Sitting of 5 April 2000

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Wednesday 12 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Countryside Policy
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What progress is being made in developing a cross-departmental policy for the countryside.[116384]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government's countryside policy will be set out in detail in the rural White Paper to be published later this year.
    Mr. Dobbin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I recognise the positive steps proposed in the Government's legislation to improve access to the countryside for the public and at the same time to protect existing rural amenities. Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to encourage Departments to recognise and support the constructive and helpful contribution made by farming and other rural industries to that process?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. We will do exactly that. In preparation for the completion of the rural White Paper, we are trying to ensure that all Departments are signed up to the parts that they will implement. The Ministerial Committee on Rural Affairs, which I Chair, will ensure that all Departments think in terms not just of the rural White Paper, but of other legislation with a rural dimension. As a result, I hope that farming families, who have faced many serious difficulties, will be helped by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's £200 million package—and he met them last week. Efforts are also being made to help people in rural communities to diversify economically and to give them a broader base from which to work.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the problems of the countryside
    958
    is that younger people often feel that they have very little to do? When she holds the discussions with other Departments, will she bear in mind that recreation facilities are very important in rural areas and that there is a feeling—certainly in my constituency—that there are not enough of them?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. Our policies, such as the new deal in rural communities, aim to find work for young and older people. Work is the first priority for young people.
    The hon. Gentleman made a specific point about leisure amenities. One of the advantages of the Committee that I Chair is that it receives representations across Departments. As a result, we can deal with the difficulties of education, leisure and unemployment that young people face. I hope that we can have a bigger impact on rural communities and on the difficulties that many of them face.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the critical issues in putting together the rural White Paper is to provide one-stop advice for farmers seeking to diversify and enhance their businesses in various ways? That means providing access to the range of advice services that are available, including those on the resolution of planning issues that are often identified as being of critical importance in rural areas.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes is the short answer. We are not just considering planning issues, but, when we consulted in rural areas, planning came top of the list for many people. We are considering how we can simplify the planning system and make it a quicker process so that it does not hold-up developments. However, as with any other policy, we have to make a judgment. We have to do what we can to speed up and simplify the system so that it is easier for people to use. However, at the same time, we must not affect the beauty of rural communities and we must do all that we can to protect the countryside. It is not a zero-sum game; we can have a win-win situation, as we have with rural housing policy where we are primarily considering brownfield sites for developments. Benefits can be obtained for all sides.
    We are also considering one-stop advice. At the risk of raising a tendentious and difficult issue, I point out that we have already begun to help the rural post offices that are in difficulty. We have begun to provide money for information technology through the Horizon project and we already offer them 50 per cent. rate relief. In addition, I hope that one-stop shops, alongside existing provision, will provide a better service to people in such communities.
    Mr. Colin Breed: Now that the Food Standards Agency has been established, will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether any consideration has been given to moving countryside and rural issues to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so as to create an enhanced ministry of rural affairs and agriculture?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Such structural change would be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With the Food Standards Agency, we have set up an independent body that is not a part of the Ministry of

    959
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The people to whom I have spoken want an independent body that is made up of experts from across the board. There is no scientific agreement on many issues, genetic modification being a prime example. The agency contains representatives from the community and from different scientific perspectives. It will provide advice and information and will produce reports. I am not sure that making it a part of MAFF would help the community response to the issues that affect rural areas.

    Quangos
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What plans she has to make quangos accountable to elected regional and local bodies.[116385]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The Government have already transferred 220 public bodies to the devolved Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It is the Government's intention in due course to transfer a number of public bodies to the Greater London Assembly.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely unacceptable for the Government to announce plans to make quangos accountable to devolved government in Scotland and in Wales, and to the proposed devolved government in Greater London, when he has no answers on what is to happen to unaccountable quangos in the English regions?
    Mr. Stringer: The Government intend to bring forward legislation that will enable the electorate within the regions to determine whether they want an elected assembly. If they do, that will completely change the terms of the debate on the relationship of that elected assembly to any quangos.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that quangos would be far more accountable, as outlined in the question, if no one is appointed to them who is not fully domiciled in the United Kingdom and who is not acting as an ambassador from a foreign country to the United Nations? In other words, we do not want on quangos any more Michael Ashcrofts.
    Mr. Stringer: It has been the Government's policy to follow the Nolan procedures for appointments to quangos and to ensure, following the paper on the opening of quangos' doors, both that people presented to quangos have been "Nolaned" and that the quangos themselves operate in an open and accountable way. I am not aware that the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers has been appointed to any quangos in this country.

    Government Services (Electronic Delivery)
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: What recent representations she has received on the effectiveness of the Government's targets for the electronic delivery of Government services. [116386]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): There have been two reports on the monitoring of the targets, which have been openly
    960
    debated. In the light of the two reports, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has determined to bring forward the date to 2005, when 100 per cent. of those services that are appropriate to electronic communications will be brought online.
    Mr. Letwin: May I be permitted to congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the huge enthusiasm—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, the huge enthusiasm that the Government display for matters electronic. Does he think that the Government's competence in delivering is evidenced by the fact that they appear to have chosen for themselves a web name that is already occupied by somebody else?
    Mr. Stringer: No, I do not think that it affects the effectiveness of the Government that somebody has been trading under the internet provider named previously. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, but the important point is that the Government are taking e-government and e-commerce seriously. We are speeding up the process to ensure that Government services are online so that we do not get behind in the international race.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: While it is important that e-government becomes a way for the future, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Members play their role in delivering e-government to their constituents?
    Mr. Stringer: In many ways, the most important help that can be given to Members in using e-government is the greater availability of information that the Government are making available on their websites at all possible opportunities.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Government's intentions on electronic government were serious, two things would have been done in the document published on Monday: first, managed call centres would have been taken out of the definition of electronic service delivery; and secondly, the target date for the proportion of services delivered genuinely electronically would have been 2002, not 2005. Why did the Minister do neither of those things?
    Mr. Stringer: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the definition of communication with Government: it includes someone who calls a centre and speaks to a person who has access to all the available information, as opposed to just chatting about the information. If the information is available to the person contacted—for example, as it is in NHS Online—it counts towards the Government's targets; if not, it does not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that definition helpful.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am afraid that he is the one who has got it wrong, speaking about NHS Online when he means NHS Direct. To the public, managed call centres are not a form of electronic service delivery, however desirable and accessible they may be. I have two specific questions: first, what proportion of Government services will be able to be delivered electronically—that is, by internet, digital

    961
    television and electronic data exchange—by 2002; and secondly, what proportion of services will be able to be delivered by digital television by 2002?
    Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman asks questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Changing the target date from 2005 to 2002 for 100 per cent. electronic service delivery would obviously change the objectives and definitions for 2002. Precisely because of the nature of those questions, the Government are reviewing the current definitions of electronic communication.
    Dr. George Turner: What role does my hon. Friend envisage for rural post offices in the delivery of Government services in the countryside? Is provision being made now to ensure that, if people increasingly want to use post offices to access Government services electronically, post offices will be able to offer such facilities? Are we putting the right technology into post offices now?
    Mr. Stringer: Via the Horizon project, £500 million is going into post offices. The performance and innovation unit is considering the criteria for post office access and it is the Government's policy to maintain a national network of post offices.

    Drug Abuse
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If she will make a statement on the Government's strategy for combating drug abuse among young people and teenagers. [116387]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Young people are the main focus of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. One of our four key objectives is to reduce by 50 per cent. the incidence of drug misuse among the under-25s by 2008. We are working with all relevant Departments to ensure that young people receive the help and advice that they need to resist drug misuse.
    Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind that 78 per cent. of teenagers in a school's education unit survey thought that Ecstasy was always unsafe, what impact will the proposal to downgrade Ecstasy, as recommended in the recent Police Foundation report, have on drugs prevention programmes in schools? Does the right hon. Lady agree that Leah Betts' death alerted young people to the fact that Ecstasy can kill? Does she also agree that research shows clearly that the use of Ecstasy can have a degenerative effect on the brain?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Government have made clear their position on the recommendations of the Police Foundation report: we do not support the recommendations in respect of cannabis and Ecstasy. I have met Leah Betts' parents; I recognise the pain and suffering that they have experienced and acknowledge their work to stop other young people from suffering their daughter's fate. I hope that that work, together with other preventive educational programmes that we are implementing, will make a difference to young people and ensure that no other family goes through the pain suffered by the Betts family.
    962
    On the recommendations from the Police Foundation, our position on the two that the hon. Lady mentioned is clear. We welcome the report, and in discussions between Departments my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are considering the other recommendations. I hope that we can make substantial progress on those.
    Mr. Brian White: Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the fact that debate on the issue is generally about whether one is hard or soft on drugs, instead of examining the complex issues involved and concentrating on practical measures that would help to get all people off drugs and ensure that teenagers and young people do not go on to drugs?
    Marjorie Mowlam: That is a helpful contribution. It is important for people to understand that drug abuse cannot be broken overnight. It takes years to break the cycle. We are working hard with those in education to make sure that preventive measures are put in place to stop young people getting addicted in the first place. We are also working on treatment and on trying to stop the drugs coming in. Last Monday, we launched "Positive Futures" with people from Sport England, including Trevor Brooking and Kevin Keegan, and the youth offending teams, to try to get 10 and 11-year-olds to look more positively at the future—a future that can be sports-related, and not drugs-related.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I am concerned about what seem to be conflicting reports in the newspapers about Ministers' views on so-called soft drugs. Will the Minister tell the House clearly the Government's view on cannabis? Will she also comment on a poll published today, which found that one in five 15-year-olds has been offered heroin? Roger Howard, the chief executive of DrugScope, said that young people felt that they did not know enough about the dangers of heroin. Will the Minister talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that young people are given sufficient warning about the dangers of heroin?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions. The Government have made clear their position on the recommendations in the Police Foundation's report on cannabis and Ecstasy: we do not agree with the recommendations. There are, however, many recommendations in the report which we welcome. Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I look forward to an open and frank debate.
    On working in schools, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one is trying harder than the Department for Education and Employment, the schools, the parents, the teachers and the governors to make sure that children are aware. We are issuing guidelines to schools so that they use the most effective educational measures. We have put extra money in, to make sure that teachers can find the time and the staff to do it. On prevention, we are working in communities with voluntary groups. People from the sports world and the media world, older people, former drug takers and people such as Leah Betts' parents go to talk to young people. All that helps.

    963
    We have put in an extra £7 million to help on the educational front. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have now reached more than 60 per cent. of primary schools and more than 80 per cent. of secondary schools. We are working hard to get that closer to 100 per cent.

