown. This methodology makes it impossible to predict precisely which jobs would be lost.

  Britain in Europe
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost of his circulating hon. Members with material from Britain in Europe about the effect of withdrawal from the EU on jobs. [116728]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is standard parliamentary practice for Members of Parliament to circulate information in the House. There was no cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  EU Withdrawal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he took to assess the reliability of the study by Professor lain Begg on jobs dependent on United Kingdom membership of the European Union, details of which he circulated to hon. Members. [116976]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Institute of South Bank University is a highly respected academic institution. Professor Begg is a respected and well-known economist who has published widely on European economic issues. His methodology is described in the report, which is publicly available.

  US National Missile Defence System
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations his Department has had over the implications of the American proposals for a national missile defence system with the Governments of(a) Denmark, (b) Canada, (c) other EU member states, (d) Russia, (e) China and (f) other countries. [116727]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have discussed issues relating to the United States' proposals for National Missile Defence with a range of countries, including all those individually mentioned, in the course of regular consultations on security-related issues.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for Britain of agreeing to the use of facilities in the United Kingdom as part of the US national missile defence system. [116726]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have received no request to this effect, nor would we expect any until after a US decision on whether or not to proceed with deployment of such a system. If the US were to ask for our assistance we would examine any such request carefully, taking account of the implications for the UK.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had, and when, with representatives of the US Government about American plans for a national missile defence system. [116724]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have discussed, and continue to discuss many aspects of National Missile Defence with the United States across a range of Government Departments, on many occasions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the issue with Mrs. Albright when he visited Washington in February.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for(a) arms control and (b) the forthcoming conference on review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of the proposed US national missile defence system. [116725]

  Mr. Vaz
  The US made clear that the President will not decide on NMD deployment before the summer at the earliest, and that there is a range of complex issues, including the need to preserve strategic stability, that they need to consider beforehand.
  409W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Ministers in his Department have held with members and officials of the United States Government to discuss the proposed US plan to deploy a national missile defence system since 1 January 1999; when each meeting took place; where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved at each meeting; which members and officials of the United States Government attended each meeting; and from which United States Government Department they were drawn. [117061]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-west (Dr. Starkey) today,Official Report, column 408W, in response to her question, ref. 116724.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117423]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Ministerial Visit (Brazil)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was to diplomatic posts in Brazil of the recent visit by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions. [117768]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led a delegation of 13 business men representing a wide range of industry and sectors campaigning to increase the UK's market share in Brazil.

  The cost to our Diplomatic Posts in Brazil was £10,746. This figure includes accommodation costs, official reception, and the travel costs of the Ambassador and Embassy staff supporting the Deputy Prime Minister and the accompanying business delegation.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what modes of transport were used by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions during his recent visit to Brazil. [117770]

  Mr. Battle
  Commercial flights were used to travel to and from Brazil and between Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia and Sao Paulo; and cars, people-carriers and coaches were used by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and accompanying business delegation in the cities.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role was played by diplomatic posts in Brazil in the recent visit by the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions. [117769]

  Mr. Battle
  The diplomatic posts in Brazil made the programme arrangements, and provided advice and administrative support.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State of 24 March 2000,Official Report, column 1293 on Iraq, how many Iraqis visited the UK in (a) 1989 and (b) 1999. [116884]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Total admissions of Iraqi visitors to the United Kingdom were 11,700 in 1989 and 2,900 (provisional) in 1999.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of parish and town councils. [116163]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our policy on parish and town councils was set out in the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". Parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy in this country and they will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages.

  Tramway and Light Railway Systems
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to fund new tramway and light railway systems. [116164]

  Mr. Hill
  We believe that light rail can have an important role to play in delivering integrated transport in major conurbations. Decisions on whether to provide Central Government support for light rail systems are taken on a case-by-case basis on the merits of the particular scheme. Where systems cannot be funded entirely from local sources or by the private sector, promoters must demonstrate that their scheme provides good value for money, forms an essential part of a local transport plan, and that the objectives of that plan cannot be met in better ways.

  Second Home Ownership
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he proposes to take to enable local authorities to mitigate the impact of second home ownership on the social, economic and environmental conditions of their areas. [116165]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are considering a number of proposals for tackling the problems raised by second homes in preparation for the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  Housing Demand
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on variations of regional demand for housing. [116167]
  411W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest, 1996-based, household projections projected a net increase of 3.8 million households (19 per cent.) in England over the 25-year period from 1996 to 2021. The projected percentage increases by Government Office Region ranged from 8 per cent. for the North East up to 26 per cent. for the South East.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to increase the funding for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. [116168]

  Mr. Meacher
  Funding for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) has already been increased. The Countryside Agency has an additional £2.5 million in the current financial year for their management and conservation, rising by a further £1 million in 2000–01, which will bring the Agency's budget for AONBs to almost £6 million.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to improve quality standards in the construction industry. [116169]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am pleased to announce that this week the first pilot of the quality mark scheme—in Birmingham—is being opened to builders who want to join. A list of approved builders will be available to consumers in the city later in the summer. The pilots in Birmingham and, later, Somerset are a key stage in testing and developing the scheme. Once we have extracted the lessons from them we will review the quality mark and then roll it out across the country.

  Housing Development (North-west)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what encouragement he is giving for brownfield development in the north-west. [116170]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Regional Assembly is looking at the scope for channelling future growth onto brownfield land in its review of Regional Planning Guidance. As part of this exercise, local planning authorities in the region have been asked to look at the potential of their built-up areas to accommodate additional households.

  Additionally, land reclamation is an essential task for the North West Development Agency, which expects to spend £11.5 million through its Land Reclamation Programme in 2000–01.

  Disabled Drivers (Seatbelts)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding exemption certificates for the wearing of seatbelts for drivers with disabilities. [116171]
  412W
  Mr. Hill
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions does receive inquiries from members of the public and refers them to their general practitioners who are responsible for issuing Certificates of Exemption from Compulsory Seat Belt Wearing. However, a disabled person in a wheelchair who is wearing a disabled person's belt is exempt from the requirement to wear adult belts.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the Regional Development Agencies in England in regenerating the business base in areas with low GDP. [116172]

  Ms Armstrong
  The main aim of the Regional Development Agencies is to improve the competitiveness of the English Regions within a framework of sustainable development. Their Regional Strategies and Action Plans take a co-ordinated approach and contain high level objectives to increase GDP relative to other EU regions as well as, where appropriate, to other English regions. The RDAs' own spending programmes contribute to regenerating the business base; these include the single regeneration budget, physical regeneration, rural development, inward investment, skills development and competitiveness development.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of local rail strategies on traffic congestion in cities. [116173]

  Mr. Hill
  Local authorities should take account of the contribution rail can make to an integrated transport strategy. This is one of the criteria by which we judge the quality of local transport plans (LTPs). We took the impact of LTPs into account when preparing "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", but did not separately assess the effects of local rail strategies.

  Council Housing
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on investment in council housing. [116175]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our policies for housing are set out in the Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice—A Decent Home for All", which is being published today. Improving the quality of council housing is central to meeting our overarching housing objective of offering everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well being and self-dependence. The Government are providing authorities with nearly £4.5 billion of extra resources for housing investment over the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's review of the local government standard spending assessment system. [116176]
  413W
  Ms Armstrong
  Central and local Government officials have been discussing a wide range of options for improving the method of revenue grant distribution. Their joint report of the issues raised in the review has now been discussed at the Central Local Partnership and published on the internet. Copies of the report are also available in the House Library.

  Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will be made when we have responses to a consultation paper that we expect to publish in the summer.

  Housing Development (Transport Infrastructure)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extra congestion which will be created by greenfield development in areas without developed transport links in the next 10 years. [116177]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In drawing up their regional transport strategies and local transport plans, local authorities will wish to take full account of the distribution of housing development. Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", provides that local planning authorities should seek to exploit opportunities to locate larger housing developments around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

  Authorities should also seek to ensure that all housing developments are accessible by a range of non-car modes, and draft PPG13, "Transport", proposes that all major development proposals should be supported by a transport assessment.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Stockport)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from Stockport metropolitan borough council concerning its standard spending assessment. [116178]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council wrote to the Department on 10 and 17 December with comments on the local government finance settlement 2000–01 during consultation on our proposals.

  Knowledge-based Economy (Regions)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to support the development of the knowledge-based economy in the English regions. [116179]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the Budget, the Government announced a total of £210 million of new funding to encourage innovation, enterprise and the use of IT by businesses. This includes £50 million new funding over the next two financial years for the Regional Development Agencies to support their plans for developing clusters and business incubation. This is in addition to the £4 million RDAs will receive in 2000–01 from the Competitiveness Development Fund to spend on priorities they identify for increasing competitiveness in their regions.
  414W
  The Chancellor also announced an extra £100 million of public funds, £83.7 million of which will go to the English regions, towards a £1 billion umbrella fund to give better access to venture capital for small, growth companies in the regions. An additional £60 million package will promote use of electronic commerce by small firms and a 100 per cent. tax allowance will be made available for small firms buying information and communications technology equipment. A new research and development tax credit will encourage R&D by small and medium sized companies.

  Bus Travel (London Commuters)
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to encourage more commuters to travel into London by bus. [116157]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are firmly committed to improving the quality and reliability of bus services in London to make them a more attractive form of transport for commuter journeys.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on anti-social behaviour in properties owned by private landlords. [116140]

  Mr. Mullin
  We fully recognise the devastating effect anti-social behaviour can have on people's lives and on whole communities. It needs to be tackled across all housing tenures.

  The Housing Green Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing today, sets out our strategy for promoting a healthier private rented sector.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the report of Policy Action Team 8 on 30 March 2000, setting out recommendations on tackling anti-social behaviour as part of our National Strategy for Neighbourhood renewal. This is being taken forward by the Home Office, working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  New Houses (Surrey)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of new houses that can be accommodated on brownfield sites in Surrey. [116154]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have made no estimate. I have asked the South East planning authorities—SERPLAN—to consider the distribution of additional housing within the region, taking full account of national planning policies which make development of brownfields the first priority.

  Local Government Employees (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions the Government are planning to take to protect the pension rights of employees who are transferred out of local government as a result of the termination of an agency
  415W
  agreement, with particular reference to employees currently being transferred to Severn Trent plc; if the Government will ensure that employees are offered a bulk transfer of past service rights from the Local Government Pension Scheme to the new employer's pension scheme; and if it will amend the LGPS Regulations urgently to permit an agreement enabling staff to remain in the LGPS. [117601]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997 allow bulk transfers of pension rights to be negotiated between local authority employers and private sector employers following any transfer of an undertaking. Within these provisions, the onus to ensure fairness and the protection of employees' pension rights rests with the appropriate employers involved in any transfer.

  The extent to which employees in local authorities work on the delivery of privatised water company services through agency agreements, and the availability of alternative broadly comparable pension arrangements to those employed under them, is being established with the co-operation of the Local Government Pension Committee of the Employers' Organisation. In the light of that survey, I will consider carefully the need for any amendments to the Scheme Regulations.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117412]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of web sites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics that have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [116200]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following information covers the main DETR site, agency sites and major NDPB sites.

  DETR central site (www.detr.gov.uk)

  (a) £5,000

  (b) direct expenditure on web site operation in 1999–2000 was £90,000 (excluding staff costs); expenditure on coding and document conversion by policy divisions amounted to some £200,000; expenditure on new hardware and software was £4,000.

  (i) The core web site publishes information covering the full range of the Department's responsibilities—aviation, construction, drinking water, environmental protection, housing, local government, London, local transport, mobility, planning, railways, regeneration, roads, road safety, shipping, wildlife and the countryside. Recent additions to the DETR site include a schools sub-domain, press releases,

  416W

  searchable databases and webcasting of press conferences. The web site also includes the Air Accident Investigation Branch and the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch, as well as two related sites, one providing air quality information and one with information aimed at local government. In addition it hosts several NDPBs—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee.

  (ii) Average of c2million hits and 900,000 page impressions per month

  (iii) DETR is currently carrying out a major review of its new media strategy. Budgets for the website will depend on the outcome of this and of bids for resources from HM Treasury to support the Modernising Government agenda.

  DETR Executive Agencies

  Highways Agency

  (a) £32,370

  (b) 1998–99 £26,000; 1999–2000 £33,000

  (i) corporate information (e.g. Annual Report), information about individual schemes, planned road improvements, contacts, forward programme for contracts, press releases, links to other transport sites

  (ii) Average of 90,000 hits and 10,000 unique visitors per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £80,000; subsequent years—not yet finalised

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  DVLA Main site

  (a) £1,600

  (b) 1999–2000 £41,000 (including staff costs)

  (i) information on vehicle registration, driving licences, contacts, contracts and tenders, Annual Report, current consultation papers, answers to frequently asked questions, links to other DVO sites

  (ii) Average of 217,000 hits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £45,000; 2001–02 £50,000; 2002–03 £55,000

  DVLA Sales of Marks site

  (a) £15,000

  (b) 1999–2000 £48,000

  (i) promotion of scheme for sale of personalised vehicle registration numbers; on-line search facility for checking availability and price of particular registrations

  (ii) Average of 250,000 hits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £48,000; 2001–02 £55,000; 2002–03 £50,000

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  (a) £200 (excluding staff costs)

  (b) c£11,000 per annum (excluding staff costs)

  (i) all aspects of VI work, educational and advisory road safety information, on-line access to publications

  (ii) Average of 2,500 hits per month

  (iii)Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £11,000; 2001–02 £11,000; 2002–03 £11,000

  Driving Standards Agency

  (a) set-up costs in summer 1999 were nil (site set up under commercial partnership contract with private sector provider)

  (b) £50,000 per annum

  (i) work of DSA, its objectives and structure; information on contacts, driving tests (including guidance on the conduct of tests and the theory test), test centre locations and publications; answers to frequently asked questions, press releases, Annual Report.

  417W

  (ii) 173,232 hits, 80,448 page visits and 13,584 unique visitors in February 2000

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £30,000; 2001–02 £30,000; 2002–03 £30,000

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  (a) £1,900

  (b) £3,500 per annum

  (i) information about VCA services to the automotive industry, contacts (for offices all over the world), VCA's role in DETR and DVO, publications, job vacancies

  (ii) average of 1,000 hits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £12,000; 2001–02 £10,000; 2002–03 £10,000

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  (a) £3,000

  (b) £6,000 per annum

  (i) information about MCA's work and objectives, monthly list of vessels detained in UK ports for safety reasons, press releases

  (ii) average of 180,000 hits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £6,000; 2001–02 £6,000; 2002–03 £6,000

  QE II Conference Centre

  (a) £11,000 (new site April 2000

  (b) £6,000 per annum (estimated for new site)

  (i) information for meeting planners and delegates on facilities at QEIICC: promotional material; image gallery for downloading by designers, floor plans, location maps

  (ii) new site to be launched in April 2000

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £6,000; 2001–02 £6,000; 2002–03 £6,000

  Planning Inspectorate

  (a) £1,300; new revised site to be launched April 2000 at cost of £35,000

  (b) £1,500 per annum for old site; £10,500 for revised site

  (i) Old site held information about PI's work and objectives, the work of a Planning Inspector and the Planning Inspectorate Journal. Revised site will also include Welsh language option, appeals guidance, performance information, Business and Corporate reports, forms, publications, information about working in PI, PI itself and its staff; feedback, help and search facilities; answers to frequently asked questions.

  (ii) 1,600 hits per month for old site

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £10,500; 2001–02 £10,500; 2002–03 £10,500

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Countryside Agency

  (a) £18,000 in April 1999 on merger of Rural Development Commission and Countryside Commission. Additional re-development cost of £75,000 to reduce running costs by enabling in-house management and development.

  418W

  (b) 1999–2000 £60,000 (using external consultants)

  (i) Information on organisational structure, contacts, agency's role, events, meetings, initiatives and reports, answers to frequently asked questions

  (ii) Average of 500,000 hits and 24,000 unique visitors per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £60,000; 2001–02 £65,000; 2002–03 £70,000

  Audit Commission

  (a) £49,065

  (b) 1999–2000 £115,000

  (i) Corporate information (including Annual Report), press releases, information on publications (including subscription service for technical reviews) and on Audit appointments, information for local authorities (including performance indicators), search engine, job vacancies.

  (ii) Average of 243,691 page impressions and 28,669 visitor sessions per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £200,000; 2001–02 £75,0000; 2002–03 £75,000

  Health and Safety Executive

  HSE Open Government Website (www.house.gov.uk)

  (a) £10,000

  (b) c£15,000 per annum

  (i) Information about the work of HSC/E, including proceedings of HSC and its topic and advisory committees, contacts, press releases, statistics, information sheets, publications, research reports, progress and opportunities, on-line inquiry service.

  (ii) Average of 666,000 page impressions and 55,000 unique visits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £20,000; 2001–02 £25,000; 2002–03 £30,000

  HSE e-commerce site (www.hsebooks.uk)

  (a) £10,000

  (b) £22,000 per annum

  (i) searchable abstracts of publications, on-line ordering, downloading of some publications, catalogue of all free and priced publications

  (ii) Average of 83,000 page impressions and 2,500 unique visits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £80,000; 2001–02 £50,000; 2002–03 £50,000

  Environment Agency

  (a) £20,000

  (b) 1999–2000 £250,000

  (i) State of Environment Reports, guidance for business, information on flood defences, waste and water conservation, flood warnings, corporate information, educational resources, information on research and development programme, on-line data on pollution, bathing water, and river quality, information in Welsh.

  (ii) 340,000 page impressions and over 25,000 users in February 2000

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £1 million; 2001–02 £1.5 million; 2002–03 £2 million

  Housing Corporation

  (a) £45,000

  (b) 1999–2000 £4,500

  (i) Information on organisational structure, contacts and accessing social housing; all Corporation's free publications, including annual reports and circulars.

  419W

  (ii) Average of 10,000 hits per month

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £5,000; 2001–02 £7,500; 2002–03 £5,500

  English Nature

  (a) £8,366

  (b) 1998–99 £34,691; 1999–2000 £49,966

  (i) Corporate information (e.g. Charter, facts and figures, teams, position statements, council meetings, grant schemes, partner organisations), job vacancies, feedback, register, press releases, information about walks and events, on National Nature Reserves and Biodiversity Action Plan.

  (ii) 463,639 hits, 93,076 page views and 19,404 user sessions in February 2000

  (iii) Estimated expenditure for 2000–01 £58,000; 2001–02 £40,000; 2002–03 £45,000.

  Radon
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department gives to local authority environmental health officers about dealing with householders whose homes have high levels of radon. [117155]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is in regular contact with local authority environmental health officers (EHOs) in the areas most affected by radon. We advise that they should encourage householders with high levels of radon in their homes to carry out remedial measures to reduce the concentration of radon to which those householders are exposed.

  In order to assist the EHOs and the householders, maps have been produced showing the areas most affected by radon. Three guidance booklets have been produced:

  A Householder's Guide

  A Guide to Reducing Levels in Your Home

  A Guide for Homebuyers and Sellers.

  These are provided free of charge for householders, and stocks are provided to local authorities for them to distribute. This guidance is supported by two telephone hotlines: one to the National Radiological Protection Board, who give advice on radon measurements and on the health effects of radon; and one to the Building Research Establishment, who give advice on radon remedial measures. These hotlines are provided for the benefit of EHOs as well as householders.

  For over a year, my Department has been working in partnership with three local authorities that have been piloting a new approach to encourage householders to carry out remedial action. A Good Practice Guide is in preparation, and proposals on how we shall work with other local authorities in a similar way in the future are being developed. I hope to make an announcement on these shortly.

  GM Crop Trials (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has(a) to hold a public meeting in Gloucestershire and (b) to inform the local parish council, about the GM crop trials being conducted in Laverton, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement about these trials. [117663]
  420W
  Mr. Meacher
  There will be a public meeting in Worcester on Thursday 13 April. Representatives of all parish councils, in which GM crop trials, are proposed, in Worcestershire and J3loucestershire have been invited and the meeting has been advertised locally.

  The Government's Farm Scale Evaluations programme, which I announced on 17 March, is designed to allow independent researchers to see what effect the growing and management of certain herbicide tolerant GM crops might have on farmland wildlife, compared with equivalent non-GM crops. The programme this year will involve up to 80 field sites.

  Up to 12 public meetings will be held in towns near the trial sites, at which officials from my Department and representatives from the independent researchers, the industry body, SCIMAC, and a representative from an environmental group, will give presentations about the Farm Scale Evaluations programme and answer questions.

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he intends to make to improve protection of householders against incompetent and dishonest builders; and if he will make a statement. [116166]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am pleased to announce that this week the first pilot of the quality mark scheme—in Birmingham—is being opened to builders who want to join. A list of approved builders will be available to consumers in the city later in the summer. The pilots in Birmingham and, later, Somerset are a key stage in testing and developing the scheme. Once we have extracted the lessons from them we will review the quality mark and then roll it out across the country.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the delegation of water abstraction appeal decisions to the Planning Inspectorate under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995. [117868]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have arranged for the Secretary of State's power to take decisions on water abstraction and impounding appeals, under section 43 of the Water Resources Act 1991, to be exercised by the Planning Inspectorate. This came into effect on 1 April 2000. All decisions will be taken by Inspectors on behalf of the Secretary of State, except in rare cases of major importance or difficulty where the Secretary of State may recover the case to determine himself. The Planning Inspectorate will shortly issue guidance for use by potential appellants.

  London Bodies
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements have been made for the transfer of the London Research Centre, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Ecology Committee to the Greater London Authority. [117919]
  421W
  Mr. Hill
  As part of the establishment of the Greater London Authority under the GLA Act 1999, the London Research Centre (LRC), the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) and London Ecology Committee (LEC) were abolished on 1 April 2000. At the same time, the appropriate property, rights and liabilities of the three bodies were transferred by means of transfer schemes to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The intention is that these will transfer to the Greater London Authority on 8 May 2000, with the exception of a small number of functions of the LRC which will transfer to Transport for London on 3 July 2000.

  I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very valuable work which the LRC, LPAC and LEC have each undertaken on a wide range of cross-London subjects, since their establishment. I am confident that this tradition will be carried on by the Greater London Authority itself in the future.

  Turtle Shells
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the re-opening of trade in turtle shells. [116490]

  Mr. Mullin
  Cuba has submitted two proposals to the forthcoming Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The first seeks to transfer the Cuban part of the Caribbean population of Hawksbill turtles from Appendix I to Appendix II in order to allow the export of existing shell stocks and a subsequent quota of up to 500 turtle shells per year. The second seeks agreement to allow a one-off shipment of existing stocks of shell with no subsequent annual quota.

  Several organisations and scientific bodies have provided us with their views. Some believe that populations of Hawksbill turtles remain too vulnerable to allow any international trade. Others consider that carefully managed trade would contribute to species conservation. We have also received a large number of campaign postcards opposing the Cuban proposals.

  The European Union looks set to oppose the first proposal but to keep an open position on the second pending further consideration at the Conference. The United Kingdom will continue to argue that international trade quotas should be contemplated only in the context of wider action to secure the future of marine turtles by countering threats from fisheries by-catch and the destruction of nesting and breeding sites.

  Air Rage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planes flying into and out of the UK had to be diverted from their scheduled destination airport as a consequence of air rage in each year since 1995; and what was the estimated cost to the NATS in each case. [116880]

  Mr. Mullin
  While comprehensive data on "air rage" incidents are not available for the whole of that period, data collected by the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting scheme are given in the table. Mandatory Occurrence Reports are required for all incidents which affect or could 422W
  affect the safety of a UK registered aircraft, but may not include diversions caused by incidents where safety was not at risk. There is no cost to NATS resulting from such diversions.

  UK registered aircraft flying into and out of the UK diverted as a consequence of "air rage"

  Year

  Number

  1995

  2

  1996

  1

  1997

  4

  1998

  8

  1999

  6

  Data in relation to non-UK registered aircraft are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many incidents of air rage were reported in the last five years which involved passengers travelling(a) first-class, (b) business class and (c) by Concorde; [116687]

  (2) if he will list the airlines reporting cases classified as air rage in each year since 1995, indicating for each airline the number of incidents. [116685]

  Mr. Mullin
  Comprehensive data on disruptive incidents occurring on UK airlines have been collected only since April 1999. When initiating the reporting scheme my Department and the CAA undertook to respect the confidentiality of airlines submitting commercially sensitive information. The analysis published in February, therefore, does not include any data that could identify a specific carrier or aircraft type. The data collected show that, in the period April to October 1999, 47 incidents involved first or business class passengers.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of regeneration schemes on the numbers of new units of affordable housing provided since 1997. [116698]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During 1997–98 and 1998–99 an estimated 36,160 new dwellings and housing units were completed or facilitated with support from my Department's regeneration programmes. Figures for affordable housing are not recorded separately and the full impact of regeneration schemes on new housing is not available.

  Early evaluation evidence suggests that, overall, the Single Regeneration Budget is cost effective, taking account of the severity of problems in partnership areas. Also an interim evaluation of English Partnerships acknowledged its significant achievements, often working closely with the Housing Corporation, in facilitating housing, predominantly on brownfield sites.

  The recent revision of Planning Policy Guidance note 3 (PPG3) on housing reaffirms our policy that a community's need for a mix of housing types, including affordable housing, is a material planning consideration which local planning authorities should take into account.
  423W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by local authority area the numbers of new units of affordable housing that have been built in areas where

  Housebuilding completions of social housing1 England

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Authority

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Allerdale BC

  —

  22

  0

  —

  161

  0

  —

  58

  0

  Basildon DC

  —

  281

  0

  —

  116

  0

  —

  210

  0

  Basingstoke and Deane BC

  —

  123

  0

  2—

  142

  0

  —

  130

  0

  Bath and NE Somerset C

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  Cherwell DC

  —

  37

  18

  2—

  50

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Congleton BC

  —

  28

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Cotswold DC

  —

  61

  8

  —

  90

  23

  —

  91

  24

  E Hampshire BC

  —

  18

  0

  —

  23

  0

  2—

  56

  0

  East Lindsey DC

  —

  115

  2

  0

  20

  0

  —

  82

  0

  Eden C

  —

  24

  0

  —

  29

  7

  —

  10

  0

  Epson and Ewell BC

  2—

  18

  0

  —

  34

  0

  —

  51

  0

  Hambleton DC

  2—

  28

  16

  —

  41

  0

  —

  21

  0

  Hart DC

  2—

  1

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  34

  0

  Hastings BC

  —

  139

  0

  —

  32

  0

  2—

  72

  0

  Havant BC

  2—

  83

  0

  —

  99

  0

  —

  84

  0

  Hertsmere CC

  2—

  33

  0

  —

  45

  0

  —

  66

  0

  Kennet DC

  —

  70

  8

  —

  146

  0

  2—

  51

  12

  Kerrier DC

  —

  4

  0

  —

  4

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Leominster C

  2—

  38

  0

  —

  23

  0

  —

  85

  0

  Litchfield DC

  —

  23

  22

  —

  72

  29

  —

  33

  0

  Liverpool CC

  —

  704

  0

  —

  550

  0

  —

  513

  0

  LB Bexley

  —

  138

  0

  —

  173

  0

  —

  74

  0

  LB Brent

  —

  149

  0

  —

  132

  0

  —

  51

  0

  LB Enfield

  —

  218

  0

  —

  242

  0

  —

  138

  0

  LB Greenwich

  —

  185

  0

  —

  125

  0

  —

  145

  0

  LB Hackney

  —

  342

  0

  —

  203

  80

  —

  529

  0

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  73

  0

  —

  22

  0

  —

  19

  0

  LB Lambeth

  —

  220

  0

  —

  279

  0

  —

  380

  0

  LB Merton

  —

  278

  0

  —

  108

  0

  —

  358

  0

  LB Tower Hamlets

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  Maldon DC

  —

  18

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Malvern Hills DC

  —

  12

  6

  2—

  0

  14

  —

  0

  0

  Manchester CC

  —

  683

  0

  —

  935

  0

  2—

  1,202

  0

  Mid Bedfordshire

  —

  123

  0

  2—

  61

  0

  —

  111

  0

  N Dorset DC

  —

  68

  0

  2—

  4

  0

  —

  41

  0

  N Wiltshire DC

  —

  81

  0

  —

  49

  17

  2—

  25

  12

  Oldham BC

  —

  125

  0

  —

  55

  0

  —

  62

  0

  Penwith DC

  —

  18

  1

  2—

  13

  0

  —

  10

  0

  Preston BC

  —

  68

  0

  —

  89

  0

  —

  26

  0

  Rother DC

  —

  89

  0

  —

  17

  0

  —

  99

  0

  RB Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  37

  25

  —

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  Rushmoor BC

  —

  88

  0

  —

  93

  0

  2—

  38

  0

  South Hams DC

  —

  107

  8

  —

  48

  10

  —

  130

  0

  S Ribble

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  46

  0

  S Shropshire DC

  2—

  27

  9

  —

  48

  6

  —

  42

  0

  S Somerset DC

  —

  127

  0

  —

  56

  0

  —

  71

  0

  S Staffs C

  —

  35

  0

  —

  45

  6

  —

  89

  0

  S Oxfordshire DC

  —

  198

  0

  —

  64

  0

  —

  86

  0

  Spelthorne BC

  —

  96

  0

  —

  74

  0

  2—

  59

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent CC

  —

  140

  1

  —

  94

  0

  —

  148

  0

  Stratford DC

  —

  16

  3

  —

  45

  6

  —

  55

  0

  Tameside

  —

  214

  0

  —

  55

  0

  —

  124

  0

  Telford and Wrekin C

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  Tewkesbury BC

  —

  5

  0

  —

  41

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Thanet DC

  —

  115

  9

  2—

  98

  0

  —

  70

  0

  Vale of Whitehorse DC

  —

  22

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  0

  9

  Walsall MBC

  —

  201

  34

  —

  210

  0

  2—

  170

  0

  W Devon BC

  —

  0

  0

  —

  8

  0

  —

  36

  4

  W Dorset DC

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  37

  0

  —

  0

  0

  W Somerset DC

  —

  42

  0

  —

  11

  0

  —

  30

  0

  W Wiltshire DC

  —

  70

  0

  —

  135

  0

  —

  109

  0

  Wirral

  —

  143

  0

  —

  187

  0

  —

  134

  0

  Worthing

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  13

  0

  Wychavon DC

  —

  0

  0

  2—

  24

  0

  —

  16

  0

  Wyre BC

  —

  106

  0

  —

  86

  0

  2—

  38

  0

  1 For those districts in which local authority dwelling stock has been transferred to registered social landlords.

  2 Indicates transfer was carried out in this year. Some authorities have made transfers in more than one year.

  1 Denotes incomplete data for this period or the district became part of a unitary authority.

  424W
  housing stock has been transferred by local authorities to registered social landlords in England for each of the last five years. [116699]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information is in the table:
  425W

  Housebuilding completions of social housing1 England

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Authority

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Transfers made

  Dwellings RSL

  Completed LAs

  Allerdale BC

  —

  36

  0

  —

  74

  0

  2—

  113

  0

  Basildon DC

  —

  282

  0

  2—

  172

  0

  —

  333

  0

  Basingstoke and Deane BC

  —

  84

  0

  —

  213

  0

  —

  51

  0

  Bath and NE Somerset C

  —

  153

  0

  —

  12

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  Cherwell DC

  —

  36

  0

  —

  7

  0

  —

  26

  0

  Congleton BC

  —

  4

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Cotswold DC

  2—

  32

  3

  —

  54

  17

  —

  91

  17

  E Hampshire BC

  —

  49

  0

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  East Lindsey DC

  —

  67

  0

  —

  26

  0

  2—

  19

  0

  Eden C

  —

  10

  0

  2—

  8

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Epson and Ewell BC

  —

  41

  0

  —

  28

  0

  —

  23

  0

  Hambleton DC

  —

  163

  16

  —

  20

  0

  —

  28

  0

  Hart DC

  —

  56

  0

  —

  38

  0

  —

  41

  0

  Hastings BC

  —

  71

  0

  —

  31

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Havant BC

  —

  132

  0

  —

  89

  0

  —

  20

  0

  Hertsmere CC

  —

  23

  0

  —

  93

  1

  —

  53

  0

  Kennet DC

  —

  83

  0

  —

  125

  0

  —

  26

  0

  Kerrier DC

  —

  63

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  73

  0

  Leominster C

  —

  49

  0

  —

  28

  0

  —

  3—

  3—

  Litchfield DC

  2—

  0

  0

  —

  14

  0

  —

  9

  0

  Liverpool CC

  —

  61

  0

  2—

  259

  0

  2—

  390

  0

  LB Bexley

  —

  63

  0

  2—

  48

  0

  —

  19

  0

  LB Brent

  —

  0

  0

  2—

  1

  0

  —

  3—

  3—

  LB Enfield

  —

  258

  0

  —

  51

  0

  2—

  139

  0

  LB Greenwich

  —

  69

  0

  —

  226

  0

  2—

  133

  0

  LB Hackney

  —

  406

  22

  2—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  14

  0

  —

  74

  0

  2—

  22

  0

  LB Lambeth

  —

  144

  0

  2—

  98

  0

  2—

  117

  0

  LB Merton

  —

  133

  0

  2—

  39

  0

  —

  129

  0

  LB Tower Hamlets

  —

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  3—

  Maldon DC

  —

  47

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  48

  0

  Malvern Hills DC

  —

  83

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  3—

  3—

  Manchester CC

  —

  413

  0

  —

  689

  0

  2—

  341

  0

  Mid Bedfordshire

  —

  37

  0

  —

  217

  0

  —

  133

  0

  N Dorset DC

  —

  56

  0

  —

  17

  0

  —

  50

  0

  N Wiltshire DC

  —

  23

  0

  —

  97

  0

  —

  8

  0

  Oldham BC

  —

  15

  0

  2—

  114

  0

  —

  29

  0

  Penwith DC

  —

  69

  0

  —

  112

  0

  —

  52

  0

  Preston BC

  —

  49

  0

  —

  3

  0

  2—

  109

  0

  Rother DC

  —

  48

  0

  —

  32

  0

  2—

  45

  0

  RB Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  41

  0

  —

  21

  0

  —

  3—

  3—

  Rushmoor BC

  —

  35

  0

  —

  99

  0

  —

  18

  0

  South Hams DC

  —

  4

  37

  —

  77

  16

  2—

  9

  0

  S Ribble

  —

  138

  0

  —

  32

  0

  —

  102

  0

  S Shropshire DC

  —

  47

  0

  —

  58

  0

  —

  29

  0

  S Somerset DC

  —

  20

  0

  —

  26

  0

  2—

  90

  0

  S Staffs C

  2—

  60

  0

  —

  44

  0

  —

  41

  0

  S Oxfordshire DC

  —

  108

  0

  2—

  105

  0

  —

  56

  0

  Spelthorne BC

  —

  71

  0

  —

  17

  0

  —

  62

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent CC

  —

  244

  0

  2—

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  Stratford DC

  2—

  64

  0

  —

  16

  0

  —

  33

  0

  Tameside

  —

  52

  0

  —

  47

  0

  2—

  62

  0

  Telford and Wrekin C

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  3—

  3—

  2—

  59

  0

  Tewkesbury BC

  —

  7

  0

  —

  18

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  Thanet DC

  —

  0

  0

  —

  8

  0

  —

  36

  0

  Vale of Whitehorse DC

  —

  66

  0

  —

  41

  0

  —

  49

  0

  Walsall MBC

  —

  154

  0

  —

  109

  0

  —

  103

  0

  W Devon BC

  —

  17

  0

  —

  22

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  W Dorset DC

  —

  31

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  W Somerset DC

  —

  2

  0

  2—

  10

  0

  —

  9

  0

  W Wiltshire DC

  2—

  61

  0

  —

  69

  0

  —

  63

  0

  Wirral

  —

  151

  0

  —

  109

  0

  2—

  199

  0

  Worthing

  —

  85

  0

  —

  0

  0

  2—

  107

  0

  Wychavon DC

  —

  36

  0

  —

  13

  0

  —

  74

  0

  Wyre BC

  —

  15

  0

  —

  24

  0

  —

  23

  0

  1 For those districts in which local authority dwelling stock has been transferred to registered social landlords.

  2 Indicates transfer was carried out in this year. Some authorities have made transfers in more than one year.

  3 Denotes incomplete data for this period or the district became part of a unitary authority.

  426W

  Lorry Weights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when EU legislation relating to the use of lorries weighing up to 44 tonnes came into force; and what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the effect of such legislation on the transport of freight by rail. [116860]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport recently announced the Government's decision to set a target date of 1 January 2001 for raising the maximum general lorry weight limit to 44 tonnes for lorries with six axles, a maximum drive axle weight of 10.5 tonnes and Euro II or better engines. This is not connected with EU legislation. The decision follows the publication of an interim report by the Commission for Integrated Transport (CflT) on permitting the general use of 44 tonne lorries. CflT commissioned independent work from Professor Alan McKinnon of Heriot-Watt University to assess the environmental effects including the possible effects on rail freight. This work showed a clear net environmental gain from allowing 44 tonne lorries.

  The Integrated Transport White Paper set out our aim to establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system to support economic growth and to bring social and environmental benefits. To that end we are keen to support rail freight where it is practicable and good value for money. We are equally keen on improvements to efficiency in other modes, including road transport, where these meet the same ends.

  The Government accept CfIT's view that allowing 44 tonne lorries for general use could have a negative effect upon rail freight traffic, both existing and predicted. The shadow SRA are considering proposals for rail freight and their strategy will include proposals to support rail freight.

  The CfIT report is available on the Internet at www.cfit.gov.uk

  Airport Slots
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 544W, concerning airport slots, on what date decisions on slot allocation became the sole responsibility of an independent co-ordinator; what is the name of the co-ordinator; where his office is located; what European legislation governs his independence other than EEC Regulation 95/93; and if his decisions on slots apply to internal and international aircraft movements. [116834]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 1993 came into force on 12 May 1993. Among other things, they provided for Airport Co-ordination Ltd. (ACL), which had been performing the co-ordination role at several airports including Heathrow on a non-statutory basis before that date, to be approved and appointed as co-ordinator in accordance with 428W
  EC Regulation 95–93. The appointment was subsequently reaffirmed following consultation with air carriers and other interested parties, as required by Article 4(1) of EC 95/93. ACL's Managing Director is Peter Morrisroe OBE; its principal office is in Bath Road, near Heathrow. There is no relevant legislation other than EC 95/93 that relates to the independence of the co-ordinator. His decisions apply to both internal and international traffic.

  Housing (South-east)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on demand for housing as a result of the expected increase in the number of single parent families in the South-east; and what steps he is taking to help ensure this demand is met. [116752]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest household projections indicate that around 2 per cent. of the net increase in the number of households likely to form in the South-east between 1996 and 2021 will be lone parent households. PPG3 encourages local authorities and housebuilders to ensure that the additional dwellings to be provided in the region offer greater choice and affordability for all households.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient affordable housing is available to meet the demand in the South East. [116753]

  Mr. Mullin
  Draft Regional Planning Guidance 9 (Proposed Changes) sets out a new approach to meeting housing needs in the South East. It emphasises the need for local authorities to undertake rigorous assessments of housing need to ensure that sufficient affordable homes are provided. Housing capital allocations to local authorities in the South East for 2000–01 total £187 million, over £50 million up on 1999–2000 and these increased resources will allow authorities to support the provision of more new affordable housing where this is a local priority. This is in addition to the resources for new affordable housing provided directly to registered social landlords by the Housing Corporation (£70 million in 2000–01).

  Urban-rural Compact
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the report, entitled "An Urban-rural Compact", published by the Local Government Association. [116982]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government welcome the Local Government Association's case studies report on the Urban-rural Compacts initiative. This gives a useful example of how local authorities are working together, and with other partners, to respond to the links between town and country. In discussions with the Local Government Association on the preparation of our Urban and Rural White Papers we have encouraged the Association to develop their initiative and I look forward to seeing the results of the evaluation of the pilots.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the land on which the Millennium Dome was built was decontaminated to a sufficient extent to allow houses with gardens to be built on the site. [116983]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The site of the Millennium Dome has been decontaminated for its current purpose. It is intended that the Dome remains and is not redeveloped for housing. However, while the standard of remediation would not necessarily be sufficient to allow houses with gardens to be built on the site, the exact nature of the remediation that would be necessary could be determined only once the exact details of any development were known. This has been the philosophy throughout the remediation of the whole of the Greenwich Peninsula.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received in the last year in respect of planning applications and permissions granted for the erection of telecommunications masts; and what is his policy on the erection of such masts. [116970]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has received centrally in the last year some 350 letters about amenity and health aspects of planning applications and permissions granted for telecommunications masts.

  The Government's general policy on telecommunications is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while keeping environmental impact to a minimum. The planning system is the mechanism for achieving that balance. Government planning policy for telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8: Telecommunications and the Department's Circular 4/99 "Planning for Telecommunications". The draft joint DETR/DH circular on "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields" will be finalised as soon as practicable after the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones has published its report in May.

  Local Authorities (Freedom of Information)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessments he has made of the implications for freedom of information of the establishment of cabinets in local authorities. [117001]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The arrangements that we are proposing under Part II of the Local Government Bill would ensure more transparent and inclusive decision-making. These new arrangements involve:an inclusive process of formulating a council's framework and budget, which will be responsibility of the full council in public;
  publicly known individuals—the executive—being personally responsible for implementing this framework and budget;
  accurate recording of decisions and their reasons, and timely publication of these and of the background and factual papers available to the decision-maker(s); and
  powerful overview and scrutiny committees, meeting in public:
  to discuss and make recommendations on the development of policies; and
  to hold each executive member to account for what he or she has done and is planning to do.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure proper working conditions in call centres. [117002]

  Mr. Meacher
  The responsibility for ensuring proper working conditions in call centres rests with local authorities who enforce the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and other relevant statutory provisions made under it in these premises.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources will be made available to Advantage West Midlands in 2000–01 as a result of his latest Budget. [116706]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In his Budget, the Chancellor announced a new £50 million fund to provide support for business clusters and incubation in the English regions. The £50 million will go to the Regional Development Agencies to invest over the next two financial years; £15 million will be available in 2000–01 and £35 million in 2001–02. Advantage West Midlands will receive an allocation from the new fund of £1.5 million for financial year 2000–01.

  Legal Alcohol Limit
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the alcohol limits for road vehicle drivers in each member state of the European Union; and what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the harmonisation of such limits across the EU. [116861]

  Mr. Hill
  The alcohol limit for drivers in each member state is shown in the table.

  Member state

  Milligrammes of alcohol in 100 ml of blood

  Austria

  150

  Belgium

  50

  Denmark

  50

  Finland

  50

  France

  50

  Germany

  50

  Greece

  50

  Ireland

  80

  Italy

  80

  Luxembourg

  80

  Netherlands

  250

  Portugal

  50

  Spain

  350

  Sweden

  20

  United Kingdom

  80

  1 Austria: 10 mg/I00 ml for Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) drivers and learner drivers

  2 Netherlands: 20 mg/100 ml for learner drivers

  3 Spain: 30 mg/100 ml for HGV and PCV drivers and learner drivers

  431W
  On 17 March the Commission issued a Communication to member states setting out priorities for road safety. This referred to the intention to bring forward a Recommendation on harmonisation of the drink-drive limit. The Council of Ministers had a brief preliminary discussion of the Communication on Tuesday 28 March and is due to discuss it again in June.

  Aircraft Seats
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the number of passenger seats that can be accommodated in a civil aircraft. [117228]

  Mr. Mullin
  The maximum seating capacity of any large passenger aircraft is determined by the aircraft certification standards. Annexe 8 to the Chicago Convention requires that an aircraft may be issued with a Certificate of Airworthiness only if it complies with a comprehensive and detailed airworthiness code established by the State of Registry. Within Europe, the Joint Aviation Authorities agree harmonised aviation safety standards, including airworthiness codes, for their 32 member states. The JAA airworthiness code for new types of large passenger aircraft is contained in Joint Airworthiness Requirement 25, which has also been adopted as the EC standard by Council Regulation 3922/92. JAR 25 requires that in an emergency an aircraft in maximum seating configuration must be capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds.

  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has also set minimum requirements relating to the spacing of passenger seats for aircraft on the UK register. This is because, in the event of an emergency, it is one of a number of factors which can have an effect upon the evacuation of an aircraft. The minimum requirements are contained in Airworthiness Notice 64.

  MOT Test
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the list of items inspected in the annual motor vehicle MOT test. [117136]

  Mr. Hill
  We have no plans at present to introduce any additional items for inspection into the annual roadworthiness test although the whole issue of MOT testing is kept under review.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many privately owned motor vehicles there were in the United Kingdom on 1 March. [117083]

  Mr. Hill
  At the end of June 1999, the latest date for which we have figures, there were 23.34 million motor vehicles registered to private individuals in Great Britain. Of these, 20.92 million were cars. Equivalent information for Northern Ireland is not readily available.

  Light Pollution
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will bring forward legislation to classify excessive light as a pollutant; [117085]

  (2) if he will give local authorities powers to curb excessive lighting. [117087]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are already some planning controls over external lighting. Where development proposals require a planning application, the local planning authority can control the lighting installations by imposing conditions to prevent or minimise light pollution. However, the courts have ruled that light itself is not development as understood in planning law, so the creation or use of light in itself does not require planning permission. In 1997, we issued "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice" which is also applicable in towns. In our view, such guidance represents the best way forward and we are not proposing to introduce further legislation in this area.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will restrict the sale of domestic floodlight bulbs to a 150 watt maximum. [117088]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to restrict the sale of such goods.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances poorly aimed and over-bright lighting is classified as a statutory nuisance. [117086]

  Mr. Hill
  Although light is not a specified statutory nuisance it may be considered as a nuisance in cases where intrusive lighting is so severe as to be prejudicial to health. It is for a local authority environmental health officer to decide whether there is a "statutory nuisance" occurring in a particular situation.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the report by Town and Country Strategies on the Thameslink 2000 project; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [117217]

  Mr. Hill
  Town and Country Strategies have made representations to the Secretary of State on Railtrack's Thameslink 2000 project, in the form of a report which expresses concerns about some aspects of the proposals. They have asked for this report to be treated as their statement of case for the purposes of the public inquiry which will start on 27 June 2000. The Department has forwarded this report to the Inspector who will conduct the inquiry. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the report at this stage. I have placed a copy of it in the Library.

  M3 Accident
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Police and the Health and Safety Executive following their investigation into the accident
  433W
  near Junction 7 on the M3 on 7 March involving a lorry carrying butane gas cylinders; and what implications they have for the amendment of safety regulations. [117223]

  Mr. Hill
  Investigations are still in progress.

  Lorries (VED)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the information he received concerning the effect on the environment of road haulage movements which gave rise to the increase in vehicle excise duty for 40-tonne trucks in the 1999 Budget; [116865]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on (a) the environment and (b) the number of road haulage movements of the decrease in vehicle excise duty rates announced in the Budget; [116837]

  (3) if he will list the information he received between March 1999 and March 2000 concerning the effect on the environment of road haulage movements which gave rise to the decrease in vehicle excise duty by £1,800 for 40-tonne trucks in the Budget. [1168661]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his 1999 Budget, the Chancellor made clear that a high VED rate had been set for the new 40-tonne, 5-axle vehicle first allowed in the UK from 1 January 1999 in order to discourage its use on UK roads. This was in view of the significant extra road damage caused by lorries running these new 11.5 tonne axle weights.

  The Changes the Chancellor made to VED rates for goods vehicles in his recent Budget and the reasons for them are explained in paragraphs 6.69 to 6.72 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, published on 21 March 2000. The VED rate of £5,750 set for the new, road-damaging 40-tonne lorry on 5-axles in Budget 99 has successfully discouraged its use by domestic hauliers. However, now that domestic hauliers who need the highest weight limits have the option to use the less damaging 6-axle 44-tonne lorry within the UK, the only UK hauliers who still need to use the 40-tonne lorry are international operators using continental roads with 40-tonne lorry weight limits.

  To boost the competitiveness of these international hauliers, the Government are cutting the VED rate for the 40-tonne lorry on 5-axles from £5,750 to £3,950. The rate for the less road-damaging 38-tonne lorry on 5-axles will be reduced by £500 to encourage its continued use, and there will also be a reduction of £500 for the lorry typically used to collect freight from UK ports to boost the competitiveness of hauliers in this sector.

  The Government will continue to monitor trends in vehicle purchasing and plating decisions and in volumes of road haulage movements, while a sub-group of the Road Haulage Forum will continue to review the costs which different lorry types impose on the environment and the roads. This work will inform the Chancellor's future decisions on VED rates for goods vehicles.

  Ballot Boxes (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the robustness and security of 434W
  the cardboard ballot boxes proposed for use with electronic vote counting in the forthcoming London elections; what assessment he has made of the risk of persons tampering with such ballot boxes; and if he will make a statement; [117239]

  (2) what checks there will be on the number of ballot boxes used in connection with electronic vote counting in the forthcoming London elections. [117240]

  Mr. Hill
  These are matters for the Greater London Returning Officer.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will describe the research being undertaken during farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops with particular respect to(a) potential cross-pollination with (i) other non-genetically modified crops and (ii) wild flora, (b) the viability of such cross-pollination, (c) the impact on insect life in areas adjacent to the trial, and (d) the duration of the study. [117301]

  Mr. Meacher
  Studies are being undertaken during farm-scale evaluations of the management associated with genetically modified crops to assess(a) potential cross-pollination between genetically modified crops with particular respect to (i) cross-pollination with other non-genetically modified crops and (ii) wild flora. In addition, studies are being undertaken during farm-scale trials to assess (b) the viability of such cross-pollination and (c) the impact on insect life in areas adjacent to the trial. Protocols are currently being finalised for these investigations with the contractors. These will be made public shortly and I will place a copy in the Library. (d) The study could last up to three years.

  PPG17
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish revisions to PPG17. [117346]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 469W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Travel Documents (Loss)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of travel documents lost by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the last three years. [117653]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to the number of claims for compensation as a result of maladministration in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the majority of which are as a result of passports lost within the Directorate. The number of claims dealt with is as follows:

  1997:45

  1998:62

  1999:78

  435W
  In addition to the figures given for 1999, there are a number of claims submitted in 1999 still to be considered.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the draft code of practice to be made under clause 44 of the Freedom of Information Bill. [117968]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed a copy of a working draft of the code of practice in the Library and it will also be placed on the Home Office website.

  Clause 44 of the Freedom of Information Bill requires the Secretary of State to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of practice setting out practices which he considers public authorities should follow in the discharge of their duties in relation to Part I of the Bill. It specifies particular matters which must be included in the code such as the assistance that should be given to applicants and procedures for dealing with complaints.

  The matters to be included in the code are administrative ones that are an important part of good practice. They form an important part of the overall scheme for dealing with requests for information.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has conducted into the possible link between animal abuse and child abuse; and if he will make a statement. [116933]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is not currently conducting any research on the links between animal abuse and child abuse. However, we have recently become aware of some research in the United States of America on this subject and are considering that evidence with care.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2000,Official Report, columns 566–68W, on animal experiments, how many of the nine project licences awarded in 1998 to allow procedures to be carried out on dogs were awarded in order to fulfil legislative requirements; and, for each project licence awarded for this reason, what was the legislative requirement in question. [116935]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My reply to the hon. Member on 7 March 2000,Official Report, columns 566–68W, reported that the procedures recorded in Table 11 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures Great Britain 1998 were carried out under 39 separate project licences.

  Home Office records are not held in such a way to enable the specific legislative requirement that applied to each licence to be easily identified. My earlier reply provides examples of specific legislative requirements relevant to Table 11.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999 licences were awarded to allow procedures to be carried out on dogs to satisfy non-United Kingdom and non-European Union legislative requirements which
  436W
  required (i) more dogs to be used and (ii) dogs to be used in procedures involving more pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, than the corresponding UK/EU legislative requirements, identifying in each case the (1) non-EU and (2) UK or EU legislative requirements. [116934]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Comparing and contrasting the technical specifications of all of the possible test requirements will require a good deal of effort and it may not be possible to provide precise answers and would be very expensive.

  To be of some assistance, I could provide information on the number of licences issued in 1998 and 1999 that might generate data for regulatory requirements using dogs and explain how these are used to satisfy a number of regulators. It will, however, take time to gather the information and I will write to the hon. Member within the next two weeks.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if wild-caught monkeys destined for use in experiments are tested for(a) Ebola, (b) SIV and (c) Hepatitis; and if he will make a statement. [117019]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regulates the screening and quarantining of non-human primates entering the United Kingdom. All simians imported into the United Kingdom are required to undergo six months' quarantine against rabies in premises authorised by that Department.

  There are no specific Home Office requirements over and above those set by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times Huntingdon Life Sciences has been inspected by his Department's inspectors in the last three years, broken down between(a) announced and (b) unannounced visits; and if he will make a statement; [117020]

  (2) how many wild-caught baboons Huntingdon Life Sciences have used to date; and if he will make a statement; [117021]

  (3) if he will list the establishments within the United Kingdom licensed to use wild-caught baboons since May 1 1997; and if he will make a statement. [117022]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents disclosure of detailed information about individual establishments licensed under the Act.

  We are taking further legal advice on this in respect of these matters and are reviewing section 24 in the light of Freedom of Information legislation.

  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals and of what species are held at the Huntingdon Life Sciences sites at(a) Huntingdon and (b) Occold; and if he will make a statement. [117023]
  437W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Home Office records identify the number of project licences currently in force at each licensed establishment and also show the species of animal and the maximum number of animals that can be used under each licence. Our records do not show how many animals and of what species are being held at an establishment at any one time.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laboratory rodents have been killed(a) this year and (b) in each of the last three years because they were surplus to requirements; and if he will make a statement. [117090]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office does not collect this information centrally. The Animal Procedures Committee has a working group on overbreeding which is considering how this issue can be taken forward.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been granted for LD50 tests since 21 October 1999. [117076]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No new licences authorising the LD50 test (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Guideline 401) have been issued since 21 October 1999. One licence issued after 5 September 1998 was varied on 21 October 1999 to remove authority for the test. Subsequently, a review of all existing licences identified a further 13 currently containing authority for the test. Of these, 11 have now been varied to remove that authority. A final decision has not yet been made on the two remaining licences pending consideration of representations from the licensees under section 12 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We will no longer grant new licences for LD50.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each month since January 1998,(a) the number of processed asylum applicants removed from the United Kingdom and (b) the number of processed asylum applicants whose claims have been rejected and who have not been traced. [117253]

  Mrs. Roche
  Provisional information, relating to removals and voluntary departures for January 1998 to February 2000 of persons who had applied for asylum at some stage, is given in the table.

  Asylum seekers whose applications have been considered and refused are removed only once all their rights of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted. It should be noted that the figures may include some persons who withdrew their asylum application or appeal before a decision or determination had been reached. Cases dealt with on a safe third-country basis are also included.

  The latest figure for the number of known asylum absconders is 20,000. This is a snapshot, taken from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate port and enforcement databases at the end of November 1998, of those persons (excluding dependants) who had applied for asylum at some point and who had breached the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or were otherwise found to be out of contact with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It should be noted that a person may become
  438W
  an absconder at any stage of the asylum process and that some persons recorded as absconders may have left the United Kingdom without the knowledge of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Data recording problems mean that this figure cannot currently be updated.

  Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by month, January 1998 to February 2000

  Month

  Removals and voluntary departures 1,2

  January 1998

  600

  February 1998

  525

  March 1998

  555

  April 1998

  465

  May 1998

  490

  June 1998

  485

  July 1998

  560

  August 1998

  610

  September 1998

  535

  October 1998

  670

  November 1998

  695

  December 1998

  720

  January 1999

  650

  February 1999

  585

  March 1999

  615

  April 1999

  600

  May 1999

  625

  June 1999

  610

  July 1999

  660

  August 1999

  625

  September 1999

  685

  October 1999

  710

  November 1999

  635

  December 1999

  645

  January 2000

  605

  February 2000

  680

  1 For port asylum applicants, the data include persons departing voluntarily up to and including the point of notification of the decision on the asylum application and those persons who have had their asylum application refused and leave the country before they have exhausted their rights of appeal. For in-country applicants, the data exclude persons departing voluntarily before the initiation of enforcement action.

  2 Figures are provisional, revised and rounded to the nearest five.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers had registered with each local authority in England and Wales at the most recent date for which figures are available. [117659]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make regulations to specify that no further asylum seekers may be placed in particular local authority areas; which local authority areas he intends to specify; and if he will make a statement. [117656]

  Mrs. Roche
  At present, there are no plans to exercise the relevant powers to make regulations that would permit no further asylum seekers to be placed in particular local authority areas.
  439W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much accommodation each regional consortium has secured on behalf of the National Asylum Seekers Support Agency. [117654]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have been conducting extensive negotiations with the regional consortia and expect in the coming months to sign contracts with them.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set maximum limits to the number of asylum seekers which any individual local authority should be expected to support. [117657]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to deport from the United Kingdom asylum seekers who are convicted of aggressive begging; and if he will make a statement. [117655]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have made arrangements for details of foreign nationals arrested by the police for begging to be passed immediately to a central contact point in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The Immigration Service will establish the person's immigration status, and if they make an asylum application or have an application outstanding about which they have not yet been interviewed, will conduct an asylum interview. The application will be fast-tracked for decision, as will any appeal.

  It is my policy to ensure that all asylum seekers, including those convicted of begging, whose applications are unfounded are removed from the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.

  The hon. Member will be aware that important changes to speed up appeals and the removal of unsuccessful applicants are contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and will come into force later this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what target he has set for his Department to reply to letters from hon. Members about immigration, nationality and asylum cases; in how many cases his Department has met that target in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [117652]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 687W and to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 26 July 1999, Official Report, columns 63–64W.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has a target of 15 working days for replying to letters from hon. Members. This includes correspondence addressed to Ministers and to the Secretary to the IND Board. I regret that, due to current updating of the Information Technology used to record and track the correspondence addressed to the Secretary to the IND Board, I am unable to give a figure for the number of cases that met the target during last year. As soon as it becomes available I will ensure that it is passed to the hon. Member. For the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, replies to letters
  440W
  addressed to Ministers met the target in 9.7 per cent. of cases. Every effort is being made to improve on this figure.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the earliest date of a letter from an hon. Member which has yet to be dealt with by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's ministerial case-handling team. [117651]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Ministerial Correspondence Unit is currently dealing with letters from hon. Members received in December, the earliest being 17 December. We are aware, however, that there are some older cases within the system elsewhere in the Integrated Casework Directorate and our aim is to clear this backlog within the next few months.

  Portland Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigation he has carried out into allegations of abuse at Portland Young Offenders Institution; and if he will make a statement. [117661]

  Mr. Boateng
  The allegations of abuse raised by the Howard League for Penal Reform give no details as to time, date or place of alleged incidents of abuse and do not identify victims, witnesses or alleged assailants. The Director General of the Prison Service has made it clear that he regards the allegations as serious, and he has twice asked the Howard League to provide this information, without which no investigation is possible. No further details have been received.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons carried out a full inspection of Portland between 24 October and 3 November 1999. He was aware of the allegations before starting his inspection. He has raised a number of serious criticisms which are being addressed, but he did not report any evidence of the abuse of prisoners.

  Visas
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (1) nationals of(a) Bangladesh, (b) Belarus, (c) Benin, (d) Bhutan, (e) Bulgaria, (f) Burundi and (g) Cambodia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116996]

  (2) nationals of (a) the Dominican Republic, (b) Ecuador, (c) Egypt, (d) Eritrea, (e) Fiji, (f) Gabon and (g) Gambia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116994]
  441W
  (3) nationals of (a) Morocco, (b) Mozambique, (c) Nepal, (d) Pakistan, (e) Peru, (f) the Phillippines and (g) Romania applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116991]

  (4) nationals of (a) Cameroon, (b) the Central African Republic, (c) Chad, (d) China, (e) Colombia, (f) the Congo and (g) Djibouti applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116995]

  (5) nationals of (a) Afghanistan, (b) Albania, (c) Algeria, (d) Angola, (e) Armenia, (f) Azerbaijan and (g) Bahrain applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116997]

  (6) nationals of (a) Russia, (b) Rwanda, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Senegal, (e) Sierra Leone, (f) Somalia, and (g) Sri Lanka applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116989]

  (7) nationals of (a) Yugoslavia, (b) Ukraine, (c) Vietnam and (d) Yemen, applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116980]

  (8) nationals of (a) Liberia, (b) Libya, (c) Macedonia, (d) Madagascar, (e) the Maldives, (f) Moldova and (g) Mongolia applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116990]
  442W
  (9) nationals of (a) Georgia, (b) Ghana, (c) Guyana, (d) Haiti, (e) India, (f) Indonesia and (g) Iran applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116993]

  (10) Zambian nationals applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [116981]

  (11) nationals of (a) the Sudan, (b) Syria, (c) Taiwan, (d) Tanzania, (e) Thailand, (f) Tunisia and (g) Turkey applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum; [16979]

  (12) nationals of (a) Iraq, (b) Ivory Coast, (c) Jordan, (d) Kenya, (e) Kuwait, (f) Laos and (g) Lebanon applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for temporary purposes, including visitor and student applications, in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999; how many visas were issued for temporary purposes; how many recipients of these visas returned to their country of nationality before their visa expired; and how many applied (a) to remain permanently in the United Kingdom and (b) for political asylum. [116992]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Entry clearance data are available by country of application only, which is not necessarily the country of the applicant's nationality. There were no entry clearance issuing posts in Afghanistan, Benin, Bhutan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Gabon, Haiti, Iraq, Laos, Maldives, Moldova, Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone in 1998 and 1999. Residents of these countries have to apply elsewhere. The entry clearance issuing post in Sudan was re-opened in 1999.

  No data are available on the numbers of persons who return to their country of nationality before their leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom expires.

  Information is not available on the number of holders of visas for temporary purposes who apply for asylum or for settlement. The information given in Table 2 on grants of settlement includes persons who entered the United

  443W
  Kingdom with an entry clearance leading to settlement; and the data on asylum applications and those who entered by clandestine means include persons who held no entry clearance.

  Table 1: Applications for entry clearance for temporary purposes, and numbers issued 1998–99 1

  Applications received

  Entry clearances issued

  Country of application

  1998

  1999

  1998

  1999

  Albania

  200

  1,680

  240

  1,320

  Algeria

  3,500

  3,370

  3,500

  3,370

  Angola

  1,600

  1,740

  1,570

  1,440

  Armenia

  1,020

  960

  850

  940

  Azerbaijan

  3,190

  2,700

  3,170

  2,550

  Bahrain

  13,150

  11,000

  13,090

  11,720

  Bangladesh

  12,820

  14,980

  9,820

  11,140

  Belarus

  7,100

  7,100

  6,620

  6,950

  Bulgaria

  17,130

  21,000

  15,790

  19,390

  Cameroon

  2,050

  2,020

  1,540

  1,600

  China

  38,900

  47,230

  2—

  39,460

  Colombia

  20,550

  16,930

  19,470

  15,640

  Congo Democratic Republic4

  650

  2—

  470

  2—

  Dominican Republic

  1,110

  1,370

  1,010

  1,310

  Ecuador

  3,000

  1,980

  2,800

  1,710

  Egypt

  29,440

  30,410

  28,820

  29,970

  Ethiopia

  3,740

  3,730

  3,100

  2,890

  Fiji

  720

  2—

  700

  2—

  Gambia

  2,980

  3,630

  2,340

  2,680

  Georgia

  1,900

  2—

  1,880

  2—

  Ghana

  22,160

  27,460

  16,130

  20,980

  Guyana

  1,470

  1,450

  1,240

  1,220

  India

  142,800

  170,050

  129,560

  152,040

  Indonesia

  8,680

  18,370

  8,390

  17,540

  Iran

  23,740

  2—

  21,970

  2—

  Ivory Coast

  2,300

  2,110

  1,970

  2,210

  Jordan

  8,900

  8,450

  8,920

  8,240

  Kenya

  16,600

  17,380

  14,750

  13,740

  Kuwait

  42,740

  36,060

  42,500

  32,230

  Lebanon

  7,430

  7,380

  7,070

  7,070

  Libya

  820

  1,390

  770

  1,310

  Macedonia

  420

  720

  420

  720

  Madagascar

  290

  350

  280

  320

  Mongolia

  810

  900

  710

  740

  Morocco

  7,260

  6,870

  6,380

  6,160

  Mozambique

  790

  700

  750

  570

  Nepal

  3,780

  4,070

  2,920

  3,060

  Pakistan

  65,790

  70,260

  49,010

  47,970

  Peru

  3,840

  3,580

  3,680

  3,570

  Philippines

  17,010

  19,060

  14,540

  17,750

  Romania

  23,030

  21,860

  20,680

  19,840

  Russia

  94,180

  69,460

  89,630

  66,500

  Rwanda

  100

  110

  100

  110

  Saudi Arabia

  57,630

  56,680

  55,300

  53,440

  Senegal

  1,200

  1,380

  1,030

  1,130

  Sri Lanka

  14,000

  17,770

  12,710

  15,220

  Sudan

  3—

  1,470

  3—

  1,160

  Syria

  5,820

  2—

  5,320

  2—

  Taiwan

  41,060

  42,990

  41,060

  42,990

  Tanzania

  8,870

  9,460

  7,180

  6,860

  Thailand

  20,830

  28,090

  18,460

  25,650

  Tunisia

  7,250

  7,070

  5,880

  5,990

  Turkey

  66,850

  62,510

  61,280

  43,510

  Ukraine

  23,560

  22,520

  20,850

  18,890

  Vietnam

  2,080

  1,690

  1,840

  1,380

  Yemen

  3,720

  3,780

  3,300

  3,360

  Yugoslavia

  14,690

  2,660

  14,130

  2,540

  Zambia

  4,340

  4,620

  4,120

  4,390

  1 1999 data are provisional

  2 Not available

  3 Not applicable (no entry clearance facilities in that country)

  4 Formerly Zaire

  444W

  Table 2: Grants of settlement and applications for asylum 1998–99 5

  Grants of settlement 1,2

  Applications 4 for asylum

  Nationality

  1998

  1999

  1998

  1999

  Afghanistan

  190

  420

  2,395

  3,975

  Albania

  50

  110

  560

  1,310

  Algeria

  700

  990

  1,260

  1,385

  Angola

  70

  450

  150

  545

  Armenia

  6—

  30

  60

  95

  Azerbaijan

  6—

  10

  20

  50

  Bahrain

  10

  40

  5

  10

  Bangladesh

  3,580

  3,240

  460

  530

  Belarus

  20

  30

  110

  600

  Benin

  6—

  10

  5

  5

  Bhutan

  6—

  6—

  45

  60

  Bulgaria

  180

  270

  165

  80

  Burundi

  30

  60

  215

  780

  Cambodia

  6—

  10

  *

  5

  Cameroon

  90

  130

  95

  245

  Central African Republic

  0

  0

  *

  *

  Chad

  0

  6—

  10

  70

  China

  1,410

  1,400

  1,925

  2,625

  Colombia

  330

  530

  425

  1,000

  Congo

  10

  40

  150

  450

  Congo Democratic Republic8

  110

  2,010

  660

  1,240

  Djibouti

  6—

  30

  15

  5

  Dominican Republic

  40

  30

  7—

  7—

  Ecuador

  40

  80

  280

  610

  Egypt

  360

  380

  45

  55

  Eritrea

  30

  170

  345

  565

  Ethiopia

  180

  2,120

  345

  455

  Fiji

  30

  20

  *

  0

  Gabon

  6—

  6—

  *

  *

  Gambia

  140

  140

  45

  30

  Georgia

  10

  30

  15

  70

  Ghana

  1,420

  3,280

  225

  195

  Guyana

  170

  120

  5

  5

  Haiti

  10

  6—

  0

  0

  India

  5,130

  6,000

  1,030

  1,365

  Indonesia

  110

  200

  265

  575

  Iran

  850

  1,430

  745

  1,320

  Iraq

  1,490

  1,970

  1,295

  1,800

  Ivory Coast

  80

  290

  95

  190

  Jordan

  130

  120

  30

  20

  Kenya

  450

  580

  885

  485

  Kuwait

  60

  50

  20

  25

  Laos

  6—

  6—

  0

  0

  Lebanon

  590

  740

  155

  240

  Liberia

  80

  70

  70

  65

  Libya

  160

  150

  115

  115

  Macedonia

  10

  40

  50

  90

  Madagascar

  10

  6—

  *

  *

  Maldives

  6—

  6—

  5

  5

  Moldova

  6—

  10

  25

  180

  Mongolia

  10

  10

  50

  75

  Morocco

  420

  420

  25

  20

  Mozambique

  10

  20

  5

  0

  Nepal

  90

  80

  105

  230

  Pakistan

  7,220

  11,700

  1,975

  2,615

  Peru

  100

  130

  5

  20

  Philippines

  890

  1,140

  35

  10

  Romania

  240

  280

  1,015

  1,985

  Russia3

  850

  850

  185

  685

  Rwanda

  60

  70

  280

  820

  Saudi Arabia

  50

  50

  5

  10

  Senegal

  10

  20

  5

  5

  Sierra Leone

  510

  920

  565

  1,125

  Somalia

  2,740

  3,030

  4,685

  7,495

  Sri Lanka

  1,960

  5,100

  3,505

  5,130

  Sudan

  450

  510

  250

  280

  Syria

  110

  130

  65

  95

  Taiwan

  100

  120

  5

  5

  Tanzania

  200

  210

  80

  80

  Thailand

  500

  800

  20

  15

  Tunisia

  110

  150

  20

  20

  Turkey

  2,270

  4,850

  2,015

  2,850

  Ukraine

  140

  190

  370

  775

  Vietnam

  100

  120

  35

  105

  445W

  Table 2: Grants of settlement and applications for asylum 1998–99 5

  Grants of settlement 1.2

  Applications 4 for asylum

  Nationality

  1998

  1999

  1998

  1999

  Yemen

  190

  230

  35

  90

  Former Yugoslavia

  850

  4,050

  7,980

  14,180

  Zambia

  200

  230

  25

  20

  1 Excluding persons given indefinite leave to enter

  2 All settlement data are rounded to three significant figures or to the nearest 10 if less than 1,000

  3 Russia includes holders of Soviet Union passports

  4 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2, and exclude dependants

  5 1999 data are provisional

  6 Negligible (i.e. five or fewer)

  7 Not available

  8 Formerly Zaire

  Police (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the latest data available to his Department in relation to Lancashire police force on the numbers of police officers who are(a) on the establishment of the force, (b) on sick leave, (c) undertaking light duties and (d) representing a full complement of officers for the force. [116975]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which was passed by the previous Government, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their force within the resources that are available. The Lancashire Constabulary does not have a target establishment. I understand from the Chief Constable that there were the full-time equivalent of 3,224 police officers available for ordinary duty in the Lancashire Constabulary on 31 March 2000.

  She has also told me that as at 30 March 2000, 178 police officers were recorded by the Constabulary as absent from duty through sickness and 34 officers had formal restrictions placed upon the range of duties they are physically or psychologically able to perform. This latter figure does not include temporary arrangements made locally within the force as and when required.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116915]

  Mr. Straw

  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: There are currently empty properties at nine sites on the non-prison Home Office estate. Central records are not kept of the numbers of individual properties on large sites, but this comprises 3.4 per cent. of my Department's non-prisons Property Holdings (i.e. freehold buildings and sites, leaseholds, and occupations of other Departments' properties). Further detail on these and the action being taken to reduce the number were given in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 January 2000, Official Report, columns 468–72W.

  My previous reply accurately reflects the current status of prison land, but the figures for Prison Service's residential properties are more volatile. The position as at
  446W
  30 March is that the Service owns some 983 residential properties of which 160 (16.3 per cent.) are vacant. Of these, 78 are retained on security/operational grounds, for occupation by future chaplains or for future development. The remaining 82 are being (49) or will be (33) offered for sale.

  Tagging
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released on the tagging system since it was introduced; how many have reoffended while being tagged; and if he will list the crimes that they have committed. [117699]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 29 March 2000, 18,938 offenders have been placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme. The Prison Service has been notified of 190 offenders who have been charged with an offence committed while subject to the scheme. A breakdown of the types of offences committed is shown in the table. This breakdown has been prepared from information supplied by police forces and drawn from the police national computer. Further analysis of re-offending by those subject to the Home Detention Curfew scheme, including procedures for notification of further charges to the Prison Service by the police, is currently under way as part of a long-term evaluation of the scheme.

  Offence type

  Number

  Burglary, theft and theft from shops (including taking without consent/taking and driving away)

  67

  Assault

  31

  Driving and Traffic Offences

  19

  Drug Offences

  16

  Breach of the peace (including Drunk and Disorderly)

  14

  Handling Stolen Goods/Deception

  10

  Criminal Damage

  12

  Threatening Behaviour

  8

  Possession of an offensive weapon

  3

  Breach of court injunction or Restraining Order

  3

  Rape

  2

  Harassment

  1

  Going Equipped

  1

  False Imprisonment

  1

  Arson

  1

  Indecent Exposure

  1

  Total

  190

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Under-occupied Properties
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to address the problem of under-occupied properties in the social rented sector. [117974]

  Angela Eagle
  We have introduced a three-year pilot scheme in the London Boroughs of Croydon, Newham and Haringey. Its aim is to test whether financial incentives can encourage Housing Benefit recipients living in under-occupied social housing to move to smaller and cheaper accommodation.
  447W
  Under the scheme tenants who move will be entitled to a lump sum payment of about half of the Housing Benefit savings that would be expected over three years from the lower rent. This gives them a financial interest in their rents, and an incentive to move somewhere cheaper. The scheme is entirely voluntary.

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 471W, on benefit overpayments, if he will estimate, in relation to the overpayments which took place on 17 and 18 January, (a) the total value of the benefit overpayments considered too small to recover, (b) the total value of the benefits recovered so far and (c) the total number of customers who have repaid the overpayment in full. [116134]

  Angela Eagle

  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: Administration of benefits and recovery of overpayments is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 3 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent question asking what estimate he has made, in relation to the ACT overpayments (which occurred on 17 and 18 January), of (a) the total value of the benefit overpayments considered too small to be recovered, (b) the total value of the benefit recovered so far and (c) the total number of customers who have repaid the overpayment in full.
  Repayment was not requested where the overpaid amount was less than £5. Overpayments falling into this category totalled £8,500.
  The benefit recovered to date is over £6.8m and approximately 68,000 customers have repaid their overpayments in full. In addition, it has been agreed with some customers that they can repay in instalments.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [116080]

  Mr. Darling
  There are around 8,000 pensioners in Barnsley and 9,000 in Doncaster, receiving their minimum income guarantee (MIG) which is paid through Income Support.

  I have written to right hon. and hon. Members today advising them of our plans for a take-up campaign, to encourage pensioners to claim their entitlement to the MIG.

  Starting in the spring, the campaign will see intense activity on a number of fronts. This will include television advertising, writing to around two million pensioners who our records suggest are likely to have an underlying entitlement, and the introduction of a tele-claims centre with special trained operators who can advise on entitlement and help complete the paperwork to claim the MIG.
  448W
  Today we are also publishing a paper which shows what has happened to pensioner incomes over the past 40 years. It shows that average pensioner incomes as a whole are rising faster than average earnings and that some have done very well. But it also shows that a significant minority of pensioners have missed out. We are helping all pensioners, but the paper shows why we should focus particular help on those who need help most.