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in her role as chair of the ministerial network on social exclusion.[116388]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office
    (Marjorie Mowlam): Since I was appointed chair of the ministerial network in December 1999, I have held one meeting, in January, at which I agreed with ministerial colleagues a future work programme to chase progress on the implementation of previous social exclusion reports. I plan to hold three further meetings in May and June to follow up implementation on school exclusions, truancy, rough sleeping and teenage pregnancy.
    Mr. Dismore: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's role in ensuring that Government policy on social exclusion is implemented on the ground, I remind her that in London teenage pregnancy is an especially serious problem. Will she congratulate organisations such as Homestart, a voluntary group in my constituency? It supports the valuable work of Barnet health authority and Barnet council in advising young teenagers who are at particular risk of becoming pregnant, and works with them to ensure that they get the best help to improve their parenting skills if they become young mothers.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the contribution of organisations such as Homestart, which work in partnership with the Government and use some of the £60 million that we have put in to try to meet our target of ensuring that the number of teenage pregnancies is halved in 10 years. We have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. We hope that, by working with local groups and using the extra money, and through better education and support, the numbers will be reduced drastically.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the social exclusion unit undertook, as long ago as June 1998, to devise approaches to tackling some of the problems on our worst housing estates, will the Minister tell the House what discussions she has held this week with the Deputy Prime Minister about the Audit Commission's report? It stated that the five local authorities that perform worst on empty properties, and thus deny people the opportunity of having a home, were all run at the relevant time by the Labour party.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman should consider the seriousness of the matter. He tries to score political points by counting councils; Conservative Members have few to count. We do our best to work with all councils—Labour, Liberal or Conservative—on housing. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in the housing package that he announced yesterday, money will be available for all communities to get more housing at lower cost and fairer rents.
    964
    If the hon. Gentleman has visited estates that suffer serious social exclusion problems, he will know that they are not caused only by housing. If problems such as boarded-up houses and rubbish in gardens are tackled on their own, the problem returns. We must ensure that housing, poor health, poor education, unemployment, bad environment and so on are tackled, and that that is done through co-operation. That is the way in which to regenerate a neighbourhood, and the social exclusion unit is working on that.
    The social exclusion unit is also considering issues such as teenage pregnancy and rough sleeping, which can fall between Departments, to try to ensure that they are tackled, too.
    Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend knows that last week the social exclusion unit published a report on young people. It suggested that a ministerial group at the highest level, with representatives from each Department, should consider young people's interests and how each Department affects their lives. We can thus join up the thinking across Government to ensure that young people get a decent service. That national structure should be reflected locally through local youth forums in which young people would have a voice. It is essential to implement that new strategy for young people as soon as possible.
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree that a strategy for Departments to join up to consider young people's interests is a positive step, which will make a difference to many young people. Again, the suggestion of doing the same locally has a lot to offer. However, I add a footnote and a warning. We must ensure that we do not tell people in our communities how best to implement a policy. There must be flexibility so that local communities can make decisions, which depend on factors such as size and urban-rural mix, for themselves.

    Better Government for Older People
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on the better government for older people programme. [116389]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): The 28 pilot projects are formally at an end as pilot projects, but some are continuing because they have been successful. The Government will evaluate them over the coming months and it is our intention to report by June.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but given that all the news releases issued about the programme boast of a series of "listening to older people" events across the country involving Ministers, can he tell us how seriously people can take those meetings when the Government have shown only this week how deaf they are to the voices of pensioners by failing to give them a decent increase in the basic state pension—just 75p? Are not the Government listening to but not understanding pensioners?
    Mr. Stringer: What was in the hon. Gentleman's party's previous manifesto? Absolutely nothing on that

    965
    issue. It is clear that, over their period in office, the Government will have put £6.4 billion into pensioners' pockets. After 20 years of Conservative rule, the disparity between pensioners on the lowest incomes and those on the highest incomes was higher than it had ever been. By providing the minimum income guarantee to pensioners and free eye tests, the Government have done more for pensioners than his party or the Conservative party would do.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 April.
    The Prime Minister
    (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Luff: In a recent letter to me, Philip and Ruth Bull of Evesham wrote:
    We qualify for our state pension within the next few weeks but will not benefit from the same tax allowance as other 65 year old pensioners who were born a few days earlier.
    How much more tax will pensioners such as the Bulls and all married couples below pension age have to pay from tomorrow as a result of the abolition of the married couples allowance and what my constituents describe as "This ludicrously discriminatory ruling"?
    The Prime Minister: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman pointed out to his constituents that the Conservative party reduced the married couples allowance from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Secondly, they are getting the basic rate cut in income tax. Thirdly, they will be entitled to the £150 winter fuel allowance. Those two things would be taken off them by a Conservative Government. In addition, we are putting in a lot more support for younger families with children through the extra child benefit, which would also be taken off the hon. Gentleman's constituents' grandchildren by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is it not the case that the Government's plans to modernise the national health service will meet their objectives only with a substantial increase in the number of nurses and with an expansion of nurses' role that recognises their talent and expertise? Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome today's news that 5,500 more nurses are working in the health service and the announcement that those nurses will have more power? Is it not a mark of nurses' good judgment that at yesterday's Royal College of Nursing conference, 81 per cent. were not reassured by the words of the leader of the Conservative party because they know that he would privatise the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: It is the case that the number of nurses has increased by 5,500. When we came to office,
    966
    the number of nurses in training had been cut. Now we are seeing an increase in the number of nurses. Also, the £5,000 for each ward—the capital help that nurses will get—will give them more power, and will also allow us to improve some 10,000 wards. We already know that the Conservative party's promises on health spending are hollow because it is committed to two things: first, private medical insurance tax relief—£1 billion out of the health service budget, half of which is a deadweight cost going to those who already have private medical insurance—and, secondly, refusing to support the increase in tobacco duty, which is £400 million. There is a £1.5 billion hole in its health spending plans already.
    Mr. William Hague: May I ask the Prime Minister about a matter that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry dodged and evaded this morning?
    Last week in Munich BMW issued an account of precisely what its chairman said to the Secretary of State in December. It states:
    If the structural aid is not approved, the BMW Group has to reconsider its investment plans for Longbridge.
    When the DTI issued the same statement in London on behalf of BMW, the words of the BMW chairman had been carefully changed to make the position appear less dramatic. The words "for the R30" had been inserted, to make it seem that the statement could not have applied to the investment in Rover as a whole. This morning, the Secretary of State denied both accounts, including the account that he himself distributed to journalists in his office last week.
    After that tale of doctoring and denial, would we not be right to conclude that nothing the Secretary of State says can any longer be believed?
    The Prime Minister: No. The Secretary of State has given the fullest possible account. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is absolute nonsense. Of course the grant aid was very important, which is precisely why they had the conversation. As I explained to him last week, we were trying to make sure that the process was hastened. However, it had nothing to do with the ultimate decision.
    What I find absolutely ridiculous is the right hon. Gentleman's focusing on who knew what when. Surely the real issue is what we do about the thousands of people who face losing their jobs. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman backing BMW's account of conversations with the Secretary of State, it would help if we had some co-operation from him in the making good of jobs of people at Longbridge.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister seems to be extraordinarily sensitive about who knew what when. Of course this is about things other than the grant aid. Do not this morning's documents show that BMW says the decision was also due to
    uncertainty in the UK car market..?
    The Secretary of State is even now sitting on the Competition Commission report that makes that point. The decision was also due to the
    charges made for workplace parking.
    It was this Government who introduced the power for that.

    967
    Does not this whole sequence lend credence to what BMW also said at the weekend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
    Mr. Hague: We know that Labour Members do not want to hear it, Madam Speaker, but they had better hear.
    BMW said:
    The Government should have known, how could they not have known, the true situation of Rover Cars. We had given them the regular figures that left them in no doubt we were in a critical situation.
    BMW reported a conversation that its chairman had with The Prime Minister:
    Blair's attitudes and opinions seemed to be many and varied. I have heard him say different things.
    That sounds like a pretty honest account to me.
    Is it not clear from this that the DTI could and should have taken earlier action to avert or alleviate the situation?
    The Prime Minister: The series of meetings with BMW took place because everyone knew there was a critical situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course they did. That was the very reason for the meeting that took place on 10 March.
    The plain fact of the matter is that the company was losing £2 million a day. What we must do now is make sure that we can save whatever jobs we can—the Secretary of State, quite rightly, is working on that—and establish a taskforce with the money that is necessary to help people who do lose their jobs to find new jobs.
    What I find both pathetic and ridiculous is the right hon. Gentleman's concentration on trying to back BMW's claims against the Secretary of State, rather than trying to make sure that those who do face the loss of their jobs actually get new jobs—which is what I intend to concentrate on.
    Mr. Hague: If the Secretary of State is concentrating on the future, why is he spending his time doctoring BMW's statements—[Interruption.]—which he had agreed with BMW, and then denying that he made the statement in the first place?
    Of course a huge amount of work must now be done. The DTI has major responsibilities in supporting the taskforce, making competition decisions, providing regional assistance and keeping in touch with all the businesses involved. is the Prime Minister going to express the confidence in his Secretary of State that he failed to express last week, or is he going to take the right course and have a new Secretary of State who focuses on the future rather than covering up his recent failures?
    The Prime Minister: First, of course I do. This exchange only shows the right hon. Gentleman's lack of judgment. Rover employees—who, understandably, are really anxious about the future—will know that the people who sold the plant to BMW are the people sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    Secondly, what we have to do now is to save as many of the jobs as we can, which we are doing—urgent discussions are going on. We are leaving no stone unturned to do that. We also have to ensure that we put
    968
    the money and the work in place to help not only the Longbridge workers, but those who are in the supply chain. That is precisely what we are doing. I am only sorry that, because the right hon. Gentleman has nothing serious to say about the issue, he has to carry on in this way.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the brutal murder by terrorists of 35 Sikhs in a small town in Kashmir? Will he also confirm the Government's commitment to fight against international terrorism—which is engaged in killing innocent civilians to destabilise communities, and is promoted and supported by countries that are well known to the international community?
    The Prime Minister: We condemn all acts of violence that bring suffering to the people of Kashmir. We are of course appalled by the murders on 20 March, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary immediately made a statement condemning the massacre.
    We are similarly appalled by the loss of life during a protest in Kashmir on 3 April, and we welcome the Indian decision to hold a judicial inquiry. We condemn terrorism in all its forms, wherever it occurs and whatever its motivation.
    The United Kingdom is of course deeply troubled by continued violence in Kashmir. Our role in the matter, however, must be to encourage both India and Pakistan to find a just and lasting solution that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir. I think that that is the most sensible and responsible position for us to adopt.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Why is the Prime Minister spending a smaller share of our national wealth on pensioners than the Tories did?
    The Prime Minister: We have not merely increased the amount of money that we are spending on pensioners, we have increased the amount of money far beyond anything that the Liberal Democrats have ever promised pensioners. Over the whole of this Parliament, we are increasing the amount by £6.5 billion. So that the electors know it: that is £6.5 billion that the Liberal Democrats never promised they would spend.
    Mr. Kennedy: In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the Government have confirmed that the share of national wealth—which is increasing—going to pensioners will decrease steadily over the course of this Parliament. In its manifesto at the previous general election, the Labour party said—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kennedy: Labour Members do not like to have their own words quoted back to them, Madam Speaker, but they are going to have them quoted back. At the last general election, Labour said:
    pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.