  The paper has been placed in the Library and copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over 65 years of age are receiving the minimum income guarantee in(a) the Crosby parliamentary constituency and (b) each constituency in the City of Liverpool. [116673]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 3 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many people over 65 years of age are receiving the minimum income guarantee in (a) the Crosby parliamentary constituency and (b) each constituency in the City of Liverpool.
  The table below lists the number of people aged 65 and over receiving minimum income guarantee by constituency:

  Thousand

  Constituency

  Claimants aged 65 and over

  Crosby

  1.9

  Liverpool, Garston

  3.0

  Liverpool, Riverside

  4.4

  Liverpool, Walton

  3.2

  Liverpool, Wavertree

  3.3

  Liverpool, West Derby

  3.7

  These figures are from the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry of November 1999. Please note the sample size is 5% and therefore, subject to sampling error. They have been rounded to the nearest hundred.I hope this reply is helpful.
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if hon. Members will receive details of his take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee in addition to that contained in press releases. [117603]

  Mr. Bayley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to right hon. and hon. Members on 29 March, advising them of our plans for a take-up campaign, to encourage pensioners to claim their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG).

  Starting in the Spring, the campaign will see intense activity on a number of fronts. This will include television advertising, writing to around two million pensioners who our records suggest are likely to have an underlying entitlement, and the introduction of a tele-claims centre with special trained operators who can advise on entitlement and help complete the paperwork to claim the MIG.

  Child Support
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the estimated number of parents with care who have Child Support Agency assessments who are in receipt of working families tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit; [117402]

  (2) what is the estimated number of parents with care with Child Support Agency assessments who are in receipt of both working families tax credit and housing benefit. [117403]

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. David Stewart, dated 3 April 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  Some of the information requested is not available, but such information as is available is given below.
  As at November 1999 the latest statistics available are that there were 922,400 live cases where a full child maintenance assessment had been made. Of these 96,600 (10.5%) were in receipt of working family tax credit.
  Unfortunately, similar information relating to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit cannot be obtained.
  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 sorry to be only able to give you a partial answer, but I hope the information provided is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of disability living allowance have had their benefit increased on review since April 1999. [116714]

  Mr. Bayley
  From April to December 1999 (the latest month for which figures are available) 46,899 Disability Living Allowance recipients had their benefit increased on review.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) England and (b) each English region, the number of children in households with income below half of the national average in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) each year from 1992 to 1998. [117237]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have pledged to halve the number of children living in poverty in 10 years and eradicate child poverty in 20 years and we have already made significant progress. The measures we have announced in successive Budgets will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

  Estimates of the number of children living in households below half average income for England and for English regions are presented in the following tables. Regional figures are available only from 1994–95.
  450W

  Number of children living in households below half UK average income for England

  Million

  Before housing costs (BHC)

  After housing costs (AHC)

  1979

  1.0

  1.1

  1990–91

  2.5

  3.0

  1992–93

  2.8

  3.6

  1993–94

  2.7

  3.5

  Number of children living in households below half GB average income for England

  Million

  Before housing costs (BHC)

  After housing costs (AHC)

  1994–5

  2.5

  3.5

  1995–96

  2.3

  3.5

  1996–97

  2.8

  3.9

  1997–98

  2.8

  3.8

  Number of children living in households below half average income for English regions

  Million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  BHC

  North East

  0.20

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  North West and Merseyside

  0.45

  0.40

  0.50

  0.45

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.35

  0.30

  0.35

  0.35

  East Midlands

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.25

  West Midlands

  0.25

  0.30

  0.40

  0.40

  Eastern

  0.25

  0.20

  0.25

  0.25

  London

  0.40

  0.25

  0.45

  0.45

  South East

  0.20

  0.25

  0.30

  0.30

  South West

  0.20

  0.20

  0.25

  0.25

  AHC

  North East

  0.20

  0.20

  0.25

  0.25

  North West and Merseyside

  0.55

  0.55

  0.60

  0.60

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.40

  0.35

  0.40

  0.35

  East Midlands

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  0.25

  West Midlands

  0.35

  0.40

  0.45

  0.45

  Eastern

  0.40

  0.30

  0.35

  0.35

  London

  0.60

  0.65

  0.70

  0.75

  South East

  0.40

  0.45

  0.50

  0.40

  South West

  0.30

  0.30

  0.35

  0.30

  Notes:

  1. The source is Households Below Average Income (HBAI). Estimates for 1979 to 1993–94 are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey and these estimates, including the value of half average income, relate to the United Kingdom. Results for 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are for two years combined. Estimates for 1994–95 to 1997–98 are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and the estimates, including the value of half average income, relate to Great Britain. FRS-based estimates use a slightly different definition of income; results are therefore not precisely comparable with those for years before 1994–95, but the results presented here are broadly comparable.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error and response biases, and small changes apparent in these tables may be influenced by these. Results for individual years may be sensitive to the precise way in which household incomes are adjusted for household size and composition; the picture of changes over time is generally not sensitive to this.

  3. Estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions.

  4. Results in the tables 1 and 2 are rounded to the nearest 100,000. Results in the table are rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  Mobility Scooters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests for funding for mobility scooters were made in England and Wales during 1999. [117084]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information about the number of requests for scooters, as distinct from other Motability vehicles, is not held separately. However, during 1999 Motability supplied its UK customers with 3,641 powered wheelchairs and pavement scooters through its Hire Purchase Scheme, which is funded through the use of the customer's Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance or War Pensioners' Mobility Supplement.

  Motability run a UK wide powered wheelchair and scooter scheme and figures recorded are combined to include both powered wheelchairs and scooters, on a UK basis. Separate figures for England and Wales are therefore not available.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) England and (b) each English region the number of pensioners in households with income below half of the national average in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) each year from 1992 to 1998. [117238]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates of the number of pensioners living in households below half average income for England and for English regions are presented in the following tables. Regional figures are available only from 1994–95.

  Number of pensioners living in households below half UK average income for England

  Million

  Before housing costs (BHC)

  After housing costs (AHC)

  1979

  1.2

  1.2

  1990–91

  2.7

  2.9

  1992–93

  2.0

  2.4

  1993–94

  1.8

  2.3

  Number of pensioners living in households below half GB average income for England

  Million

  Before housing costs (BHC)

  After housing costs (AHC)

  1994–95

  1.7

  2.2

  1995–96

  1.8

  2.2

  1996–97

  1.7

  2.3

  1997–98

  1.9

  2.4

  Number of pensioners living in households below half average income for English regions, BHC

  Million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  North East

  0.10

  0.10

  0.10

  0.10

  North West and Merseyside

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  East Midlands

  0.15

  0.15

  0.15

  0.20

  452W

  Number of pensioners living in households below half average income for English regions, BHC

  Million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  West Midlands

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  Eastern

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  London

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  South East

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  South West

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  0.25

  Number of pensioners living in households below half average income for English regions, AHC

  Million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  North East

  0.15

  0.15

  0.15

  0.15

  North West and Merseyside

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  East Midlands

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  0.20

  West Midlands

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  Eastern

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  0.25

  London

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  0.30

  South East

  0.35

  0.35

  0.30

  0.30

  South West

  0.20

  0.25

  0.25

  0.30

  Notes:

  1. The source is Households Below Average Income (HBAI). Estimates for 1979 to 1993–94 are derived from the Family Expenditure Survey and these estimates, including the value of half average income, relate to the United Kingdom. Results for 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are for two years combined. Estimates for 1994–95 to 1997–98 are taken from the Family Resources Survey and the estimates, including the value of half average income, relate to Great Britain. FRS-based estimates use a slightly different definition of income; results are therefore not precisely comparable with those for years before 1994–95, but the results presented here are broadly comparable.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error and response biases, and small changes apparent in these tables may be influenced by these. Results for individual years are sensitive to the precise way in which household incomes are adjusted for household size and composition; the picture of changes over time is generally not sensitive to this.

  3. Estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions.

  4. Results in tables 1 and 2 are rounded to the nearest 100,000. Results in table 2 and 3 are rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  Past changes in pensioner incomes reflect the fact that many pensioners have simply lost out on the opportunity to invest in a second pension. Our strategy for tomorrow's pensioners will provide the opportunity for all people of working age to build a second pension. We are also determined to provide security for all of today's pensioners. The minimum income guarantee provides that security for pensioners with low incomes and our national take-up programme will encourage those entitled to claim.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of welfare benefits for asylum seekers who do not have permission to work in each of the last three years. [117052]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 3 April 2000,Official Report, columns 612–13.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the disregard of War Disablement and War Widows' Pensions for income related benefits; and if he will make a statement. [117209]

  Mr. Bayley
  Mandatory disregards for War Disablement and War Widow's Pensions already exist in income related benefits. The disregards strike the right balance between acknowledging the special reasons for these pensions and prudent use of public funds. We have no plans to extend the disregard of War Disablement and War Widows' Pension.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities which do not operate a total disregard of War Disablement and War Widows' Pensions, in relation to(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit. [117226]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information requested is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Total

  Expenditure on people newly entitled to benefit

  35

  1—

  1—

  35

  Expenditure on people who see benefit income increased (gainers)

  25

  50

  30

  105

  Total

  60

  50

  30

  140

  1 Negligible costs

  Notes:

  1. Income Support gainers are all those with capital between £3,000 and £8,000. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit gainers are all those with capital between £3,000 and £16,000.

  2. Tariff income is calculated in the same way as before, but starting from the £6,000 capital limit.

  3. Costs are given for benefits in 2001–02, and are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  4. The £140 million cost relates to Great Britain only.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of beneficiaries of the uprating of the lower and upper capital limits for income support; and on what assumptions. [117519]

  Mr. Bayley
  We expect around 500,000 pensioners to gain from increasing the lower and upper capital limits for Income Support.

  This estimate is based on figures obtained from the Policy Simulation Model (PSM) for Income Related benefits, based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data. This is uprated to reflect 2000–01 prices and benefit levels.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117414]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for
  454W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the cost of the current mandatory disregards, (b) the additional cost of a total disregard and (c) the overall cost if there were a total disregard, of the disregard of War Disablement and War Widows' Pensions in respect of income-related benefits. [117219]

  Mr. Bayley
  The cost to central Government of the current mandatory disregards of War Disablement and War Widow's Pensions is estimated to be £20 million a year. The extra cost to central Government if applying a total disregard would be around £140 million per year, giving the overall cost of £160 million a year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the £145 million for uprating lower and upper capital limits for income support is calculated; and if it includes any revision of the tariff income. [117518]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that the cost for uprating lower and upper capital limits for benefits would be £140 million. This can be broken down as follows:

  Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with the banking industry concerning the automated credit transfer of benefits. [116854]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have decided to move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits.

  We have already begun discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and other matters. Most of the discussions have been at official level—these will continue.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to vary the rate of support for mortgage payments for income support claimants. [117602]

  Mr. Bayley
  The standard interest rate for Income Support claimants has risen from 6.66 per cent. to 6.92 per cent. and the regulations come into force on 16 April 2000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cap Afrique
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his staff at the port of Dover initiated discussions about the weather conditions with the Master of the Cap Afrique on the evening of 2 March; and what the wind force was at Port Control when the Cap Afrique sailed on 3 March. [116643]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's inspection staff did not initiate discussions with the master of the Cap Afrique on 2 March and I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 589W. This was a failure in internal procedures and action has been taken to rectify this.

  Dover Port Control logged the wind speed on 3 March at 04.04 as 40–50 knots (force 8-10) and at 06.54 as 35–44 knots (force 8-9). The Cap Afrique sailed at 05.30 hours.

  Dolphins
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of recent reports of large numbers of dolphins caught in pelagic fishing nets off the coast of Devon and Cornwall; [116662]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of dolphins caught in pelagic fishing nets off the coast of Devon and Cornwall in the last 12 months; [116663]

  (3) what plans he has to investigate the reported deaths of dolphins off the coast of Devon and Cornwall due to the use of pelagic fishing nets; [116664]

  (4) what recent research his Ministry has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect of pelagic nets on dolphins; and what plans he has to monitor the use of such nets by trawlers in this area. [116665]

  Mr. Morley
  I was concerned to learn of the recent spate of dolphins washed up on south western coasts. It is important to establish which fishery is responsible for the problem and what is going wrong in that fishery. Once that is known my Department will then work with the industry and, if appropriate, with the European Commission to find practical remedial solutions. I have already met Brixham Seawatch to hear their views on the situation. They have estimated that 28 animals have been washed ashore in Cornwall and 14 in Devon since 1 January. I am also seeking information from others.

  The Sea Mammal Research Unit did some preliminary monitoring work in the pelagic trawl fishery in the last year. No cetacean bycatch was recorded. We have agreed to fund a new three-year programme with SMRU beginning in July 2000 which will include additional monitoring of the pelagic fisheries when they re-start in the Autumn.

  Treaty of Corfu
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what legislation of the European Commission(a) has been tabled, (b) has been agreed and
  456W

  (c) is due to come into force before 2003 in respect of the fishing permit system referred to in Articles 89 and 116 of the Treaty of Corfu, Cm 2606 of 1974; [116729]

  (2) what (a) discussions have been held and (b) provisional agreements have been entered into by Ministers concerning the implementation of Articles 89 and 116 of the Treaty of Corfu in any sea area since its ratification. [116730]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Regulation 779/97 established arrangements for the management of fishing effort in the Baltic Sea from 1 January 1998, based on the issue of special fishing permits by members states under the provisions of Council Regulation 1627/94 which lays down rules concerning special fishing permits. Similar arrangements for the management of fishing effort in Western waters have applied since 1 January 1996, in accordance with Council Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95. Extension of such arrangements to other areas of Community waters would require a specific proposal from the Commission and its adoption by the Council on the basis of a qualified majority. None has been made.

  Organic Conversion
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have(a) applied for and (b) been awarded financial support for organic conversion in each year since such support began. [117120]

  Mr. Morley
  The details are as follows:

  Applications

  Approvals

  1994–95

  72

  37

  1995–96

  64

  64

  1996–97

  117

  57

  1997–98

  216

  133

  1998–99

  222

  118

  1999–2000

  1,274

  1,021

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of resources allocated to organic conversion in(a) the current and (b) the next three financial years. [117119]

  Mr. Morley
  Support for organic conversion aid payments to farmers in England will be £11.35 million for 1999–2000 and £12 million, £18 million and £20 million respectively for the next three years.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics which have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [115392]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GM Foods
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received regarding commercial cultivation of Novartis genetically modified Bt maize in Germany; and if he will make a statement. [113618]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister for the Environment on 9 March 2000, Official Report, column 779W.

  Further to this reply, Ministers at MAFF received a press release issued by Novartis in Germany regarding the decision of the German Federal Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Environment to suspend approval of Novartis' genetically modified Bt maize. Novartis believes this decision is not supported by the scientific data. The Government will follow developments on this issue closely, but this does not affect the position stated by my colleague the Minister for the Environment, as there are no plans to cultivate this crop commercially in the UK for at least the next few years.

  Cross-compliance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to use the provision under the EU Rural Development Regulations to introduce cross-compliance, where direct payments in support of agricultural production are conditional on the carrying out of measures to protect wildlife, in cases where cross-compliance may have a detrimental effect on competitiveness. [117594]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 252W.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom demand for organic food was met by domestic production in each of the past 10 years. [117543]

  Mr. Morley

  [holding answer 3 March 2000]: Estimates of the volume of imported organic food since 1997 are between 60 and 70 per cent. per annum. We do not have statistics for the years preceding 1997.

  EU Rural Development Regulation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make use of the provision under Article 13(b) of the EU Rural Development Regulation to introduce schemes of management for areas where environmental restrictions apply; and if he will make a statement. [116314]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's proposed use of measures available under the EU Rural Development Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 is set out in the rural development plans for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which have been submitted to the European Commission for approval. Those plans do not include use of Article 13(b) compensation payments for observing European Community environmental restrictions because the Government's policy is to encourage a positive approach to environmental 458W
  management through agri-environment measures under Article 22. In England, these include the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Schemes.

WALES

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117416]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  The executive functions of the Secretary of State for Wales transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999. Section 65 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 requires the Assembly to make provision within its subordinate legislation procedures for regulatory appraisals before a draft of the relevant statutory instrument is laid before the Assembly.

  However, I also retain an interest in how UK Government regulatory reform affects Wales.

TREASURY

  City Centre Migration
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of net migration of inhabitants from city centres in each of the last five years. [116146]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 4 April 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on estimated net migration from city centres.
  The information that you require is not available. At present it is not possible to produce annual migration estimates for small geographical areas such as city centres. Migration estimates are only available for former Family Health Service Authority areas. These are broadly consistent with shire counties, metropolitan districts and groups of London boroughs. This is because estimates of internal migration within the United Kingdom are based on the movement of NHS doctor's patients between the former Family Health Service Authorities.
  ONS have recently investigated the feasibility of using the postcoded information held on patient registers to better estimate migration at local level. It is possible that in the future we will be able to provide migration estimates for different geographies such as city centres.
  Moves for former Family Health Service Authority areas and between the individual Government Office Regions (GORs) and the rest of the United Kingdom are published in Key Population and Vital Statistics, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Valuation Office Agency
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets will be set for the Valuation Office Agency for the year 2000–01. [117918]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have set the following key targets for the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) in 2000–01:

  Operational
  to clear 80 per cent. of 1995 List rating appeals outstanding as at 31 March 2000 by 31 December 2000
  to publish by 31 October 2000 the first rolling two year forward programmes for clearance of 2000 list rating appeals
  to clear by 31 March 2001 council tax appeals equal to the number received in the 12 months to 30 September 2000. within a maximum of 52,000 appeals in England and 3,700 in Wales

  Customer service and quality
  to secure Charter Mark awards for 25 per cent. of the VOA's Groups by 31 March 2001
  to achieve specified standards for:

  valuation accuracy and

  timeliness

  in 90 per cent. of cases

  Finance and cost efficiency
  to break even after charging for the full cost of chargeable services including notional interest of 6 per cent. on the average working capital—measurement will be within a tolerance of the greater of 2 per cent. of relevant turnover or £1 million
  to achieve an increase in the VOA's efficiency index to 1.13 (1998–99 = 1.00).

  Further details are contained in the Valuation Office's Forward Plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number and volume of investments held in(a) Maxi ISA accounts and (b) Mini ISA accounts. [117236]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested can be found in Inland Revenue press release REV7.

  Aviation Fuel Tax
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a decision on the aviation fuel tax proposed by the European Commission will be made under qualified majority voting or unanimity procedure. [117299]

  Mr. Timms
  The Commission proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products, which was made in March 1997, is subject to unanimity.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the cost implications for the United Kingdom aviation industry of the aviation fuel tax proposed by the European Commission. [117300]

  Mr. Timms
  I have made no such assessment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy in respect of the European Commission's proposed aviation fuel tax; and if he will make a statement. [117298]
  460W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government have no plans to take advantage of the Commission's proposal to allow member states to opt to tax aviation fuel used on domestic flights, and on flights within the EU by bilateral agreement. The Government support the removal of the international ban on the taxation of aviation fuel and will continue to pursue this in the forum of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to introduce measures to assist small businesses. [117311]

  Mr. Timms
  We are seeking to make Britain the best competitive environment for business in the world. Budget 2000 sets out a substantial package of tax and spending measures that build on existing measures to help small businesses move up the ladder of opportunity. These measures are set out in more detail in Chapter 3 "Meeting the Productivity Challenge" of the EFSR.

  Haulage Industry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to introduce to assist the haulage industry. [117315]

  Mr. Timms
  In his recent Budget Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of measures that will further boost the competitiveness of the UK haulage industry: the introduction of 44 tonne lorries for general use on UK roads from a target date of 1 January 2001; £45 million of cuts to Vehicle Excise Duty, targeted particularly at those parts of the haulage industry facing competitive pressure; and tougher enforcement to tackle illegally-operating hauliers and protect the competitiveness of legitimate operators. These measures are set out in detail in paragraphs 6.68–6.74 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, published on 21 March 2000.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the Government have made to date with regard to relieving Third-World debt; and what further initiatives the UK plans to take to help tackle the remaining significant debt problem. [117685]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are providing 100 per cent. relief on the debts of those countries (Bolivia, Mauritania and Uganda) that have already reached decision point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Mozambique is also receiving 100 per cent. relief on the debts it owes to ECGD, in advance of its reaching decision point under the HIPC initiative. This is to aid the country in its reconstruction efforts after the disastrous effects of the floods.

  The UK is pressing for swift and successful implementation of the existing debt relief package, which will reduce the debts of the poorest countries by $100 billion.

  Underweight Babies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 975W, if the figures for the number of low-birthweight babies in England and Wales born between 1990 and 1998 are derived from a consistent method of measurement. [117068]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 4 April 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking if the figures for the number of low birthweight babies between 1990 to 1998 are from a consistent method of measurement.
  The figures provided in the Answer to the honourable Member of Stockton South in 22nd February Official Report, column 975W were all based on a definition of low birthweight as a birth where the baby was stated to have weighed less than 2,500 grams. The figures were provided for health authorities between 1990 and 1998. These were subject to a number of boundary changes. For consistency the figures provided for all of these years related to boundaries as at 1st April 1999.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117422]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in employment face a marginal income tax rate of 10 per cent; how many of those are(a)in part-time employment and (b)women; and if he will make a statement. [117411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 2000–01, there are estimated to be around 1.6 million employees who have a marginal income tax rate of 10 per cent. Of those, 1.4 million people are in part-time employment. 1.1 million women in employment have a 10 per cent. marginal rate of income tax (around 70 per cent. of the women will also be included in the part-time figure).

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and Family Expenditure Survey and consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Public Sector Finances
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the figures for the(a)total assets, (b)total liabilities, and (c) net worth of the public sector, referred to in paragraph 2.70 of the Red Book, HC 346, for each year from 1990–91 to 2004–05. [116851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Outturn figures for total assets, total liabilities and net worth for the public sector at end-December of each year are available from the Office 462W
  for National Statistics. Outturns and forecasts of net worth as a per cent. of GDP were published in Tables C 1 and C22 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) remuneration, (b) fee and (c) expenses were paid out of public funds to Mr. Martin Taylor for his report on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling. [117649]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Martin Taylor received no remuneration or fees for his work. No out-of-pocket expenses were paid directly to Martin Taylor. The cost of train tickets for travel to and from meetings outside London were met by Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Martin Taylor received remuneration, a fee or out-of-pocket expenses paid out of public funds for his report on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling; and who owns the copyright of his report. [117504]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Martin Taylor received no remuneration or fees for his work. No out-of-pocket expenses were paid directly to Martin Taylor. The cost of train tickets for travel to and from meetings outside London were met by Customs and Excise.

  As Martin Taylor provided personal advice to the Chancellor there is no question of copyright.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the report by Martin Taylor on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling concluded about(a) the significance of the difference in the levels of tobacco taxation between the United Kingdom and other nations and (b) the likelihood, without a closer alignment of national tobacco tax levels, of other measures to combat smuggling having a substantial effect. [117505]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Martin Taylor's advice to the Chancellor was personal and confidential. It would therefore not be appropriate to disclose his advice.

  The Government paper "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" dated March 2000, sets out details of recommendations made by Martin Taylor on how to tackle tobacco smuggling. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library. In this paper it was noted that a very substantial proportion of cigarettes smuggled into the UK come from places outside the EU where duty is negligible. Bringing cigarette duty rates closer to those of other EU member states would be unlikely to deter this smuggling.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to combat the rise in smuggling of alcohol. [117348]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the March Budget, I announced a further £209 million for Customs to clamp down on excise smuggling. This will enable them to employ nearly 1,000 extra Customs officers, working at ports and inland, including additional special investigators and intelligence staff.
  463W
  Within this figure an amount of £23 million will be allocated for Customs to fund a national network of x-ray scanners designed to detect smuggling in freight.

  Imported Motor Vehicles
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct HM Customs and Excise to provide the same information on the relevant background 464W
  of imported motor vehicles to independent importers as it does to major car manufacturers and suppliers. [117568]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I can confirm that Customs do already provide the same information on importation procedures to both independent importers and major car manufacturers and suppliers alike. Full details are contained in their public notices and integrated Tariff. UK and EC law however precludes Customs from disclosing to third parties any confidential information which they hold in relation to a trader's business.

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

Eurofighter
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress in development and sales is being made with the Eurofighter.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, seven Eurofighter development aircraft have now completed more than 1,200 sorties, achieving some 1,000 flying hours. A number of notable milestones have been achieved, including supersonic flight, care-free handling, air-to-air refuelling and missile firings. Delivery of the first production aircraft for the United Kingdom is planned for mid-2002. Eurofighter export prospects are excellent. Greece has recently announced plans to purchase up to 90 aircraft. A number of other countries are showing significant interest.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the omens certainly appear encouraging. However, can the Minister tell the House what recommendation the MoD has made for the long-range weapons system? Speed of announcement is essential. On the sales front, do the Government support the industrial participation package being o offered to Norway? Further, have the Greek Opposition endorsed the intention to buy the Eurofighter, given the upcoming general election in that country? Indeed, does the Minister intend to visit Athens to secure this order and to address other pressing issues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Viscount has most skilfully managed to ask quite a few supplementary questions. Of course, I agree with him that this is a very encouraging picture. The noble Viscount asked about the future of the beyond-visual range air-to-air missile. This programme is still in a pre-contract competition phase. We are in the final stages of assessing bids from two companies; namely, Matra BAe Dynamics (offering a new missile called Meteor), and Raytheon Systems Limited (offering a future medium-range air-to-air missile and an extended range air-to-air missile). These are very hard-fought competitions and many factors have to be borne in mind. Obviously, we are assessing not only the capability but also the cost, the value for money and the risks involved, as well as the industrial advantages and disadvantages, in both bids.
1192
The noble Viscount also asked about Norway. I can tell him that Norway is currently deciding what to do. As the noble Viscount implied, there are a number of different issues surrounding the package that Norway is considering. As regards Greece, there is, of course, a forthcoming general election. We have no reason to believe that an incoming Greek government will feel any differently from their predecessors. I very much hope to be visiting Greece in the near future.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this country has so far spent £16,000 million on this project? Can she also confirm that each unproven, comparatively untested Eurofighter costs about £60 million compared to an F16 which costs £15 million, and that, therefore, you get four F16s—proven and tested aircraft—for each unproven Eurofighter? In view of that and the Government's well-known commitment to NATO, as evidenced through the European defence initiative, why do we not simply buy Fl6s?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Lord that that question would have been better put to his own Front Bench colleagues when they sat on the Government Benches, because those decisions were taken when the noble Lord's party was in a position to make such decisions. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the costs of this sort of project are very considerable—some £16·1 billion at 1999 prices. However, the noble Lord is a little off the mark as regards his assessment of the individual cost of these aircraft. They currently cost £40·9 million at 1999 prices. If the noble Lord is in any doubt about the efficacy of this aircraft, I suggest that he visits Farnborough to see it. Indeed, I suggest that all noble Lords come and see the aircraft in action at Farnborough. We would all then be able to see what a splendid aircraft it is and how much pride this country can take in it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the arms trade is inherently undesirable from another point of view? For example, is not much of our trade already too reliant on arms?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords; I cannot agree with my noble friend on that point. Of course, the arms trade must be regulated. This Government have made it clear that we will not export arms when we believe that there is a realistic probability that the countries to which we are exporting arms will use those arms for internal repression or external aggression. My noble friend must remember how important defence exports are to this country. Currently some 355,000 jobs in the UK are dependent on the defence industry, and about 130,000 of those jobs are actually dependent on exports. My noble friend should look at this in the round and not just pick on individual aspects of the argument.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the partners have yet agreed on the form of controls for arms sales outside the NATO area? If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, it is intended to pursue arms sales outside the NATO area fairly actively. In that case, some of us will have reservations about further arms sales to the Middle East and south-east Asia. Therefore, can the noble Baroness say whether there will at least be some agreed form of control among all the partners on how such decisions are taken?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the four partner countries—namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain—are party to the EU code, which this Government encouraged our partners to sign up to. I am happy to tell the House that they did so and that they are, therefore, parties to the same sort of code that we operate in this country when it comes to arms exports.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, are we not discussing a most outstanding plane about which the RAF is extremely pleased? Indeed, it should be compared with the F22 and not the F16, which is nearly five times more expensive?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Eurofighter is an aircraft which not only this Government support, but, as I reminded the noble Lord's noble friend, his own party also supported when in office. It is the aircraft that best meets the United Kingdom's needs both in terms of cost and operational effectiveness. It will be the backbone of the RAF's fast jet combat fleet for many years to come. We believe that it will offer a flexible capability necessary to meet the kind of uncertain environment in which the RAF is asked to operate these days.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what progress is being made with the development of the Eurofighter for use at sea, bearing in mind that when the aircraft carriers come into service in 2012 it is likely that the Eurofighter with its strength and main frame will be required for those ships?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Eurofighter is still undergoing part of its developmental stage. These issues are, of course, still a matter for the integrated project team which operates out of Abbey Wood and which I had the great pleasure of meeting a couple of weeks ago. The flexibility in the development stage is likely to continue into the year 2002. All these issues are, therefore, very much at the front of the integrated project team's development analysis.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, does the Eurofighter meet the operational requirements of the RAF in the light of the war in Kosovo?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that had we had the Eurofighter at that time—this is, of course, a speculative statement—we would have found that it met those operational needs. We must bear in mind the importance of developing this aeroplane in a way that allows for real operational flexibility into the future. At the time that it was originally conceived (when the party opposite was in power), the threats were, of course, very different from those of today. However, I am happy to say that the flexibility that is built into the developmental stages of this aircraft will allow us to have an exceptional aircraft for use into the future.

Euro Cash: Use in the UK
2.44 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, given the publication on 9th March of the second Outline National Changeover Plan, they visualise use of euro notes and coins in the United Kingdom becoming increasingly common practice from 1st January 2002.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unless the UK joins the single currency, sterling notes and coins will remain the legal tender of the United Kingdom. The introduction of euro cash in the euro zone will not affect this. Businesses and individuals will not need to accept euros, but some might decide to do so for commercial reasons, just as they now accept currencies such as the dollar or the deutschmark.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I welcome the modest stepping up of our euro preparations. I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. First, does he not agree that the real significance of the switch to euro notes and coins at the end of next year is the fact that 300 million fellow Europeans from Helsinki to Lisbon and from Rome to Dublin will use the euro not as a foreign currency nor even as a dual currency, but just as the Americans use the dollar; that is, as their only currency—the currency in which they price all their goods and services? Secondly, is not the implication for this country that there is a danger of complacency and of feeling that we do not need to do anything because we have not joined, or, as the Leader of the Conservative Party would have it, try to be King Canute and operate at a disadvantage in the single European market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right to say that, at the beginning of 2002, 300 million people will use the euro on a daily basis. Any sensible business in this country which expects to do retail business, for example, with those 300 million people who may visit this country would do well to display the prices of its goods in euros, just

1195
as it may display them at present in dollars. That is the advice which the Government would give from now on, whether or not we ultimately join the euro.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed that the "one size cannot fit all" interest rate of the euro is causing financial divergences in the different economies of Europe? Has he noticed that the Irish rate of inflation has now reached over 4 per cent, measured by their own measurement, or over 5 per cent, measured as the British measure inflation? How high does he think British inflation would have risen if, for the past 12 months, we had had euro interest rates?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the final part of the noble Lord's question, he asks me to speculate on purely hypothetical circumstances. Certainly there have continued to be variations between the different countries in Euroland in interest rates and in many other economic measures. However, only those who thought that the introduction of the euro would bring about an economic superstate can be surprised at that.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, has it not become evident in retrospect that the most fundamental strategic mistake which the Government have made in their term of office, and which they must now secretly deeply regret, was the announcement on 27th October 1997 when they flanked the issue of the euro? Is it not clear that if they had been brave then they could easily have won a referendum, the pound would now be closely linked to the euro and the difficulties of manufacturing industry and the agriculture industry would not be as severe as they are now?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is in another Cloud-cuckoo-land at the opposite end of the spectrum from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. The announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997, which was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in February of last year, is, and remains, the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We have no regrets about that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even those with the extremist views of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, must surely accept that millions of British businessmen and holidaymakers will be using the euro every year? Having paid commission to change their money into euros, they will have to pay commission again to change it back. Would it not be sensible to allow the euro to be used here?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I meant to bring my euro chequebook to demonstrate my devotion to the euro. Unfortunately I have left it at home.
1196
We have never claimed that transaction costs were the principal argument for the single currency, but of course they are significant.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, why do the Government think it right to spend £26 million on preparations to change over to the euro when every poll shows that 70 per cent of the British public do not want to join it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the £26 million is an estimate of the total costs of preparation for the existence of the euro, whether or not we join. The amount of public money is of course much smaller; at present it stands at £6·3 million. But not even those opposite with the more extreme views would suggest that we should pretend that the euro will not exist in the 11 countries that have adopted it and that it will not have an effect on our business. The preparations for it are essential in order that we have a proper, practical choice when the time comes.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the superior design features of the euro—distinctive colours, sizes and embossments of notes—will be much preferred by the blind and visually impaired community of Britain? I speak as a committed "Eurofighter".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a matter of aesthetic judgment. Simplicity has to be set against the complexity necessary to deter forgers. I am not terribly fond of the bridges which appear on so many of the euro notes.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, arising out of the reply given to my noble friend Lord Saatchi, can the Minister explain why he thinks that the views of 70 per cent of the British public are extreme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was describing as extreme the views of noble Lords opposite. The views of the public have changed on the euro and may well change again as the issue gets closer to determination.

Bank Branch Closures
2.51 p.m.
Earl Peelasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take any action to protect the economic base of rural areas from the effects of the current programme of bank branch closures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are taking a wide range of steps to support rural economies, including funding for rural regeneration and development of rural transport. The Government recognise the importance of access to financial services in rural areas. They are fully committed to maintaining

1197
a nationwide network of post offices, which are increasingly giving bank customers convenient access to their accounts. The Government are investing £500 million in the Horizon programme to automate every post office in the country by 2001. That will enable the Post Office to extend its arrangements with the banks.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, following the recent remarks in another place of his honourable friend Chris Mullin—which reflected, to put it mildly, a pessimistic view of the effect of bank closures on rural areas—and today's media report of his other honourable friend Alan Johnson, who is now predicting that over the next year between 400 and 500 rural post offices are likely to close, does the Minister accept that these developments will seriously threaten the Government's rural regeneration project? Will he, at the very least, assure the House that he will reconsider the Government's policy of removing benefit payments from post offices?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government accept that there are parts of the Post Office rural network which are under social, economic and technological pressures. That is why modernisation is necessary in all 19,000 branches of the Post Office. That is why the Government have put the Horizon project—which is the major technological advance for the Post Office— back on track. It will enable the payment of benefits and other banking transactions, but those drawing benefits who wish to retain cash payments will be able to do so.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister find anything objectionable in a Minister suggesting to a disgruntled customer of a rural bank that he always has the alternative to change banks?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not regard that as objectionable. Those were almost exactly the terms used by my honourable friend Chris Mullin. Clearly where a bank has let down a rural community, it is open to its customers in that area, and to those in other areas who sympathise with them, to change their banker. That is understandable in those circumstances.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not only the economic but also the social base of rural communities that are affected by bank closures? Can he spell out, in more detail than he has, exactly what help he intends to encourage so that post offices can take over more of the banks' roles?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the existence of the post office is vital to the continued social well-being of many rural areas. The steps that the Government and the Post Office have taken include: the major investment programmes to which I have referred; plans to install 3,000 cash machines in
1198
smaller towns and villages; and the possibility of having Post Office cash points outside the post offices themselves. The Post Office is already engaged in joint arrangements with some banks to cover their facilities. It has such arrangements with the Co-op Bank, with the Alliance and Leicester and with Lloyds Bank. The problem which gave rise to this Question is that, apart from an experiment in Cornwall, Barclays Bank has not made the same nationwide arrangement with the Post Office.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is all very well to have cash machines for taking money out, but does the Minister accept that, for many rural businessmen, paying money in is very important? They do not want to have to drive around the countryside with their takings. Does the Minister further accept that the Government's delay in acting on the White Paper is inducing a scattergun approach to a very important question of infrastructure?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we accept the substance of what the noble Baroness said. I do not accept her criticism of the Government. In the White Paper on the Post Office, we indicated our intention to publish access criteria which the regulator and the Post Office Users National Council will have to follow in terms of the provision of financial services by the Post Office. This should ensure that in most rural areas there will be continued access to a post office. At the same time, the Post Office will be able to provide a wider range of financial facilities than at present.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the attitude displayed by Mr Chris Mullin in relation to the programme of closures announced by Barclays Bank Limited?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I support the position taken a week ago by Chris Mullin in another place. As I said in reply to an earlier question, he indicated that it is of course always open to customers of Barclays who are disgruntled by what seems to be its cavalier disregard of rural interests to change their bankers. That is what my honourable friend said, and that is all that he said. It is true that one of our national newspapers reported that as a call for a boycott. It is not. It is an indication that consumers within rural areas have a choice, and that they should exercise that choice.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it will help in one way if cash machines are installed in post offices, but not in a second way? Some 40 per cent of a post office's income arises through the receiving and handing-out of benefits and welfare payments. If those benefit payments are not made, post offices will not be profitable; therefore there will not be a post office for people to go to.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that a substantial part of the transactions currently carried out by post offices involve the benefits system. We are making

1199
choice available to benefit recipients, as we are to other consumers. We believe that a significant number of benefit recipients will continue to use post office services. The point we are making is that by more extensive and sophisticated arrangements with the banks, the Post Office will be able to introduce a wider range of facilities to all consumers, within both rural and urban areas. In the future, the Post Office will take on and provide a much more widespread network of financial services than is currently available from even the largest clearing banks.