    969
    The prosperity of the nation is going up, but the share going to pensioners is going down. If the Prime Minister wants to take the credit for the increasing prosperity, he should have the guts to take the blame for having sold pensioners down the river.
    The Prime Minister: First, I think that people should understand that the Liberal Democrats never promised that they would re-link the state pension to earnings. Furthermore, every time they say to people that that is what they would do, they have not the faintest idea how they would pay for it.
    Secondly, 1.5 million pensioners will benefit from the 10p rate on savings income by up to £150; 200,000 pensioners have been lifted out of tax entirely; 3 million pensioners over 75 will receive free television licences; the minimum income guarantee will increase the income of 1 million poorer pensioners; and the winter fuel allowance will go to 8.5 million households. Now, would we like to do more? Yes, of course we would like to do more, but we have done an immense amount for pensioners, particularly the poorest pensioners. What is not an honest policy for any party is to say that they would do more and more and spend more money and never say where the money would come from. That is not a serious policy or an honest policy, but it is the policy of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the genuine concerns about the possibility of a significant increase in air traffic, notably from London airports? In particular, will he note the on-going fears of many of my constituents and those in surrounding areas about the idea that RAF Northolt in west London could be expanded to become a feeder airport for Heathrow, with all the resulting pollution, noise and environmental damage for those under the flight path?
    The Prime Minister: I can indeed give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I know that he has been campaigning on the issue for some time. He will be aware that the Government do not believe that the circumstances have changed to warrant reopening the issue of RAF Northolt and we do not intend to consider any proposals to develop it as a major civil airport, because it is clear that the environmental consequences would be unacceptable.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: According to the Child Support Agency, only one third of absent parents pay maintenance in full for their children. Will not the Treasury be the only beneficiary of the removal of tax relief on maintenance?
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that everyone will benefit, in particular from the new system that we are introducing for the Child Support Agency. It will be a far simpler and far fairer system. As the hon. Lady knows, the great problem with the Child Support Agency is that many of the costs are eaten up by bureaucracy. As a result of the simpler system, that will not be the case. We will
    970
    get the money in more fairly and there will be a benefit not to the Treasury, but to those who have to pay maintenance.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which came into force this week, is welcomed by my constituents and is already having an effect in Dover? Will he ensure that the provision for asylum will continue and that we will not be diverted or deflected by the disgraceful and shameful behaviour of the tabloids and the Tories, who seek to link increases in local council tax with asylum support?
    The Prime Minister: Despite what the Conservatives say, my hon. Friend is right that we are establishing a national asylum support system to replace the shambles that we inherited from the previous Government. The Conservatives have proposed an extra £500 million of spending a year, because they want to revert to the cash benefit system in place of the system that we are introducing. They also oppose our action on road hauliers who bring in illegal immigrants. That is an extraordinary position, but it means that never again should my hon. Friend or any other Labour Member take lessons about asylum from the Conservatives.
    Mr. William Hague: This week, the UK managing director of Cisco, one of the world's largest companies, said:
    The UK is a great place for us. But, if tax remains the same we will have to look seriously at where we develop our products and where we have our European support operations.
    Does the Prime Minister understand why one of the world's largest companies is saying that and will he explain the reasons to the House?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of the concerns that have been raised that we have a consultation paper with three options. We shall discuss the issue with those concerned. If firms such as Cisco have legitimate concerns, of course we have to deal with them, but we also have to deal with tax avoidance. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not attempt to deal with that, perhaps he will get up and say so.
    Mr. Hague: Of course we should deal with tax avoidance. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hague: We should deal with tax avoidance, but that is not what one of the world's largest companies is talking about. It is talking about the extension of national insurance contributions—another stealth tax introduced by the Chancellor—on which there has been no consultation paper. The Prime Minister poses for pictures with computers but, when one of the world's largest computer companies threatens to pull the plug on UK investment, he does not know what it is talking about. That is not a good sign.
    According to a report published yesterday, 50,000 IT consultants are either emigrating or thinking of emigrating, or they are not returning to the UK from overseas assignments—if only we could be so lucky with

    971
    the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister understand why thousands of IT companies are taking their business abroad? Will he explain that to the House?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Of course there is a paper about the share options, as it is important that we ensure that there is no tax avoidance. We will listen to legitimate concerns and act on them, but it would be wholly wrong to allow tax avoidance to take place on the back of any of those practices.
    As for British business, the economy has never been stronger. We have 800,000 new jobs, growth is up, and for the first time in 30 years we have come through a slowdown without a recession. Inflation is down, and for the first time in decades we have got rid of Tory boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: So either the Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening in the high-technology sector, or he does not care about it. The British Chambers of Commerce said yesterday that
    the Government seems to be unaware that its actions are working against creating a better climate for business.
    Those words are borne out by the Prime Minister's remarks in the past few minutes. While the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is waving goodbye to the old economy, is not the Chancellor—with stealth taxes and regulations—slamming the door on the new economy?
    The Prime Minister: I was thinking that there is at least one economic migrant who has come back to this country instead of staying abroad. They are not all leaving—some are coming back.
    What the Leader of the Opposition is saying really is nonsense. Of course it is important for us to ensure a good climate for business. That is why we have reformed capital gains tax and reduced corporation tax, but we must also ensure that tax avoidance does not take place. We have a balance to strike, and we are trying to strike it in the right way.
    As for business, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the latest survey of business confidence published by the London chamber of commerce and industry today. It reports that 62 per cent. of businesses expect turnover to increase, and that only 6 per cent. expect it to decline. It adds that 45 per cent. of firms expect to take on staff, and that only 7 per cent. foresee a fall in staff numbers. It reports that only 34 per cent. of firms say that they may have to raise prices, and that profit expectations are the highest for three years. That is the reality.
    Hon. Members: More, more!
    Madam Speaker: No. No more. I call Mrs. Gilroy.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a most welcome aspect of this year's Budget is what it does for older
    972
    people with modest savings? Will the Government build on that by recognising thrifty pensioners in future Budgets?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. The Government are consulting on the idea of a pensioner credit that will help pensioners who are above benefit levels but who are not well off. For example, we have rejected Liberal Democrat calls to put everything on the basic state pension because pensioner income levels vary in this country.
    Some pensioners are very poor, some are relatively well off, and there is quite a large band in the middle. Therefore, trying to solve all such problems by putting everything on the basic state pension will mean that some of the money will go to people who do not need it, and that some of the poorest pensioners will not be helped.
    To make sure that we help the poorest pensioners we want to introduce the minimum income guarantee, while the 10p tax on savings and higher capital limits will help the better-off pensioners. To help precisely those pensioners to whom my hon. Friend has drawn attention we need to consult now on the pensioner credit.
    Again, this is an argument in which sensible people know that the system has to change in time and I am pleased to say that we are leading its reform.
    Mr. John Randall: Why should the council tax payers of Uxbridge be penalised for the Government's policy failures on asylum seekers?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the fact of the matter—I hope that his constituents understand this—is that if we pursued the policies that he is advocating, we would restore cash benefits. That is one big way to reduce the number of asylum seekers! The Conservative party was in favour of restoring cash benefits—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members do not seem to think that it is their policy, but I am afraid that it is.
    Secondly, there was an instance yesterday of the way in which we are tackling lorry drivers who bring in illegal entrants at the port of entry. I will give the hon. Gentleman the facts because they bear on what will happen to his constituents. About 2,000 illegal immigrants enter in that way each month. As a result of the measures that we introduced, we have the power to tackle that. The Conservative party also opposed those measures. Indeed, it put out a statement today saying that it would get rid of that fine for road hauliers. We all know that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is real. The difference is that we are tackling it and he is not.
    Ann Clwyd: Millions of people are threatened with famine in Ethiopia. What are we doing to help?
    The Prime Minister: From memory, I think that according to the latest figures from the Department for International Development we are providing about 10 million tonnes of food aid for people in Ethiopia. I think the total cost is more than £2.5 million, but we are also attempting to do other things. As my hon. Friend knows, the continuing conflict in Ethiopia and Eritrea is one of the main reasons why this is such a problem. We

    973
    are doing everything that we can to bring the sides together. We are providing immediate aid and we are trying to work on a long-term solution.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister now condemn the absurd attack by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last week on grammar and high schools in the borough of Trafford—the local education authority that achieves the best results in the north-west of England and which the right hon. Gentleman accused of standing in the way of the Government's objective of increasing standards?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that we are increasing standards. The hon. Gentleman will know that in primary schools, for example, they have never been higher. If he wants to get into a debate about grammar schools—this will not appeal to everyone in the House—I remind him that the party that closed more grammar schools than any other was the Conservative party.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Earlier today, during the Adjournment debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on alleviating pensioner poverty in Scotland, the Sutherland commission on the long-term care of the elderly was mentioned. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us when the Government will announce the response to the last of those recommendations?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The response will be announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. The royal commission recommendations, which have a number of spending implications, will be considered within the overall context of the Government's spending proposals. When that review is brought forward, we will state our views on the royal commission's report. In the meantime, we have allocated additional money over three years to help fund respite care and we are extending direct payments to people aged 65 and over. Again, that is a change from the spending plans of the previous Government.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Parents of schoolchildren in Northumberland have written to the Prime Minister to protest that the county council has cut £1 million from school budgets and are asking how that squares with the right hon. Gentleman's much-publicised commitment to education. How will the Prime Minister reply to those letters?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the facts of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although I will
    974
    obviously look into them. One of the best ways in which we are dealing with the matter is through the Budget, which is putting money directly into schools to enable them to spend it on the things that they want. In addition, I am sure—although I do not know the specific examples—that schools in Northumberland will have benefited from new deal money, which is money that the Conservative party would take off because it opposes the new deal, and from the literacy and numeracy strategy which has raised standards in primary schools—a programme that the Conservatives opposed. We all remember that when we put education money into the education budget in the previous comprehensive spending review, those on the Opposition Front Bench called it "reckless and irresponsible". The one thing of which I can be sure is that more is happening—and better—in education in Northumberland than under the previous Government.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Next week, the Secretary of State for International Development will be meeting with other people in the education forum. I know that she will do a good job because I have seen half the brief that she is preparing. Because of the fears of some organisations that some members of the forum are dragging their feet, will the Prime Minister lend his support to the aims, principles and objectives of universal primary education? The future of literally millions of children depends on it.
    The Prime Minister: This is a very important initiative—indeed, we support it 100 per cent. I am delighted, again, that the Department for International Development has been at the forefront of the notion of bringing in universal worldwide primary education. It is immensely important for developing countries, and it goes alongside the work that has been pioneered both by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and by the Chancellor in debt relief.
    One of the things that I am most proud of in this Government is that after years of ignoring the issues of debt, overseas aid and development—
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Madam Speaker: Order. Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Yes—years of ignoring the pledge to raise overseas aid and development as a proportion of national income. One of the things I am most proud of is that, whereas it fell under the previous Government, under this Government it is now rising. That is yet another difference between them and us.

Point of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that today the Government published a sports strategy, an event to which they appear to attach some importance. There has been some difficulty in supplying copies of the strategy to hon. Members who were seeking them this morning, having heard all about the strategy from the Minister for Sport who was talking on the radio this morning and also writing in the national press. Would it not have been more appropriate, not to say more courteous, if the strategy had been announced here first?
Madam Speaker: I, too, heard the Minister early this morning on the radio. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have investigated the circumstances behind his complaint. I understand that Ministers launched the sports strategy to the press at 9.45 this morning. There was no parallel announcement in Parliament, and the document concerned was not generally available in the Vote Office until much later this morning. This is a clear breach of the conventions that apply to announcements of this sort, and it is totally unacceptable to me and to the House.
It seems to me that there is a situation developing in some Departments in which the interest of Parliament is regarded as secondary to media presentation, or is overlooked altogether. I hope that Ministers will set in hand a review of procedures right across Whitehall to ensure that the events that took place this morning are never allowed to occur again.
The Minister for Sport
(Kate Hoey): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) for raising this point of order. On behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I apologise for the administrative error that took place in not ensuring that the document was here this morning for hon. Members. I appreciate that this was not done correctly. However, I hope that what I said on the radio this morning did not go into the detail of the paper in any way.
I accept what you have said, Madam Speaker. I believe that the House has been treated discourteously. That point will be made to my Department, and I apologise unreservedly on its behalf.

Weights and Measures (Amendment)
3.34 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the use of imperial weights and measures no longer subject to proceedings for a criminal offence.
From 1 January this year, it became a criminal offence—unbelievable though it seems to many millions of our fellow citizens—for a British shopkeeper or market trader to weigh out a pound of apples or meat and to sell that produce to his customers. Any trader who continues to use traditional British units of measurement faces a fine of up to £2,000, the possibility of a term of imprisonment and the prospect, if convicted, of a criminal record, with all that that entails for the person's public reputation. My Bill is intended to put right that absurd and unwanted piece of over-regulation.
UK customers do not want the current law. When I do my weekend shopping in Princes Risborough high street, I am met by local traders and shoppers in my constituency who tell me that they have been made to feel like foreigners in their own country. They do not understand the need for the new law.
To make matters more absurd, that law is not even being enforced by the trading standards officers whose duty it is to do so. The fact that no prosecutions seem to have been made since 1 January shows that trading standards officers—for good reason—are fighting shy of bringing proceedings, even though they know well that many traders continue to defy the law because that is what their customers want them to do. I agree with those trading standards officers who have chosen to turn a blind eye; it would be an utterly disgraceful waste of scarce public money were taxpayers' resources to be squandered on such prosecutions.
Nevertheless, the threat of criminal penalties remains on our statute book. The law has a surreal quality. I can order a pound of mince from the butcher, but the butcher is not allowed to sell me a pound—he has to measure out the metric equivalent.
The absurdity goes further than that. Goods can be described using traditional measures, but may not be priced or advertised thereby. One can ask to buy so many metres of 54 in curtaining. That is complete nonsense.
If people want to use metric measurements, they should be entitled to do so. That should be a matter for individual traders and their customers to decide. Indeed, examination of the statute book reveals that as long ago as the 1860s the Metric Weights and Measures Act 1864 allowed the use of metric units for contracts. In 1897, the use of metric units for trade was made lawful. My Bill will do nothing to prevent consenting adults from continuing to use metric measurements if they choose. I am against a law that compels people to use metric units when they would prefer to use traditional British units.
The case is usually made that the new law flows from a European directive. I looked up the key measure—European directive No. 80/181 EEC of 20 December 1979. Like all European Community directives, it has a preamble listing the various reasons why the Community considers that item of legislation to be necessary. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)

977
always referred to such provisions as the "whereas" clauses. The key clause states:
Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder trade…it is necessary to harmonise laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such obstacles.
I draw the House's attention to the key elements: the purpose of the legislation was to prevent the hindrance of trade, and the harmonisation envisaged was in order to overcome obstacles to trade between different member states. I do not see how a criminal penalty on a British greengrocer or butcher who sells loose goods to customers in the high street or town square market has any bearing on free trade within a single European market. The legislation on the statute book flouts the principle of subsidiarity that is enshrined in European treaties and is not proportionate to the problem that the directive purports to identify.
Nor is it true that criminal sanctions are demanded by the directive. The Government have produced no evidence so far that other member states have implemented such sanctions, let alone enforced them.
There was a 10-year derogation from the directive for the sale of loose goods and goods weighed at the point of sale. There is no reason why the Government should not have sought to renew it and extend it much further. Indeed, a derogation was agreed by the Community for packaged goods because that was essential for exports to the United States not only from Britain, but from every country in the European Union. The United States insists on dual marking—metric and imperial—for pre-packaged goods for sale in shops.
Ministers could have sought a similar derogation for loose goods for sale in Britain, but they chose not to do so. They have admitted that they did not even discuss the idea with the Commission, or with other member states.
The Government have offered some small comfort, saying that it is possible for traders to provide supplementary labels alongside metric measurements, but that would involve a lot of work and expense for traders. On pain of criminal sanction, they must show metric units and give those priority. My Bill would abolish criminal penalties for a trader who uses pounds, ounces, feet, inches and other traditional British units of measurement by biting on the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which lays down penalties for use by traders of units of measurement other than those prescribed by law.
If traders and customers want to use metric measurements, they should be free to do so, but the same freedom should apply to people who prefer to buy and sell goods in the traditional British way. The law is an example of unnecessary and over-burdensome regulation. It needs to be changed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Lidington, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. John Hayes and Mr. Simon Burns.

Weights and Measures (Amendment)

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Lidington accordingly presented a Bill to make the use of imperial weights and measures no longer subject to proceedings for a criminal offence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 104].
  Mr. Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that it is still the expectation of the House that if a Minister misleads the House, even if he be Prime Minister, he will set the record straight at the earliest possible opportunity? Can you tell us what the earliest possible opportunity would be for the Prime Minister to set the record straight and to correct his blatantly untrue statement that the previous Government had neglected international debt?
  Every major initiative, including the Ottawa terms, the Trinidad terms and the sub-Saharan Africa initiative, was introduced by the previous Government, who set an example to the world by rescinding £1 billion of Government debt and converting it into loans—the biggest relief by any country in the world.
  Madam Speaker: The second half of the right hon. Gentleman's so-called point of order is certainly not a matter for me; it is a matter for argument and he has put his case on the record. Any Minister, even the Prime Minister, is expected to make a correction at the earliest opportunity if he has inadvertently misled the House, and he could do so by means of a written question if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point and placed on record his own opinion of the exchange.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that concerns about the quality of the recording equipment in the House are a matter for you, so I want to raise as a point of order what appears in column 340 of Hansard of 29 March. I am sure that you will recall that during Prime Minister's questions on that day there was an interruption during a question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Hansard records that there was an interruption when Labour Members in fact called out, "Boring." I am sure that you will recall, Madam Speaker, that your reply was, "Boring or not, I want to hear the hon. Gentleman", but in Hansard, that simply appears as:
  Order. This is a Parliament and hon. Members must be heard.—[Official Report, 29 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 340.]
  Will you state whether the recording equipment should be checked?
  Madam Speaker: I have always believed that whatever Members want to say in the House, providing that it is said in parliamentary terms, should be heard by the House. There is a difference between listening and hearing. Hon. Members do not have to listen, but Members who are speaking have to be heard, and I am sure that the House appreciates that distinction.
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: My day would not be complete without one from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and I shall take that as a back-handed compliment. You said that an inadvertent error could be corrected by means of a written answer, and that was extremely helpful to the
  980
  House. Will you clarify beyond doubt that in the event of such an inadvertent error by a Minister, including the Prime Minister, it is that Minister's responsibility to ensure that a written question is tabled allowing correction via an answer?
  Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Orders of the Day
  Freedom of Information Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Freedom of Information Bill
    Clause 13

      DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURES
      3.47 pm
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 7, line 28, leave out from "(e)" to end of line 31 and insert "section 38(1)".
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 105, in clause 38, page 21, leave out lines 24 to 30 and insert—

      '(a) that the disclosure of information to a member of the public would be likely to result in a public authority breaching its obligation to respect the private life of individuals as set out in Article 8 of Schedule I to the Human Rights Act 1998, and'.

      No. 106, in page 21, line 35, at end insert—

      (3A) When determining whether the obligation specified in subsection 3(a) is breached a public authority shall, in particular, have regard to—

      (a) whether the disclosure of information by the authority is likely to cause unwarranted damage or unwarranted distress to the private life of any individual who is identified by the information,

      (b) whether the disclosure of information by the authority is explicitly prohibited by any enactment other than a disclosure which may be required by this Act,

      (c) whether the disclosure of information by the authority is prohibited by the common law,

      (d) whether the substantial public interest would be served by the determination that the information should not be disclosed,

      (e) whether the information relates to other information of a similar nature which is readily accessible to the public, and

      (f) whether the disclosure of information by the authority would be likely to result in a public authority being in breach of an obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998, other than as specified in Article 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act.

      (3B) For the purpose of this section, any processing which is necessary to facilitate a disclosure of information by a public authority pursuant to a request under this Act shall be considered not to breach any data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998, and, for the avoidance of doubt, the data protection principles shall apply to any subsequent processing by any person to whom that information has been disclosed.'.

      No. 108, in clause 69, page 35, line 21, at end insert—

      '(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect in respect of any personal data obtained by a public authority after 23rd October 2007.'.

      No. 109, in schedule 6, page 64, line 36, at end insert—
      '. In section 55 of that Act—

      (a) there is inserted after subsection (1)—

      "(1A) A data controller must not knowingly or recklessly obtain or disclose personal data in any way which causes a serious breach of any data protection principle.";

      (b) in subsection (2) the words "Subsection (1) does" are replaced by "Subsection (1) or (1A) do"; and

      982

      (c) in subsection (3) the words "or (1A)" are inserted after "subsection (1)".'.

      Mr. Cohen: The amendments deal with personal data and the complex interface between the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Bill, which taxed the Standing Committee considerably. I share the views expressed in Committee that the interface is overtly complicated and might not work effectively, and my amendments aim to deal with that problem.
      First, I shall explain my understanding of the interface, to set the scene. If a request for information under the Bill relates to personal data, the clause 38 provisions are triggered. If the requester is the data subject and is seeking access to information about himself or herself, the request is treated, under clause 38(1), as a subject access request under the Act. Unless there is an exemption under that Act, the data subject will obtain access to personal data about himself or herself. If an exemption in the Act applies, the personal data become exempt information under the Bill.
      Attention then turns to the provisions in clause 13(1)(a)(i) and clause 13(2)(e), which together mean that the exempt information is not considered for a discretionary disclosure. In summary, if an exemption under the Data Protection Act applies to the access request, that is the end of the matter, barring intervention from the courts or the data protection tribunal, and no disclosure takes place.
      A similar procedure applies if the requester is not the data subject but is, for example, a journalist seeking access to the background papers associated with the decision not to extradite General Pinochet to Spain. Under clause 38(2), the public authority would consider the first condition in clause 38(3)(a). If the request was deemed to lead to a contravention of any data protection principle, the personal data would become exempt information. The provisions in clause 13(1)(a)(i) and clause 13(2)(e) would also apply and the exempt information would not be considered for discretionary disclosure.
      I shall not repeat the points that were made in Committee; suffice it to say that the data protection principles are complex and the conditions in schedules 2 and 3 to the Data Protection Act present the public authority with difficult interpretations which relate to any processing operation. However, schedules 2 and 3 deal with only half of the first principle. One must also consider the application of the remaining seven and a half data protection principles, in particular the fairness rules of the first principle, which may mean that data subjects must be informed about freedom of information access. That would no doubt trigger the application of the right contained in section 10 of the Data Protection Act to object to the processing—in this case the disclosure under freedom of information rules.
      A more critical way of putting it is that the application of the data protection principles presents a public authority with many arguments not to satisfy a freedom of information request. The authority could argue that a principle would be breached if personal data were involved.
      As I have already said, the question of discretionary disclosure does not arise. We should take note of the view of the then Data Protection Registrar as expressed to the Public Accounts Committee in its deliberations on the