Income Tax: New Payers
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of people who entered employment during the last two financial years and have become payers of income tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the number of people in jobs is already at a record level—up by 800,000 since the election. The Government's longterm ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher percentage of people in employment than ever before. Overall, in the year following spring 1998, 3·7 million people are estimated to have entered employment, compared with 3·5 million in the previous year. Whether they were income tax payers would have depended on their individual circumstances.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. But does he agree that there is continuing and sharp criticism about the levels and yield of national taxation and complete disdain for the point which his Answer demonstrates—that very large numbers of people who were entirely dependent on public resource are now contributing to it by way of income taxation and are therefore contributing to the prudent and wise improvement in services which we all need? Is it not time that the criticism I referred to ended and that there was greater applause for the taxation policies currently pursued?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope we would all agree that more people in work is a good thing and more people getting pay is a good thing. If, as a result of that, despite lower rates of taxation and lower rates of marginal taxation, more people are paying tax, is that a bad thing?
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, as the Minister has the numbers at his fingertips, can he tell us by how much the total amount paid to the Inland Revenue by income tax payers has gone up over that period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I have no further information other than that which was
1200
published in the pre-Budget report, which is available to the noble Baroness and to all Members of the House.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that far more people would have been exempted from tax if the Government had concentrated on increasing personal allowances instead of introducing the 10p band? Does he not agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies that that would also have been much more progressive in its effects?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I completely disagree with that. The 10p rate halves the marginal rate of tax for 2·3 million people, of whom 1·9 million are low paid. If instead of that we had increased allowances, we would have been saving more money for those better off. In social justice terms, the 10p rate is more efficient.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how many of those 800,000 jobs were created in manufacturing industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question but I can write to my noble friend. Clearly, jobs are being created and are disappearing both in manufacturing and in service industries. The balance between them can only be seen in aggregate rather than trying to convert from these 800,000 jobs alone.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in spite of the prosperity of the South East there is a very high incidence of joblessness in inner London boroughs? Is he further aware that 19 out of 21 New Deal areas in London have the worst employment outcomes of anywhere in Britain? Nineteen per cent of these young people are not only not paying any income tax but they are not even claiming benefit because they are not eligible for benefit. Does the Minister agree that there is currently a real shortage of jobs in London and that the New Deal is not working in London as it should be but is actually adding to the incidence of social exclusion and pushing young people off the employment register?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that a number of London boroughs are particularly badly off in employment terms. I live in one of them. But I do not draw the conclusion that the noble Baroness does about the effect of the New Deal. Youth unemployment is down by 40 per cent since the election. That applies in all parts of the country. The package of measures that we have introduced, which includes the working families' tax credit, the reforms to national insurance contributions, the 10p marginal rate of taxation and the national minimum wage, contributes to benefits which are felt in London boroughs—even hard-pressed London boroughs—as well as in other parts of the country.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the 3·7 million people who entered employment in 1999 were men and how many were women?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could if I had at my fingertips the full tables from the Labour Force Survey, but I do not. Certainly, it is the case that in recent years a considerable part of the increase in employment has been the increased employment rate among women. But I shall gladly give the noble Lord the figure from the Labour Force Survey.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Government are to be congratulated on the 800,000 jobs that have been created in this country since the election? Does he further agree that not a single new job has been created in the European Union? Will he finally agree that, if the Government had been constrained by not being able to manage the interest rate and otherwise generally by the conditions of economic and monetary union, their performance might not have been quite so brilliant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have learnt to listen to the end of the noble Lord's questions. He always starts off in friendly vein and always finds some way of bringing it round to Europe and to an attack not on this Government but on Europe. We and the many countries of the European Union have been on a different economic cycle over the period that we have been talking about. There were indeed job losses in Europe in earlier days. I am glad to say that those job losses have been cut and even eliminated and that employment is rising at the moment in many European countries.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Third Reading of the Care Standards Bill, my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the housing Green Paper.

Business of the House: Debates, 5th April
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Peyton of Yeovil set down for tomorrow shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Earl Peel set down for the same day to three and a half hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Other basic definitions]:
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) "Nursing and care staff agency" means any employment bureau supplying nurses in any part of the Register of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first of all I must declare an interest as I have to use nurses agencies for my husband. These agencies differ considerably, with huge variations in standards. There is no doubt in my mind that minimum standards should be laid down in the Care Standards Bill for all these agencies providing nurses and carers.
We employ two people for my husband at the moment. One is a trained nurse and the other is a carer. Because my husband is large, he needs two people. They come through the same agency. It seems quite ridiculous to me that the agency which provides them would be in the Care Standards Bill for the carer but not for the nurse. Both these people live in our house and I expect the same standards from each of them, even though the nurse could undertake some procedures that the carer could not.
I have my name to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, and 2 and 4. The Royal College of Nursing prefers Amendment No. 2 because nurses registered with the United Kingdom central councils are trained nurses. But both amendments are supported by Action on Elder Abuse, Age Concern, the Anchor Trust, the Association for Residential Care, the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors, the British Healthcare Trades Association, BUPA, the Care Forum (Wales), the Carers National Association, the Continuing Care Conference, Counsel and Care, the Hampshire Care Association, Help the Aged, the Independent Healthcare Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Mencap, the National Care Homes Association, the NESTA Healthcare Group, the Recruitment and Employment Federation, the Registered Nursing Home Association, the Relatives and Residents Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and the United Kingdom Home Care Association.
Clause 91 of the Bill repeals the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 and brings nurses agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. That means that, instead of being licensed by local authorities, nurses agencies will become regulated in the same way as all other employment agencies, with the Department of Trade and Industry holding ultimate responsibility.
The Royal College of Nursing's Nursing and Care Agencies Managers' Forum has around 1,000 members who own or manage nursing agencies throughout the UK. The RCN has long argued for the

1203
need to update the Nurses Agencies Act 1957. However, the RCN is concerned that the proposals to repeal the Nurses Agencies Act and to regulate nurses agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 will not provide sufficient protection for the public, including some of the most vulnerable members of society.
There are serious concerns that the move to give the DTI responsibility for regulating nursing agencies under the Employment Agencies Act will lead to an even weaker regime. The Employment Agencies Act does not rely on an inspection and monitoring regime, but rather relies on complaints to trading standards officers to trigger investigations. That seems inadequate when vulnerable people's lives are at stake.
It seems advisable and desirable that nurses should supervise the recruitment and placement of nurses. Nurses agencies should be required to register with a regulatory body and should be routinely inspected to ensure standards for all patients at risk. There should be a register of nurses agencies, so that performance can be monitored and operators can be traced, controlled and excluded where a practice falls below standard.
It seems to be the unanimous wish of all the associations concerned, including the Royal College of Nursing, that the national care standards commission should be the regulator for nurses agencies, and that to leave nurse agencies out of the Bill would be a big mistake. I hope that the Minister, representing the Government and your Lordships, will agree that the definition. "nursing and care staff agency", will be part of Clause 4 of the Bill. I shall be happy with whichever is the better amendment, so long as no agencies providing care to vulnerable people are left out. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that nurse assistants working in a hospital who come via an agency will be covered by the provisions of the Bill if Amendment No. 2 is preferred. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be of assistance if I indicate that it is my intention to accept Amendment No. 2.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much indeed for what he has just said. Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 2. It may be helpful to the House if I add something to what the noble Baroness has said so ably. The difference between the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 1 and my amendment is merely technical in the light of drafting proposed by the Royal College of Nursing.
The noble Baroness has summarised the arguments very well. It seems extraordinary that we should have a Bill that regulates doctors' agencies and domiciliary care agencies but not nursing agencies. Nurses deliver care to people in all kinds of settings. That care can often be intimate; it can often involved dispensing medication and treatment; and not infrequently nurses
1204
are literally responsible for people's lives. Any agency that supplies nurses, whether to the NHS or direct to people's homes, must know what it is doing.
That means making sure, among other things, that the person responsible for the placements is accountable in a professional sense for the service given and is in a position to give proper support to the nurses. It is not satisfactory to have someone in charge of a nurses agency who knows nothing about the technical side of nursing or about issues such as medical confidentiality; yet that is what we could get if nurses agencies were to be regulated purely under the Employment Agencies Act.
I was particularly struck at Report stage by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. The DTI, for all its many and varied talents, can hardly boast a great deal of expertise in the regulation of nurses agencies. That particular government department does not seem to be the right home in which to place this responsibility, especially because, when it comes to enforcement, its modus operandi is essentially reactive. Unless inspection and enforcement are regular and proactive, in a poorly run agency the damage might already have been done.
Like other noble Lords, I believe that this Bill—and in particular the commission—provides a much better vehicle for the regulation of nurses agencies. That is also the view of a great many providers and professional groups. Nothing in the amendment would prevent the DTI's employment agency protections from extending to nurses. Everyone is agreed that the Nurses Agencies Act 1957 has had its day. The question is what to put in its place. I am delighted that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reflect further on the matter and has seen fit to accept my amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to give my special thanks to the Minister for the promptness with which he has reflected on, and reacted to, the opinions expressed on all sides of the House. It is a wise move, and one which I hope the Front Bench opposite will imitate a great deal more often.
I was struck by one sentence in a letter I received. It said that people do not die of accountancy but they do die of inadequate nursing. That is the big difference. This decision is absolutely right and, again. I thank the Minister.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although I did not put my name to the amendment, I should have wanted to do so. I welcome what the Minister has said. However, I am slightly concerned that he has opted for Amendment No. 2 rather than Amendment No 1. I wonder whether "carers" employed by agencies will slip through the net. Many thousands of people employ not fully qualified nurses, but carers, in a domiciliary situation. Such people are often required to look after dysphasic patients—patients who do not need nursing as such, but who do need constant care because they are unable to do anything. Those employed are not necessarily nurses, but come through

1205
nursing agencies. I speak as someone who has employed such people for over eight years. Some of the qualities required of carers need to be, as it were, supervised, particularly if they are dealing with dysphasic or aphasic patients. They can get away, not literally with murder, but with not providing a satisfactory service.
Carers should be subject to the same regulations as nurses, and "nursing and care staff agency" would fit the bill. In my experience, employing carers through a "nursing agency" which has not been subjected to regulation has not been satisfactory on every occasion. I put that point to the Minister and hope that he will accept it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not wish to add to the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have put the points extremely well. I thank the Minister for responding to the weight of opinion on the matter, which was extremely strong; and, in doing so, demonstrating the good sense and flexibility which has been characteristic throughout the Bill.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I hesitate to appear as an extra in the final scene, having had star billing when the amendment was moved previously. However, I stress that I would have supported the amendment and wish that my name were attached to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 tabled by my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilion. I recognise the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, from the Opposition Benches. The inclusion of care staff may be an important adjunct to the clause.
Having said that, I, like other noble Lords, welcome the Government's acceptance of Amendment No. 2. I am most grateful for the alacrity with which it has been done.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, as a nurse, I add my thanks to the Minister for accepting the amendment. I urge also that consideration be given to the issue of carers. Carers are becoming involved increasingly in closer contact with intimate care of patients, sometimes in an unsupervised way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I disagree with many of the points made, although I agree with a number of others.
It is excellent to hear that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 2, but I do not believe that that amendment is good enough. The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, are sound. There needs to be provision for care assistants also. The nursing world is in chaos at present because of the desperate shortage of nurses. As time goes by we shall have to find some answer to that. The answer may well be more care assistants.
The fact that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 2—it covers only qualified nurses—indicates the great power of the Royal College of Nursing. I have
1206
nothing against that. It is a marvellous organisation which does a great deal of good. But the Minister overlooks the comments of 24 well-known, reputable, caring organisations, providing only for qualified nurses. The noble Lord divides nurses and those who do not have the full qualifications. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, many people cannot become qualified nurses because the entry standards are too high. The only alternative for those people is to become care assistants. It would be wrong if those people were farmed out to the Department of Trade and Industry. That is not the right department. They need to be considered as responsible and caring for their patients as fully qualified nurses. Complete devotion to patients is a genuine dedication. One cannot simply say, "Because I have a few more letters after my name I am more capable of looking after you". One is more trained and more skilled but not necessarily more caring.
I have added my name to the amendment. If the Minister does not accept the addition of caring people, I press the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, to seek the opinion of the House. I feel very strongly on the issue. To accept Amendment No. 2 but to leave out all carers is not good enough.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall not detain the House by repeating the helpful remarks made in the past few moments. Your Lordships will know that the Churches in many guises have a great deal to do with the pastoral welfare of those individuals about whom we speak. The points made in support of Amendment No. 1, as opposed to Amendment No. 2, would gain the support of my colleagues on these Benches, and represent the views of many people from many churches who have a great concern in this area.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thought that I was going well!
First, I thank noble Lords for their kind words. One of the characteristics of the debate is that due to the lateness of the hour we were unable to discuss the issue in Committee. Therefore it was only a week ago on Report that we first paid attention to these matters. For that reason, when I come to talk about care workers I assure noble Lords that we shall pay close attention to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others.
I agreed last week to reflect on the matter. In doing so, I emphasise to noble Lords that all along the Government have been committed to an effective system of regulation for nurses agencies. I acknowledge, as have other noble Lords, that there is almost universal agreement that the current regulatory system for nurse agencies is inadequate. The Nurses Agencies Act is widely agreed to be out of date and in need of reform. There has been a great deal of inconsistency in the way the Act has been policed (if that is the word) up and down the country. There is evidence that some local authorities have failed to carry out their duties effectively.

1207
We took that into account in first proposing that nurse agencies should be brought within the remit of the Employment Agencies Act. I listened with great interest to the suggestion that the Department of Trade and Industry is perhaps not as caring a government department as perhaps is the Department for Health. The fact is that the Employment Agencies Act provides a much tougher framework of protection for agency nurses and those for whom they care. For example, the Act's regulations require agencies to obtain sufficient information from workers and hirers for the purposes of selecting a suitable worker. Those checks will be further strengthened by the revised regulations currently out to consultation.
However, we want the system to be effective and to protect vulnerable people. I have concluded that a system that encompasses registration and routine inspection for nurses agencies will help to achieve those aims. The Government accept, therefore, that the national care standards commission should regulate nurses agencies.
Not surprisingly—I have learned that all Opposition amendments are always technically deficient—there is a slight deficiency in Amendment No. 2 which the Government intend to accept. In accepting the amendment, it would be our intention to propose in another place a slight redrafting to cover that technical amendment.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about how the system will work. We shall be developing the necessary standards under which the commission will regulate nurses agencies. These standards will be developed in consultation with the agencies themselves and other key stakeholders. However, I wish to be clear about two areas. First, I fully expect qualified nurses to be involved in the commission's inspection work, which will be particularly apposite in inspecting nurses agencies. Secondly, I would expect the standards applied by the commission to encompass a requirement for a qualified nurse to be in charge of the placement of nurses. I hope that that meets a specific problem which noble Lords raised.
Our commitment to repeal the Nurses Agencies Act remains, and nurses agencies will also come within the remit of the Employment Agencies Act. This will ensure that nurses agencies will be on the same footing as domiciliary care agencies. Agencies which provide both care workers and nurses will be subject to broadly the same regulatory requirements across the whole of their business.
Essentially the commission will provide an additional tier of regulation. But we accept that this additional level of regulation by the commission is necessary. Although that means regulation by two systems, agencies will need to register under only one: the national care standards commission.
Of course, it will be a matter of concern to ensure that the impact of two separate regulatory systems does not create al unjustifiably heavy burden on the agencies themselves. Indeed, that has been the theme of some of the contributions made by noble Lords
1208
during the passage of the Bill. We shall look carefully at the scope for dovetailing the inspection role of the commission and the employment agencies standards inspectorate to ensure that the two organisations work together closely.
So far as concerns care workers, many care workers in the community will fall to be covered by the provisions in the Bill for the regulation of domiciliary care agencies. Of course, we would expect healthcare assistants (to use the correct terminology) within hospitals to be properly supervised and managed. The provision in the Bill allows for the commission to ensure that effective management and employment procedures are in place. However, I have taken note of the comments concerning a nursing agency which perhaps also hires care assistants to work in private sector hospitals. Rather than give a hard reply this afternoon, I say to noble Lords that it is a matter to which we shall give further consideration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask for some clarification. I did not understand the point that he made regarding whether or not care staff will come under the same regulatory system. It seemed to me that at one stage in his speech he indicated that they would. However, as he continued and said that he would look at the matter again, I believed that he said that they would not. Then he made the point about two different groups and two different regulatory authorities. Again, I find that very unsatisfactory. Perhaps he will clarify the point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that confusion has arisen because noble Lords have spoken about two different areas. They have talked about care workers in the community, and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also referred to care assistants working in private hospitals. There is a difference.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, and National Health Service hospitals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Indeed, my Lords. I was endeavouring to say that staff who are employed by domiciliary care agencies come within the regulation of the Bill as it stands. With regard to healthcare assistants within hospitals, we would expect those staff to be properly supervised and managed by the hospitals concerned. That would be a matter for the national care standards commission to check and inspect. So far as concerns the question of a nursing agency which might hire healthcare assistants to those private hospitals and establishments, that is an issue to which the Government would wish to give further consideration in the light of the debate this afternoon.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and, particularly, the Minister and the Chief Whip for their negotiations. I should like to make it clear to the Minister that nurse

1209
assistants are also employed in National Health Service hospitals. I am glad that he will look at that matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if the House will give me leave, I should like to point out that we have commissioned de Montfort University to study the question of whether healthcare assistants who are employed within the National Health Service should be regulated in the future. That work is ongoing and, of course, is in parallel to the other provisions in the Bill concerning the regulation of social care workers.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he is giving an undertaking to look at the position of care assistants who are not covered in any other way in the Bill? Will he consider whether they will be covered by this Bill rather than by the Department of Trade and Industry?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that I gave a commitment to look at the specific regulations in relation to nurse agencies and to consider the extent to which those regulations should cover care assistants.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, many people outside your Lordships' House will be very pleased with the outcome of our debate. The matter arose only at Report stage. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for calling the meeting which enabled me to table the amendment. I believe that the Minister understands the point made by the right reverend Prelate and by many noble Lords with regard to care assistants, and I hope that something can be done in another place to make the amendment perfect. I know that we in this House want to make it perfect; that is our job. However, we must work together. Therefore, I thank everyone concerned and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) "Nurses agency" means, subject to subsection (5), an employment agency for the supply of nurses registered with the United Kingdom Central Council.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 31, after second ("agency,") insert ("a nurses' agency,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Regulation of establishments and agencies]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 13, line 25, after ("agency") insert ("which are independent of that person, establishment or agency and so far as possible in accordance with any common industry complaints scheme,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which is similar but not the same as an amendment which I tabled on Report, concerns the requirement that care homes should have a properly independent system of complaints when they apply for registration.
At Report stage the Minister spoke helpfully at some length about how people envisaged that that system of registration would work and the kind of requirement that there would be for a complaints system. Indeed, to some extent the document Developing the Way Forward also expands on that. However, currently the Bill simply requires that there should be an internal system of complaints. Clearly, the department and the commission will try to ensure that for the care homes affected the internal system of complaints is satisfactory.
However, the purpose of my amendment at this and at Report stage is to secure an independent element in the complaints system. By that, I mean simply that there should be an external adjudicator for the complaints at the level of the care home. The Minister very helpfully explained the role that he saw the commission playing in terms of the independence of the complaints system at the higher level, but he did not quite give the assurance about the nature of the independent complaints system at the lower level.
Since then, the Minister has explained helpfully why currently there is no requirement in the Bill for an independent element. He wrote to me as follows:
"However, there were concerns at the practical difficulties this might pose for small homes and single-handed owner-managers, together with an additional burden of cost and as a result we decided against including this".
Therefore, clearly a policy decision has been made against ensuring that that independent system is in place. As mentioned in Developing the Way Forward, the Independent Healthcare Association has been preparing a code of practice which will include an independent adjudicator as part of its local system of hearing complaints. I very much welcome that.
Therefore, my question to the Minister is: if the Independent Healthcare Association believes that that is an appropriate way forward for its members—and it has members among the smaller care homes as well—why does the Minister not believe that it would be appropriate to include that in the Bill? If it is not in the Bill, how will he ensure that those care homes adopt the helpful code of practice drawn up by the Independent Healthcare Association? It seems to me that those are the two key questions in this matter. If the Minister can assure me that in practice an

1211
independent complaints system will be adopted by nearly all those care homes. I for one shall be perfectly satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on Report, I set out at length how complaints against registered providers will be dealt with. Perhaps at Third Reading I may give only a brief summary.
We shall use the power in what is now Clause 21(6)(j) to require all establishments and agencies to have a proper procedure for dealing with complaints. The detail of that internal complaints procedure will be spelt out in regulations and has not been finalised at this stage. However, it is likely to include a requirement that all complaints must be logged, dealt with in a certain time, the outcome recorded and so forth. That is a significant advance in relation to the circumstances which pertain in many of the establishments which are to be regulated as a result of the Bill being enacted.
The second big advance made by the Bill is that any person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal procedure will be able to take his complaint to the commission. The commission will have the power to investigate complaints as an integral part of its regulatory function. Service users will also be able to take their complaint direct to the commission if they have a good reason for not wanting to use the internal complaints procedure. Where the commission finds that the complaint is justified, it will be able to use the full range of its enforcement powers to ensure that remedial action is taken by providers.
The Government are confident that this system will give service users all the protection they need. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that he wanted to see a genuinely independent complaints system for the benefit of people in care homes and users of private healthcare. That is precisely what the commission will provide. It will have the power to investigate any matter relating to a breach of regulations or standards and it will be entirely independent of the registered establishments and agencies as well as of the purchasers of the services. Therefore, its investigations will be entirely objective and impartial.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, argued that the internal complaints procedure should have an independent element. However, the amendment that he has tabled is different because it would allow regulations to be made requiring providers to set up an entirely independent complaints procedure. That would be instead of the internal complaints procedure.
We considered that issue when we were developing the standards far older people in residential and nursing homes set out for consultation in Fit for the Future?. However, we decided against that because we felt that it would impose an unfair burden on providers. We must recognise that some of the providers who will be regulated by the commission will be small businesses. Sometimes, they will be single-handed owners and managers. There is an issue as to the degree of burden that can be placed upon them.
1212
I noted with great interest the remarks the noble Lord made about the views of the Independent Healthcare Association, but one must recognise that it does not speak for all the many agencies and establishments which fall to be regulated by the Bill. Of course, we want to encourage the Independent Healthcare Association to set up its own independent complaints system. It will be free to do so and there is nothing in the regulations preventing it doing so. In answer to the noble Lord's specific question, the commission will encourage providers to consider an independent element within a complaints procedure as a matter of good practice, but I cannot agree that it would be appropriate to make it compulsory for all providers.
The fact is that what is proposed in the Bill will lead to an appreciable improvement in the complaints system. It will ensure that every establishment has a proper complaints system which will be checked and inspected by the national care standards commission, which will then be able to investigate complaints made to it by users of services in those establishments. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Although at this late stage I shall not ambush him on the subject, I do not believe that he has moved far enough. I took encouragement from his comment that the commission would encourage care homes to adopt an independent element as a matter of good practice, but the industry is being more progressive than he gives it credit for. It is moving towards independent adjudication in a most helpful way.
I do not want to press the point unduly, but I believe that it will be a matter of practice for the commission rather than the drafting of the Bill. Therefore, I take some comfort from the fact that the industry is providing the independent element, which will make it straightforward for the commission to ensure that the vast majority of the care homes affected will adopt it in their complaints system. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 22 [National minimum standards]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Before issuing a statement, or an amended statement which in the opinion of the appropriate Minister effects a substantial change in the standards, the appropriate Minister shall consult any persons he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have always made it clear that the Government intend to consult on each set of national minimum standards as they are developed and before they are finalised. It is inconceivable that they would not do so. However, on Report, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pressed for the

1213
reassurance of a mandatory requirement to consult. I am happy to bring forward this amendment today in response to his concerns.
The amendment requires Ministers to consult on the standards before publishing them and before making any substantial change to them. We have reserved the right to make minor changes without consultation as we shall want to keep the standards as up to date as possible and shall need to make minor adjustments from time to time in order to ensure this. Perhaps I may give an example. The draft standards for older people in residential and nursing homes, as set out in Fit for the Future?, include a standard which states that:
"Residents must have access to their personal records if they wish to in line with the Data Protection Act 1984".
In the next edition of the standards, that will need to be changed to refer to the Data Protection Act 1998, which came into force on 1st March this year at which point the 1984 Act was repealed. I am sure that noble Lords will accept that there is no need to consult on such minor changes to the standards, as in the example I have given. I believe that it is to the advantage of all concerned that from time to time the standards are developed and changed. One of the conclusions I draw from the current regulatory regime is that it was not able to keep pace with developments within the care industry. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I simply say to the Minister, "For this relief, much thanks". I entirely understand why the amendment has been framed in such a way. I am conscious that there is a need for flexibility and, as we have often said during proceedings on the Bill, it is a question of striking a balance between what we all want to see ideally and what is practicable in the day-to-day lives of Ministers and others in the real world. I thank the Minister again for the care he has taken in addressing my concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Employment agencies and businesses: duty to refer]:
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 47, line 26, at end insert ("if it appears to him that, unless such a provisional listing is made, there is a risk that any person will suffer significant harm").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last opportunity that the House will have to consider even this limited amendment to a vitally important section of the Bill. Given the Government's majority in the other place, there is not the slightest chance that any amendment will be made to the listing procedure if it is not done here. Furthermore, although the Government have in this place given indications that they were considering sympathetically improvements to Clause 71—as it now is—nothing has emerged. Other bodies, such as the Royal College of Nursing, have been endeavouring to negotiate employee safeguards and had gained the impression that the Government themselves were going to bring forward improvements.
1214
Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate on key aspects of the blacklisting procedure. First, it potentially covers well over 1 million people, from charity workers through to doctors by way of orderlies and nurses. Secondly, it requires every employer of any such person to report him to the Secretary of State if the worker concerned has been dismissed, suspended or transferred,
"on the grounds of misconduct … which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult".
Noble Lords should note that the risk of harm does not have to be physical and certainly need not be intentional, let alone abusive. For example, as the Royal College of Nursing parliamentary briefing on the clause states,
"such misconduct could include situations such as a nurse accidentally giving the wrong drug or wrong dosage to a patient or failing to ensure that a frail older person has been fed or had their soiled sheets changed. These are some situations where the misconduct would be the result of an isolated incident, incompetence or genuine mistake".
It warns also,
"Such situations can arise as a result of management failings, such as poor procedures, or because of the huge pressures on nurses and other staff caused by staffing shortages. The RCN is concerned that individuals may find themselves scapegoated and referred to the list when the responsibility and accountability for failings in the case should actually be shared and addressed at a more systematic level".
Like me, the RCN is concerned also with malicious referrals. One speaker from the Government Benches last week—I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Warner—suggested that no one would do so because it would risk exposing the malice. However, as the Royal College notes,
"Malicious referrals are made to the United Kingdom Central Council every year, resulting in great stress and misery for nurses who are thus referred and often lose their careers".
It points out further—I hope that noble Lords will not mind my quoting, but it is an authoritative source— that,
"Bullying employers might also threaten to refer workers to the list as a means of keeping their staff under control"—
a point which I tried to make in previous debates. Particularly where a worker has stood up for vulnerable people, in residential care, for example, the employer might well threaten dismissal and/or referral if they do not shut up. The Royal College says that that is already occurring before the Bill provides the blacklist weapon—if I may call it that—to unscrupulous employers. What is more, outside the mainstream health institutions to which the RCN is mostly relevant, life is a good deal less internally well regulated.
"But", say the Government, "not to worry. We are going to produce extra statutory guidelines which will require employers to go through a proper internal procedure before they dismiss and so forth a worker for misconduct". That was a point of much solace to some noble Lords who were in two minds about the amendment.
However, that is an argument for doing away with employment tribunals altogether, because in most cases which come before them the worker will have

1215
been through disciplinary procedures comparable with those which the Government are no doubt contemplating for their guidelines. Virtually every organisation of any size these days has theoretically fair disciplinary procedures, often based on the ACAS Code of Disciplinary Practice.
At all events, upon dismissal, the employer must then refer the worker to the Secretary of State. Under Clause 71, all that the civil servant can then do is to consider the information submitted—and nothing else; to make no contact whatever with the worker concerned; and then to make up his own mind as to whether "it may be appropriate" for the worker to be provisionally listed.
One does not need to be a lawyer to realise that where one is considering only the self-justification of one side to a dispute—in this case, the ex-employer— and where the only criterion is whether it "may be appropriate" in due course for the worker to be permanently listed, it is difficult to imagine cases where provisional listing will not almost automatically follow.
I re-read in Hansard with near-surprise—nay, astonishment—the Minister's remarks last Tuesday, that the provisional listing procedure was a consideration of the case "on its merits". All I can say is, only the merits of one side. Yet at the moment that someone goes on the provisional list, his employment prospects—or, if he has another job, his actual employment—are shattered. The career and reputational effects are devastating; far more so than in many criminal prosecutions.
My amendment seeks to add but one requirement for provisional listing; namely, that the civil servant must be of the view,
"that, unless such a provisional listing is made, there is a risk that any person will suffer significant harm".
In the debate last week, I pointed out that in Clause 68 the Government are providing precisely that safeguard, and indeed more, in the provisional or emergency procedure to be followed where a child is to be removed front a registered childminder. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, failed to address that point, beyond saying that,
"It is not meaningful to imagine that the likelihood of harm can be assessed in those circumstances".— [Official Report, 28/3/2000; col. 775.]
and that,
"It could raise issues of interpretation".— [Official Report, 28/3/2000; col. 776.]
That is precisely what will be required of those who will deal with emergency procedures for childminders.
If protection of the public is the overriding consideration—many will believe that it is—one must contemplate just how matters will be left if the wording in Clause 71 is left as drafted. It is not fair, as was said on Second Reading, that the overriding need is protection for vulnerable people and that the considerations of fairness to workers with vulnerable people are secondary. That is not right. It does not
1216
strike a fair and proper balance. It is wholly contrary to the traditions of the balancing act which this House has undertaken since time immemorial.
If, for example, one was considering the basic freedoms and protections in criminal law according to the same test, one would receive a dusty answer. One may argue that that case is criminal and this is civil; but I put it to your Lordships that the boundary between civil and criminal is these days growing extremely blurred. As I have indicated, the consequences of a provisional and a permanent listing for an individual are more serious in many cases than would be a criminal conviction.
If the issues of the burden of proof in criminal matters; the right to trial by jury; and the right not to have one's previous convictions read before the case is heard were being considered in this House according to the measures and attitudes prevalent on the Government Front Bench in considering Clause 71, one would be in a rather dire position.
Your Lordships may recollect that on Second Reading I read the forceful opinion of Professor Jowell QC, the distinguished co-author, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls, of the standard text on the law in this area. He concluded by saying that,
"This Bill surely offends principles of English administrative law in respect of the Secretary of State's provisional decision to list in its failure to provide a fair hearing to those included in that list".
As I said, I can find nothing comparable with the provisional listing procedure anywhere in our legal system, nor have the Government been able to disabuse me. Doctors, lawyers, teachers and nurses all have protections that preserve the elusive balance in a way which Clause 71 pre-eminently fails to do. This procedure is out of balance with fairness. In the last resort it will harm the very groups which we seek to protect by this Bill, for over time it will deter, as in other areas of caring people are being deterred. It will deter some of the brightest and best from exposing themselves to a system which fails to afford them fair protection. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. I admire the noble Lord's persistence on this matter although I take issue with his judgment as to whether a balance has been struck. As a former director of social services, I speak as someone who has had to adjudicate on claims of abuse by staff against children and vulnerable adults. In my own experience the current system is slanted strongly in favour of the alleged perpetrator rather than the victim. That is because of the problems of securing evidence.
The noble Lord has made much of the fact that these cases may be akin to criminal cases. That is simply not so: we are actually deciding these cases on a different standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. Even with that lower standard of proof, in these cases it is often extremely difficult to prove the case against the perpetrator, a member of staff.

1217
We have to understand that the purpose of the provisions in the Bill is to protect the civil liberties of vulnerable adults not to be abused as well as the civil liberties of staff. In my judgment the noble Lord's amendment seems to get the balance wrong, given that there is protection for staff already in the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord has been too dismissive of the checks to be put in place against unfair treatment of an employee who is to be provisionally listed, including the guidelines that the Government are preparing.
An employer is under a duty to refer a worker for inclusion in the protection of vulnerable adults' list only when he is considering it; or has decided to terminate a worker's employment or change their duties as a result of believing that they harmed, or placed at risk of harm, a vulnerable adult.
When the Minister receives the referral, he may list the person on a provisional basis. He then writes to the worker and asks for comments on the information that the employer has provided. He may go back to the employer to get his views on the worker's comments. At that stage, and only at that stage, is he in a position to judge whether the worker is guilty of misconduct or unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. If the answer is "yes", the worker is confirmed on the list. There is still a further right of appeal to the independent tribunal. It seems to me to be unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to go through that process before provisional listing.
In my view, the noble Lord's amendment would make it much more likely that that would be the effect because it raises another hurdle for the Minister to jump before provisional listing. Provisional listing should be permissible on the employer's written referral. That of itself is prima facie evidence of risk of harm and therefore justification for provisional listing.
It is worth bearing in mind that many staff in social care are suspended from duty while a full investigation takes place in order to stop vulnerable people being at risk of harm. That is taking place day in and day out in this country as we debate this issue.
The noble Lord has tried to raise the spectre of unreasonable employers using any excuse to get rid of staff before the full protection of employment law bites at 12 months. In my view, that overlooks the existing checks in the system. Employers are subject to registration and have to have proper complaints and disciplinary processes. Employees will invariably have had the opportunity to put their case within these processes. As the care of vulnerable adults is hardly a sector where people are flocking to work, the idea that employers are going to rush to get rid of staff in a cavalier way seems highly improbable. If they do, they will come to the attention of the registration authorities provided for in the Bill, which can hardly be in the interests of the particular employers.
1218
It is already difficult enough to root out abuse of vulnerable adults even with the improvements contained in this Bill. Many abusers are deceitful and difficult to expose. Erecting a further barrier to provisional listing, which is the effect of the amendment, will work in their favour. I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn or rejected.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I intervene very briefly, and conscious that staff can be vulnerable in terms of their careers to false accusations, as service users are vulnerable in terms of their personal welfare to abuse by a small minority of staff. It is important that people should not be labelled as a potential risk without good reason. However, I believe that we have got this broadly right, and that the day-to-day experience of service users argues very strongly against further tipping the balance against them. I choke a little on the term "significant harm", whether in Clause 72, as suggested here, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, reminds us, in Clause 68 as at present.
I envisage an interview with a potential interviewee, who responds to a question about the effect he or she might have on the lives of customers by saying that there would not be very much harm. The risk of even a little harm seems to me to be too great a risk. Therefore, much as I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his work for Mencap, I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, since our last debate on this subject I have reflected most seriously on the arguments brought to bear last week. I have also taken soundings of many people who work in social care and those who focus on the clients of social care agencies. The results of these discussions have reinforced the views that I expressed last time: that we must indeed aim for balance in our systems, but if perfect balance is not possible—I believe that we would all acknowledge that it may not be—we must err on the side of the vulnerable person.
I understand the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. If he will permit me to say so, they are lawyer's arguments and very valid ones. But I believe that it is not without significance that those of us who have spoken strongly against his views, and in favour of the rights of the vulnerable person, are largely those who have actually worked in delivering social care. We have seen at first hand the abuse suffered by vulnerable people and, more importantly, the problems not only of bringing to book the perpetrators of abuse but of ensuring that they are prevented from abusing again. It is my very firm opinion that sufficient safeguards exist in the proposed arrangements to mitigate against miscarriages of justice and, more importantly, that they will ensure that, as we have sadly failed hitherto to ensure that abusers do not abuse in one place, this time we shall be able to ensure that once found out or suspected, they will be unable to abuse in another institution or area (as happened in the past because the safeguards to prevent that have not been sufficiently strong).