      983
      draft Freedom of Information Bill. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that view as correct and it has not been denied. The then Data Protection Registrar said:
      there is a danger that you, (the requester), will get a limited amount of third party information.
      In Standing Committee, I noted that the Government refused amendments that sought to distinguish between an individual acting in a public capacity and an individual acting in a private capacity. Thus a request for access to personal data in relation to a public capacity is treated in exactly the same way as a request for access to personal data that is made in a private capacity. It follows that if the statement by the Data Protection Registrar is correct, there is considerable risk that a large volume of information could be exempt merely because it is personal data. If it is exempt information, access is likely to be withheld.
      So what are personal data? Using the definitions in the Data Protection Act, personal data are any information which relates to a living individual—for example, decisions taken by officials and recorded as such. Other examples include minutes of meetings and papers discussed at those meetings, executive authority for action and attendees who discuss some public policy. As freedom of information requests for such documents will be from members of the public, it follows that the requests relate to personal data where the requester is not the data subject. It also follows that access to those personal data follows the clause 38 procedure, with the risks that I have already outlined, which could result in the information not being released.
      It is my view that most freedom of information requests are requests for access to personal data: for example, someone might seek access to information on why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs decided to allow jets to be sold to Indonesia. That might be deemed a request for access to personal data where my right hon. Friend is the data subject. That scenario is a simple example of why the current interface is fraught with difficulties in implementation. The loophole exists for information which should be in the public domain not to be released. That is against the spirit and the intention of freedom of information.
      Let me provide a more likely example in which key papers relate to other living individuals. Let us suppose that there is a request for access to the minutes of a meeting between an IT supplier and a public authority to explore why a benefits computer system keeps failing. Such a request will involve access to personal data that relate to several people, including some who are public officials and others who are employees of the IT supplier. Clearly, word-processed documents that identify the authors of papers, the attenders at meetings or the opinions of identifiable contributors all constitute "personal data" as defined in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
      I should like the Minister to clarify which condition in schedule 2 of the 1998 Act could legitimise the disclosure, in such a scenario, of all those personal data to a requester using the Freedom of Information Bill. I should also like to know what the fair processing implications are for private sector employees. If such details cannot be
      984
      explained, it is easy to see how a public authority can claim a likely breach of the data protection principles, and thereby have the means to deny a freedom of information request.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: While my hon. Friend is on this subject, may I add to his question? Could we have the reflections of the Home Office on the effect on people in the public sector and people operating in the public sector—in particular Members of Parliament—given the celebrated case of George Strauss v. London Electricity Board? There is a problem here, I think.
      Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is also worthy of the Minister's response.
      Several options are available to resolve some of the problems. For instance, any public official mentioned in the data could consent to the release of his personal data; but if a freedom of information request is dependent on such consent, it cannot really be called freedom of information. Of course, names, initials or identifiers of individuals can be removed from documents so that they are no longer personal data, but that might push up the cost of access towards the statutory limit. In addition, a public authority could turn a blind eye to the fact that the information is personal data, but the exercise of that blind eye is at the discretion of the public authority.
      I am arguing that there are too many unanswered questions and that there needs to be a clear and uncomplicated exposition of how the interface will work. So far, none has been provided.
      I shall now explain the benefit of my approach. It avoids the need to consider officials acting in a public versus private capacity and a "serious harm" test, which for some reason seems to strike fear into the Government. Instead of a breach of any of the data protection principles, my amendment makes the test of whether personal information is exempt information dependent on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, enshrined in our law in the Human Rights Act 1998. That approach also requires changes to clause 13 of the Bill.
      First, I shall raise a quick point. My amendment does not affect the situation where the requester is the data subject; it deals only with access by an individual who is not the data subject.
      My starting point is that before personal data about one individual can be released to another, a public authority must weigh many factors that define whether personal data should be exempt information. Most of those relate to the private life of an individual. By focusing on private life—the person's home, his family, his correspondence—my amendment draws the attention of a public authority to the fact that those private elements have a differential and greater weighting importance than decisions that relate to public life. It gives a clear steer that the protection of private life is the important factor that requires safeguards.
      Those factors which protect private life are self-explanatory. They are whether the disclosure of information by the authority is likely to cause unwarranted damage or unwarranted distress to the private life of any individual who is identified by the information;

      985
      whether the disclosure of information by the authority is explicitly prohibited by any other enactment; whether the disclosure—
      Mr. John Bercow: I am following the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is he advocating that Members of Parliament should have access to the personal data held on them by the respective Whips Offices?
      Mr. Cohen: I had better not be drawn down that route for several reasons, not least the Whips' information; but of course there is information on the number of times we have voted and the number of times that we have rebelled, and that goes to our constituency parties. That is a welcome bit of freedom of information to our constituency parties.
      4 pm
      I wish to make some other points about the protection of private life. My amendment recognises that, in a case of disclosure of personal data to a requester who is not the data subject, other factors might have to be considered. Even when the request relates to exempt information, the amendment would ensure that the disclosure was weighed in the context of the provisions in clause 13. That means that the impact of the Government amendment, which will make personal data exempt from any discretionary disclosure under the clause, has to be removed. My amendment would allow the private life circumstances outlined in it to be considered in combination with the emphasis in the clause in favour of disclosure while allowing for a decision not to disclose where the impact on private life was proven to be unwarranted. That is the correct balance.
      My amendment would ensure that the data protection principles would still apply to the subsequent processing by a requester of personal data disclosed by a public authority. That processing would still be subject to the Data Protection Act. Unless there is a Data Protection Act exemption, the transparency rules may oblige the requester to contact the data subject to alert him to the processing. My amendment would help the Government to get off the hook whereby proper freedom of information disclosures of public information could be blocked because of the current loophole in the Bill on personal data.
      I wish to speak briefly to two other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 108 would ensure that all personal data, other than those relating to staff, that are collected by a public authority would be eventually subject to all the data protection principles. In effect, that would be from 24 October 2007 in the third consecutive term of the Labour Government.
      My amendment would mean that all personal data have the same status as accessible records which are the unstructured, manual, personal files that are held for the purposes of housing, health and social work. In addition, not only would public authorities have until 2007 to prepare for the change, but my amendment would apply only to data collected after 23 October 2007. The change is minimal but important. The amendment probes why the Government have stepped back from their undertaking to subject all personal files to a data protection regime.
      986
      It is relevant to compare clause 69 with equivalent provisions in the consultation document "Your Right to Know", Cm 3818. That document stated:
      The Freedom of Information Act will be drafted so that it is compatible with the Data Protection principles.
      It gave the impression that all non-automated personal information would eventually be subject to some or all of the data protection principles. It did not say that a freedom of information Bill would be drafted so that it would be exempt from those principles, but that seems to be the case with this Bill. Clause 69 is a long way from the compatibility promised in the consultation document.
      The Data Protection Act 1998 recognises four types of information about individuals as being personal data. They are information processed by automated equipment; information recorded so that it should be processed by such equipment; information recorded to be part of a relevant filing system, most notably information recorded in a highly structured manual filing system; and information recorded as part of an accessible record, which is that information open to access by previous Bills inspired by freedom of information, such as the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 which covered health, social service, housing and education records. It is noteworthy that such accessible records will, by 24 October 2007, be afforded the full protection of the Data Protection Act.
      It should also be noted that unstructured information includes a significant file of personal information that many normal people would call structured. That includes papers in date order that all relate to an individual and perhaps have his name on the cover. That is made clear in the explanatory notes that accompanied the Bill and what was then the Data Protection Bill, which provide an example of the new variant of data. The notes refer to
      a case file about an individual which contains correspondence about a number of matters relating to that individual and is indexed by reference only to the dates of correspondence.
      That is why I believe that all personal data, irrespective of structure, should eventually be subject to the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act accords a good deal of protection to the information via its eight data protection principles.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall, of course, have a chance to respond in detail. He has been talking about the contrast between the White Paper "Your Right to Know" and the Bill. Does he agree with what the Campaign for Freedom of Information has produced? It produced a sheet headed "Anger with the draft Bill as compared with praise for the White Paper?" Has the hon. Gentleman seen that, and does he agree with the campaign's analysis?
      Mr. Cohen: That is a much broader issue that covers many aspects of the Bill. I would probably agree in some instances and not in others. However, as I have been drawn on a specific issue, I shall say that there is clearly a difference between the Bill and the consultation paper. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it up when he responds to the debate.
      Simply put, the Government's approach has some undesirable consequences allowing for such unstructured personal data to be, for example, processed unfairly, to contain irrelevant and excessive personal data, to remain

      987
      inaccurate and out of date, to be retained for ever and to be processed insecurely and transferred to any country, perhaps one where a tyrant is in charge. The purpose of the amendment is to place all personal data on the same basis as accessible records. From 2007—when accessible records have to comply with the data protection principles—I want other unstructured personal data to do likewise.
      The objective of amendment No.109 is to correct an imbalance in the Data Protection Act. At present, if a member of staff deliberately sets out to flout the law, a number of punishments are available. Section 55 of the Act relates to unauthorised obtaining and disclosing. Alternatively, the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 may apply. In addition, Government often criminalise unauthorised disclosures directly in official secrets legislation, finance law and social security Acts.
      We all recognise that if staff breach the rules, there should be the prospect of criminal sanctions if the situation merits it. I find it surprising that there is no counterbalance if an organisation or a data controller sets out deliberately to flout the same privacy rules. Let us suppose that a data controller knows that there has been a position established by the courts or a data protection tribunal on the need to inform individuals of all processing purposes in advance of any processing. What happens if that controller sets out to keep such details secret? Under the Data Protection Act or any other legislation, there is no effective criminal sanction.
      The Data Protection Registrar can huff and puff and stop the processing, but he or she cannot apply a direct criminal sanction. It is a mechanism that allows some controllers to say, "We can process without any regard to data protection laws until we get caught."
      If it can be established that an organisation has systematically and deliberately set out to invade privacy, a criminal sanction should be available. I am rather surprised that it is not. If an individual member of staff systematically and deliberately set out to invade privacy, a criminal sanction would be available. If my amendment were accepted, it would be an offence for a data controller deliberately to set out to process personal data in a way likely to cause a serious breach of a data protection principle. I am not defining any deliberate breach of a principle as being an offence, although I was tempted to do so.
      As I have said, the matter must be serious. I inserted the word "serious" in order to reassure data controllers that the offence is not to apply too widely to minor indiscretions, and that it would not be used in an officious manner. An employee commits an offence if he breaches the Data Protection Act, but there are no criminal penalties if an organisation sets out deliberately to flout its data protection duties. My amendment would redress the imbalance.
      I am sorry that I have taken so much of the House's time, but these are complicated matters. I think that it is important to get them on the record and to get a response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) need not apologise to the House for the way in which he has just moved his amendments.
      988
      I hope I do not embarrass him when I say that it is typical of the thoroughness with which he approaches all matters that he has gone through the amendments in detail and explained the seriousness of the issues involved. Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with much of what he says. He has again provided a classic example of the reason why he is exceptionally popular among Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. He and I have, on occasion, disagreed about one issue—nuclear disarmament—but on almost all other issues, I find myself largely in agreement with him because I know the seriousness with which he approaches important matters.
      The official Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendments. He describes them as probing amendments, and he is wise to do so, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), is shortly to tell us that the Government are prepared to consider the issues with a view to making provision for them. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead was present in the Chamber for much of yesterday's debates, so he will have heard me say that, quite separate from my Front-Bench responsibilities, I have a personal, long-standing interest, arising from my professional work, in the Data Protection Act and its operation.
      The hon. Gentleman has made many good points. It is possible that the Minister might tell us that not all of the issues addressed by the amendments can be dealt with in the Freedom of Information Bill, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give his hon. Friend and the House an undertaking that the issues will be considered. Issues of protection of personal privacy are enormously important, and the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the interesting overlap between the Bill and the Human Rights Act 1998. In due course, the Government might have to admit that they have got the legislative cost assessment completely wrong and that they have colossally underestimated the cost to the taxpayer of the new legislation. We might return to that matter later.
      I do not want to detain the House. I simply wanted to express the Opposition's appreciation of the careful approach taken by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. We have a great deal of sympathy with his arguments. He has made it clear that he does not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that, either in another place or when the Bill returns to the House of Commons, we hear a great deal more on the subject. I shall be pleased if many of the hon. Gentleman's proposals are later incorporated in legislation, either in the Freedom of Information Bill or a later measure.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Mike O'Brien): Probably for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—that is, in his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for the thorough way in which he has addressed important issues.
      My hon. Friend described the complex interface between the Data Protection Act 1998 and what will become the Freedom of Information Act; he might also have mentioned the complex relationship that is superimposed on that by the Human Rights Act 1998. Each of those pieces of legislation will interplay with the

      989
      others in a complex way. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to be sure that the juxtaposition of those measures does not cause unnecessary confusion.
      I accept some of my hon. Friend's points, even though I cannot accept the amendments—I shall explain why not shortly. I accept his arguments about the need to examine precisely how the measures will interrelate and I undertake to consider, while the Bill goes through the other place, ways in which we can simplify and clarify the various relationships, especially that between the Data Protection Act and this Bill.
      My hon. Friend has highlighted a difficulty: the Data Protection Act protects personal data, but some requests for information under what will be the Freedom of Information Act will be in respect of individuals, and so may affect personal data held by public authorities. Getting right the balance between the public's right to know, under freedom of information legislation, and the public's right to privacy, under data protection legislation, is a difficult matter. Struggle as we may, it is possible that we will not get that balance right for all time in this legislation. Over many years we may have to continue to adjust a complex balance.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: It would not occur to me to ask my hon. Friend to answer off the top of his head, but while he is making inquiries, will he look at the position of Members of Parliament and data, particularly in relation to the case long ago of George Strauss v. London Electricity Board, when the Privileges Committee was overturned and it was decided, rightly or wrongly, that Members of Parliament should not have the protection that many thought they had at the time? These are extremely complex matters, but in the due course of events they should be looked at.
      Mr. O'Brien: I certainly undertake to my hon. Friend to look at these matters. As he says, they are complex. The best approach that I could take would be to take advice from our lawyers about how the legislation might operate. I shall then write to my hon. Friend setting out how I think it might affect Members of Parliament. In due course it may be appropriate to discuss that advice in a wider context.
      I shall look carefully at what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead says. He asks which part of schedule 2 of the 1998 Act can legitimise the processing of personal data about employees. Fair processing of data may take place where the data subject gives his consent, the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, and if it is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by a contract. Those are some of the circumstances in which information may be given.
      My hon. Friend asked about extending the Data Protection Act to include non-structured personal files. As his contribution showed, he is aware of the way in which we have so far progressed the 1998 Act. Because of the nature of non-structured files—that is, files held neither on computers nor in a filing system—we have taken the view that it is not appropriate for the full impact of the DPA to apply to that information at this time.
      By definition, such files are not easily searched. We have extended the principles of accessibility and accuracy to those files, but not other principles. These files are not
      990
      covered by the DPA at present. It has been determined by the European Union that it would be too burdensome to business to extend full protection to that information. I was therefore a little surprised at the extent of agreement between the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and my hon. Friend about extending such regulation to business. No doubt they can justify their wish to do so.
      We have delivered the White Paper broadly as promised, but personal files will be covered by access, to some extent, under the DPA; other files may well be accessible via the freedom of information legislation.
      I make no apology for going into a realm of some complexity as my hon. Friend did. It will take some time, but that is necessary in order to deal with an important and complex technical issue. The effect of amendment No. 107 would be to apply clause 13, the duty to disclose in the public interest, to information which is exempt by virtue of clause 38(2) in so far as it relates to the conditions referred to there—that is, disclosing personal information about a third party where disclosure is contrary to the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998. A disclosure contrary to those principles would be contrary both to EU law and to the European convention on human rights, particularly in relation to article 8, as my hon. Friend identified. Despite that, the public interest could be taken into account when considering whether disclosure would contravene data protection principles. The amendment is unnecessary, because the public interest could be considered, but not to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead seeks, through applying clause 13 to data protection principles.
      If we extended the provisions of clause 13, as amended by our proposals, to the Data Protection Act, we would undermine the principles of the data protection directive. I am advised that that would place us in breach of European Union law. We would also be in serious danger of compromising our position in relation to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. My hon. Friend identified those issues.
      If we are to get the complexities of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Bill right, it would be wrong to put ourselves in a position whereby we undermined European Union directives and possibly the Human Rights Act 1998, which comes into effect on 2 October.
      It would be unwise to adopt the approach that my hon. Friend suggests. That does not mean that he has not raised substantive and important points. I want to consider the matter further. Perhaps I can advise him in due course about a method of proceeding. We cannot proceed in the way my hon. Friend suggests in the amendment, for the reasons I have given. Perhaps it might be helpful if he and I met to discuss the matter further.
      Amendment No. 109 covers a slightly different matter. Section 55 of the Data Protection Act makes it an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly to obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure of personal data without the consent of the data controller. It would catch an employee of the controller who disclosed personal data about the controller's instructions. The data controller is not caught by section 55. The test of the legitimacy of his actions is whether they are consistent with data protection principles. If the data controller breaches the principles,

      991
      the Data Protection Commissioner may issue an enforcement notice against him. Failure to comply with such a notice is an offence.
      Amendment No. 109 would make it an offence for the controller knowingly or recklessly to obtain or disclose personal data in a way that would seriously breach data protection principles. The amendment therefore conflicts with the general approach to enforcing data protection principles that is already enshrined in the 1998 Act. I understand my hon. Friend's point that, nevertheless, there may be reasons for doing that.
      The data protection legislation has operated relatively well so far, however. There have been no substantial problems. The arrangements have worked well, and the commissioner has tried to resolve problems without the need for formal enforcement. She issued only five enforcement notices in 1998–99. We do not know of any prosecutions for failure to comply with a notice.
      My hon. Friend identified a genuine problem. The legislation is currently operating reasonably well, but my hon. Friend has raised a serious issue. We cannot accept the amendment because it would conflict with data protection principles. However, as the years pass, we can keep the matter under review and, if we need to enhance the procedures for protecting those who want to ensure that their privacy is not invaded, we shall reconsider the matter. At this point, we are not in a position to accept amendment No. 109.
      In many ways, prosecution is a blunt instrument. A conviction is a punishment and it can influence behaviour, but it is not targeted on the specific problem that my hon. Friend identified. Enforcement notices, on the other hand, address the issue in question: they identify the precise steps needed to improve behaviour and they clearly work. Although we could not be persuaded that immediate criminal action would add to them significantly at the moment, we do not have a closed mind for the long term. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment, which he has said he is able to do.
      Mr. Cohen: I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and the Minister for their kind words. By way of a return compliment, they are both very able too, but that does not preclude a good oral punch-up when we disagree. I also thank my hon. Friend for his considered response and I appreciate what he said. I shall read his remarks closely. He is right that there is a balance to be struck between the right to know and privacy. I support both aspects, but a private-public distinction needs to be made. There should be no excuse in respect of personal data for a public authority not to disclose, nor should there be loopholes at the interface between the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Bill which get public authorities out of disclosure.
      I appreciate my hon. Friend's saying that his mind is not closed to some of my amendments and that he is prepared to meet to discuss them. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 7, line 35, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

      '(3) Where the duty to confirm or deny does not arise but it appears to the public authority that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing the fact that the authority does or does not hold information of the description specified in the request outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question, the authority shall inform the applicant whether it holds the information.

      (4) Where—

      (a) the public authority holds information of the description specified in the request and has informed, or intends to inform, the applicant that it does so, and

      (b) it appears to the authority that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question,

      the public authority shall communicate the information to the applicant.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (6).
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 48.
      Amendment No. 8, in clause 33, page 18, line 27, leave out "it relates to" and insert—
      'its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice'.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 18, line 29, after "(b)", insert—
      'the candour and frankness of'.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—

      '(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) or section 34 insofar as it consists of factual information.'.

      Amendment No. 11, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—

      '(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) or section 34 insofar as it consists of the analysis of factual information or expert advice on a scientific, technical, medical, financial, statistical or other matter, unless its disclosure would, or would be likely to, substantially prejudice the formulation or development of government policy.'.

      Amendment No. 91, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—

      '(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) insofar as it consists of factual information or the analysis of such information.

      (1B) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) insofar as it consists of a description of the options which are or have been under consideration except to the extent that—

      (a) to reveal those options at the time of complying with the request for information would or would be likely to prejudice the formulation or development of government policy; or

      (b) it consists of the advice, opinion or recommendation of any person in relation to any such option.'.

      Dr. Wright: We now come to the meat of the Bill.
      Mr. Hawkins: It was pretty meaty last night.
      Dr. Wright: I should put it on the record that the look delivered to me by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shows that he thinks that we dealt with the meat of the Bill last night, but I am afraid that today brings further meat.

      993
      On any test, clauses 33 and 34, with which the amendments begin to deal, are at the centre of the Bill. The more I read them, and I cannot count the times that I have been through them, the more astonished I become that the Government could have presented such an exemption in such a form. May I remind myself and the House of what they do? They begin in clause 33 with a huge and blanket class exemption, including one for
      the formulation or development of government policy…
      That is the first protection. They move on to a prejudice test exemption, which is the second category of protection. In providing that, they include in clause 34 a provision on
      the reasonable opinion of a qualified person…
      which produces a third layer of protection. In case it is still unclear that they are protecting absolutely everything that could conceivably be protected, they include a catch-all category called
      the effective conduct of public affairs.
      Four barricades have been erected against disclosure on policy formulation. That is a gigantic set of exemptions; no harm test would apply.
      4.30 pm
      Factual information underlying policy decisions would simply be exempt. I shall say more about that shortly. The commissioner could attempt to require the disclosure of any information to which clause 33 applies, including factual information, but Ministers could then veto any such disclosure. We began to discuss that last night.
      I hope eventually to interest the House in amendment No. 10, which would remove factual information from the exemption altogether. I consider it the key element. It would bring the Bill into line with normal practice elsewhere—although we, the cross-party signatories, offer a number of alternative ways of approaching the same issue.
      Let me briefly remind the House of the issues that are at stake. Clause 33(1) provides the blanket exemption. It excludes anything relating to
      the formulation or development of government policy…Ministerial communications…the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice, or…the operation of any Ministerial private office.
      Clause 33(2) is particularly vicious, in that it permits Departments to refuse even to confirm or deny whether requested information exists.
      The Government amendments would mean that the commissioner could order the disclosure of information relating to policy formulation in the public interest; but any order of that kind, including one relating simply to factual information, could be vetoed by Ministers.
      It should be borne in mind that the provisions in clause 33(1) do not apply simply to high-level civil service advice and sensitive policy advice; they apply across the board. Nothing that crosses the desks of Ministers or their advisers in connection with policy would have to be disclosed, even after decisions had been made, announced and implemented. Factual information on which decisions are based and scientific advice, for instance, would be edited out. Submissions from lobbyists, enabling us to see what representations had been made to Government, would similarly be covered.
      994
      Clause 34 can be brought to bear on anything that is not already caught by clause 33. It applies both to Government Departments and to all other authorities. In so doing, it provides substantial additional grounds for withholding information, all of which, as I have said, will be established only by the reasonable opinion of a qualified person.
      Only clause 13 provides any balance. If amended in the way proposed by the Government, it would require an authority to disclose information relating to policy formulation if it appeared to the authority that in all the circumstances of the case
      the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question.
      However, there is no harm test, and therefore no description of the public interest that the measure is designed to protect. The absence of a purpose clause, which we discussed yesterday, is particularly important in this context. Such a clause is not available to frame a view on where the public interest might lie in relation to disclosure.
      The point of clause 33(1) is to assert the belief that any insight into the working of Government—into the factual background against which policy decisions are made—is likely to be damaging. It takes no account of the fact that such limited disclosure might lead to more informed debate and to better understanding of some of the complex issues involved, and that it might reassure the public that issues are being thoroughly examined and settled after proper consideration.
      The provision ignores the fact that more scrutiny may increase the rigour of the analysis. It even ignores the fact that when we have moved in that direction—as with publication of the minutes of meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England—it has, on the whole, proved to be beneficial. When we have gone even further, by publishing the minutes of meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee, the sky has not fallen in. Such action has even been thought to be an act of strengthening generally helpful to policy making.
      The Government's approach in that particular sphere of freedom of information is so perplexing largely because it is quite distinctly at odds with what they are saying about the approach that they now want to apply to policy making generally. Ministers have only to read the modernising government White Paper and all its associated documents to see that the Government's overall emphasis is on more access to the information on which policy is made, so that we shall have better policy making.
      A rather interesting document was produced recently by the Cabinet Office, entitled "Wiring it Up: Whitehall's management of cross-cutting policies and services." The document is all about—I am sorry to lapse into the jargon—cross-cuttingness, which has now replaced joined-upness as the way of talking about these issues. Conclusion 28 could not be clearer:
      The Government should: make available to Select Committees in both Houses, at an early stage in the policy process, information about the factual and analytical basis of cross-cutting policies, including joint appraisals.
      The Government themselves say that provision of that type of factual information contributes to more effective policy making, but in their freedom of information provisions, that whole category of information is to be exempt. I am not inventing contradiction here; there is