1219
We owe it to vulnerable people to ensure that follow-up systems protect them and that this time we put in place systems which they can trust, as opposed to those which have failed them so frequently in the past.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I feel very strongly that there should be better protection for both vulnerable adults and staff. That could be achieved by more senior staff working at the level of patients and vulnerable people. Senior staff are so often tucked away in offices involved in administration or attending meetings. People are much more important than paper. If there were better management working among patients and staff, there would be less risk of problems arising. Can the Minister say whether there is any hope of getting better standards at ground level? Sisters should never have been removed from ward level.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as one who took part in both Committee and Report stage debates on this issue, perhaps I may make my own position clear. I believe that it will be within the recollection of the House that when the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moved his amendment in Committee I was more than overwhelmed. He made an extremely strong case. However, by the time he moved a further amendment on Report, I was able to listen to many of the arguments that we have heard again this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I must confess that I think that I have moved on this matter. I had been leaning quite heavily in favour of shifting the balance back a little in order to protect employees against the threat of bullying employers, which is the serious threat that must be considered here. But as I have heard further arguments, in particular from those who have had much greater direct experience of dealing with vulnerable adults and children, I now believe that it is better to leave the balance where it is.
I say this with some sadness to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, because he has made his case with great eloquence, not least again today at Third Reading. Nevertheless, I believe that he has lost the argument. If he decides to test the opinion of the House, I am afraid that I shall not be able to support him.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I added my name to an identical amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on Report. I have not done so today, not because I do not think that the noble Lord has a good point to make—I think he has—but because, in the light of the full reply then given by the Minister and contributions from other noble Lords, I am persuaded that we should tread carefully here.
The issue that has been raised by the noble Lord is not whether there should or should not be a system of blacklisting. I believe that we are all agreed that such a system should be in place. The issue here is whether some people's names should reach the provisional list and others should not. The point of the provisional list
1220
is clear. It is to ensure that workers who have caused harm to vulnerable adults, or have put them at the risk of harm, and have been dismissed for their actions should have an instant barrier placed in front of them while their cases are being considered so as to prevent them from moving on to do similar harm elsewhere.
To allow some people to pass through that barrier without hindrance is to take a risk. The amendment invites the Secretary of State to make a judgment. However, I believe that I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—in a friendly and constructive spirit—whether he believes that the Secretary of State, at such an early stage in the process, would be in a position to make a judgment of this kind fairly. The justice or injustice of a referral will emerge only later in the process, when the Secretary of State comes to consider all the supporting observations and information.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the noble Lord's amendment will address the other concern that he raised, perfectly properly; namely, that the referral may be malicious. Malicious referrals are of course a real issue, but I question whether the amendment as drafted would provide a safeguard to anyone whose name has been maliciously referred.
The House will understand that I find myself torn here. The choice for noble Lords is between erring on the side of caution in one of two directions: either, as the Government recommend, guarding against the possibility of anyone moving on to take up new employment where they may harm a vulnerable adult, even though this risks trapping the innocent; or by protecting the civil liberties of the accused, even though this risks temporarily allowing through the net a guilty person. The balance is very fine. I await with interest what the Minister has to say.
4.15 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I, too, rise to speak in opposition to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, undoubtedly has an arguable point here. It is a point with which I am familiar. On many occasions when representing staff employed in the National Health Service and in local government social services I have had to make a very similar point. I have represented staff appearing before some of the more notorious committees of inquiry set up under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. Given that background, why do my views diverge from those held by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips?
I have not spent all of my working life as a trade union official. I was a practising nurse; indeed, I am still a registered general nurse. In that capacity, I have seen bad practice and I find it difficult to justify such bad practice under any circumstances, however many excuses or rationalisations are brought forward. When representing staff as a trade union representative, it was my job to advocate such excuses and rationalisations and to seek to mitigate and deflect any blame. As I have said before in relation to the Bill, I justified those actions to myself by reasoning that the other side had failed to make its case and thus justice

1221
was done. However, I have also said that I have on occasion found that difficult to live with if, say, I got someone off whom I would not, under any circumstances, want working on a ward or in a department for which I had responsibility as a nurse.
I am still a trade union employee—for another 26 days or so. For that reason, I could easily declare an interest that would enable me to support this amendment, as does the Royal College of Nursing. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has mentioned that point. However, in considering the matter this afternoon, I must bring to bear both aspects of my working life. In the light of that, I shall speak in support of my nursing experience, which involved the work of protecting vulnerable people.
If the noble Lord's amendment were carried, it would put in place an additional hurdle in trying to reach an adequate definition of the word "significant". That would impose yet another subjective judgment and would place vulnerable people at a degree of additional risk. I accept that the matter is difficult, but in my judgment, my noble friend the Minister has the balance just right.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I have not yet spoken to any amendments to this Bill because I was not a Member of the House when it received its Second Reading and it was a little too early for me to contribute to the Committee stage.
I agree that this is a difficult balance to strike and that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has put forward a persuasive argument. However, I have spent many years looking at the issue of abuse of vulnerable adults, in particular as regards a group that is especially vulnerable to neglect and abuse of all kinds; namely, the growing sector of elderly people who are slowly descending into mental incapacity. Very often they fall between all the different aspects of our welfare services because they are not sufficiently mentally incompetent to be covered by the protections offered in mental health legislation. Such people are frequently abused in terms of financial loss and neglect—sometimes unintentionally—but always with devastating results.
For that reason, in the end I have had to make a decision in support of those vulnerable adults. Nevertheless, because the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has made such a good case here, I ask the Minister if, in preparing the guidelines, he can ensure that the process of establishing the facts is carried out with the utmost speed in order both to protect vulnerable people and to close the remaining loopholes that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I regret that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, unlike many other noble Lords who have spoken today, I believe that my noble friend Lord Phillips has made a very good case here. If we do not accept that case, we shall come to regret it in the future.
1222
I do not believe that anyone sitting on these Benches is any less keen to root out the abuse of vulnerable adults. That is axiomatic in the way we have approached this legislation and is reflected by the seriousness with which we have addressed this particular issue. Of course appropriate methods must be found to tackle and eradicate the abuse of vulnerable people. However, I believe that the Bill provides so much discretion that, under certain circumstances, a malicious employer could cause substantial harm to an employee.
Let me explain. This is a complicated clause. It is a lawyer's paradise to some degree and it is no surprise, therefore, that it has taken a lawyer to look through it and understand what the problems associated with it are. Perhaps I can draw attention to the subsection which deals specifically with the conditions.
On Report, the Minister and other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, talked about the extra statutory guidelines which will apply to care homes and their employment practices. Certainly if the homes follow those guidelines there will be a degree of fairness surrounding the dismissal or otherwise of an employee. But the employer is entitled to refer in circumstances where he only "considered" dismissing the employee. That is extremely loose language. It means that the employer does not have to go through the full procedure of the extra statutory guidelines; he can simply consider dismissing the employee. That seems to drive a coach and horses through the argument.
We know that the outcome of listing is effectively to deprive an employee of his or her livelihood, so we have to take particular care, as my noble friend Lord Phillips said, as to how those conditions operate. Once those conditions have operated and the employer has referred an employee, then the Secretary of State,
"If it appears from the information submitted with a reference under subsection (1) that it may be appropriate for the worker to be included in the list … shall".
So we have two situations. First, the employer merely "considered" dismissing the employee; he did not dismiss, just "considered" dismissing. Secondly, all that the Secretary of State has to consider is,
"that it may be appropriate".
In those circumstances, there is a considerable gap in the Bill.
Our belief is therefore well founded that this clause could well rebound in future years. I do not believe that the "significant risk" test is a high hurdle when we consider the nature of the clause as currently drafted. If the words,
"or would have considered dismissing him",
were not in the Bill, there may well have been a case for not introducing those hurdles. But that particular hurdle does not seem to put the balance too high.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We had this same argument at Report stage and at that time I, too, was concerned about the words,
"or would have considered dismissing him".

1223
But one must read to the end of the paragraph which adds the proviso, "on such grounds" if he had not resigned or retired. That is bound to take account of the fact that there has been a discovery of abuse and mishandling and, before anyone could do anything about it, the worker left—resigned or retired. What else can we put in the Bill if one of the conditions has to be that the employer could say, "The matter is sufficiently serious so that if he had stayed I would have sacked him"? I follow the noble Lord's argument, but I still do not see what else we could put in.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that is precisely why we need the hurdle. If we could excise the words, "or would have considered", then perhaps one would not need the hurdle. But because of those words, one needs to accept the fact that the full procedures set out in the extra statutory guidelines were not followed. That is a considerable hole and diminishes the safeguards available for the worker in question.
We have had a considerable debate today. There is clearly an issue of principle involved here and I do not believe that we will resolve it easily. Suffice to say that we do not believe that the balance is correct. The noble Lord, Lord Witrner, may well be correct that the current system has the balance completely wrong. But we believe that the system proposed is tilted too far the other way and that the safeguard we propose should be included.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, having listened to the debate, it occurs to me that it may be worth considering one suggestion, which did not occur to me earlier. At the moment the Secretary of State has absolutely no discretion. Once subsection (4) is triggered,
"the Secretary of St ate shall— (a) determine the reference",
and shall,
"(b) pending that determination, provisionally include the worker in the list".
The second "shall" is not included in the provision, but it follows inevitably from the wording of the paragraph.
It may be wise for the Minister to give the Secretary of State a scintilla of discretion. All we would need is to add the word "may", so that, if the subsection is triggered, it would read,
"the Secretary of State shall— (a) determine the reference in accordance with subsections (5) to (7); and (b) pending that determination, [may] provisionally include the worker in the list".
Why should the Secretary of State be bound to include the worker in the list? Why should he not have a discretion when subsection (4) is triggered? It could not do any harm and may be worth considering as a possible amendment in the other place.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a sober and informed debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is a debate which essentially started at Second Reading and has followed through all the stages in your Lordships' House.
1224
Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for the care and passion with which he brought these matters to our attention. But I remain convinced that the difficult balance which has had to be set between the rights of vulnerable people and the rights of the employer is right in the provisions of the Bill as they now stand. I believe also that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in bringing these arguments to us, perhaps ignored some of the other elements of the Bill which will raise standards in the care homes we are discussing. They will embrace the way in which the homes manage, support and train members of staff. That is a factor which needs to be taken into account when we come to the issue of potential malicious referrals.
It is worth returning to the work of the Home Office interdepartmental group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and abuse of trust which met in 1998–99. That group recommended that certain people, including criminals convicted of specific offences, should be prevented from working with children. But the group also considered the protection of vulnerable adults and recommended that there should be a workforce ban for people who abused vulnerable adults. That is what the provisions of Part VI implement.
Much of the Bill in relation to the protection of vulnerable adults follows the same provisions contained in the Protection of Children Bill enacted through both Houses of Parliament last Session. It was during our debates on that Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised in particular the need to ensure that the provisions of the Protection of Children Bill were extended to vulnerable adults. In essence, that is what the provisions in the Bill before the House propose.
The protection of vulnerable adults scheme requires the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons who are unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and provides that those listed are prohibited from taking employment in a care position looking after vulnerable adults. Overall the system is similar to that provided for in the Protection of Children Act.
An individual has to be referred to the Secretary of State for possible inclusion in the list by an employer who has dismissed him on grounds of misconduct which harmed a vulnerable adult or placed him at risk of harm.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has suggested—although I believe he is unhappy with the provision—to prevent avoidance of the scheme special provision is made to catch those who have resigned so as to avoid such disciplinary action or who have been suspended, transferred or provisionally transferred.
To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who suggested a rewording of the word "shall" in the clause, the discretion lies in whether it appears to be appropriate. On referral, the Secretary of State will "provisionally list" the individual if it appears,
"that it may be appropriate for the worker to be included in the list".
That person will then be subject to the prohibition on working with vulnerable adults.

1225
The Secretary of State goes on to disclose the referral papers to the person and to invite observations from him and, if appropriate, further observations from him on any observations made by the referring employer before reaching an opinion as to whether the employer reasonably believed the person was guilty of the misconduct and whether the person is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. If both those tests are passed, the person's listing is confirmed. That is the point at which the person has the right to take his case to the independent tribunal.
The tribunal will remove the person from the list unless it is satisfied that he is guilty of the misconduct and that he is unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. Therefore, the tribunal provides a full hearing of the underlying merits of the case, with a burden of proof that is favourable to the applicant. The applicant will have a right to make oral representations to the tribunal.
I want to emphasise the responsibilities that employers will have in order for the scheme to operate effectively. First, an employer proposing to offer employment in a care position must, before making the offer, check whether the person is on the list. If he or she is on the list, that person cannot be employed in a care position, as defined in Clause 70. Secondly, the employer has a duty to refer workers to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the list under the circumstances I mentioned earlier.
In our debates in your Lordships' House on this subject, the key matter has been the balance to be struck between protecting vulnerable adults and securing the rights of workers accused of harming them. I have given the matter a great deal of consideration, but at the end of the day I am taken back to the basic principle of these provisions which is to offer protection to those who cannot protect themselves. We want to identify workers who have harmed these people and ban them from the workforce so that they cannot be in a position to inflict such harm again.
We have based these provisions on referrals made when a worker's behaviour towards a vulnerable adult has been so bad as to result in their being moved from a care position. We are not dealing with minor incidents or infringements. We are looking at people in need of care and protection who have been harmed or placed at risk of harm by workers in positions of trust.
Whatever provisions are put in place we must ensure that they are fair and that workers accused of harming vulnerable adults are treated justly and fairly. We have safeguards in place to do just that. As I said, the misconduct must have resulted in the worker being removed from a care position, which in many cases will mean dismissal. Workers in employment for more than a year will have access to an employment tribunal if they believe that they have been dismissed unfairly.
All services in this scheme will be required to have proper disciplinary procedures in place. I believe that that will act against malicious referrals and poor
1226
procedures on the part of employers. Before permanent listing, the worker will have the opportunity to comment on the employer's referral.
Finally, there will be a right of appeal against the decision to list an individual. At that point the worker who is dissatisfied with the listing decision can elect to have his case heard by the independent tribunal. Of course, there is a balance to be struck. We believe that in constructing this scheme we have provided both for the rights of the worker involved and for the safety of the vulnerable adults to whom we owe a duty of protection.
I have carefully considered the specific amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. On Report, when we discussed the matter of restrictive provisional listing, I expressed concern that such a move would seriously weaken the scheme we have devised for protecting vulnerable adults. Of course, I am aware of the effect that provisional listing can have on an individual and his or her future. Provisional listing is not a matter that can ever be taken lightly.
I want to assure noble Lords that provisional listing will not happen in every case that is referred to the Secretary of State; it will not be a matter of an employer making a reference and the Secretary of State reacting by immediately listing an individual provisionally. Each case will be considered on its merits and the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that provisional listing is right in each case. He will have to make a decision that the employer has made a proper reference and that provisional listing is warranted. If necessary, he can go back to the employer and seek additional information if the reference is unclear or incomplete.
We are concerned to ensure that in a referral the Secretary of State is able to take a broad view of everyone concerned when he considers whether it is appropriate to include a worker in the list provisionally. I believe that including such provisions on the face of the Bill would detract from the Secretary of State's ability to act in the best interests of all concerned.
On the specific issue of a "significant" test, I do not believe that there would be benefit from trying to limit provisional listing to only those cases where there was a risk of "significant" harm. Apart from introducing a loophole which might leave vulnerable adults ill-protected, the qualifier "significant" adds nothing. For an act of misconduct to result in a referral to the list, it must have been an act that resulted in the person being removed from a care position. Lesser acts of misconduct would not result in provisional listing.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he explain why, in Clause 68, the test for child carers is "significant harm" when there is an emergency withdrawal of a child from a child carer. If it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord was not convinced by my argument on Report,

1227
so perhaps I can try again. Essentially we are not comparing like with like. In relation to the situation of a childminder, an Ofsted inspector undertakes an emergency deregistration to remove that childminder from children. Registered childminders do not have employers to dismiss them when they act inappropriately with children. That is why we seek to give that power to Ofsted inspectors. That deregistration is one stage back from a reference to the protection of vulnerable adults. It is the equivalent of a worker in a care position being dismissed by his employer for harming a vulnerable adult. I do not believe that it is fair to make a direct comparison.
Perhaps I may respond to some other points made by the noble Lord. I believe he suggested that the RCN had put forward the case of a professional worker who had been referred in relation to a specific incident where he had not received any training, for instance, in how to administer medicines or in the proper restraint of an individual. In my view, if a worker has not received appropriate training in such circumstances, or if there is no clear guidance as to how a staff member should handle a specific situation, it would not necessarily follow that that person would be listed.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke about people who would be debarred from future employment in the industry. I accept the seriousness with which provisional listing must be viewed, but it is wrong to say that these people will be completely debarred from future employment in the industry. Anyone who is listed will be banned from working with vulnerable adults in the prescribed services, but he or she will be able to apply for jobs in the wider employment field. None the less, I do not disregard the impact that provisional listing will have on individuals, but I believe that this measure is a necessary part of the balance which the Bill seeks to achieve.
The noble Lord also questioned whether the impact of the provisions would deter people from working in this field. At Report stage he referred to voluntary workers, in particular the scout movement. It is my understanding that the scout movement welcomed the Protection of Children Act. The whole purpose of the Bill, not simply these clauses, is to raise standards and public confidence in the whole of the care industry. I believe that in the long term, if not the medium term, these measures, together with the establishment of a general social care council to improve the regulation of care workers and, in turn, public confidence in their work, will enhance our ability to attract into this field good quality people. My goodness, we need to do so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested.
We should remind ourselves of the manipulative and devious nature of the abusers that this scheme is designed to catch. Time and time again serious abuse has been uncovered and recommendations have been made. In his report People Like Us, Sir William Utting said:
"It is dismaying to find that employers are still allowing staff being investigated or disciplined to resign, thereby avoiding the consequences of their behaviour. Employers who take this easy way out are making it easier for … paedophiles in particular to continue their careers".
1228
I believe that those remarks can apply as much to people who abuse vulnerable adults as to those who abuse children.
We have had a very good debate, and all noble Lords who have spoken have contributed very important points. At the end of the day this is a difficult balance to strike, but I am convinced that we have got it right.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his usual careful response to the debate. I am also grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate, despite the fact that most of them spoke against the amendment. It is particularly unusual for a mere solicitor to find three of his most esteemed clients, in the form of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, ranged against him.
In response to one or two noble Lords who said that my arguments were those of a lawyer, occasionally such points are not bad ones. Sometimes lawyers see things that others do not see, and the commitment to a cause can undermine one's objectivity. That is still my view having heard the extremely careful, thoughtful and deeply-held views of noble Lords.
Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, perhaps I should rename myself "Lord Phillips of Diminishing Returns". My small army has become more and more diluted as debates have proceeded. Even the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who put his name to the amendment at the previous stage, is not quite so sure about it this time. However, I believe that he still supports me at this juncture.
Many points have been raised in the debate. I do not propose to reply to all of them now, although they are worthy of response. I very much hope that, in taking this matter forward and considering their guidelines, the Government will consult widely, and with the greatest care, on the civil libertarian aspects that I have sought inadequately to place before noble Lords.
In seeking to prevent the appalling abuse of those who are totally helpless in the face of misconduct—one has the recent examples of the Waterhouse report on paedophilia in North Wales and the case of Dr Shipman and his extraordinary depredations—it is easy to forget that in the midst of it there are hurt, wounded and deranged people, including young people, who month by month can, and do, make allegations against wholly innocent care workers. Those allegations inflict terrible torment on those unjustly accused.
It was in an attempt to bring the position into slightly better balance that I tabled the amendment. That erected another hurdle, and that was the whole point of it. We believe that at the moment the series of tests and hurdles to be overcome before someone is provisionally, and then permanently, listed is too easy. We on these Benches are unimpressed by the fact t hat there is a right of appeal to a tribunal. That will occur six to nine months down the road, and in the interim the person will be deprived of his career. It is all very

1229
well for the Minister to say that such an individual, who may be a highly trained physiotherapist, can do a back office job that does not get anywhere near patients. The reality is that anyone who gets onto this list will be devastated: his career will be blighted and his reputation held up to public ridicule and contempt.
None the less, all has now been said. Although I want to divide the House, in prudence I should not do so. I hope that when this matter leaves this House Members of another place will have a further go at it. It is still not too late for the Government to review where they are at.
Finally, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position of childminders and the case with which we are now dealing. The Minister said that the two cases were apples and pears. That is not correct. In circumstances where one goes to a magistrates' court, not a civil servant behind closed doors, to ask for the provisional removal of a person engaged in childminding, the test is a higher one; namely, whether the child would be "likely" to suffer "significant harm" if the provisional order was not made. What is more, in the case of a childminder, the person who makes the allegation is not the former employer, as in this case, who in some circumstances may have a very big axe to grind, but Ofsted which is an independent, objective and professional organisation. On all counts, I believe that the Government have applied completely different standards to very comparable circumstances. The Government have got it right in Clause 68 but wrong in Clause 71. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 [Boarding schools: national minimum standards]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 57. line 28, at end insert (", and
( ) the quality of school nurses").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have tabled this very simple amendment because of an apparent gap, or at the very least an ambiguity, in this part of the Bill. In the Bill one has measures to regulate standards of care, including clinical and nursing care, in a variety of settings. In Part VII one has provisions to regulate the welfare of children in boarding schools. What we do not appear to have in that part are measures to square the circle; in other words, provisions to ensure the quality of nursing care for children in boarding schools.
The House is already aware that the Bill amends the Children Act 1989 so that independent boarding schools fall within the remit of the national care standards commission and the Welsh Assembly. Clause 87 makes provision for national minimum standards in relation to the welfare of children accommodated in schools and colleges. At present, most independent schools employ people who go by the name of school nurses but who are neither registered nor qualified as nurses. Yet those are the very people who have what one might term front-line responsibility for the health and welfare of the children under their charge.
1230
If we are serious about raising standards of care across the board, we should be clear about what is and is not appropriate in boarding schools. It seems to me that if, as a proprietor of a boarding school, you employ someone called a "school nurse", that person should be a registered nurse and you should be obliged to carry out checks on him or her.
The minimum standards should also specify that the school nurse has access to a named doctor at all times and that there is appropriate provision for record-keeping. I am told that in one case recently, a nurse went from the NHS to take up a job at an independent school and found that there were no medical records on the children at all.
Consultation on minimum standards in boarding schools is now under way. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will involve the Royal College of Nursing in that process? I hope that he can reassure me also that when defining the minimum standards of welfare, it will not simply be a matter of the number of wash basins in dormitories which will be uppermost in the minds of inspectors but also, principally, the actual health and wellbeing of children. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this amendment illustrates how easy it is for important matters to be forgotten or left out as people may feel that the responsibility lies elsewhere. This is a matter for joined-up government or people working in co-operation for the well-being of children.
Children go to boarding schools for many different reasons. They may have a special need due to disability, or a special skill such as dancing or music. Or their parents may work abroad or just want them to be in a boarding situation. Whatever the reason, children are away from their parents and guardians and their home environment. Children in close conditions may be at risk from infections and viruses. They can suffer eating disorders; be at risk from drug abuse or bullying; or be very unhappy.
Most parents would assume that there would be a trained school nurse on the staff to be responsible for the health needs of their children and a dedicated school doctor on whom the school could call. But the Royal College of Nursing is concerned that it is possible for independent schools to employ so-called school nurses who are neither registered nor qualified as nurses but are working in schools with responsibility for the health and welfare of children. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, a nurse who went from the National Health Service to an independent school found that there were no records at all on the children.
This amendment would provide national minimum standards for school nurses who are in charge of children's health. That should not be confused with school matrons who are in charge of housekeeping matters and clothes as well as children's well-being. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment, which is supported by the Royal College of Nursing. I certainly support it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we come to an issue we have not debated previously. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for providing me with an opportunity to clarify some of the points he raised.
First, I assure noble Lords that Part V of the Children Act and regulations published in 1991 set out the requirements on independent schools around the provision of health services to children accommodated in a school or college.
Although the manner in which healthcare is provided will vary according to local circumstances, the guidance sets out an expectation that all children should normally be registered with a general medical practitioner. The guidance also states that schools should, if possible, have suitably qualified staff, such as nurses, to deal with health matters.
The provision of an adequate school health service for children living in a school or college covers requirements relating to access to the full range of all primary healthcare services, including a GP, dentist and ophthalmologist.
In his review of safeguards for children living away from home, People Like Us, Sir William Utting considered healthcare in residential schools. His report states that the review received very few observations on the adequacy or otherwise of healthcare in schools or whether there were particular problems for children living away from home.
But the Royal College of Nursing did write expressing concern that independent and boarding schools did not provide the same healthcare programmes as state schools. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I would very much welcome any input which the RCN can give to the deliberations on that important is sue. In considering that comment, Sir William Utting's review consulted inspection reports on independent boarding schools showing that arrangements usually cover arrangements for pupils' access to GPs, storage of medicines and related matters. Some refer to discussions between the doctor and the school staff about general healthcare issues.
As noble Lords will know, the Children Act 1989 applied to independent schools only. That was an unacceptable gap, and through this Bill we shall produce national minimum standards for all boarding schools, including state schools and FE colleges.
I accept very much the sentiment of the noble Earl's amendment but l do not believe that what he proposes is needed. The current power in Clause 87 allows us to draw up national minimum standards for boarding schools. I assure the noble Earl that in developing those minimum standards for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, we intend to include as a minimum requirement that any person employed as a school nurse should be registered with the UKCC and should have appropriate qualifications or experience for that role.
1232
On that basis, I hope that I have reassured the noble Earl that we consider this matter to be important, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance and for his very full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 9:
Line 4, after ("centres,") insert ("independent medical agencies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report I introduced an amendment which your Lordships welcomed which requires the national care standards commission to regulate services provided by doctors to private patients in the patient's own home. As a consequence of that change, we need to add "independent medical agencies" to the Long Title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, should we not add the words "nursing agencies" after the acceptance of the amendment today?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not sure that that is necessary because I believe that nursing agencies are covered. We must consider that, as we shall the amendment which will need to be moved in the other place because of a slight technical deficiency in the noble Earl's wording. We shall certainly look at that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing Green Paper
4.59 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made on housing in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The documents referred to in the Statement as being available in the Vote Office are available in the Printed Paper Office of this House. The Statement is as follows:
"I am very pleased to announce to the House that, today, we are publishing a Housing Green Paper, Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All. This is the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. Housing is a basic requirement for everyone. Every member of this House will know from his postbag just how much housing matters.

1233
"Decent housing gives people a stronger sense of security and identity. It strengthens communities, and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health, educational achievement and employment opportunities. It provides a long-term asset that can be passed on to future generations. Despite the fact that the majority of people are satisfied with their housing, there are still too many problems. The last government's neglect made those problems worse.
"I inherited the worst repossessions crisis ever, with over 1 million homes repossessed or in negative equity, and a £19 billion backlog of repair and modernisation work in council housing. Despite Britain's mild winters, we have one of the worst records of winter deaths in Europe; whole communities have been abandoned in ghettos of deprivation; and homelessness and rough-sleeping doubled. And there is nothing in the Opposition's latest policies that suggests that they have learned lessons. Their proposals have little to do with solving problems and nothing to do with common sense.
"We have made an early start to put things right. We have released 5 billion pounds of capital receipts to renovate 2 million homes. We are implementing the Egan report on raising standards in construction, and are tackling the problem of cowboy builders. Our economic policies have delivered stability, so more people can afford their own home. We have announced measures to make it easier to buy and sell your home and our initiatives have reduced the number of rough sleepers by 10 per cent. These are just a few of the things we have done.
"From this week we are giving tenants a greater say in how their homes are managed. This week the Best Value regime starts to ensure better services to tenants. A new Housing Inspectorate will ensure high standards.
"This Green Paper on housing is a key part of our wider ambition to support sustainable communities. The Green Paper shows how our existing initiatives fit into an overall strategy. It also sets out a range of new proposals. Over the coming weeks and months I shall be launching the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, the urban White Paper and the rural White Paper. The housing Green Paper, together with these documents, is a key part of our strategy to build sustainable communities in this country.
"The Green Paper is a consultation document. We are seeking responses by the end of July. But we would also welcome earlier reactions to inform decisions in the next three-year spending review. We shall be looking to press ahead with our housing agenda in the autumn, although clearly some of our proposals will require legislation.
1234
"This Green Paper is about quality and choice. We want to raise the quality of homes everywhere, whether they are owned by individuals or provided by landlords. And we want to extend choice: more choice for tenants, and more choice for those wanting to buy their own home.
"I will start with the greenest part of the Green Paper, that dealing with housing benefit and rents.
"Everyone recognises that housing benefit is in need of reform. It has helped distort the structure of rents and trap people in unemployment. It is difficult to understand and complex to administer. Most people who get housing benefit are of working age, although 41 per cent are over 60. We are already helping those moving into work by arranging to pay benefit automatically for the first four weeks in employment. But we want a more efficient service for all those who receive benefit. In the short term we propose to introduce improvements such as computerising mail between different benefits offices—saving 20 million pieces of paper in the post and speeding up the process. And we are tackling fraud and error. The Green Paper proposes further options such as a single national fraud hotline service.
"In the longer term we want to examine the case for reforming housing benefit to give tenants a greater choice over where they live. But this will require reform of rents. There is a consensus that council and housing association rents are in a mess. We want to build a new consensus on the way forward.
"The Green Paper offers a range of options for restructuring rents. We believe the key principles should be comparable rents for comparable properties and rents that take account of the size and quality of the homes on offer. But I can give a clear commitment that, whatever changes we introduce, we shall be maintaining rents in the social sector at affordable, below market levels. Perhaps I may also make it absolutely clear that pensioners on housing benefit will not be affected by any proposals for the reform of housing benefit.
"Home ownership has increased dramatically in the past few decades, due in part to the right to buy under which 1.3 million people have bought their own home. I have already referred to our initiative to make the home buying and selling process easier. We are also taking action to help first-time buyers.
"We are announcing a new starter home initiative to help key workers, such as nurses and teachers, and first-time buyers on modest incomes. The initiative will help them to buy their own homes in areas where housing is costly, in town or country. We will invite proposals from housing associations and others. These could involve interest free loans, development grants or other innovative approaches.
"We are also giving new help to unemployed homeowners moving back into work. We are helping them pay their mortgage interest for the first four weeks after they start a new job. Some

1235
homeowners, especially the elderly, are unable to maintain and modernise their properties. We are proposing a new range of options to help more people make essential repairs.
"The private rented sector provides homes for over 2 million households. Most private landlords are professional and responsible, but the minority of bad landlords give the whole sector a bad name. Our proposals include helping them to improve their expertise and standards. But we intend to make sure that unscrupulous landlords who neglect their responsibilities do not profit from housing benefit. We also intend to give local authorities a selective power to license private landlords where bad landlords and bad tenants—sometimes in collusion—are destabilising the local community.
"Social housing has been at the foundation of millions of people's lives for decades. The last government viewed council housing as little more than an embarrassment. Their neglect of investment in social housing created misery for millions of people and deprivation for whole communities. In the Tory vision there were two nations: on the one hand, home-owners, and, on the other, those who were left behind in areas of deprivation.
"We must ask ourselves the question why 25 per cent of crime is concentrated in 10 per cent of communities. This Government believe that we should have a greater mix of social housing and owner occupied housing. People should have a real choice between buying a home and renting without a sense of stigma or snobbery.
"In this Green Paper, we are proposing to improve the quality of social housing, housing management and lettings. Too often in the past social landlords have offered people a home on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. This has failed; and often concentrates the poorest people in the poorest properties.
"We must design a lettings system for the 21st century if we are to support sustainable communities. We propose giving new applicants and existing tenants more say in choosing where they live. In the Green Paper we propose pilot schemes across the country to test new approaches that put the tenant first.
"The growth of homelessness over the past two decades is completely unacceptable. The last government took away rights from homeless people and made it harder for local councils to help them. In our election manifesto we promised to improve the safety net for those who are homeless through no fault of their own.
"Our proposals will ensure that homeless people are given the support they need while they seek more permanent housing, along with others in housing need on the waiting list. In addition, we propose to extend the safety net to a wider group of homeless people—such as young people aged 16 and 17 and those who are vulnerable because they are leaving care and other institutions. These are the people
1236
most at risk of ending up on the streets, homeless and helpless. Our commitment is to end the scourge of people sleeping rough.
"We will also ensure local authorities work with other agencies to prevent people from becoming homeless in the future. This House should recognise the crucial role played by local authorities in the past. Over the past 100 years, councils have met the needs of millions of people who otherwise would have been left in slums. The private sector would not have met this need. Local authorities tackled the slums and the squalor, and rebuilt our communities. Local authorities are still well placed to play a dynamic role. In our Green Paper we are proposing a stronger, more forward-looking and strategic role for local authorities, identifying and addressing housing needs across all housing in their area, public and private.
"The past 20 years have seen massive disinvestment in council housing. In our Green Paper we set out a range of approaches to investment. We aim for a step change to ensure that all social housing is of a decent standard within 10 years—a decade to overcome the mountainous £19 billion backlog of repairs and modernisation left by the last government.
"Stock transfer began in 1988. Since then more than 400,000 homes have been transferred to registered social landlords, mainly housing associations. Stock transfer will continue to be the preferred option for many authorities and their tenants. We shall support the transfer of up to 200,000 homes each year from local authorities to registered social landlords. This is a matter of choice. This is not a target. This is what we shall make provision for, but only where local authorities propose it, and where tenants vote for it.
"A number of local authorities have asked to use the private finance initiative to increase private sector investment while maintaining ownership of their stock. We are piloting eight pathfinder schemes to find out how this approach can work best.
"Some have suggested that stock transfer means the end of the local authority as landlord—the end of the council house. We believe that there is a continuing role for council housing. Indeed, today I am announcing a new option for investment in the stock.
"Local authorities will be given new borrowing powers to invest in their housing and retain full ownership where they put their housing management in arm's length companies and demonstrate an excellent record of management through a best value inspection. There is a future for the council house.
"The housing system we inherited from the previous government was fraught with difficulties: stigmatised social housing; a £19 billion backlog of repairs and improvements; a housing benefit system spiralling out of control; record repossessions and a lack of choice and flexibility. The proposals in our

1237
Green Paper can set about repairing Britain's poorest quality homes, helping first-time buyers and key workers, moving towards a fairer balance in rents, and improving services. We are working hard for Britain's hard working families.
"We propose help for home-owners and the private sector; we are not ashamed of that. We propose investment and modernisation in social housing. A decent home is a measure of a civilised society. All in all, our proposals mean better quality, more choice and more opportunity; a system based not on stigma and snobbery but on social justice ensuring that everyone in Britain has the chance of a decent home".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the whole House will thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I am sure that the whole House will also welcome the fact that we have a Statement which concerns a sector which is vital to every community.
However, we are now almost three years into this Parliament. During that time what has happened in the housing sector is not quite as good as one might be led to suppose from the Statement of the noble Lord's right honourable friend. The fact is that from 1993–94 to 1996–97, £27 billion was spent on public sector housing. That includes Housing Corporation expenditure. From 1997–98 to the year 2000–01, the figure is £23.9 billion. That does not suggest an improvement. At the same time new social housing construction is also down. From 1994–96, 91,300 units were constructed. From 1997–99, 59,600 units were constructed. That does not suggest immediate improvement. At the same time across the public sector generally the number of housing vacancies has increased. That does not apply just to local authorities but also includes houses owned by the Government.
Now we have a Green Paper. All we know is that it is a consultation paper about options. The consultation lasts until 31st July. Will the Minister kindly indicate the timetable and timescale for action that might arise as a result of the Green Paper? The public might be inclined to view the matter in a slightly different light and infer that a whole Parliament will have been lost before action is taken.
There are two or three proposals which I welcome, although certain aspects cause concern. Helping key workers to purchase houses is an extension—if one wants to call it that—of moves such as the right-to-buy and of private sector housing. As such, it must be welcome in principle. People to benefit from this measure may include nurses, policemen, firemen and possibly teachers. People belonging to all those professions are not necessarily paid enough to enable them to find houses easily in more prosperous areas. I hope that the Minister will indicate more firmly and precisely the Government's views as to who would qualify for that benefit and the conditions that would
1238
apply. Some of these people—perhaps too many—earn a level of salary which makes it difficult for them to purchase their homes. However, what will happen if two individuals who qualify for the benefit decide to marry as their joint salaries would carry them over the limit? We may create an incentive for people—this has occurred before—not to marry. I am sure that we would not think that desirable. However, as I say, I welcome an interesting proposal.
I seek two further pieces of information from the Minister. First, will he say something about the tax implications of the proposals for the individuals concerned as we may provide a taxable benefit? Secondly, is this a market-oriented proposal, or a regionally-oriented proposal? Although the most acute housing problems probably exist in the southeast of the country, the need for social housing in rural areas can be as great in the northern region where, generally, there is a sufficient supply of good housing. The problems in rural areas differ from those which affect the south-east. People like to live in rural areas and will buy houses in such areas if they can.
We welcome the Government's continuing support for, and extension of, stock transfers from local authorities to registered social landlords. It is good to note that the Government recognise the value of a scheme that began back in the 1980s. It is interesting to note that the Government talk of creating arm's length management companies to manage local authority housing. That will make new borrowing powers available to those management companies. Do those powers come within existing Treasury limits or will the creation of arm's length management companies put the management outside the public sector? That would remove many of the problems which exist in this area from the dead hand of the Treasury—something I always welcome.
I am sad that the issue of the adjustment of the VAT rate on repairs and renovations is not mentioned in the Green Paper. It is a point that has been pressed on many occasions in the House; perhaps the Minister will be able to say something about it in his response. We have just passed a Budget and one might have thought that it would be discussed. It is noticeable that Her Majesty's Government have recently negotiated on behalf of the Isle of Man a concessionary rate of 5 per cent for repairs and renovations. When the Minister responds, I invite him to say something on this subject and to indicate when we can expect to see the Government negotiating to have that concession extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I said, the Green Paper is welcome. It is welcome because it is a movement in the right direction where previously there had been no movement at all. But it is a discussion of possibilities, not a discussion of action to be taken. For action to be taken we shall require a White Paper, and presumably legislation in certain instances. The Green Paper itself is welcome.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for the Statement. We welcome the opportunities that the consultation paper gives us. However, we find it a distinctly unambitious consultation paper. It sets few targets for the kinds of resources that should be pulled into housing; it seems to set no targets for ending homelessness in its entirety; and it gives no definition of what is "affordable".
Given the £20 million backlog in council housing repairs alone, and the lack of affordable housing, it is disappointing that no new money is being channelled through the Housing Corporation. We welcome the release of capital receipts. We notice that there is a change in allocation for the Housing Corporation, and I should be grateful if the Minister could define what that change is likely to mean in terms of increased value. But unless we have a definition of what is "affordable", we will be tinkering around the edges rather than getting to the heart of the issue.
It is of course desirable that key workers should be able to afford housing in the areas where they work. But the measure outlined in the Green Paper may be very divisive. Many other kinds of workers could be regarded as key workers. Would childcare workers in private nurseries, for example, be regarded as key workers? They certainly are to the parents who need to go out to work. Would bus drivers or agricultural workers be regarded as key workers? How do the Government propose to define those people who are truly useful to society—and thus key workers—and those who are not?
We certainly welcome measures to speed up house sales. We also welcome measures to help local authorities to lever-in private finance for home improvements. Given that in the recent Local Government Bill the Government had much to say about increasing the powers of local government over the social and economic well-being of their areas, this consultation paper seems to take a step backwards in that it very much defines what local authorities may or may not do. It states that they will be given more powers over renewal areas? In that case, why not give them the power to do anything they wish in housing terms within their area in line with the Local Government Bill? Why is it defined so closely what local authorities may or may not do in renewal areas?
The proposed measures for improving the private rented sector are unambitious, particularly for houses in multi-occupancy. The way in which local authorities license such housing and work with local landlords is crucial. The Green Paper does not suggest that they will have the necessary wide-ranging powers to bring the worst of the housing in the rented sector up to an acceptable level. If local authorities had wide licensing powers, they could provide a service to good landlords who have invested heavily to bring their bed-sits up to a decent standard.
We welcome the implementation of the Egan report and the moves toward further sustainability. The Green Paper does not define sufficiently how cutting
1240
energy costs could benefit communities by putting back into people's pockets the money which is currently escaping through their windows in the form of heat.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we are particularly disappointed to find no equalisation of VAT on new build and refurbishment. A vast amount of housing is either empty, under-used or in a bad state. By the White Paper stage, the Government should have firm measures to turn such property into good quality housing.
My noble friend Lord Russell will ask the Government more searching questions about benefits than I can, but the Government's approach to this matter—that in the longer term they will wish to examine the case for reform—is too long term. Surely the Government understand the problem now. Could they not have brought forward proposals to tackle those issues which are keeping people in the poverty trap?
Housing is a basic right. This Green Paper states that it is a "requirement" for everyone. It underplays the role of housing. It states that housing improves health, educational achievement and employment opportunities. Those of us who have been involved in social housing understand that, for many people, it is the crucial factor between succeeding in life and not succeeding. I hope that, by the time the House has debated the issue further and the Government are in a position to publish a White Paper, we will have something considerably more ambitious.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the two speeches from the Opposition Benches. I think that I am correct in saying that they indicated no serious, deep-rooted opposition to our proposals. There were suggestions that we were unambitious and that we were perhaps following initiatives made by the previous government. I am never ashamed of doing that. If the initiatives were sensible, we shall certainly continue them.
As to the charge of being unambitious—which I think also lay behind the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about investment and expenditure—I refute that immediately. We are talking about a government which inherited a situation where investment in housing had been halved during the last six years of Conservative rule, and which is now on course to doubling that investment over the course of this Parliament, mainly by unlocking the £5 billion of capital receipts. That is an indication of our commitment to housing and to providing effective investment in this area. I would not describe that as unambitious.
I am grateful for the support from both Benches in relation to the provisions for key workers. I understand that there are a few queries about the details and about how we pursue stock transfers. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, queried our timetable for action. Clearly this is a consultation paper and some consultative elements may take some time. We

1241
hope to complete the consultation in July and to introduce some measures—for example, starter home initiatives—immediately after that. At that point, such measures will be reflected in the spending review. Other measures may be introduced over the following two years; the rent changes, for example, will be spread over a number of years.
Other measures, such as the future of housing benefit, present profound problems. As indicated in the Green Paper, we can make some immediate administrative changes, but a fundamental change of housing benefit will require building up a new consensus. That will require a longer-term consultation than the immediate issues.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the fact that there are vacant properties and there are houses in poor repair. The extra £5 billion will address the issue of houses in poor repair and will bring some of the empty properties onto the market. It is true that there has been a recent rise over last year in the number of empty properties, although that is the first rise for five years. The exact reasons for that are now being analysed and will be addressed. Clearly, all public sector authorities have a responsibility to minimise the amount of empty stock in their possession. We need to tackle the problem both in terms of the quality of the housing and analysing the reasons for it being unpopular. Some of that will be dealt with in the approach that we are pursuing in the urban and rural task forces, which will lead to White Papers very shortly.
A number of questions were asked about the starter home initiative. It was welcomed in principle and then all kinds of queries as to how it would operate were raised. The Green Paper sets out the basic aims and we will be seeking particular proposals on areas which will be appropriate for providing support. The challenge fund will be operating in this area and we are looking for innovative proposals. Therefore, there is no straight answer to the noble Lord as to which professions would qualify and which would not. It would depend on the area, the labour market and the quality of housing in a particular local authority and housing market. But we will look at those proposals with a view to encouraging all kinds of different ways in which we could help first-time starter home buyers. They may be variations of existing schemes—for example, there are existing schemes run by the Housing Corporation—or they may include repayable interest-free loans, cash incentives or development grants.
To answer one of the noble Lord's other points—probably he would think unsatisfactorily—the tax position in relation to each of those differs and there is therefore no overall answer on the question of the tax position. We will be looking to tackle the situation where many of our communities are short of key workers because of the housing anomalies and we cannot match supply to demand. If there is a way in which we can encourage key workers and others on low incomes to be able to have a foothold in the
1242
housing market not far from their work, we will encourage that and we will look at different schemes to meet those needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about affordability. That will vary from housing market to housing market and from area to area. More work will need to be done on that. The noble Baroness also criticised the fact that there is apparently no new money for the Housing Corporation. But we are talking in a context. We are providing £5 billion for the housing market as a whole. The noble Baroness welcomed the fact that local authorities are to be given more powers but then suggested that they are not being given enough or total freedom in that area. The new best value regime, which will apply to housing management as well as other aspects, is a major opportunity for local authorities to engage in new innovative approaches to their housing stock and indeed to the housing stock in the community as a whole. There have to be some restrictions on this. We want clearly to separate out the strategic role of local authorities relating to the totality of housing and their role as housing managers.
The noble Baroness referred to the question of sustainable construction in social housing and in housing in general. Outside the White Paper we are encouraging other measures in that direction—the new HEES programme and the new approach on EESOPs will greatly improve the energy efficiency of homes, particularly the homes of the poorest and those in fuel poverty in our community. We are addressing that issue in a different context.
The details of the role of local authorities may differ from area to area depending on their own choices of whether they go for stock transfer, whether they wish to establish arm's length companies for the management of their own stock and therefore attract additional outside funds in that regard, or whether they continue to manage in the traditional form. But local authorities will have two main roles. They will have the strategic role of overseeing the totality of the housing market within their area and they will have a management role which may move into new territory. Clearly, there are some continuing constraints in relation to local authority finance that will apply to local authority housing stock. But by providing these alternative vehicles and providing additional powers for local authorities, the constraints that have been placed on local authorities, both directly by the way in which they have been constrained and indirectly by the lack of funding by the previous administration, should be overcome.
I repeat the message of the Statement. This is not the end of council housing, but it is a new era for council housing as part of a mixed range of options available to all incomes in all parts of the country.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise heartily to congratulate my ministerial colleague on the Front Bench and others on this excellent initiative which I believe will be warmly welcomed by those who are

1243
engaged in the housing field. I am particularly taken by the part of the report relating to stock transfers. The Minister will recall the words of paragraph 7.13:
"Tenants should he involved in the process of making decisions about their homes, including proposals for renovation and improvement, and wider plans for the future of their neighbourhood".
Paragraph 7.14 states:
"We also aim to create a more diverse pattern of dynamic and competitive organisations to run social housing. Transfer presents an opportunity to move away from large monopoly providers of social housing to a greater number of smaller bodies that are based in or closer to the communities where the homes are transferred".
On the basis of that, will the Minister accept that an excellent method of diversifying housing choice for council tenants is to give them information concerning housing co-operatives, with opportunity for devolving responsibility for shaping their own communities? Will he also ensure that, in enlightening tenants of the choice they can have, the co-operative dimension and potential is given equal prominence alongside the many other excellent alternatives?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can certainly assure my noble friend that all forms of potential recipients of stock transfer—registered social landlords who operate on a co-operative basis—could play an important role in many parts of the country. I would hope therefore teat we would look favourably on any proposals from co-operative housing groups to take advantage of these powers.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one becomes conscious during Statements of this kind that they have been drafted to be read in another place? Does he accept that there is some sense of regret that the noble Lord from the Front Bench in this place has to repeat, to his, I think, embarrassment, some of the egregious statements about the previous government's policy on housing that were included in the Statement? Is it not a fact that between 1979 and 1997 the quality of housing throughout this country rose dramatically? While there were many things still to be done, it is really a travesty to describe the policy of the previous government in the way that his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister described it.
One of the points I welcome in the Statement is that the Government have now gone the whole way to acknowledge the value of the right to buy. One can give that a total welcome. Is that not a very long way away from the experience one had as Secretary of State of dealing with Labour authorities where the councillors had exercised the right to buy and then did their best to prevent any of their tenants getting it and where one had to suspend a council for failing to obey the law about the right to buy? The conversion, although belated, is welcome.
Finally, as I do not think the noble Lord replied to the questions put from the two Front Benches, why was there such a flurry of rumour before the Budget that there would be a shift in VAT as between new building and refurbishment—so much so that most
1244
people expected a statement in the Budget? The Minister will be aware that it contained no such statement and that there is nothing in the Green Paper to suggest any change of heart. One is looking for the refurbishment of inner cities and for the use and conversion of old buildings as against building new property on greenfield sites. Is it not, therefore, absurd to preserve the distinction of full VAT on refurbishments and no VAT on new buildings, even though that approach may have been right many years ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord overestimated my sensitivity. I have no embarrassment in repeating the words of my right honourable friend in another place. Indeed, I heartily endorse them. The noble Lord is seeing the past through slightly rose-coloured spectacles. I am not sure that we should re-open old battles. There were certainly some improvements in the quality of housing for a large number of people, particularly in the owner-occupied sector, including some benefits from right-to-buy. The Labour Party accepted right-to-buy many years ago when in Opposition, so it is no sudden Pauline conversion for me or for the party, or indeed for my right honourable friend.
In parallel to improvements for many people, there was substantial neglect of housing for the poorest in our community. That included a substantial and clear neglect of social housing over the period referred to. The figures indicate a backlog of £10 billion for repairs and £9 billion for modernisation. As a result, the conditions of many people in social housing have worsened over the past decade or so. That is true also for people in some of the private rented sectors and for some poorer people in older owner-occupied housing. Among my departmental responsibilities, for example, are warm homes and energy efficiency. Some of the most vulnerable people live in private sector housing as well as in significant parts of the social housing sector. So I do not accept the noble Lord's point that the years 1979–97 were a time of unmitigated improvement in the standard of housing in this country. Indeed, the stock probably deteriorated more significantly than it had in previous decades.
As to the noble Lord's point about VAT, there are judgments that the Chancellor has to make. He gave priority to reducing VAT on materials to improve the energy efficiency of homes rather than on any general repairs or refurbishment. That is the judgment he made and it seems to be the right priority in this area. The noble Lord may be more ambitious, but this was never done under the previous regime.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister was perhaps a little more surprised than he need be to find no deep-seated opposition to his proposals from my noble friend Lady Miller. It is hard to find deep-rooted proposals, and very hard to oppose them until you can find them.
Does the Minister agree that in Chapter 11 of the Green Paper, dealing with housing benefit, we hear a debate between different schools within the

1245
Government—incompatible propositions and aspirations which are no more resolved today than they were at the beginning of this Parliament?
I congratulate the Government on what they have done as regards extended payments for housing benefit. Perhaps I may extend those congratulations to Janet Albeson, of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, whose research she has put into effect; and I suspect also to the Minister's noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham. On the other hand, will he Minister note our deep disappointment on these Benches at the weakness of paragraph 11.47 on the single room rent, which says absolutely nothing? Will the Minister pay attention to the findings of the department's own research, with which we on these Benches have no argument? Further, I ask him to note that he will find on these Benches an adamant opposition to moves towards a flat rate of housing benefit, for reasons many of which are well set out in paragraphs 11.68 and 11.69 of the Green Paper. Will the Minister follow his noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who in 1997 committed herself to continuing the principle of the 1986 Act that income support is not intended to meet rent?
All these measures—42 action plans to improve administration, a somewhat paradoxical proposal—look increasingly like the Chinese building up sandbags to stop the flood of the Yangtze. Are the Government looking at the problem of housing benefit the wrong way round? Instead of trying to curb demand for rented property, should they be looking at improving the supply and changing the terms of finance for landlords so that they can provide affordable housing at a rather lower cost? The Minister may say that that is very difficult. I am well aware that no government since the First World War have arrested the decline of the private rented market. But if this Government cannot, there will not be very much left, and we shall be in considerable trouble.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that a number of the aspects of housing benefit mentioned in the document will require considerable further analysis and discussion and, it is to be hoped, the creation of some consensus on the long-term future of housing benefit. I do not, however, accept that the proposals in the document will make no difference. The noble Earl refers to "42 action plans", but there is a great deal of administrative improvement that can be made in regard to the delivery of housing benefit, the identification of recipients, the matching of those recipients to appropriate properties, the avoidance of fraud and mistakes within the system. All those matters need to be addressed in relation to the present broad basis of housing benefit.
My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave an assurance that, whatever we do in relation to housing benefit, pensioners will not be any worse off as a result of any proposals made. That will also, so far as possible, apply to people in other low-income groups who are particularly vulnerable. The noble Earl is nevertheless right that some overall
1246
assessment of housing benefit, its distortion of the housing market and rent levels and the way in which we effectively subsidise housing by identifying people by income need to be addressed. Before that fundamental approach can be pursued fully, we need some reform of rents, which the Green Paper proposes; we need some reform of housing management, which it includes; and we need reforms in the housing benefit system, proposals for which are also included.
I accept the noble Earl's thanks for the changes that we are making in terms of rolling over benefit in to work. In that context it is appropriate to refer to the activities of my noble friend Lady Hollis in that regard and to the work done by the CAB.
I note the noble Earl's concern about the single room rent. We state in the Green Paper that we are looking at extending the definition of premises to which that approach applies, therefore giving greater freedom of choice to young people. The matter will be addressed through the consultation and beyond.
I also note the noble Earl's view that we could not introduce a flat rate element in to housing benefit over the medium term, and his request for housing benefit to cover effectively the full rent and for there to be no reliance on income support. However, all those issues have to be addressed in the longer-term review of how housing benefit works, whether the money is going to the households which need it and whether we can get over the distorting effect it has on rents and the housing market more generally. I cannot provide answers today. We shall probably not have answers by July. But we are starting the process of that fundamental analysis.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the Green Paper. First, I welcome the recognition that a housing policy does not encompass merely provision of adequate and affordable homes. It is crucial to envisage housing as part of a wider social agenda.
My noble friend asked why some areas of housing are more difficult to let than others. My authority undertook a survey which ranked estates into difficult-to-let areas. The only significant factor distinguishing the estates was the rate of crime; so perhaps people were making sensible choices about where to live.
Secondly, housing must reflect local circumstances. One looks at what is happening in the housing market in the south-east, and in London particularly, and in northern cities where houses are being abandoned. Housing strategies need to reflect factors which relate to the economic circumstances and community problems in different areas.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that action is required on housing if only to put right some of the problems created by the previous government. I refer to the unfair funding of many authorities, and those who find themselves in negative subsidy. In simple terms that means that some council tenants in some parts of the country are paying for the problems in other areas. Despite the increase in funding from the

1247
Government which we welcome, we are in fact simply keeping pace with the backlog of repairs to ensure that the situation does not worsen.
I was pleased to note the use of the word "choice" in relation to stock transfer. The issue needs to be dealt with cautiously to ensure that we do not overlook the needs of the tenants. Tenant choice is important.
I welcome, too, the increased and enhanced role of local authorities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a little unease in the House. I remind all noble Lords that it is brief comments or questions at this stage.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's indication that housing issues need to be seen in a broader social context. They underline the importance of choice for tenants who at present do not seem to have any choice. They also underline local authorities' role in housing as part of their general responsibilities for the well-being of their community.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I have experience as a Suffolk farmer with some surplus agricultural houses, now let.
I congratulate the Government on paragraph 5.2 which states:
"Landlords can be assured that we intend no change in the present structure of assured and assured shorthold tenancies, which is working well. Nor is there any question of re-introducing rent controls in the deregulated market".
Will the Government at least admit that those were major changes introduced by the last government which have had a huge long-term effect, and the Government's conversion to them is extremely welcome?
Are the Government aware that there is a problem as regards social housing in rural areas? All too often planning guidelines encourage local authorities to give consent to luxury and executive housing in a quite unbalanced way—unbalanced in social terms for the village; and often damaging the countryside which we all love.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not so much planning guidelines as the actions of individual local planning authorities which allow the building of relatively large low density housing in areas which should not take it and where there is infringement of the green belt and agricultural land. It is perhaps the great dilemma which is being faced in the south-east debate to which we referred recently. The priority for housing in the south-east is to provide more high density housing for single person households rather than to continue to develop estates across the south-east of England.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand that this is a Statement about a Green Paper. In my experience in this House—I have no experience in another place—I have never heard of a Statement introducing a Green Paper. Statements may introduce a White Paper. If the Minister can give me any
1248
precedents, I shall be interested. When a Statement is produced it gives rise to a mini-debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, have taken the opportunity to have a mini-debate. That is not the object of the exercise. Perhaps my noble friend can assure me that in future Green Papers—consultation papers—are for consultation and not for debate in this House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, I cannot give that assurance. Whether the Government decide to make a Statement in another place depends on the importance of the issue. In some cases there will be no White Paper; it will be a reaction to events. In other cases, it will be a White Paper, or another form of government policy statement. In other cases it will be the start of a consultation paper.
Housing is of supreme importance to many millions of our citizens. It seems sensible, therefore, that the first major Green Paper in this Parliament—the Government's position on housing—and the first for over two decades should receive a Statement in another place. Whether it is then debated in this House is in part a matter for the usual channels rather than for me, but I defend the right of the Government to use another place as the basis for announcing major policy initiatives, whether consultative or definitive.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Bill which, while modest in terms of what it seeks to achieve, will make several important changes in the area of insolvency law. If we are to increase business confidence, it is essential that those entering and operating in the market-place have certainty about what will happen when a firm gets into financial difficulties. We need effective procedures to deal with the failures that will inevitably occur in a market economy. We must also deal appropriately with those who bring about business failures by misconduct. Finally, the risk of losing all, due to unfortunate circumstances, could also discourage enterprise. So mechanisms for saving businesses which are suffering short-term financial difficulties are also needed.
Both the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 already go a long way to providing such a regime. This Bill builds upon those Acts and introduces important amendments and improvements to the existing procedures.
In a market economy it is inevitable that some businesses will fail. Where companies do fail the collapses are inevitably bad for the company, its customers and its suppliers—the creditors. But if those companies could be rescued, the probability is that creditors would receive a better dividend on their claims than they would have otherwise received; jobs would be saved; and where a business is fundamentally viable, it will continue to make a positive contribution to the economy.

1249
The Insolvency Act 1986 introduced the company voluntary arrangement procedure into our law as a means of rescuing companies. The numbers of such arrangements have risen from 21 in 1987 to 475 in 1999. At the time the procedure was introduced it marked a significant change in thinking because it focused on rescue. However, the recession of the early 1990s showed that it was not particularly useful to the smaller company when it encountered financial difficulty. That is because of a lack of a short breathing space in the procedure—that is, a temporary stay on creditors' rights—so that management can put a rescue plan to creditors.
While the administration order procedure offers such a stay, the problem for the smaller company is that the procedure is generally too costly. There is also a natural reluctance on the part of management, particularly owner/managers, to use it because they know that they will be displaced by the administrator. Therefore, the only practical option open to such companies which try to achieve a rescue is to agree a voluntary arrangement with their creditors. Such an arrangement allows a financially troubled company to reach a binding agreement with its creditors, usually to pay its debts either in full or in part over a period of time. However, because there is currently no stay on creditors' actions, creditors remain able to take individual recovery action prior to the arrangement being agreed. That is the real problem. As a result, the company may, say, lose its stock in trade and be unable to continue in business. That renders the proposal unworkable and the rescue attempt a failure.
Therefore, the Bill will give a company's management the option of a short breathing space within which to put a rescue plan to creditors and will stop creditors enforcing their rights. It will do that by offering the option of a short moratorium within the existing voluntary arrangement procedure.
We propose that the directors should remain in control of the company and its business during the moratorium. To obtain a moratorium, first, the directors would have to obtain a statement from the insolvency practitioner to the effect that he was of the view that the proposed voluntary arrangement stood a reasonable prospect of being agreed and implemented. The insolvency practitioner will be the nominee and he will oversee the moratorium. Subject to the agreement of the creditors, he will also become the supervisor and will oversee the implementation of the voluntary arrangement if one is agreed.
Once obtained, the moratorium will last up to 28 days. However, with the agreement of creditors, it could be extended by up to a further two months. It will also be binding on all parties. During the moratorium the nominee will monitor the company's activities. If it appears to him that, because of new developments, the proposal is no longer likely to be acceptable to the creditors, he will have to withdraw. That will bring the moratorium to an immediate end. There will be penalties for directors who seek, for example, to abuse the moratorium, whether by making
1250
false representations to the nominee or by spiriting away assets or business records. There will also be restrictions on the exceptional disposal of assets.
Before I move on, I should indicate that we shall bring forward a small number of amendments to this part of the Bill. Both the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and the Trade and Industry Committee recommended that the exercise of the power for the Secretary of State to modify the eligibility criteria for a moratorium should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government accept that recommendation and will bring forward appropriate amendments.
We are also concerned that the stay on creditors' rights contained in the Bill may not be fully effective against possible action by the holder of a floating charge. A floating charge is a form of security often taken by banks to secure their lending. Therefore, we shall bring forward amendments to ensure that the provisions that might be included in charge documents—perhaps to crystallise the charge into a fixed charge or to impose restrictions on the company's ability to deal with assets covered by a floating charge—cannot be triggered during a moratorium or because of a moratorium. In that way, we shall ensure an effective stay on creditors' rights and give the company the breathing space that it needs to put its rescue plan to creditors.
The Bill will also modify the current company and individual voluntary arrangement procedures in the Insolvency Act. One difficulty with the current schemes is that they do not bind creditors who were not notified of the meeting to consider the proposal for a voluntary arrangement. That can mean that when a previously unknown creditor comes to light—for example, someone who takes action against the company for a supply of faulty goods—he has the ability to pursue the company for the full amount of his claim. If that were to happen, the voluntary arrangement would probably collapse with disastrous consequences for both the company and its other creditors. Therefore, we have provided that unknown creditors will be bound by a company or individual voluntary arrangement. However, appropriate safeguards will, of course, be in place to prevent unfair prejudice.
Recent organisational changes in the insolvency profession show that there may be others in the market-place who could have the skills necessary to facilitate rescues. Time will tell whether such a body of people will emerge in the field of voluntary arrangements. However, having recognised that as a possibility, we have included a provision in the Bill which will allow the Secretary of State to recognise bodies whose members could act on a limited basis as nominees and supervisors in relation to voluntary arrangements.
I turn to disqualification. The power to disqualify unfit directors is an important safeguard for business and the public. In the past two years we have disqualified over 2,800 unfit directors. If confidence in the market is to be maintained, it is essential that we

1251
disqualify those who cheat their creditors and abuse the protection of limited liability. We believe that where both an unfit director and the Secretary of State are agreed that disqualification is appropriate, it is in everyone's interest to achieve a disqualification quickly and cheaply. The Bill will permit that.
At present, only the courts can issue disqualification orders. The majority of the orders are made on the application of the Secretary of State under Section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The process can take a long time and is expensive for all those involved, even where the director concerned is prepared to agree to being disqualified. The courts have been helpful in devising a procedure—the Carecraft procedure—whereby, effectively, an individual can consent to a period of disqualification. However, a disqualification achieved in that way still means that court proceedings must be instituted, resulting in delay and costs for all involved.
Therefore, the Bill provides that where there is agreement between the Secretary of State and an unfit director, disqualification can be achieved without legal proceedings. W hen the Secretary of State considers that an individual should be disqualified, he will be able to accept an undertaking from that individual not to act as a director for a specified period. Breach of the terms of an undertaking will have the same criminal and civil consequences for the individual as the breach of a disqualification order.
That will mean that the undertakings will provide the same protection for business and the public as a disqualification order. They will apply in relation to Section 6 of the Act, based on unfitted conduct in relation to an insolvent company, and to Section 8 following an investigation into a company. Currently, only 10 per cent of disqualification proceedings are contested and go to a full hearing. Of the remainder, 60 per cent are unopposed. That figure includes directors who simply ignore the proceedings. Directors agree to the making of the order in the other 30 per cent of cases. That suggests that a significant number of directors are likely to agree to give undertakings. As a consequence, this measure should result in earlier protection for both business and public at reduced cost by cutting down on the number of cases which need to go to the courts.
Of course, not all company directors will agree that they should be disqualified. Therefore, the existing procedure is to remain in place. The Secretary of State will then, as now, make application to the court to disqualify such persons where he considers it appropriate and they will be able to defend those disqualification proceedings in court.
Experience of the operation of the Company Directors Disqualification Act has shown that it is capable of improvement. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to make some technical amendments to improve its clarity, effectiveness and efficiency.
With regard to the reporting of offences, in certain circumstances Section 218 of the Insolvency Act requires a liquidator of a company wound up in England or Wales to report to the Director of Public
1252
Prosecutions suspicions of criminal misconduct by company officers or shareholders. The director may then refer such reports to the Secretary of State for investigation. However, we believe that it would be far more sensible for those reports to be made directly to the Secretary of State. Therefore, that is what we have provided for in the Bill. That will streamline the reporting process and, where appropriate, ensure that cases come before the courts earlier so that the misconduct is dealt with sooner.
In addition, Section 219 of the Insolvency Act currently allows answers obtained by use of compulsory power to be used in evidence. That is contrary to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are taking the opportunity to put right that situation.
When the Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order was brought into effect at the end of 1986, it was generally believed that all the assets that a debtor owned immediately before his death would be available to his creditors in any insolvency proceedings which took place after his death. It was also believed that that would include his share in any jointly-owned property. That would have provided a level playing field for the treatment of the estates of all insolvents, whether living or deceased; otherwise, the assets available to creditors would have differed, depending on whether the debtor was alive or dead.
However, a decision in the Court Appeal in the case of Palmer (deceased) has established that the order-making power contained in Section 421 of the Insolvency Act is not sufficient to bring about that result. The consequence is that the provisions in the 1986 order are ineffective. As a result, in some cases what may appear to be the main, if not the only, asset—namely, the deceased debtor's interest in the matrimonial home—passes under the survivorship rules to the joint owner and is therefore beyond the reach of his creditors.
We are taking this opportunity to amend the order-making power in Section 421 and by so doing we will, as far as is possible, restore a level playing field and give a certainty of outcome for creditors irrespective of whether the insolvent is living or deceased.
It is a requirement that in England and Wales the trustees of bankrupts' estates and liquidators of company estates pay funds from the realisation of assets into the Insolvency Service's account. For many years there has been legislative provision that the funds of an insolvent company held in that account can be invested in government securities. That means that the company, and consequently those who have claims against it, receive the benefit of that investment. Additionally, any funds left in the Insolvency Service's account over £2,000 automatically attract interest at the rate of 3.5 per cent per annum.
For reasons which are not now clear, similar provisions have never applied to bankruptcy estate funds. This is clearly unfair and the Bill provides us with the opportunity to put that right.

1253
Another important measure in this Bill is the order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to implement, by secondary legislation, relevant aspects of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law on cross-border insolvency. It will also permit us to amend, where appropriate, our existing legislative provisions on such matters.
These days many companies operate across national borders. This can cause complications when a business fails because other countries are not always willing to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings. As a consequence, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to recover assets from abroad where a company has failed here.
The United Nations has recently adopted a model law on cross-border insolvency and the United Kingdom played a part in agreeing that model. A concerted push to implement this law by some of our trading partners such as the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand is under way. But there is also a degree of reluctance to act until the intentions of other countries become clear.
Taking this order-making power now will enable us to implement the relevant part of the model law here. It will also mean that it can be done at a more measured pace than could be achieved by seeking to include the full provisions in this Bill. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it will allow proper consideration of what should be done and for appropriate consultation to take place before we actually adopt such parts of the model law as may be thought apt.
Finally, the taking of such a power would also send encouraging signals both to other countries which are reluctant to proceed unilaterally and to UK insolvency practitioners whose services are much in demand internationally.
I should mention one further point before leaving this subject. It may be that the exercise of this power will touch on issues which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We have not yet come to a definite view but, if amendments to the Bill are considered necessary, they will be brought forward at the appropriate time.
All the measures in the Bill are aimed at improving confidence in the market-place. That increased confidence should create an environment which will further encourage enterprise, and I am very pleased to commend the measure to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, while we on these Benches support the Bill in principle, we do however question both its timing and handling by the Government. In its second report on the draft
1254
Insolvency Bill dated 14th December 1999, the Trade and Industry Select Committee expressed deep concern at the lack of opportunity for proper consultation, stating:
"We have the impression that the department would have been more content if we had not examined this piece of draft legislation. The partial consultation was not only brief, but inevitably left some of those affected excluded".
Indeed, the committee had to procure a copy of the clauses and sought copies of the responses from those consulted. That is not a good start.
In essence—and I quote from the same report as I could not put it better myself—
"If the Government is serious about exposing draft legislation for parliamentary scrutiny, it is time that it recognised that such scrutiny is likely to be more useful the more time and notice is given; and that committee scrutiny can assist the process of legislation at later stages".
What is the hurry, anyway? Throughout our consultation process on these Benches, the question has been asked time and again: why introduce the Bill now in advance of the results of the consultation, known as "A Review of Company Rescue and Business Reconstruction Mechanisms"? Would it not have made sense to defer legislation until the results of a wider review were known?
Perhaps the Government are impatient to show their willingness to stimulate a "rescue culture". That is no bad thing. However, in its current form the Bill is not necessarily the panacea for small companies because it omits at least one vital element—that is, the provision for a funding mechanism to enable companies to continue trading. Who is going to underwrite the orders placed in the interim?
There is little doubt that the greatest hurdle for any company to overcome in trying to establish a viable voluntary arrangement is not the absence of the moratorium period, but the lack of funds to keep its head above the water and carry on its business.
Turning to the Bill, it is like the curate's egg; it is good in parts. It is good in parts because much of it will enact proposals previously put forward by the previous administration. As I have said, in principle, we on this side of the House support the Bill but are concerned about the detail of some parts. Perhaps I may begin with one part of the Bill with which we agree.
Clause 6 amends the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and confers a power to accept undertakings on the Secretary of State with the consequence that if such undertakings are accepted, disqualification can be achieved without any significant involvement of the courts. That will plainly save considerable court time and we support that new procedure.
It should also result in a saving of costs to the director concerned, who may well have been impoverished by the collapse of the company of which he was director and beyond legal aid. Clause 6 will save the director from having to contest disqualification proceedings or going through the Carecraft procedure if he accepts that he ought to be disqualified.

1255
That procedure involves the agreeing of a fairly lengthy Carecraft statement which the court considers before disqualifying him from acting as a director.
The negotiation and preparation of that Carecraft statement is a significant expense in what would otherwise be a fairly straightforward and cheap procedure where a director effectively pleads guilty, albeit that disqualification proceedings are not criminal in nature. If the procedure, whereby undertakings are accepted instead, does not involve the preparation and negotiation of a similar statement, considerable expense will be saved. It is important that this expense is saved because we must encourage directors to take advantage of the new procedure.
If there is nothing in it for them, they might as well contest the proceedings and there will be no saving in court time. It is therefore important that the new procedure does not become unduly cluttered with detailed preconditions and requirements, such as a Carecraft statement. We hope that the Lord Chancellor will not use his rule-making powers to introduce the necessity for such a statement in this new streamlined procedure. Subject to that one point, we support the new procedure for giving undertakings proposed in Clause 6.
I turn to a part of the Bill which is not so good. It is to be found in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4. Those subsections create a new type of insolvency practitioner—a new animal—who can act as a nominee or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement. Subsection (4) envisages such a person being authorised by a body recognised by the Secretary of State, satisfying certain security requirements and not being ineligible on certain specified grounds. Those authorised persons need not be licensed insolvency practitioners. We find that worrying.
The Trade and Industry Select Committee, in its second report, referred to,
"the growing complexity of insolvency law and practice".
In the light of that, is it sensible to be introducing this new animal who is very possibly less qualified and competent to undertake and execute the role of nominee instead of a licensed insolvency practitioner? As in all professions, some licensed insolvency practitioners are better than others.
It is vital that there should be public confidence in such authorised persons, but an authorised person as envisaged in subsection (4) could be less well qualified to maintain public confidence than the least capable licensed insolvency practitioner. Indeed, it is inherently likely that an authorised person will be someone who ha; not qualified as a licensed insolvency practitioner and has therefore become an authorised person instead. There would be no need for him to become an authorised person if he was already a licensed insolvency practitioner. The result will be that an authorised person could be more undesirable than the least capable licensed insolvency practitioner. I shudder at the thought.
It gets worse. The new procedure for a moratorium cuts out the role of the court. Under the existing law, a company can obtain a moratorium if it petitions the
1256
court for an administration order. The petition is usually heard within five days. The court can then continue the moratorium by making an administration order. An individual can obtain a moratorium if an interim order is granted by the court. Again, the court is closely involved at an early stage. That is an important safeguard, because a moratorium imposes extreme conditions on creditors. The courts therefore police such moratoria carefully.
The new proposals dispense with that important safeguard. A company or an individual will be able to obtain a moratorium without any involvement by a court. That is dangerous enough, but to allow authorised persons who may not even be licensed insolvency practitioners to be the only real safeguard is, in our view, unacceptable. It is essential that there should be public confidence in the integrity and competence of those who will exercise such power to impose a moratorium on creditors.
The moratorium to which I have referred is to he found in paragraph 12 of the new Schedule A1, which is clearly based on Section 11 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There is therefore little new in the moratorium introduced in paragraph 12, but there is an important difference. The moratorium which comes into effect once an administration order has been granted is subject to the court's control within five days of the presentation of the petition. The moratorium under paragraph 12 comes into effect on the say so of an authorised person who may not be competent to qualify as a licensed insolvency practitioner.
Furthermore, the court can be involved only for the purposes of, first, calling a meeting of the company; secondly, taking steps to enforce any security over the company's property or repossessing goods in the company's possession under any hire-purchase agreement; thirdly, commencing or continuing other proceedings; fourthly, execution or any other legal process; and, fifthly, levying distress. In any of those circumstances a member or creditor can apply to the court for leave to carry out an act which would otherwise be prohibited from the moratorium.
It is legitimate to ask why there is no right to apply for the leave of the court, first, to present a winding up petition; secondly, to pass a resolution for the winding up of the company; thirdly, to seek an order for the winding up of the company; fourthly, to present a petition for an administration order; or fifthly, to appoint an administrative receiver. In all those circumstances, no one has the right even to apply to the court for leave. That is unacceptable given the fact that the court will not be involved in that new procedure. In essence, we believe that it would be an obvious and appropriate safeguard if members and creditors could apply to the court for leave to carry out any of the acts otherwise prohibited by the moratorium.
That point is particularly significant as regards the appointment of administrative receivers. One of the sad facts of business life is that when the appointment of an administrative receiver is imminent, small but valuable items of equipment tend to disappear. Laptops have no chance. The position is even worse

1257
with companies in the building trade because not only small items of equipment disappear, but large items of plant, machinery and raw materials. It is to minimise such shrinkage that debentureholders often appoint administrative receivers with little or no notice and have them move straight into the company's premises to secure their contents against theft.
However, notwithstanding the palpable risk of small items of equipment disappearing, the moratorium in paragraph 12 could prevent a debentureholder from appointing an administrative receiver for nearly three months. That is quite unacceptable. Experience teaches us that during such a period almost every item of equipment which can be carried out by one person will disappear. Indeed, with nearly three months at their disposal, those responsible will be able to hire the ubiquitous white van and remove more substantial items of equipment. The debentureholders do not stand a chance.
The Bill grows worse when one looks at paragraph 39 of Schedule A1, which creates certain offences where a moratorium has been obtained. Under that paragraph, it is an offence for any officer of the company fraudulently to remove,
"any part of the company's property to the value of £500 or more".
The limit of £500 is quite extraordinary. If an officer of the company fraudulently removes an item of equipment worth £500 or less, it appears under paragraph 39 that he does not commit an offence. That limitation is quite unacceptable and we cannot see the rationale for it. Whatever happened to theft? Is it no longer a criminal offence for some people to steal some of the time, so long as the value of the goods stolen is restricted by law? I wonder whether the Government are trying to create a second-hand market in stolen laptops.
When we consider the terms of the moratorium in more detail in Committee, we must consider also whether it is appropriate for a landlord to be able to forfeit a lease under which the company is a tenant. At present, it appears to be the case that every kind of creditor except for landlords forfeiting leases is restricted from taking any steps to obtain payment. That is an odd omission. We can see no policy reasons why a landlord should be put in such a privileged position. Indeed, we can see no grounds for restricting a landlord more than any other creditors, because in many cases the company's business will come to an immediate end if the lease for the property from which it carries on business is forfeited. The whole point of a moratorium and the proposal for a voluntary arrangement would be defeated.
If the Government believe that landlords should be in a privileged position, we should be grateful for the reason. Could it be because a landlord may find himself in an involuntary position because of assignment? That is doubtful, as commercial leases tend to be extremely short these days and, in any event, that must surely be a risk which comes with that usually highly profitable territory. If, on the other hand, there are no policy reasons why landlords
1258
should be in such a privileged position, we believe that the terms should be amended and we shall return to the matter in Committee. At the same time, similar amendments should be made to Sections 10, 11 and 252 of the Insolvency Act 1986 so that they are in line with paragraph 12 in its ultimate form.
I turn now to two provisions which apply while the moratorium is in force. The first is to be found in paragraph 13 to Schedule A1, which provides that any security granted,
"at a time when a moratorium is in force … may only be enforced if, at that time, there were reasonable grounds for believing that it"—
I presume that "it" refers to the security—
"would benefit the company".
I must confess to being unaware of any security that would be likely to benefit a company. Perhaps the Minister will give an example of such a security. I can, of course, envisage transactions of which a security is a part which might benefit the company, such as a loan on terms that the company must grant a charge. I cannot think of any security which on its own would be for the benefit of a company.
Furthermore, lenders are in the business of lending for their own benefit and not for the benefit of borrowers. The directors of the corporate lender must act honestly in the best interests of the lender and not of the borrower. The paragraph means that they must have regard to the benefit of the borrower, even though the directors of the borrower are under a duty to act honestly in the best interests of the borrower and their acts are overseen by an unlicensed insolvency practitioner, albeit an authorised person. If the directors of the lender get the balance wrong, the security cannot be enforced and, indeed, it looks as if it can never be enforced however prosperous the company may be in the future. If the Government believe that any lender will lend money with that kind of risk, it must be said that they are living on another planet.
Paragraph 17 of Schedule A1 is equally objectionable. It provides that a company can dispose of its property only if, inter alia,
"there are reasonable grounds for believing that the disposal will benefit the company".
It is not entirely clear what happens to the disposal if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the disposal will benefit the company. That must be clarified during the passage of this Bill. During that process mature thought must be given to whether or not the test that the disposal must be for the benefit of the company is a sensible one. The Minister will be aware that businessmen are in business for their own or their company's benefit, not for the benefit of the people with whom they do business. I appreciate that the position might be different with certain local authorities, but in business the idea of trying to benefit the party with whom one is doing business is not one that has instant appeal to most businessmen.
Let us consider the position of a purchaser of plant and equipment from the company to which paragraph 17 applies. It is not very clear when it does apply. Such