      995
      contradiction here. On this issue, the modernising government initiative is the right one, and the freedom of information initiative is the wrong one.
      As constructed, the exemption makes no sense either internationally or in policy making. It does not even try to distinguish between views, comments or opinions that have to be properly protected and the background—the factual basis—that has to be exposed to scrutiny and debate. The Government have taken that position—which is astonishing—but the weight of all the evidence, historical and comparative, is against it.
      I shall not go through the whole long list, but I should like to remind the House of how we reached that position. In their White Paper, the Government promised:
      we are prepared to expose government information at all levels to FOI legislation,
      subject to a "test of simple harm".
      The Home Secretary, in talking about these matters to the Select Committee on Public Administration, said that the
      issue of factual or background information…is important and…I think on the whole ought to be disclosed.
      Perhaps I could say in the margin that I do not at all think, and never have believed, that the Home Secretary represents the real obstruction in the matter. I am not sure how to put this—it may seem a preposterous suggestion—but I think that there are forces in the land that are even mightier than the Home Secretary.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department
      (Mr. Jack Straw): Fact or opinion?
      Dr. Wright: Probably both. I will not identify those forces, but we have to try to find an explanation for the current drafting of clauses 33 and 34. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the origin of them, but he has to defend them. He has promised, as in the quotation that I have just given, that he will try to open up that area. So far that has not proved possible.
      The open government code that we currently operate under is stronger than what is now being proposed. Under the code, information relating to policy can be withheld only if disclosure would
      harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.
      The code also requires that
      facts and the analysis of facts
      that Departments rely on in reaching decisions must be published.
      The important Croham directive back in 1977 provided that what it called "factual and analytical material" should normally be published as soon as decisions had been taken. The assumption was that, from that point, the civil service and the policy-making machine would proceed on that basis. If they made that distinction, such information would be available.
      There is a further point that was mentioned on Second Reading, but it is worth mentioning again. In evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee, the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler said:
      When we were coming up to the 1997 election, knowing what the government policy was in this matter, my senior colleagues and I gave some thought to how we could regularly structure submissions
      996
      to Ministers in a way that would enable us easily to separate the background which was publishable from, as it were, the subjective advice which was confidential. It would take a bit of training and changing practice to do that, but I think that people could very readily adapt to that.
      We cannot get a more authoritative view on the practicability of the matter than that of a Cabinet Secretary who thought that Whitehall was about to be asked to do that because of what we had said.
      Mr. John Greenway: In his role as the Chairman of the important Committee that deals with these matters, has the hon. Gentleman come across any evidence of difficulty with the existing code of practice? The Bill rows back significantly from that code of practice. I wondered whether the code of practice had created difficulties that might excuse those who have pressed for the Bill.
      Dr. Wright: All who have taken an interest in the issue over the years, including those who have had to use the code—I refer in particular to the parliamentary ombudsman, who has had to oversee it—came to the conclusion that it was time to move from code to statute. They have decided that in this area we should have rights rather than simply an informal code.
      There are examples from Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand. Other countries have proceeded in a way different from our Government's.
      Clause 13(6) should be deleted. It requires authorities, when considering making a discretionary disclosure of information relating to what it calls the development and formulation of Government policy, to
      also have regard to the desirability of communicating to the applicant factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking.
      4.45 pm
      Government amendment No. 48 would retain clause 13(6) but strengthen it in a minimalist direction. It would delete the words
      also have regard to the desirability of
      and replace them with the words
      in particular have regard to the public interest in.
      Under that approach, factual information relating to policy formulation remains exempt. A legal draftsman might consider that there had been movement, but people interested in ensuring access to factual information will believe that the situation remains essentially the same. Clause 13(6) therefore has to go, which is what amendment No. 7 would accomplish.
      Amendments Nos. 8 to 11—and, in a different manner, amendment No. 91—offer a variety of ways of ensuring that the Bill contains the provisions that we consider necessary. Amendment No. 8 would introduce a harm test into each of the four class exemptions set out in clause 33(1). Amendment No. 9 would qualify the interest that is prejudiced by ensuring that clause 33(1)(b) talks about the "candour and frankness" of ministerial communications, as opposed to the simple "Ministerial communications" now in the clause.

      997
      I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 10 in particular. It is the simplest and crispest of all the amendments in this group:
      Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) or section 34 insofar as it consists of factual information.
      The amendment would remove factual information from the scope of the exemptions relating to the formulation of policy.
      No one pretends for a second that there are aspects of government that do not have to be protected. In such areas, confidence has to reign, deliberation has to be private, opinions and views must be exchanged and advice given. There has never been a suggestion that hon. Members do not understand that good government could not proceed otherwise.
      However, we insist that some necessary distinctions should be made, and I can do no better than to quote Lord Nolan. Reflecting on his experiences as chairman of the Nolan committee a few years ago, he said:
      One of the seven principles of public life which our committee propounded is openness. I am tempted to say it is the fundamental principle of the seven, because without it, in this age of scepticism, public confidence in standards of conduct will not flourish.
      He went on to say:
      There have to be limits on openness, of course, without which the process of discussion within government would become impossible. In this context, one can reverse C.P. Scott's famous dictum and say "facts are free but comment is sacred".
      That is the essential point—facts are free. The public right of access is to the factual basis on which policy is made. Amendment No. 7 begins the process of ensuring that we get that. Amendment No. 10—on which I hope we will get a chance to vote later—will enable us to secure it directly.
      When this Bill was promised, there was never any indication, suggestion or belief that it would not differentiate policy background and policy advice, but that is what we are being presented with in clauses 33 and 34. In that sense, the amendments are only inserting provisions that we thought the Bill would contain in the first place.
      Mr. Greenway: I will not detain the House. As the Home Secretary will have gathered and will have been advised by his hon. Friends, I had a great deal to say on these issues in Committee. I need only refer hon. Members and those outside this place to the Hansard reports of the fifth and ninth sittings of the Standing Committee.
      Even though it was intimated in Committee that the Government would have some regard to what was said, nothing has changed. Not only is the Bill as it was, but nothing on the amendment paper would appear to alter it. I find that disappointing for two reasons. First, it will be obvious from the debate in Committee, from what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said and from the cross-party consensus in support of his group of amendments, that the House is dissatisfied with the Bill as drafted. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this matter is the meat of the Bill. While we may have differences about the regulatory and enforcement arrangements and about who should have the final say on whether information is released, the sort of information that is released is at the heart of the matter. If we cannot agree in this place that facts and information that support
      998
      Government policy decisions should routinely be available, I ask the Home Secretary, what is the point of having the Bill?
      I intervened as I did on the hon. Member for Cannock Chase not necessarily to restart the argument that the code of practice is better than the statutory basis that is the Bill and the fact that a right to information is being enshrined in statute, because I think that we have all accepted that that is probably the right way to proceed. I intervened because the code of practice provides for the release of information, facts and figures that support and underpin Government policy decisions. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that it was not the Home Secretary who was the barrier to the matter being resolved, but others whose identity is more obscure.
      I intervened because it seemed to me that something in the working of the code, which requires the release of those facts and figures, must have persuaded officials in various Departments that it would be a good idea to tighten things up and not to include the provision in the Bill, which underpins the code. I am not aware that there has been a difficulty, but I am not and have never been a Minister, although I hope that one day soon I shall be. However, that is for another day.
      The second reason why I am gravely disappointed that the Government have not produced a change, having said that there is clearly a consensus in this place that the Bill is defective, is because it must be abundantly clear to Ministers that the other place will come to the self-same judgment. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's attempts to ensure that he has a greater chance to overturn rebellion in the other place, I have a strong suspicion that this part of the Bill will be amended there and that we will have to debate this matter all over again, as we did with the Representation of the People Bill a few weeks ago. Then, we advanced our arguments on one issue after another and the consensus view clearly supported them, but we had to rely on the unelected second Chamber to ensure that some democracy in this Parliament was evident to people outside. That is a matter of profound regret.
      Mr. Straw: Am I to take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that his idea of democracy is that the losers win?
      Mr. Greenway: No. My idea of democracy is that when it is abundantly clear that the view of this House—the elected Chamber—is that Government policy is unacceptable, that view should prevail over the opinions that will ultimately prevail not because of votes in this place but because, as has happened so many times before, the Government are persuaded that they cannot get a Bill through the other place without changing it. How much better it would be if those of us who are elected to this House could frame the law as we all think best, instead of the Home Secretary and Ministers relying on the three-line Whip for the vote of Labour Members who are not here to listen to the arguments.
      Mr. David Davis: Is it not also the case that one important aspect of democracy is that the party that is elected carries through what appeared to be a manifesto commitment to freedom of information?
      Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend is right. In essence, not only was this a manifesto commitment, it was

      999
      a White Paper promise. However, I do not want to stray beyond the parameters of the specific amendments before us. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to debate these issues in the wider context.
      I cannot accept that the release of information that is available to Ministers and has informed their policy decisions should not be generally available to members of the public as well as to Members of this House under a statutory freedom of information arrangement. This is at the heart of what we are attempting to do. I am very disappointed that Ministers have completely ignored the views put forward in Committee, which are so clearly shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      I look forward to catching your eye in a few weeks' time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speaking on this measure once changes have been proposed in the other place. I hope that, on that occasion, Ministers will eat humble pie, accept the change and not force through a reversal. I cannot believe that a Freedom of Information Bill worthy of the name does not provide for the release of information on Government policy, but this Bill clearly does not do so.
      Mr. Tony Benn: First, I congratulate the Members of the House on both sides who have fought this campaign. I regard this as the beginning of a recovery of power by the legislature in dealing with the Executive. This debate and its conclusion will be seen as very significant in the development of parliamentary democracy.
      Of course, there have been some moves towards this. The Government of whom I was a Member introduced Green Papers to allow consultation. However, the Bill is a disappointment. The older I get, the more I realise how difficult past reforms were. I am not sure that the Home Secretary would encourage the publication of Hansard. He might well say—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members laugh, but there was a battle; Hansard was put in prison. I am not joking. The argument would be that it would not be in the public interest for the public to know what was said in Parliament.
      5 pm
      We are approaching the heart of the democratic deficit. Ministers say, "The democratic deficit means that I must decide, not the House of Commons". However, the fault line in democracy does not lie in what Ministers say. When we first arrive at the House as MPs, we all have to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. As this is the High Court of Parliament, I always assumed that I should take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That seems to be an appropriate oath for a Member approaching the High Court of Parliament. Privy Councillors take another oath. The truth is that, at that moment, the Executive, in the form of Ministers, are standing against Parliament and the public interest. That is what the matter is really about.
      Ministers are often kept in the dark. When I was in the Cabinet, I once said that I wished we had freedom of information for Cabinet Ministers—but that was seen as an inappropriate joke. However, I should be very surprised if the Home Secretary knows much about what
      1000
      the security services are doing. If he does, he is the first Home Secretary ever to do so. He is a manager and we are representatives. The division between the Government and the House is the real division.
      The longer I served in Government—I was a Minister for 11 years—the more I found that it was easy for people to confuse the public interest with the convenience of Ministers. That is easy to do; if it embarrasses Ministers, it cannot be in the public interest—but in fact, it is not in the interest of Ministers.
      That argument leads to another point: I cannot think of any secrets that I ever knew. I do not want to disappoint those Members who are hoping for office, but those of us who have held office know that there are few secrets in government. I knew what would be in the Budget 24 hours before it was announced, and was afraid that I should sleepwalk and tell somebody. I knew that we were going to devalue the pound 48 hours before we did so. I knew the Government's position on negotiations with foreign Governments—that all came out when the negotiations took place. I knew what would be in the honours list before it came out—but everybody knows that.
      In the old days, if the fact that a man was to be given a peerage was leaked, that ruled it out completely. Nowadays, the immigration laws have been amended; if one agrees to live here, one is put in the House of Lords. However, that is another question.
      The real reason why I want to contribute to the debate is because of the nuclear industry, for which I had responsibility for many years. Recent events at Sellafield confirm what I learned by experience; even as a Minister—let alone a Member of Parliament—I was never told the truth by the nuclear industry. For example, I found out about the fire at Windscale—now called Sellafield—only when I visited Tokyo. My officials had never told me about it. When I asked them why they had not done so, they said, "It was before you were a Minister".
      When the Americans discovered that there had been an explosion at Khysthm, the major Soviet reprocessing plant, I was never told. I asked the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, "Why didn't you tell me?" He replied, "We were told by the Central Intelligence Agency not to tell British Ministers, because it could create concern about the safety of nuclear power".
      It was not until I left office that I discovered that, while I had been making honest speeches about atoms for peace, all the plutonium from our civil nuclear power stations was going to America to make the bomb. The atoms for peace power stations were bomb factories for the Pentagon. I felt affronted by that. Had people known the facts at the time, the development of the debate on nuclear power and the nuclear industry would have been much better informed. We should not have had the problem at Sellafield, because the matter would probably have been dealt with earlier.
      These provisions are probably the most important in the Bill. After 30 years, we can find out at the Public Record Office what Ministers have done, but if we want the public to have an influence on their Government, they must know about the debate before it is concluded. I realise that there are arguments about fact and advice, but I have never believed that information about the nature of Government policy making was damaging.