1259
a purchaser will bargain for a low price. The company's directors will bargain for a higher price. A balance must be struck, but during the course of these negotiations the purchaser will inevitably say, if properly advised, that he must be satisfied that the disposal will benefit the company and will insist on a lower price because of the chance of that disposal being set aside. If he is to be satisfied that the disposal will benefit the company, the company will have to disclose its weak financial position which the purchaser will, no doubt, exploit to his advantage thereby lowering the price even more. The result will be that the company will only be able to dispose of its assets at a substantially lower price than it might otherwise achieve. That cannot be right. It interferes with the whole notion of arm's length negotiations. I therefore suggest that we must look carefully at the provisions of paragraph 17 in Committee.
There are a number of other less important points which we shall be raising in Committee, where we believe the drafting has not been properly thought through. At this stage we wish only to give the House the flavour of things to come by referring to Schedule 1, paragraph 6 which amends Section 122(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986. That section sets out the grounds on which a company may be wound up by a court and already includes the grounds that the company is unable to pay its debts.
Paragraph 6 adds an additional ground giving the right to a creditor to petition the court for a winding up order on the ground that a moratorium has come to an end and no voluntary arrangement has been approved. That is a curious addition because, if a company is unable to pay its debts, a creditor can already present a petition on that ground. So the proposed new ground is only of assistance where the company is able to pay its debts. We cannot see why it should be appropriate for a creditor to seek a winding up order when the company is able to pay its debts, but a moratorium has come to an end without a voluntary arrangement having been approved. We shall be grateful if the Minister can explain the rationale for this additional ground for a winding up order.
In conclusion, in general we are supportive of the Bill. However, the devil is in the detail. Given its somewhat hurried early life and the lack of consultation with interested bodies, we very much hope that the Government are not intending, in the words of the Select Committee for Trade and Industry in its second report,
"to use it as a vehicle to tag on other bits of insolvency reform as it passes through Parliament".
6.33 p.m.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a paid adviser to a firm which has a division practising in insolvency.
I give a cautious welcome to the objectives which this Bill seeks to achieve. The reason for my caution is that I have some reservations as to whether the Bill will achieve its aims as regards moratoria for small companies. I share many of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has outlined about the
1260
qualification of nominees. In particular I share her concern that the recommendation in the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place that only insolvency practitioners should be enabled to act as nominees should have seen the light of day in this Bill. However, I am pleased that the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House to adopt the affirmative procedure for changes in moratoria was accepted.
In my research I noticed that the original consultation on this matter on a moratorium for small companies took place in October 1993, which is some considerable time ago. This sort of provision is long overdue. But I have problems with the qualification of nominees and supervisors, as I said earlier. At present persons who are authorised to act as insolvency practitioners are authorised to take all types of appointments under the 1986 Act. They have to be judged to be fit and proper persons to undertake such appointments by their authorising body. Their examination regime requires candidates to demonstrate a knowledge of all types of insolvency.
The provision in Clause 4, which enables the Secretary of State to recognise bodies solely for the purposes of acting as nominees or supervisors, but not otherwise to take appointments, has the potential to create some very difficult problems. That is particularly important because a moratorium may not be the only alternative that a company is considering. One is faced with a situation where there could be a number of alternatives that the directors could choose. They will need advice on that. They will need advice from people who have experience of that position. I see potential difficulty in first taking advice from an insolvency practitioner about the options available and then perhaps shopping around for someone who is prepared to sign the necessary statement. That leaves me with a residual worry as to whether the directors we would want to take advantage of this procedure, and potential nominees, will regard it as too risky to bother with and opt for other alternatives. I shall return to the role of the nominee in a moment.
I turn to some of the other detailed provisions in the Bill. Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, have remarked on the changes in director disqualification allowing the Secretary of State to accept undertakings, which would have the same effect as a disqualification order. I believe that, quite rightly, there has been concern in the past that the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was not as effective as it could have been because of the time needed to progress disqualifications through the courts. We believe that the provisions of Clause 6 are a welcome initiative to reduce court time and to increase the efficacy of the Company Directors Disqualification Act.
I refer now to deceased insolvents' estates, which the Minister dealt with. The order made under Section 421 of the Insolvency Act 1986 does, as he says, cause problems. Part of that was the definition of the estates of deceased persons without any further explanation at the time. As the Minister rightly said, in the case of re Palmer Deceased, the Court of Appeal held that

1261
where a debtor had died before a bankruptcy order was made against him, that interest in the joint tenancy passed to his wife by survivorship and so there was no severable interest remaining for the benefit of his creditors.
Clause 11 would rightly provide that an interest in such circumstances would form part of the debtor's estate. We believe that to be a sensible provision, but we shall need to be satisfied at Committee that there can be no retrospective aspects to the provision outlined in the Bill.
Interest on sums held in bankrupt estates is clearly an anomaly at the present time. The fact that liquidators could earn interest whereas those exercising the role of trustees in bankruptcy on the funds could not, was wrong. We are pleased that Clause 12 will put that right. It is a very welcome development.
We view the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency with interest. We are pleased that Clause 13 contains the enabling power for the implementation of that model law. As the Minister said, the model law was developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and adopted by the UN in 1997. I think the Minister would agree that it is still early days for this. For that reason, we would encourage the Government to push hard for its adoption by as many states as possible.
The Bill deals with a number of matters relating to creditors' voluntary arrangements and the status of moratorium period creditors. It is not at all clear from the Bill as it stands at what date it is intended that claims will be taken for the purposes of participating in arrangements. Under existing creditors' voluntary arrangements, claims are taken as at the date of the meeting held to consider the arrangement.
The relevant date for calculating preferential claims for existing voluntary arrangements which were not preceded by some other insolvency process is also the date of approval. While paragraph 35(2) of Schedule A1 is drafted in terms which suggest that creditors will be bound as at that date of approval, paragraph 69 of the Explanatory Notes talks about binding creditors who are owed money at the start of the moratorium. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 provides that the relevant date for preferential claims is to be the date of filing; that is, the date the moratorium comes into effect.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has already pointed out, there are no provisions in the Bill for how expenses arising during the moratorium are to be dealt with. Incidentally, this was also pointed out by the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place. For that reason there remains some doubt about the status of debts arising during the moratorium period and how they are to be disposed of. We shall wish to return to this matter in Committee.
As regards voluntary arrangements generally and the issue of binding unknown creditors—if I may use that form of shorthand—the Bill provides that, in every type of voluntary arrangement, approval binds not only all creditors who are entitled to vote at the
1262
meeting but all creditors who would have been so entitled if they had had notice of it. At present, only creditors who have received a notice of the meeting are bound. This change raises a number of potential difficulties. In particular I should like to ask the Minister to consider the effect of these provisions on those who have made claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, where I believe that there is a difficulty. Again, we shall need to return to this in Committee.
In conclusion, I should like to return to the issue of the nominee and his duties during the moratorium. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Schedule A1 allow the company or other affected parties to challenge the nominee's actions by application to the court. We see a contradiction in the Bill between two views of the role of the nominee: that of an independent office holder with a duty to the general body of the creditors; and that of a professional adviser with a duty of care to his client. Those two roles clearly can be in conflict. The nominee has a duty to monitor the affairs of the company, and in the earlier draft clauses there were provisions which could have made the nominee liable for the defaults of the directors.
The report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, to which I referred previously, suggested that the balance of duties and liabilities envisaged for the nominee required some revision to ensure both a light touch and protection of the legitimate interests of creditors. It added that no more duties or sanctions should be laid on the nominee than are strictly necessary in the unique circumstances of a moratorium.
The provisions making the nominee liable for directors' defaults have now been removed from the Bill and a new provision has been added at the end of paragraph 25(3) of Schedule A1, allowing the court to excuse the nominee if it is satisfied that his acts, omissions or decisions were reasonable in the circumstances. Although these amendments are undoubtedly of assistance, the new provision does not address the fundamental issue of where the nominee's duty lies. This issue definitely needs to be resolved in Committee.
In summary, we welcome the Bill, which seeks to move forward in an appropriate fashion the whole issue of dealing with insolvencies. However, we feel that the Bill needs considerably more work to give it a fair chance of achieving its objectives.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gavron: My Lords, as some noble Lords may already know, I am well qualified to speak on insolvency, having narrowly escaped it many years ago at the beginning of my career. I was an entrepreneur who was not well versed in the mysteries of cash flow. The company that so nearly went down is now flourishing and employs some 5,000 well-paid people. I hasten to add that today it is being run by people a good deal more numerate than I was all those years ago. But I did run it for 30 years and I was frequently a creditor. I think I can fairly describe myself as a very

1263
experienced creditor. Furthermore, I frequently lost my money, and yet I am an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill.
Contrary to some people's belief, most of those who start small businesses are hardworking and honest. I have learnt that there are people who think that usually they are fundamentally untrustworthy. I do not share that view. Most of them create wealth and employment and a few manage to build large and significant businesses. It is very easy for them to trip up during the early years and the most common cause of failure is running out of money through not understanding the intricacies of cash flow.
After a long career in business, I still do not fully understand the intricacies of cash flow. What I have learnt, however, is that I need to have someone at my side who does. Many entrepreneurs starting new ventures have most certainly not fully mastered cash flow. Quite often, a hiccup or two early on can sink a promising new business.
Of course it must be said that many bankruptcies are deserved and the philosophy of the survival of the fittest must prevail in business. It is not good for the employees or for the economy to keep weak and struggling businesses alive indefinitely. But the moratorium proposed in this Bill—described by Stephen Byers and by the Minister in this House as a "breathing space"—is a mere 28 days, extendable by arrangement to possibly three months. That may well be enough to save some businesses which deserve to survive.
In real life, the initiative to put a small business into receivership almost always comes from a clearing bank. Trade creditors are often patient with slow payers. If they believe that the principal is honest and if they are convinced by the rescue plan, they often continue to extend credit. Of course they may have little to lose: on the one hand they may get 10p in the pound; on the other hand they may secure a continuing and loyal customer. That is not a difficult choice.
Banks, however, are almost always secured creditors and therefore are likely to be paid in full or nearly in full in an insolvency. Their first floating charge on assets is frequently additionally backed by a personal guarantee. Perhaps I may stray for a moment in order to express my strong disapproval of banks almost invariably demanding personal guarantees, giving them both belt and braces. The typical profile of a promising entrepreneur—for that is what the Bill is about—if often of a person with a mortgage and a family or other dependants acquired after, say, 10 years' valuable experience working for someone else. When such a person contemplates a business start-up, the mandatory personal guarantee means that failure could put not only the entrepreneur but also the dependants into the street. Good entrepreneurs may take risks, but they are fundamentally cautious people. The biggest disincentive to a start-up by exactly the right sort of candidate, someone who is likely to succeed, is often the prospect of a personal guarantee.
The Insolvency Bill serves to provide a counter to the banks, which are sometimes—frequently, in my experience—too quick on the trigger. A four-week
1264
freeze can give the principal time to get together with the creditors and perhaps give the business a chance of survival. A further reason to try to save a business is that a common consequence of insolvency is the domino effect. One small business fails and cannot pay a large debt to another small business, which in turn fails, and so forth. So one small failure can cost quite a number of jobs.
This is a good Bill. I listened with surprise, or even amazement, to criticisms suggesting that it would impose disadvantages on the creditor. As an experienced creditor I believe that the reverse is true. The moratorium is likely to ensure that all the creditors are listened to, not just the major creditor with full security. The Bill will help small companies to an enormous degree, and the small companies which may be their creditors. It is an important element in this Government's determination to foster entrepreneurship. While large companies seem to be downsizing or merging and thereby shedding jobs, many small companies are expanding and creating employment. This Bill will help small companies and I support it.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in winding up from these Benches I shall try not to repeat the detailed points made by other noble Lords. First, I share the puzzlement expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lord Sharman as to why this Bill is being introduced today. As my noble friend said, the consultation on the Bill started in 1993. Seven years later it is brought in as a relatively small Bill but only a few months after the Insolvency Service in September launched its consultation document, A Review of Company Rescue and Business Reconstruction Mechanisms, which, presumably, after the consultation process is concluded, will result in a detailed Bill setting out a significant reform of insolvency law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said. I wonder also why the Bill is being brought forward after a Queen's Speech that produced 32 or 33 Bills and rumours that, as a result, in order to get their legislative programme through, the Government will not be able to have another Queen's Speech this side of the election. Indeed, if there were in place, as many of us would like, a "Moratorium on Legislation Act", this would be a provision that could well fall within it.
Having said that, when we come to Committee a number of points of detail will need to be resolved. I shall not rehearse in detail those already mentioned; I shall run through one or two in outline. First, both the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lord Sharman mentioned an issue that caused considerable concern—it may be said, "It would, wouldn't it?"—among representative bodies of the various organisations practising in this field; that is, the qualification of nominees. It will clearly be the subject of significant debate in Committee and on Report and we look forward to seeing whether or not the Government propose to table any amendments to deal with the concerns expressed.

1265
Secondly—a point which has not yet been touched on in relation to the nominees—is the question under the proposed Schedule A1, paragraph 6; that is, the nominee's statement. A number of anxieties were expressed as to the provision that requires the nominee not to have to give any reasons for his opinions as to the viability of the proposals being brought forward. Under paragraph 6(3), the nominee is allowed to rely on information submitted by the directors,
"unless he has reason to doubt its accuracy".
A number of the comments made on the Bill suggest that that does not go far enough and that the nominee should be required to make such checks as are reasonable in the circumstances. We look forward to discussing that point in Committee and seeing whether it is a point on which the Government propose to move.
My third point relates to Clause 11 and the insolvent estates of deceased persons. The point that needs to be considered by the Minister, if not now, certainly when we come to Committee, is whether or not the situation as currently reflected in the Bill prejudices the marketability of title of the relevant property. The Law Society made significant comments which have not yet been taken on board by the Government. We would welcome the Minister's comments in that regard, and also on the point made by my noble friend Lord Sharman in relation to the risk that the provisions will have a retrospective effect, which also goes to the point on the marketability of the title to property.
There has been no comment so far on Schedule A1, paragraphs 17 to 19, concerning disposals of charged property. A number of points arise in the context of paragraphs 12, 13, 24 and 38. The obvious anxiety is that third parties proposing to deal with the directors, even with a strong likelihood that the dealing will benefit the company's creditors, will be inhibited from doing so by the lack of an express statement in the proposed legislation that the directors have the power to effect that dealing and, most particularly, by the fact that the third party will be protected from any subsequent failure of the moratorium or non-approval of the voluntary arrangement. Considerable concern was raised about the effect of third parties dealing with the disposal of charged property under the moratorium. Again, that is something the House will need to look at in Committee.
Another point which has not been mentioned today is the effect on creditors of paragraph 12, in particular the right of peaceable entry. Under the Bill as drafted, it seems an anomaly that a landlord cannot distrain for rent or issue a writ for forfeiture but is entitled to use the self-help remedy of peaceable re-entry and so deprive the company of its premises. Clearly, that is not the intention of the Bill and would defeat the purposes of it. We feel that the Government need to look at that in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lord Sharman raised the issue of disqualification of directors. I agree with the noble Baroness that the effective adoption of the Carecraft
1266
procedure in the section under which an individual can come to the department and agree to be disqualified for an agreed period needs to be handled with significant subtlety by the department if it is to have the appropriate effect. Of course, if that subtlety, as the noble Baroness indicated, is not exhibited, the director will be forced to go into court because he or she is not prepared to agree the appropriate statement that normally accompanies a Carecraft order.
More particularly, if the operation of this section is not administered by the department in a sensitive way, the director will be tempted to try his or her luck with the court proceedings rather than take the appropriate step of accepting the disqualification with reasonable undertakings in order to return, after the period of qualification, to the entrepreneurial activity that presumably lies behind the rationale for the section.
Finally, I endorse the point made by my noble friend with regard to the fundamental flaw in the relevant section regarding the role of the nominee. It is not clear on the face of the Bill whether the nominee has a duty to the general body of creditors or whether the nominee is a professional adviser with a duty of care to his client. In Committee that anomaly needs to be resolved if the moratorium procedure is to work.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall be extremely telegraphic. The Minister said that this is a modest Bill. It is indeed modest. It has, unlike the great man about whom the remark was once made, much to be modest about.
It is modest because it deals with a small part of the problem that confronts companies that are in financial difficulties. The Minister referred to some 500 cases a year. If the Government wanted to do something about the situation of companies that would be suited to a moratorium procedure, why is there not some flanking financial help for them in the Bill?
At an earlier stage, there was a discussion about the provision of statutory-super priority. We see nothing of that in the Bill. There was discussion about the switch of debt for equity in companies during the moratorium. We see nothing of that in the Bill. There was even speculation about the likelihood that public bodies may be prepared to reduce in size, or allow better payment terms of debts owed, not only to local authorities, but also to electricity, gas and water companies. We see nothing of that in the Bill.
If the noble Lord the Minister is to achieve his objective of being a real help to companies during the moratorium period, in my submission he needs to do much more than is on the face of the Bill.
I also believe that the Government were wrong to seek to establish a class of nominees outside the profession of licensed insolvency practitioners. I have two reasons for saying that. First, when a company is in difficulties it needs the advice of a practitioner who can look at the whole range of options in an objective way. That is the task of a licensed insolvency practitioner—with experience of full-scale company liquidations and the introduction of administrative

1267
receivers at one end of the scale; and of suggesting means by which difficulties can be solved without any formal application of the law at the other end.
By contrast, a nominee who comes from a single profession is likely to look at the problem in an extremely narrow way. Indeed, he or she may find some self-interest in recommending the amended CDDA procedure because, dare I say, that would provide work that he or she would not otherwise have had. At least for the early stages of the application of this legislation, I would strongly urge the Minister to think again about the new status of a nominee, perhaps for a period of five years, and rely on the established profession. It may be wise of the established profession to add some extra training in the area covered by the Bill; but, in my submission, companies would benefit from someone who could look objectively at the whole range of solutions, rather than simply at a single solution.
I have two final observations to make about the Bill, both of which refer to directors' disqualification. Of course, I share the views of roost noble Lords who have spoken that the introduction of the undertaking procedure is a good thing. However, we know from Carecraft that a number of directors, who are probably innocent, have felt it necessary to go for that procedure, simply because, if they fought the case and lost, they would be faced with paying, as is anyone in a so-called civil case, not only their own costs but also the costs of the other side. Is the Minister prepared to consider in future CDDA cases a different cost regime, more in line with the cost regime that applies in criminal cases rather than civil cases?
Secondly, I raise the point with which the Minister is now intimately familiar as the result of the progress of the Financial Services Bill through the House; that is whether, in full-scale directors' disqualifications proceedings, the real character of the trial is not really civil but criminal. If that is so, the Saunders-proofing that has been provided in Clause 10 ought to be extended to the CDDA.
Perhaps the Minister will reflect on what occurs in directors' disqualification proceedings. The proceedings are brought for the protection of the public and, at the end of the day, a director suffers disqualification. They are initiated after a long period of investigation by a team with special powers. The penalty of disqualification is severe: not only does it lead to the loss of a job, but it also leads to the loss of social status and a heavy cost burden.
These procedures are criminal in character and, therefore, should attract all the protections laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister has certified that this Bill conforms with that convention; but, in my submission, Clause 10 does not go nearly far enough to make that so.
7.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since I can now use my own words, instead of the speech written for me, very properly, by officials in introducing the Second Reading, I sympathise with my noble friend
1268
Lord Gavron. I also spent 30 years running my own company, although with considerably less success. Many times in the course of my business life I was threatened by banks. I had to provide personal guarantees based on my house and possessions in return for the possibility of the provision of working capital, even when I did not need that facility at any particular time.
Like my noble friend, I was also affected on many occasions by the domino effect; in other words, the possibility that my small business would be brought down, not because of the way that it was being run, but simply the fact that business done with others was in danger of being written off as bad debts in my accounts. That gives one a very clear view of what should be the order of priority.
Although I recognise that some contributions this evening have been critical on major points of detail—I do not walk away from that—in almost all cases, with the exception of the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, there was prejudice on the side of creditors. I hope to demonstrate that this Bill seeks to assist those businesses that are in difficulties to survive, which is fundamentally in the interests of creditors.
The Government were criticised by a number of noble Lords—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a very powerful speech—for the short period of time allowed for consultation. I thought that that criticism was answered rather well by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, who reminded us that the original consultation had taken place in 1993 under the previous administration. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, believes that everything done up to 1997 was all right and everything thereafter is no good. One should read the speech of the noble Baroness, which was good in parts. According to the noble Baroness, the good parts occurred before 1997 and the bad parts afterwards.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that his noble friend said that the Bill was long overdue and drew the conclusion that it was worth proceeding with this part of the whole range of necessary solutions. I am rather surprised by the approach that has been adopted. When in opposition we frequently urged the government to get on with it. The government would say that they were carrying out a review and consultation and nothing could be done to remedy the problems until that process was completed, which would be in many years' time. Here we are today: we are carrying out a review to deal with the very important questions dealt with by noble Lords this evening—funding, debt for equity, super-statutory priority and so on. All of those issues raise fundamental difficulties and will take a considerable time to resolve. We have a moratorium which everybody to whom we have spoken agrees is necessary and can be proceeded with in a relatively small Bill, yet we are criticised for proceeding with what we can do and not waiting for what we could do in due course. Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. If we can convince noble Lords that this Bill is the good and it is not invalidated by the pursuit of the best, we shall have done something worth while.

1269
A number of noble Lords referred to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Clearly, that committee gave the Bill serious consideration. However, very significant changes have been made since the draft Bill went before that Select Committee, and a large number of its comments, including some of those quoted this evening, referred to parts of the Bill which have been altered or even removed. If we look at the Bill as it is before us, rather than as it appeared before the Select Committee, the difficulties are perhaps rather less than envisaged.
It is generally agreed that the most important aspect of the moratorium debated this evening is the balance of safeguards between shareholders and creditors. It is true that we have had to strike a delicate balance in developing the proposal. Our desire has been to give directors the breathing space that they need to put rescue plans to creditors. At the same time, there is a need to provide creditors with reassurance. Creditors are concerned that the company is in financial trouble and they are unable to take action against it while the moratorium is in place. We cannot have a moratorium without safeguards because that gives the unscrupulous director an unlimited opportunity to spirit away assets free from the threat of immediate enforcement action.
I look forward to debating in Committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the spiriting away of various assets from laptops to rather larger items of equipment. Incidentally, I was amused to learn that the diplomatic bag with which Zimbabwe had interfered weighed 6½ tonnes. That gives a new meaning to the word "bag". But the noble Baroness raises a legitimate fear which must be assuaged. We must find ways to ensure that there is not a spiriting away of assets. However, I believe that the noble Baroness's more important point is her suggestion that the safeguard must be involvement by the court at an earlier stage, or at more stages, than is provided for in the Bill.
I believe that the fundamental safeguard—to which I shall return when I deal with the qualifications of the nominee and supervisor—is that the insolvency practitioner must be involved at the beginning. Somebody experienced in the whole range of options must be there to give objective advice. The Bill provides that initially a nominee is appointed by the directors of the company. However, the implementation of the moratorium is the responsibility of the supervisor and it is the creditors who have to approve his appointment. That is the safeguard for creditors. This is a new provision which does not exist in the Insolvency Act. In all these matters the view of the creditors prevails, which is a very important guarantee. Reading the Bill over the weekend, it took me a long time to work out that that was so, but I promise noble Lords that the guarantee exists and makes a great deal of difference. I believe that that is more important than the right to apply to the court for a winding-up order and the various other matters that noble Lords have suggested. Therefore, I hope that as we deal with the Bill in Committee we
1270
shall look at the structure a bit more closely than it has been possible to do in the course of a Second Reading debate. I hope that it will be seen that the structure is rational.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharman and Lord Razzall, in particular raised what they described as the fundamental issue of where the nominee's duty lies. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, described the potential conflict as regards whether the nominee owes his duty to the general body of shareholders or to his particular client. The nominee is appointed by the directors but, as I said, the supervisor must be approved by the creditors. The nominee's duty is to perform the duties placed on him by the Bill. Those are his responsibilities, whoever he is appointed by, rather than owing a duty to any particular person. Again, if that is not clear, let us explore that in Committee and make sure that the Bill is unambiguous in that respect.
I turn now to the issue of whether creditors should be able to override shareholders, which lies behind some of the points which have been raised. The current company voluntary arrangement required that both the creditors and the shareholders must agree to a voluntary arrangement. That sounds all right but it can prove difficult. That is why, even now, nearly 15 years after the Act was passed, we still have only approximately 500 cases per year.
In most cases, the financial situation of a company is such that if it is to be liquidated, only the creditors have an asset in the business because the company is insolvent. Therefore, we have provided that in the event of a disagreement on major specified issues, decisions of creditors' meetings will prevail over those of shareholders. I realise that I am repeating myself but I am repeating myself in a different context. Again, that is part of the structure of the moratorium, which is extremely difficult to tease out of a 20-page schedule to the Bill. It will avoid the risk of losing what may otherwise be a workable rescue simply because the shareholders cannot or will not agree to it. But by way of a safeguard for shareholders, we have given them the right to apply to the court in such circumstances and the court may order the decision of the company meeting to have effect in place of that of the creditors' meeting; or it may make such other orders as it thinks fit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked why we have introduced an extra ground to wind up a company following the failure of a moratorium. Where the company fails to agree a CVA following a moratorium, it will probably be in serious trouble. For that reason, that fact alone should support a petition to wind up a company. It will save a creditor who wants to take that step the expense of the delay necessarily involved in showing that the company is insolvent according to the test laid down in Section 123 of the Insolvency Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, both referred to the position of a landlord and said that be should be restricted, along with other creditors. Clearly, there is a point about right of access which we shall have to pursue. But that

1271
is not a point which is raised by this Bill. It exists already in other types of rescue, not just in a CVA. It is part of the review of company rescue mechanisms. It is too complex for us to deal with in the context of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked what sort of security would benefit a company during a moratorium. The company might need to borrow money to finance its operations. The only way it might get it—because, of course, it is weakened—is by offering security to potential lenders. That is a matter which the nominee and the supervisor will have to take into consideration.
The noble Baroness asked why creditors cannot seek leave of the court to put a company into liquidation or receivership. If the court were able to grant leave for those purposes, the situation would arise where there would be two conflicting insolvency proceedings afoot—one a CVA moratorium and the other a liquidation. If there are concerns about the conduct of the directors in a moratorium, there are remedies in the Bill: the nominee must be notified and he then may consider withdrawing the moratorium; or there may be an application to the court to challenge the directors' actions.
I was asked from which date creditors' claims will be calculated for voluntary arrangements. At present, the dates from which claims are calculated are determined in the Insolvency Rules of 1986 and we shall make provision for the new procedures in the rules which we propose to he amended; that is, to reflect the amendments in the existing procedure to tidy up the position.
A major issue was the question of the qualification or authorisation of nominees and supervisors. I certainly agree that insolvency practitioner advice is required at the outset when the company is in difficulty and it needs to have the whole range of options assessed. But the appointment of supervisors provides that there is somebody who is more expert in rescue mechanisms than in the details of administration and insolvency. Indeed, the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency, now called the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, has recognised that by voting to allow those who have business rescue experience to join their organisation. It may be that this is experience in running businesses rather than the legal and accountancy aspects of not running them—in other words, running them out.
We do not know how it will work out. We do not know how that role, which is perhaps more akin to that of a company doctor, will work out. We do not know whether a body will arise or be encouraged to arise which will look for those skills alongside the skills of insolvency practitioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked that we should delay this for five years. We are certainly not in a hurry to introduce it. We shall not introduce it until there is a body which recognises business rescue skills and is prepared to impose them, and we should not recognise anybody as a nominee or a supervisor unless he had agreed to abide by the rules of such a body.
1272
It may or may not be that such a person will be a qualified insolvency practitioner. But we should never allow the case which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, fears; namely, that we shall get failed insolvency practitioners. Rather, it will be somebody with different parallel skills.
I can cut short what I say about disqualification undertakings because the provision was generally welcomed. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that certainly I understand the need not to have too many preconditions, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that I understand the need for subtlety by the department. He thinks that too many directors will be tempted to try their luck with the courts. That happens in only 10 per cent of cases now. It is unlikely that that will be a real difficulty.
I have less sympathy with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I do not believe that there is anything here which takes away existing rights to contest a disqualification order in the court. Providing for something which, on past history, is likely to be agreed in a large number of cases will be beneficial. I cannot see any down-side to that.
I hear what the noble Lord says about criminal trials and I shall think about that. It does not seem entirely likely to me since we are not taking away any existing rights.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was not in any way criticising the introduction of the undertaking. I think that is a good thing. But at the moment, in a full trial, the loser pays all. It is my view that a number of directors accept a Carecraft solution, or will accept an undertaking, even though they are innocent, because they fear that at the end of the day they may be disqualified and have to pay very large sums in costs. They are simply not prepared to take the risk.
I do not suggest that the noble Lord should remove the undertaking from the legislation. I suggest that he should go further and consider renewing costs awards in the disqualification proceedings themselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I consider seriously everything that the noble Lord says: I just do not have any instinctive sympathy with it.
I shall deal quickly with the question of insolvent estates of deceased persons. I understand the need to be satisfied that there is no retrospective aspect involved. I can write to the noble Lord to reassure him in that respect or we can debate the matter in Committee. However, generally speaking, I believe that noble Lords have welcomed this part of the Bill. Indeed, I am grateful for that welcome. In the case of UNCITRAL, I certainly agree that we should be pressing for adoption by other countries. This is our contribution to it: we could not have pressed for adoption unless we provided for it, as we have in t his Bill.
I believe that I have dealt with as many points as your Lordships would wish me to do within the space of 20 minutes. I do not want to overemphasise the

1273
importance of the Bill, but we are responding to legitimate pressure to do something that seems pretty universally agreed to be desirable. We shall be happy to debate the details in Committee. But if we can make these moderate changes—I still say that they are both modest and moderate—to existing insolvency law, pending the major review that has already been started, we shall be benefiting business and enterprise in this country.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Poverty
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Crawleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the operation of the Sure Start programme with its aim of improving outcomes for disadvantaged children.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for her time in this debate, as well as noble Lords from all sides of the House who will be participating in our debate this evening on Sure Start. I wish to see this debate placed in the context of the Government's determination to eradicate child poverty in a generation and to halve it within the next 10 years.
The Government's own report published last year, Opportunity For All, along with the Rowntree Report and the latest report from the Institute of Policy Studies, which is based on 1997 figures, all paint a grim picture of child poverty in Britain that is truly shameful to own. The IPS study concludes that Britain, in terms of child poverty, is the worst place in Europe to grow up. It suffers from the worst child poverty rates; it has the highest number of households where no parent works and where 2 million, and more, children live; and has substantially more teenage pregnancies than any other European Union country. The study found that nearly one-third of children live in poor households in Britain, compared with only 13 per cent in Germany, 12 per cent in France and 24 per cent in Italy—figures that must be particularly hard for those noble Lords to swallow who spend so much time in this very Chamber decrying the economic and social efforts of our European partners.
The IPS study also tells us that in the 1980s and 1990s the number of children living in poverty increased by an extraordinary 40 per cent. Along with the rise in that time of worklessness and single-parent families, the previous government failed to do anything properly to address the problem of child poverty that has led to the current situation.
As my right honourable friend Mr Darling, the Secretary of State for Social Security, put it in another place during a debate on child poverty in January:
"The previous government spent considerable time denying that poverty even existed, which damned a whole generation of children from the start, because they happened to be born in the wrong place, at the wrong time—under a Tory Government".
1274
There is no doubt that lifting children out of poverty and powerlessness has to be this Government's greatest challenge. The study from the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, published two weeks ago, underlines this huge challenge when it acknowledges that, although existing government policies to tackle poverty through tax benefits and work incentives would reduce the number of children living in poor families by 1 million, we would still be left with a further 2 million to be dealt with.
The Prime Minister has said that he wants,
"ours to be the first generation to end child poverty and that is a 20-year mission".
How the Government go about that mission is through a very large number of specific measures, including: the biggest ever increase in child benefit from £11.05 in April 1997 to £15 in April 2000 for the first child; by ensuring that more people are obtaining work through the New Deal; by the introduction of the working families' tax credit and the New Deal for lone parents; by an extra £19 billion on education; and, of course, through the £540 million Sure Start programme to help give vulnerable children the best start in life. We shall be hearing a lot more about that from my noble friend the Minister later in the debate.
We all know that poverty has many faces—the face of poor housing, poor education, poor employment prospects and poor health. As every doctor knows, poverty is a major determinant of health. That is why Sure Start is designed to deliver help to those children who need extra help from birth to formal education.
With the first of the Sure Start programmes having been rolled out around the country in the past 15 months, there will, of course, quite rightly be questions as to the geographic criteria used; the most effective use of measures of deprivation and the ways in which outcomes will be judged and monitored; and how those outcomes are interwoven with other government policies, such as maternity and parental leave. But suffice it to say—in the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, Mr David Blunkett:
"The goal of Sure Start is simple—to provide the support needed to parents, through help in nurturing and developing the health, well-being and learning capability of youngsters from the very moment they are born".
In conclusion, the strategy to defeat child poverty in the next 20 years has to be a four-pronged strategy. First, it must promote work—employment has to be the main route out of poverty. The number of people in employment has increased by 400,000 since 1997, giving us the highest number of people in employment in British history. The second part of the strategy is to direct more money to children in greatest need. The Government aim to spend £6 billion more on children by the end of this Parliament, through a combination of increased benefits and tax credits. The third prong of the strategy is to improve services and, in particular, education for all children. The final prong of the strategy is to revitalise voluntary help and consolidate grass roots community action, because no purely top-down policy can meet the ambitious aims of poverty elimination that the Government have set themselves.

1275
We have come a long way in the past 100 years in our present belief that the poor will not always be with us: from the fulminations of people like Herbert Spencer who, in 1884, and in an attempt to prevent their maiming or death, cited the Chimney-Sweepers Act (which prescribed the size of chimneys up which sweeps could send young children), as being against the liberty of contract and the system of laissez-faire, to the formal abolition of the Poor Laws in 1948, with its distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, and then to our own times. We must now commit ourselves to abolishing child poverty as a leftover of the 20th century. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply this evening on the current development of Sure Start.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Blood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for initiating this debate on the Sure Start programme which has as its aim improving children's healt17, social development and the ability to learn.
Sure Start is about a long-term investment in the future of our children. In the summer of 1998 the Government announced the national programme. The programme was made flexible to reflect the differing needs of each region within the United Kingdom. This was a tremendous idea as what could prove to be successful in one area might not prove to be so successful in another, as each area has its own set of priorities.
It was an innovative way of thinking on the part of the Government and indeed novel in some ways as it reflected the fact that during the consultation period the Government had listened to what local people involved in early years provision had told them and had responded. Thus, while holding to the overall aim of the programme, best practice and value for money could be used as each region decided. This appeared to be well received by both the Government and local groups. The Government also deserve praise for supporting the implementation of the programme through an investment of £540 million over a period of three years.
The ethos of the programme is to co-ordinate, streamline and aid value to existing services for young families in local communities. That fits in well with the overall aim of the Health and Personal Social Services for Children and Families—Regional Strategy for Healthy Well Be:ng into the Next Millennium 1996. We shall hear tonight how the programme is working in the different regions. We in Northern Ireland are delighted to hear of this progress. During the consultation period some of those involved in projects in the United Kingdom visited Northern Ireland to see and learn of the work that groups were attempting to carry out. I should be pleased to hear positive feedback about the programme and to hear that it is moving forward. However, I am sorry to say that that is not the case in Northern Ireland. As I speak, no progress has been made; in fact, the programme has not even started. As a remit, Northern Ireland is almost two years behind the rest of the United Kingdom.
1276
When Northern Ireland is mentioned, noble Lords within the House and indeed those within the communities and regions of the United Kingdom could be forgiven for thinking that the only problem faced in Northern Ireland is that of the peace process. I agree that that is the most significant problem faced by the Province and as such we have many people working towards a resolution right across the community. However, that problem cannot be viewed in isolation.
We have many other major problems within our region. Like many of our mainland neighbours we have areas of extreme poverty, high levels of unemployment, poor health and low educational attainment, to name but a few. In many respects we are no different from any inner city area within mainland UK. However, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, our problems are compounded by the effects of the Troubles. But, again, many people are working hard to address those problems.
The need for Sure Start in Northern Ireland is indisputable. One in three children live in poverty; 30 per cent of our children receive free school meals; 21 per cent of household income in Northern Ireland is benefit-based, compared with 13 per cent in the U K. The area within Belfast where I live and work has the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in western Europe. It also has a high rate of suicide, particularly among young men. However, as I said, many people are working hard to find solutions to these local problems.
I wish to give some examples of the work that is carried out and to indicate how it could fit naturally into the Sure Start programme. Within the Greater Shankill area of Belfast the need for local people to form partnerships with education authorities, health trusts and government departments is evident, as all these sectors have a part to play in the regeneration of the area. Research was carried out to assist with the work and a number of initiatives emerged from the research which would allow the community to work in partnership to help solve its own problems. The Greater Shankill Partnership was formed to coordinate a number of projects which would eventually lead to the regeneration of the area.
The partnership approach worked well. But it was soon realised that to effect real change a major investment had to be made in the young people within the area. There was need to concentrate on work with young parents and children, preferably from birth, or, ideally, before the baby was born. The partnership applied to, and received, major funding from Europe to set up an early years project. The project focused on employing parents and training them to go into homes in the area to befriend other parents, to provide support and guidance on parenting and to raise the awareness of early years education through quality play, interaction and learning. Through this support network, it was hoped that parents would be encouraged back into community life and hack into education and training. Not only were the parents gaining new skills but these were filtered down to their children and, in turn, helped to raise the confidence of

1277
the whole family—a family that could actively contribute to its own community life. As I am sure noble Lords can imagine, the project was widely acknowledged as a huge success. Indeed, it could have been the forerunner to the Sure Start programme.
In Coleraine, in the north-west of the Province, an area renowned for its outstanding beauty and a natural resource for tourism, the same needs and disadvantage can be found on the housing estates. A dedicated group of people have developed a similar programme to the example I have just given. Indeed, the excellent work of groups in Harpers Hill has been widely acknowledged in the good practice guide.
However, both those programmes are in real danger of closing down. Both depended on continuing support from the Northern Ireland Sure Start programme. I could give many more examples of cases where good practice is being carried out by a host of projects and organisations: the Northern Ireland Pre-Play School Association, Barnardo's, Save the Children, NSPCC, and so on. Again, the Sure Start programme has so far failed these groups. Can noble Lords imagine the disappointment felt by these groups when they learn that the Sure Start programme has not even begun in our region some two years after its implementation in mainland UK?
In early 1999 almost £16 million was set aside by the Government to implement the Sure Start programme in Northern Ireland. Groups were informed a few months later that as there had been no demand for Sure Start in the Province the money would be used for another purpose. There was no consultation and no explanation. This unexplained statement caused outrage among groups involved in early years provision. Representation was made to the Minister to re-think this strange decision. After several weeks of consultation the Minister announced in September 1999 that £9.8 million would be available from April 2000, £4 million in the year 2000–2001 and £5.8 million in the year 2001–2002.
While there was certain dismay at the loss of almost £6 million and a year of the programme, at least groups could now rely on Sure Start money to sustain their projects. However, this confidence was again shattered when the projects were informed that the £4 million promised was to be reduced to £2 million and that it would not be available until September 2000 and for six months only. The department dealing with the Sure Start programme in Northern Ireland told us that it would seek to ensure that the £5.8 million that was promised would be in place for 2001–2002. However, there is no guarantee as regards the sum of £5.8 million. The problem seems to be that there is a lack of ring-fencing to allow money to be protected within block grant allocation for a particular purpose. Many doubt that the £5.8 million in total will ever be made available.
The kind of work and the problems that we are discussing today cannot be solved on a short-term basis. Sustained funding and support are required if real changes are to be achieved in our children's lives and futures. Northern Ireland's youngest children
1278
have been seriously disadvantaged by this range of decisions. To date, Northern Ireland under three year-olds have lost almost £7 million of funding which was intended specifically to address their needs. I should be grateful if the Minister will explain why Northern Ireland has been treated in such a manner as compared with other regions within the UK. Can she give the projects in Northern Ireland some assurance that future funding will be guaranteed in order to enable them to make long-term plans and commitments for the future of children in Northern Ireland in regard to early years provision?
Finally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced in his Budget the creation of a children's fund to fund work by community and voluntary organisations with children living in poverty. It forms a central plank of the Government's anti-poverty programme, a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. There is concern among organisations in Northern Ireland that the money coming in for this scheme will also be part of a block grant and that once again the losers will be the children of Northern Ireland.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for initiating the debate and for raising an issue which is of fundamental importance to the future and well-being of the most vulnerable children in our society.
Why is it that in one of the richest and best educated countries in the world there are children who do not have enough to eat? Why are there children who are never cuddled, children to whom no one ever reads, children who do not know how to play, when everyone knows that these kinds of stimulation help them grow into whole and happy people? We all know that there are babies who do not know how to laugh and smile because no one has ever laughed and smiled at them; we know there are thousands of children who know cold and damp, and violence and uncertainty in their lives. We know that, thankfully, such children are in a minority; we know that the vast majority of parents—even those on the lowest incomes and in the poorest circumstances—try to do their best for their children.
They may not always succeed in providing everything that they want for their children. There may be many reasons for parents finding it difficult to give their children the life they know they deserve. It may be because they do not know how; because they are themselves the inheritors of ignorance and poverty; or because they find life too difficult to cope with because they have too much debt, no work, few life chances, too little help and too many problems. We all bear a responsibility for such children and for what happens to them.
I feel fortunate to be associated with a charity which has fully embraced its responsibility for these children, a charity that has worked to improve life for the most vulnerable children in this country since 1869: I am talking about the NCH Action for Children. I am

1279
declaring an interest because of my close association with that organisation, and I make no apology for again in your Lordships' House talking about its work.
It is important to mention NCH Action for Children in this debate because it is an organisation which is working with the most vulnerable children in our communities, some 70,000 a year, in its 400 local projects. I am pleased to report that it is a partner in running one of t he Government's Sure Start projects. Some of what I intend to say tonight is based on its experience in that project. I should like to thank the head of the project for sparing the time to discuss her important work with me in preparation for the debate in your Lordships' House.
Two things distinguish Sure Start as an innovative idea. The first is its recognition that the early years are incredibly important in determining the life chances of a young person. How a baby thrives even before its birth can influence how as a small child it learns and grows. That, in turn, can make an enormous difference to how an older child achieves in school. Sure Start is a recognition that resources invested early reap huge benefits later in life. Secondly, the Government have recognised that to make real and meaningful changes they have to deliver support and services from the bottom up.
Sure Start projects are based on consumers' needs and specifically not on the delivery of services which professional people think might be good for them. I was very impressed with the process involved in the NCH Action for Children Sure Start project. NCH began by finding; out what support the parents felt they needed—for example, what kind of help people such as health visitors could offer, and when they needed to be offered that help. The job of a Sure Start project is to streamline and add value to existing services, and health visitors are very important in the whole process.
The Sure Start project works alongside health visitors and offers consistent top-up work to their important advice and support to a parent. The key word is "consistent". Consistency is important, for obvious reasons—but how often, for perfectly understandable reasons, do statutory agencies sometimes fail to provide that consistency and, because they are stretched, fail to meet the needs of the most needy? Sure Start helps to ensure that that consistency is present at an early and crucial time.
The lack of take-up of support is often because parents are ignorant of what is available and of their rights to support. Often the starting point of working with parents and families is the provision of information.
So parents are getting the input and support that they feel they need, when they need it. That support is offered over a long term—five years—and it is of a high quality. I should emphasise the high quality of Sure Start projects. I am informed that many parents have been motivated by the principles of partnership and quality that lie at the heart of Sure Start; by the idea that they are working in partnership with the project to enhance the life chances of their babies, their children and themselves.
1280
Many of the things provided by Sure Start seem simple and basic. They concern issues such as flexible childcare; the availability of rooms in which to socialise and to offer mutual support; and the provision of information and friendship. It is certainly the case that many parents feel that they are valued because the facilities and services of Sure Start are of a high quality and because they have a say in how these are accessed. This in itself creates self-worth and self-confidence. A parent with a feeling of self-worth and with self-confidence will be a better parent. We are attempting to create a virtuous circle, one which will create better parents who, in turn, will bring up better children.
All of the Sure Start projects and the other programmes which are being rolled out are not "quick fix" solutions. They seek to deal with what have seemed to be intractable problems, and so a long-term commitment is required. I should like an assurance from the Government that they recognise that they have embarked on a scheme which is unlikely to deliver in three years. I plead with them that their spending priorities should reflect the long-term nature of these projects.
One of the issues which arises out of the NCH projects with which I am familiar, and out of other projects, is that of mothers, babies and childcare. This is linked to the Government's commitment to childcare, to maternity leave and to pay. It would be an obvious piece of joined-up government to make it a priority that a mother can spend with her baby the first year of its life, and that high quality, flexible childcare is available when she returns to work. Better mothers are more likely to produce happy and fulfilled children.
The Government are to be congratulated on their commitment to delivering for women on the issue of most concern to them—that is, the balance between home and work. They are to be congratulated on the progress that has been made to eliminate child poverty. They are also to be congratulated on the Sure Start projects which address the issue of the importance of the early years of a child's life.
It does not take a genius to put these things together and to come to the conclusion that we need to look now at the possibilities of extending maternity leave so that mothers can spend more time at home. They do not want to give up jobs and should not have to; nor do they want to spend the crucial first year living in poverty because they have chosen to stay at home. We have already established the crucial importance of the first year. Poverty in the first 12 months of a baby's life make it more likely to suffer from long-term health problems. I urge the Government to carry out a review of this issue as part of the coherent drive to improve the life chances of the very young.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Crawley for instigating this debate and for introducing it with her usual thoroughness. The Sure Start programme is in its

1281
early days but has great potential. It is one measure which responds to concerns about child health and education expressed in major reports such as All our Futures, Inequalities in Health and, more recently, the British Medical Association's Growing up in Britain.
I shall not describe the Sure Start programme in detail. That has been ably done and those noble Lords here today will he familiar with its broad aims of promoting the physical, intellectual and emotional development of young children, particularly those who are disadvantaged. What I would like to do today is refer to some of the concerns of Growing up in Britain and link these to the aims of the Sure Start programme, and in particular to the importance of parenting.
I became interested in the under-fives when I had three children under five and helped to organise a preschool playgroup. I realised then that I was dealing with a special species. We know, as parents and educators, that all children need security, love, attention to health needs and intellectual stimulation if they are to function well, as my noble friend Lady Thornton well described. The British Medical Association report to which I referred concluded that focusing on the early years of life would be of most benefit as that would influence childhood and adolescence. The Black report on inequalities in health insisted that a holistic approach was needed to overcome health problems that is to say, that increases in well-being rather than a reduction in disease was crucial and that social and emotional health were as important as physical health.
Another report, The State They're In, from the Trust for the Study of Adolescence—I declare an interest as a trustee—the Prince's Trust, and the National Youth Agency also makes interesting reading as it is concerned with adolescents growing up in Britain today. It looks at issues facing young people with regard to education, employment, health, identity and behaviour, all of which need to be given attention early in life if young people are to be enabled to overcome disadvantage, such as that described so graphically by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. The report emphasises,
"the necessity for coherent national and local planning so that there is a greater co-ordination of services at all levels".
A combination of policies, aims, targets, implementation strategies and monitoring to benefit children's physical, social, intellectual and emotional health is what Sure Start aims to achieve, and it will be interesting to examine its impact in several years' time.
Child health has undergone changes during the last century with respect to the fall in deaths and morbidity from infections such as TB, measles and whooping cough. This is due to improved hygiene, living conditions, antibiotics and immunisation programmes. However, there are new problems, with increased prevalence of mental and emotional difficulties, asthma and obesity. A number of children, particularly, but not exclusively, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are not succeeding at school. We have not yet broken what Sir Keith Joseph called many years ago the "cycle of deprivation".
1282
Of course, material wealth does not guarantee the well-being of a child. If a child is unwanted, neglected or subject to physical or emotional abuse, then the child will almost inevitably be scarred. If parents are poor, unemployed, isolated or homeless, they may well be rendered less capable of providing the attention their children need. It is therefore parental needs and the improvement of the quality of childcare which need to be addressed in any intervention aiming to enhance children's well-being. The BMA report defines good childcare as,
"a mutually affectionate relationship based on respect, empathy and genuineness with one or preferably more adults, consistent discipline based on positive reward for good behaviour rather than punishment for bad, and intellectual stimulation appropriate to the child's level of development".
It emphasises that good parenting depends not only on how the parent was parented but on the circumstances of their everyday lives, with pressures which may or may not be permanent. Supportive interventions can enable parents to feel competent and confident.
Let me now look at what seems to work in relation to reducing inequalities in health and education. Lessons from the Sure Start programme will be invaluable in adding to this body of knowledge. Studies suggest that interventions can have an impact on both the cognitive/intellectual and emotional wellbeing of children and that interventions designed to have an impact on one particular aspect of a child's life, such as health, are also likely to have an impact on other aspects, such as educational achievement.
Some of your Lordships may be familiar with the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goldman. The author argues that emotional intelligence is as important, if not more so, than IQ. Emotional intelligence includes self-awareness and esteem, social skills and motivation. School success,
"is not predicted by a child's fund of facts or a precocious ability to read so much as by emotional and social measures: being self assured and interested; knowing what kind of behaviour is expected; being able to wait, to follow directions and to turn to [people] for help: and expressing needs while getting along with other children".
Goldman argues that such intelligence can be fostered in early life and that,
"the emotional abilities children acquire in later life build on those of the earliest years".
Studies have shown, in relation to educational achievement, that parental involvement is essential for success and that children who were well parented were more likely to he able to help their own children. The American project Head Start was funded for 20 years in an attempt to improve the achievement of poorer children. The results were interesting, finding that there was considerable wash-out of intellectual gains made during pre-school years once a child entered school and that other gains such as those in self-esteem and social behaviour also tended to disappear in the short term but to show a positive effect during late teenage years in relation to ambitions.
Another intervention in the US has been followed up until the child participants were 29 years of age. It was shown that those who benefited from the preschool programme were more likely to finish high

1283
school, were three times more likely to own their own home, four times more likely to earn well and five times less likely to have had trouble with the law. It was estimated that every dollar employed in nursery education led to savings of seven dollars on prison, police and probation services and payment of taxes by those employed.
Another programme in the US was targeted at low income, unmarred or teenage mothers. Nurse visiting was carried out to 400 women from pregnancy until the child was two years old. The mothers were supported and encouraged to parent in a positive way. They were also offered healthcare facilities and screening. A number of positive effects were found, including lower rates of child abuse and neglect, fewer accident and emergency visits and home environments where the children were given greater intellectual stimulation and emotional support than in the control group.
In the UK, the child development programme, offering monthly support visits to new parents before birth and for the first year of life, proved successful in raising the standards of parenting. Other support programmes in the UK have been shown to improve uptake and c Dntinuation of breastfeeding and immunisation, better nutrition and better interactions between parent and child. The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, described other good practice.
The Sure St art programme builds on existing provision in education, health and social services. It enables and facilitates good parenting. I quote from last year's annual report:
"Parents are their child's first educators. Sure Start programmes must provide them with support in this crucial role. By enabling parents to promote children's learning in enjoyable ways they can also help ensure that children become positive about their education".
The programme has outcome measures such as increased immunisation or breastfeeding rates and output measures such as more children with access to stimulating play opportunities. I understand that there will be a long-term national evaluation of Sure Start to be launched this spring. I should like the Minister to describe this evaluation in as much detail as possible. I feel that this is a unique opportunity to learn from what works and what does not work and why, and to set down evidence-based future good practice for the well-being of children.
Much constructive work has been done focusing on the under-fives both in the UK and abroad. Sure Start pulls together a number of positive initiatives. Evaluations in the United States have concentrated not only on improvements in quality of life as a result of intervention programmes but on cost implications. It was estimated by one programme that savings added up to three times the amount spent on intervention as a result of reducing the need for foster care or institutional care alone. The American Committee on Economic Development has stated:
"Improving the prospects for disadvantaged children is not an expense but an excellent investment, one that can be postponed only at much greater cost to society".
1284
It will be important to assess whether Sure Start has economic as well as social and educational benefits.
I conclude by stating my belief that attention to the well-being and development of the under-fives should be a priority for any government, for they are the foundation for the future well-being and development of society. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for introducing the Question. Before getting down to business, perhaps I may begin with a story about Herbert Spencer which may offer the noble Baroness some consolation. Herbert Spencer was playing billiards with an undergraduate, and was absolutely thrashed. He turned to the undergraduate and said, "Sir, to play billiards as badly as you do argues a mis-spent youth". The undergraduate raised an eyebrow and replied, "Sir, to play billiards as badly as you do argues a misspent old age".
That brings us to a subject of some magnitude. I remember the Head Start figures offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. They are indeed startling. If any benefit of that kind is remotely in prospect, such programmes need to be taken very seriously. What I have not heard, and the Minister probably knows, is how the Head Start figures were calculated, and in what ways the programme that we are discussing either resembles or differs from Head Start.
I warmly welcome the concern about many questions—about poverty, and about the status of women with families and work that has led to this programme. However, I have a certain number of misgivings which I shall try to put in balance.
First, the scheme is still at the early pilot stage. I should have thought that the only possible answer as yet to the question, "Is the Minister satisfied?", is the answer given by Mao Tse Tung when asked what were the effects of the French Revolution: "It is too early to say".
The programme is also being applied selectively. In a recent Written Answer to Frank Field, Yvette Cooper said that by 2002 it was expected to affect 18 per cent of children under four. It is in effect being applied in particular deprived pockets. We know about those pockets; we discussed them on 16th February, and I am sure that we shall return to them. I understand the case for that approach. But of course the programme is a complement, not an alternative, to raising the overall levels of provision. People suffering deprivation do not all come from deprived areas. However, the Treasury being what it is, it is often a great deal easier to get money out of it for very small projects than it is for raising the overall level of provision.
I remember a remark by a newspaper correspondent who was following President Clinton around during the last presidential election. He said that the President continually offered very vague statements of general aspiration, followed by a number of very small

1285
initiatives. I am sure the Minister will understand why that gave me misgivings, and why, in a world where the Treasury is what it is, those misgivings may occasionally be justified. I am sure that she will bear these questions in mind.
An aspect of the programme that struck me as particularly good is its application to all local families in the selected locality, so there is no possibility of any stigma attaching to those who are included in it. A great deal of the programme appears to be an extension in effect of what is presently done on a more selective scale by health visitors. That may do much good. I was particularly struck by the objective of early detection in cases of post-natal depression. When one can do that, it may save an immense amount of suffering and an immense amount of public money. If one can do both of those things at once, one really has hit the jackpot.
On the other hand, there are anxieties. I can well remember my first day as a new parent, having just brought the baby back from hospital. We do not sufficiently allow for just how nervous new parents usually are. If they are surrounded by young people just out of college with a thorough training who think they know all about how to do it, it can have the effect of undermining confidence rather than creating it. If history proves anything, it proves that the upbringing of a child can be done with success in a vast variety of cultures and a vast variety of different fashions, and according to a vast number of different theories of childcare. One method will not necessarily suit all parents. So the method that the young professional coming in to the house has read about and thinks everyone ought to be using may not always be right for that parent with that child. Indeed, if one has brought up more than one child, one cannot always say that exactly the same methods are appropriate to all of one's own children. I hope that that point will be borne in mind.
There is an immense problem with targets. The Minister knows that I have a problem with targets anyway. A great deal of what is most important is not quantifiable, and the search for the quantifier often results in a loss of the important things that are unquantifiable. I have noted some of the targets that are proposed. I can see the point of them, but they may be measuring outside matters, not internal ones. The target for reducing cases of gastro-enteritis may be one such example. Gastro-enteritis may be a crude measure of poverty and disadvantage. However, I remember that when my elder son went down with the illness, it was not the result of poverty or deprivation; it was the result of a French holiday. Such cases may significantly distort statistics. As to the target for the numbers involved in breast-feeding, I can see that there may be something in that as a broad brush indicator. But it may measure maternal health influenced by matters quite different from any social circumstance or even anything to do with the birth of the child.
1286
Beyond that, I found a certain lack of specifics in regard to what will be done in Sure Start programmes. I should be glad if the Minister would fill us in. As to the outcomes, it may still be too early to say. I understand from watching last Friday's "Newsnight" that there is also a good deal of debate going on in academic circles about how far early learning, as distinct from early play and early encouragement, is necessarily to the advantage of children. It was alleged on "Newsnight" that the Government are not quite up to date with the latest research. That is a reproach that I would never make against the Minister herself, but it should be borne in mind. All latest research is necessarily to some extent the slave of fashion. It is not usually until 10 years later that one knows which research was the slave of a momentary fashion and which was not—and sometimes a good deal longer.
There is also a risk of failing to identify some disadvantaged children. During the "Newsnight" programme, Mrs Hodge expressed herself strongly and clearly in regard to the importance of toys as part of a child's learning process. I agree entirely with what she said. But I wish the Minister would ask Mrs Hodge to communicate her views on the matter to her right honourable friend Mr Straw, who does not seem to have heard the point. Toys are among the items that children of asylum seekers are not allowed since the Home Secretary appears to have decided that they are not necessary. The Minister can check that in Statutory Instrument No. 704/2000—we shall discuss it in a little while—which states in Regulation 9(3) that,
"None of the items and expenses mentioned in paragraph (4) is to be treated as an essential living need of a person for the purposes of Part VI of the Act".
Those items and expenses are toys and other recreational items. That means that if anyone else provides toys the support available to the asylum seeker is reduced in proportion. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is pickling a rod for his own and the Treasury's backs. I know that we believe nowadays in joined-up government, but could the Home Office possibly be joined up together with the rest; or is that really asking for the moon?
8.20 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it has been a complaint from this side of the House against the Government that the Treasury is consistently taking over the Department of Social Security. Today we seem to be in a somewhat different situation. The Department of Social Security seems to be taking over the Department for Education. None the less I am sure that we could have no better or more expert Minister to reply than the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
The Sure Start programme originated as a consequence of the comprehensive spending review, and in particular a review of services for children aged up to seven. It struck me as a superb innovation. I have always been in favour of Treasury Ministers advocating people's spending on certain projects. But one of the bad aspects of our system is that Treasury Ministers can only say "no" and never "yes". The

1287
innovation seemed a good idea. However, I was somewhat disillusioned. It transpires from the Chancellor's 1998 Budget speech that these measures will enable hint to reduce the £11.5 billion that is currently spent on children after things have gone wrong. I am not sure of the basis for that £11.5 billion. However, the project has much to be said for it provided that it operates efficiently. I shall turn to that point in a moment.
I welcome this debate. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that in initiating it the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, stated in throw-away lines that the previous government denied that anyone was in poverty. I do not think such statements greatly improve the level of debate. In contrast, the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, made a moving speech in relation to Northern Ireland. I must have led a somewhat sheltered life in the south of England. However, when I began my national service I was sent within a week or two on escort duty to Northern Ireland to bring back a deserter who had had family problems. I was struck not only by the problems he faced but also by the level of poverty in Belfast at that time. No doubt there are still pockets of very considerable deprivation. I had never previously seen children without shoes. It brought forcibly home to me the differences which exist between the regions and which are exemplified in the approach the Government now take to this issue.
However, there are some problems. The size of the area is relevant. I noted today a distinction made between the levels of deprivation in Spitalfields and the City of London. It is difficult to define the size of the area on which one should concentrate when engaging upon an exercise such as Sure Start. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, the Prime Minister stated that it is the intention to halve the level of child poverty in 10 years and to eliminate it in a generation.
That brings us to the important question of the definition of poverty. In debates on social security Bills last year, one distinguished between the poverty that exists, for example, in sub-Saharan Africa and poverty in this country. In a sense, poverty is relative. Can the Minister tell us what definition of poverty is being used as regards the Prime Minister's declaration? On some definitions it will not be true, as the noble Baroness said in opening the debate, that the poor will no longer always be with us. The level of poverty can be defined in such a way that it rises with the general standard of living. It would De helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was against quantification. I tend to quantify. We are told that £542 million will be spent on the projects between 1999 and 2002 of which £452 million is to be concentrated on 250 projects. I understand that the projects cover only about 5 per cent of the children in the country. How wide is it proposed to extend the figure? The noble Baroness says that these are not large amounts compared with some other government expenditures. But if the figure is to be 20 times that £452 million, it
1288
is a considerable sum. Even if one makes it more restrictive, the expenditure will be by no means small. It must be clear that the exercise is effective.
I turn to monitoring, targets and local milestones. I refer to two targets. The first target relates to "improving social and emotional development". That is difficult to ascertain. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to post-natal depression. But some targets are quantified—for example, the 10 per cent reduction in children re-registered on a child protection register. It will be interesting to see to what extent one can quantify such a target with any degree of accuracy.
Some targets are more vague and state:
"All local Sure Start programmes to have agreed and implemented, in a culturally sensitive way, ways of identifying, caring for and supporting mothers with post-natal depression".
Clearly it depends on the area selected.
I turn to another aspect of the targets under the heading of improving health. There is reference to.
"5 per cent reduction in proportion of low birth-weight babies.".
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, referred to a forthcoming evaluation. It would be helpful to know more about that. I am somewhat worried by an Answer to a Question in another place on 10th January, at col. 38WA of the Official Report. In reply to Mr Field, Yvette Cooper produced a table giving the start point of data for low birth-weight babies of less than 2,500 grammes. From time to time I congratulate friends on the birth of their baby and always ask the baby's weight. It is usually about eight pounds, and quite heavy. I do not have the remotest idea what 2,500 grammes is in pounds and ounces; I imagine that it is much less than eight pounds. The figure seems excessively metric. Perhaps a more easily understandable figure could be produced. I do not ask the Minister to say off the top of her head what 2,500 grammes is in pounds and ounces.
However, what is more worrying about the figures for the 15 Sure Start programmes which have been approved so far is, on the one hand, the wide variation between regions—this really makes the Government's point; there are big variations in birth weights—and, on the other hand, the inadequacy of the figures. In some places, the figures are expressed in percentage terms; for example, in Birmingham 11 per cent of babies are said to be under 2,500 grammes. In other places, they are expressed by the number of babies.
There is no point in producing in an Answer to a parliamentary Question tables which compare percentages in one place with the number of babies in the other. We have no idea how many babies are covered in the Birmingham figure or what percentage of the total are the 62 babies in Derby. That is the point which I believe should be made this evening. Although in general this programme is considered to be admirable, it is important that we monitor it on a proper basis. For reasons which are totally obscure, in Leicester a baby is underweight at 1,500 grammes, whereas everywhere else a baby is underweight at 2,500 grammes. I do not understand why that should be so. Therefore, it is important that we sort out the matter.

1289
Similarly, referring to a point made by the noble Earl and others, at present we do not have figures relating to emergency admissions to hospital of babies with gastro-enteritis in their first year of life. I gather that those figures are being collected this month. However, again, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions from the figures which have been provided to Mr Field. Therefore, I believe that it is important that we have real yardsticks which enable us to tell whether or not the programme is effective.
Generally speaking, the Government are spending substantial sums of money. However worthwhile that may be, there is no point if it is not effective. I believe that we on this side of the House wish to see the programme carried out in an efficient way. That will satisfy not only the Treasury but, it is hoped, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the other departments which, rightly, are involved in this matter. Having said that, I believe that this has been a helpful debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important initiative. It is fundamental to our efforts to eradicate child poverty and the consequences of child poverty for children, their families and society. I thank my noble friend for offering us and introducing for us such a thoughtful debate.
The poor in this country are children. One-third of all children are poor. As several of my noble friends said, the Prime Minister has made it his mission to eradicate child poverty in 20 years because it is, indeed, a stain on our society.
There is a clear moral drive and a moral case behind the Government's determination to end child poverty. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suspected, there is also an economic and social one. He asked what our definition of poverty is. The Government's own report, Opportunity for All, makes clear that poverty is multi-faceted, not only in terms of deprivation of housing, health and educational opportunity, but also in terms of income. Obviously, he is right to make the distinction between absolute and relative income. The European definition is 60 per cent of median income, which equates approximately to 50 per cent of mean income. As noble Lords know, the difference between the two is that mean income is rather more sensitive to the distortions of the few very high earners at the top end; median is perhaps the more accurate reflection of where people stand.
There is evidence from the US High Scope programme for black children that integrating family support and early education can make a big difference to the outcomes for children later on. High Scope children did better at school, avoided early pregnancy, stayed out of trouble with the law, drew less social
1290
security and obtained jobs with better pay. As my noble friend Lady Massey described, estimates over 23 years showed that for every 1 dollar invested, 7 dollars were saved to society. Our own Early Excellence Centres in the UK show similar results.
Sure Start is one part of the Government's investment in young children. As my noble friend Lady Crawley described, that waterfront approach of the Government has been to include the New Deal for Lone Parents, the working families' tax credit and the National Childcare Strategy. Those are all efforts to help the child's parents back into work.
However, we also recognised that people in disadvantaged areas face still more acute problems. Services are often poor, transport links are bad, the baby clinic and the play group may be out of reach and the community may have lost confidence in society and in themselves. Through programmes such as the New Deal for Communities we hope that we are building the capacity of those communities to start to tackle those problems for themselves.
That is where Sure Start comes in. We want to improve significantly the outcomes for poor children and break the cycle of deprivation which is transmitted across the generations, as described so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Massey. Tackling such deep-seated problems requires a concerted approach, both at local level and in national policy-making. Therefore, for example, while I speak on Sure Start in the Lords as a Social Security Minister, the lead Minister is Yvette Cooper in the Department of Health, and David Blunkett at the Department for Education and Employment is the Cabinet Minister responsible for the programme.
How did Sure Start begin? When we came into power in 1997, we found that child poverty in the UK had been increasing rapidly since 1979 and, with it, alarming disparities between the life chances of children living in poverty and those living in more affluent circumstances. Those differences could be observed in children as young as 22 months. The differences widened and did not narrow as children grew older.
The need was clear. Therefore, we looked at how existing services were meeting that need. We found that services were patchy, uncoordinated and of mixed quality, especially for very young children in disadvantaged areas. There were no incentives for one government department to spend money that would save another department more money later on. That is the classic problem of government departments and chimneys!
All the evidence suggested that services needed to offer comprehensive, early and sustained support for children and families. We found that successful programmes share key features, all of which we have tried to build into Sure Start: they work with parents as well as with children; they offer support at an early stage before difficulties build up and become too much for the family to deal with; and, as far as possible, the focus is on prevention rather than cure.

1291
They also offer sustained help and support over many years. They look at the whole child, working on health, learning and social development in an integrated way They are firmly rooted in local communities and encourage local people to share in their design and delivery. They are non-stigmatising. Therefore, people are not put off using them by the thought that they will be branded as "bad parents". Finally, and importantly, they offer culturally appropriate services to all local families. Those are all considerations that were described by my noble friend Lady Thornton.
Sure Start takes that evidence and seeks to put it to work. Yes, it i aimed at families in poverty, but targeted by area rather than by individual families to avoid stigma. It requires agencies to work together, and local partnerships must involve local parents in designing and running services.
Therefore, what are we seeking to achieve? Sure Start aims to improve the health and well-being of families and children—if one likes, to address the outcomes of poverty in the same way as social security departments seek to address the basic issue of income poverty. It starts before birth and works with children and their parents up to the child's fourth birthday. We have invested £452 million over three years to set up local Sure Start programmes in 250 disadvantaged areas throughout England.
The selection of areas is based on local poverty indicators. There is no bidding process and no competition. Therefore, scarce community resources are not tied up in drawing up bids that never receive the go-ahead. In that way, our resources are targeted on areas of need and not on areas which make the best writers of bids.
The programmes are based in disadvantaged areas throughout the country: from Dover to Durham, from Penzance to Preston. I was reassured when I saw yesterday's study in the press of the 20 most disadvantaged areas in England. All are either in the first wave or invited to join the second wave of Sure Start trailblazer programmes. Over the 250 programmes, we expect to reach 8 per cent of children aged under four at any one time and 20 per cent of the age group of those living in poverty. Most, but not all, of the current programmes are based in the cities and larger towns where we find the biggest concentrations of deprivation. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in saying that half of all poor children do not live in poor areas. The problems of outreach work for those who live in rural areas and the like is extremely difficult to make cost-effective without stigmatising by so overtargeting that the parents recoil.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised the problems of Northern Ireland and its failure to be included in the programme. I was grateful that she was able to give me notice of her concerns so that I could follow them up. I regret the delays in getting Sure Start up and running in Northern Ireland. We look forward to seeing Sure Start under way throughout the UK, but so far it has been an England-based programme.
1292
Officials from the Sure Start unit in England have been to Northern Ireland to advise their counterparts on planning guidance and funding mechanisms because they have ring-fenced funding for those purposes. There remain some issues which need careful thinking through. Sure Start as constituted in England would not necessarily work in Northern Ireland. The local programmes in England are concentrated mainly in larger cities. The catchment area is typically 500 to 1,000 children under four. In Northern Ireland, the programme will need to take account of the rural character of poverty, with smaller pockets of deprivation.
In a devolved system of government, responsibilities for decisions in Northern Ireland remain with people in institutions based in the Province, including at present my ministerial colleague in the Northern Ireland Office. They must make decisions on priorities based on local needs and circumstances which I should not like to second guess and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Certainly, I shall ensure that my colleagues in Northern Ireland receive a copy of the noble Baroness's speech and seek to reassure her that her concerns are being addressed there. She was right to raise them for us tonight.
The Sure Start programme will, we hope, also have a wider demonstration effect that reaches more children over time. Our aim is to find out what works and how, and then to make sure that we spread good practice to everyone involved in delivering services for children and families.
By influencing and improving mainstream services, we will obtain best value out of the substantial resources, which could be as much as £11.5 billion every year, that already goes into services for children and families; ranging from health to social services and the like.
Sure Start will provide high quality experiences for young children with first-rate services, well-trained staff and premises that are attractive and welcoming. The aim is better outcomes for disadvantaged young children, improved social and emotional development, better health and a stronger capacity for learning. Central to that is childcare. I am happy to reassure my noble friend Lady Thornton that more than 7,000 new places are within the 60 trailblazer programmes, which will be a useful and significant addition to our childcare provision in England.
Each local Sure Start programme works to nationally set objectives and 12 challenging targets to be met over three years, remarked upon by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. How those targets are achieved is up to local people to decide, drawing on the evidence of what works. This supports local enthusiasm and ownership. It allows a variety of approaches to be tested, based on local circumstances. It will be different in different areas and many of the benefits will not be apparent for several years.
However, I hope that some of the examples—one of which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—indicate what we are seeking to do. For example, we are looking for a 5 per cent reduction in

1293
the number of babies born with a birth weight under five and a half pounds, or 2.5 kilograms. Two or three of my noble friends, who are more "Eurospeed" than some of us, were able to do those sums more quickly than me or the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. That was rather disgraceful, given that his family base is a high-profile, highly responsible position of concern within the European Community and the European Court.
However, one of the reasons for targeting underweight babies is that they have less well-developed muscles in their mouths affecting their ability to suckle and take in food. They need to feed more often, which affects their sleeping patterns. We know that low birth weight is also associated with health problems in later life, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and hypertension.
We also have a target to try to identify and care for mothers with post-natal depression. That is one of the best predictors of whether mothers and children bond with each other. We also know that the effects of a failure to bond can be long lasting. Researchers have found a correlation between mothers' post-natal depression and low IQ scores among boys at the age of 11. We hope to be able to work in that area.
We are also aiming for a 10 per cent reduction in the number of children admitted to hospital in the first year of life with gastro-enteritis. We shall exclude all those babies taken to France during the course of parental holidays who suffer infection or severe injury! We know—and this is the serious point that the noble Lord will respect—that poor children are five times more likely to suffer accidental, as opposed to non-accidental, serious injury or to die as a result of accidents than children in socio-economic classes 1 and 2. That measurement is a powerful proxy for the health and well-being of very young children.
At 18 months, we want to ensure that at least 90 per cent of children have normal speech and language development—otherwise at school far from catching up they progressively fall behind.
Some things will be common to all programmes. For example, all families will receive a visit within two months of a new birth to introduce them to what is available locally. Outreach and home visiting are a core part of the Sure Start approach so that we engage with all parents including those who might not otherwise come forward.
1294
The first trailblazer programmes are under way in 60 areas—57 have now been approved—and a second wave of 69 areas are building partnerships. We already believe that that is making a difference. We are seeing new partnerships between agencies which rarely worked together in the past. We are seeing public sector services and professionals working much more closely and with much greater respect for parents and responding to their needs.
We are beginning to see services developing in new ways. Health visitors and midwives, for example, have been enlarging what they are able to do. Parents are being offered more ante-natal advice and more work in depression is being undertaken. Help is being provided with baby sleep clinics and there are sessions for parents on dealing with the behavioural problems of their children.
In conclusion, Sure Start is an investment in faith and hope for children living in poverty. Some of the outcomes we are seeking to achieve will not be measurable until 15 to 20 years' time. However, we will be starting careful evaluation from this summer onwards. There will be some technical problems with evaluation, given the overlapping effects of other agencies, the health action zones, education action zones and the like. However, a large-scale, long-term national evaluation of Sure Start will begin in summer 2000.
As well as looking at short- and medium-term results, it will also include a major longitudinal study of outcomes using a significant sample of Sure Start children. It will also look at more qualitative assessments of small group work. We shall be looking at whether children have achieved their potential at school; whether they have a job; whether they have avoided becoming pregnant as teenagers; and whether they have steered clear of entanglement with the law.
Sure Start is a cornerstone of our drive to end child poverty and to tackle social exclusion by seeking to overcome the disadvantages that flow from child poverty. It is early days, but it is working and it is popular. We are releasing the powers of energy and innovation in deprived neighbourhoods across the country. It is ambitious, but our children are entitled to nothing less. I hope that as a result we will all work together in meeting those objectives and addressing the problems for our deprived children.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  Crown Prosecutors Code Review
  Crown Prosecutors Code Review
  Freedom of Information Bill Code of Practice
  Freedom of Information Bill Code of Practice
  Reserve Forces: Call Out for Balkans and Iraq Region
  Reserve Forces: Call Out for Balkans and Iraq Region
  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones
  CJD: DNA Samples
  CJD: DNA Samples
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Research
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Research
  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Abortion Guidelines
  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Abortion Guidelines
  Professor Collinge's Proposed Study: Involvement of Ethics Committee
  Professor Collinge's Proposed Study: Involvement of Ethics Committee
  CJD: Tests to Demonstrate Infection
  CJD: Tests to Demonstrate Infection
  Smoking and Food Preparation
  Smoking and Food Preparation
  NHS Specialised Services: Annual Reports
  NHS Specialised Services: Annual Reports
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Disallowed and Sanctioned Claimants
  Jobseeker's Allowance: Disallowed and Sanctioned Claimants
  Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care
  Reduced Benefit Directions for Parents with Care
  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee Increase
  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee Increase
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Legislation
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Legislation
  Education Committees
  Education Committees
  Affordable Housing
  Affordable Housing
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Scrapie and BSE
  Scrapie and BSE
  Farmers: Retirement
  Farmers: Retirement