      1001
      What is damaging are leaks, malice and so on. If the public know that the Cabinet is considering how to respond to the BMW crisis, for example, and about the various options, that is extremely sensible. People with knowledge of the situation could contribute. The trouble with the official secrets that surround the Government is that they lock Ministers in with their officials.
      Some Ministers are rather like constitutional monarchs. They can say yes or no to their permanent secretaries. However, once we let it be known publicly that we are considering a matter, we make available to Ministers a range of advice that they would not be able to get from within Whitehall and that allows them to become umpires between their civil servants and public expertise outside. I therefore make the case—I hope that it does not shock anyone—that open government and freedom of information are good for Ministers, not just for Parliament and the public. That argument needs examination.
      I had always been in favour of freedom of information, but my experience of ministerial office made me even more convinced of the need for amendments of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has introduced. Therefore, I hope that the campaign succeeds. I think that it probably will. Whether we have to depend on the House of Lords is a slightly painful thought for me because, as a representative of public opinion, the House of Lords is very shaky.
      I will not go into the democratic credentials of the other place, but at least we are sure that its members will all be there after the next election, so they are more secure than any of us. I never thought that they spoke for the people, but they provide a pause to allow public opinion to form itself. I hope that public opinion makes it clear to the Home Secretary and others that we are not prepared to accept that we should be treated as children and left outside the inner knowledge of what happens. It denies Ministers the advice that they need and the public the opportunity to participate in some way in their future, rather than being just spectators of their fate.
      Mr. David Heath: It is always an enormous privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Indeed, it is a privilege to take part in the debate because it slightly restores one's confidence in the Chamber doing its job of testing and trying to improve legislation.
      I have listened with care to what hon. Members have said, particularly the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). He advanced all the arguments on the amendments that stand in his name, to which I have added my own. My only regret is that I appear to have omitted to add my name to amendment No. 91. Had I noticed that earlier, I would have added it, because I agree with it, too.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said two things that gave me concern. He expressed a sense of defeatism that the measure had to go to the other end of the corridor before it could be put right and brought back. Last night, there was a conversion of almost Pauline proportions from the Home Secretary during his long speech. I still hope that he will listen to the debate and realise that there is a serious flaw. Amendment No. 10 is simple and concise, and he could easily concede to it.
      1002
      It would immeasurably assist the Bill. Therefore, I still have a slight, perhaps desperate, hope that, even today, we will see a result on that important issue.
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman tests my credulity. We spent some 18 sittings in Committee making similar comments day after day, but concessions came there none.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. I remember every one of those sittings, as he no doubt does. There was a tendency to feel that one was developing a rather flat patch on the front of one's forehead as one banged one's head against a solid wall. Nevertheless, we have had movement in the past two days. Let us celebrate that and look for more.
      The hon. Gentleman sought evidence from the experience of operating the code to suggest the need for the amendment. I do not believe that there is any need for evidence.
      Mr. Greenway: The need was not for the amendment, but for what is in the Bill.
      Mr. Heath: Precisely. The hon. Gentleman sought evidence from the operation of the code to indicate the need for what is in the Bill. He need not look for evidence, because the instinct of any bureaucracy is not to want to release information that it does not have to release. That is no criticism of the civil service; it is simply a fact that it is always easier to maintain secrecy than to divulge information. I am tempted to call these provisions the Sir Humphrey provisions, except for the fact that they extend well beyond Sir Humphrey and the permanent civil service into areas of policy formation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), is not it frustrating that, although there have been small but welcome concessions, what we expect to happen at the other end of the building will mean that more concessions will inevitably be needed before the Bill is passed? It is nonsensical for the Government to be on the defensive all the time so that it looks as if concessions are having to be dragged from them, when they could have accepted a good proposal and looked as if they believed in it.
      Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is undignified for any Minister to have to be dragged, with his heels digging into the sand, every inch of the way towards a destination that he declared to be his aim.
      I have not heard any hon. Member who has spoken in support of the amendments suggest that there is no need for a degree of protection for policy formation in government. No one has suggested that it is possible to conduct government in a goldfish bowl and that there would not be an inherent difficulty if every piece of policy advice given to Ministers were released. That would make it impossible for the mechanisms of government to work. We all recognise that because we live in the real world, not in an imaginary one. However, that is a long way from saying, as the amendments do, that factual information and expert analysis should not be released as a matter of course.

      1003
      The Home Secretary suggested last night that facts would have to be communicated throughout Departments of State on Post-it notes to avoid coming under the Bill's provisions, but that is nonsense. That does not happen in overseas legislatures that have freedom of information legislation, and it would not happen here.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is absolutely right to say that the best way to improve governmental and legislative mechanisms is to have an informed debate. In this country we often cannot have such a debate, as those who want to engage in the argument do not have the facts at their disposal because of the absurd culture of secrecy that has been fomenting for so long. The Bill is intended to address that. The amendments, particularly amendment No. 10, are crucial in that regard. I agree with hon. Members who have said that we need to test the opinion of the House if the Home Secretary is not minded to accept it, or a variation on it.
      The Home Secretary might help the House on another matter. The workings of clauses 13, 33 and 34 will depend on his announcement last night. It would greatly assist us in considering the Bill if we knew whether the Government intended to proceed with new clause 6. The amendments that the Home Secretary announced last night, and his preparedness to consider other amendments, mean that it would stretch the loyalty of even the most credulous Back Bencher to suggest that new clause 6 was a credible amendment to the Bill and for the Home Secretary to assert that he does not intend to maintain it in its current form or anything recognisably like it. It would assist the House if he made an announcement on new clause 6 today, so that we could consider it in the light of the amendments.
      The Home Secretary has shown courage and fortitude, as have the Government, in introducing the Bill, but if he is not prepared to be tough on Ministries, tough on civil servants, tough on secrecy and tough on the causes of secrecy—which are very often those same civil servants—the Bill will have failed. I hope that he will listen to the arguments of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber because they are cogent and are intended to improve the Bill.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Mark Fisher: I am an optimist, so I hope that we are simply getting the tone of the debate slightly wrong, because colleagues on both sides of the House seem to have forgotten what happened last night. As hon. Members have said, we had the remarkable sight of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when tested, beginning to recognise the huge imperfections of the Bill that he was defending and rewriting the clause that is at the heart of the Bill as he stood at the Dispatch Box. Rightly, he got credit for that. Let us be clear: last night the Home Secretary eased the grip of the powers at the centre of the Bill and effectively transferred them to the Information Commissioner rather than allowing new clause 6 to give him and his ministerial colleagues a veto.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), of course my right hon. Friend will not move new clause 6; he tore it up in front of our eyes last night and the bits of paper were at his feet by the end of his
      1004
      speech. That new clause no longer exists. Of course we trust the Home Secretary's word, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, his remarks are in Hansard and we can clearly see that he redrafted the provisions—and all credit to him.
      If the Home Secretary can redraft a clause that was at the heart of the Bill's powers, these amendments, which are about the scope of the Bill and areas of exemption, particularly those relating to formulation of policy, should not present such a problem, although with the powers that were discussed last night they are one of the twin pillars on which the Bill is constructed. The Home Secretary has said on Second Reading and on many occasions since, inside and outside the House, that he accepts the point addressed by the amendments.
      The neutral but important facts and data that the Government use to make decisions ought to be in the public domain so that the public, the press and hon. Members can scrutinise them and judge whether the Government are behaving wisely and well. There is a crucial and obvious distinction between those facts and the debate, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has just referred, between Ministers, and between Ministers and civil servants, about how policy will work. No freedom of information legislation in the world gives access to that debate, because the Government's progress would be impeded if that dialogue were not free to be speculative and political.
      The Home Secretary understands that distinction, and he has said many times that the only impediment to his accepting the amendments is that he could not find the right form of words to make the distinction between fact and opinion. We hope that we are helping him to do so by tabling the amendments. The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is excellent, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and I have put our names to it. There are various ways of making the distinction between fact and opinion, and the Irish Freedom of Information Act contains a clear, simple way of doing so. It is crucial that such a distinction is made.
      Last night, the Home Secretary addressed the much more difficult political problem of the commissioner's powers vis-a-vis his powers and those of other Ministers, so I live in hope that he will be able to solve this problem about the Bill's scope. He understands and accepts that it does not make sense to say that the facts on which Ministers base judgments should not be available, so this is a molehill for him to climb, although it is important because it goes to the heart of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said.
      We are talking about policy. That word, from its Greek origins, has the same root as "politic" and "politics". The debate relates to the formulation of policy, and that is why it is so important. We cannot do our job on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of this country unless we are on a level footing with the Government and have access to the same factual information. Only then can we judge whether or not they are making wise decisions and wise use of Government money. It is impossible for the press to make that judgment unless it is on that footing.
      Ministers have often provided information. However, they also hold back information that is perhaps arguable and can be read in two ways. That is why the legislation is so important. We must make it absolutely clear that

      1005
      Parliament and individuals have the right of access to information so that we can be treated as grown-ups on a level footing with the Government. We need to know what they know so that we can judge whether they are acting properly and well on our behalf.
      In looking at the Bill, one has to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, who set out the background to clauses 33 and 34 very well, that the parliamentary draftsmen have done a superb job. They have erected an amazing defensive edifice for the Government. They have built a virtually impregnable fortress; it is a high place, an acropolis. My hon. Friend described its architecture, which includes the factual class exemption; the prejudice test; the extraordinary concept that only certain people are qualified, which is extremely dangerous and worrying if it does not include the Information Commissioner—and according to the Minister it does not—and the effective conduct of public affairs.
      The provisions are a mound, a rampart, a bailey, a keep to protect the Government—but from what? At one level, they are protecting the information that the Government have at their disposal and wish to share with the rest of us only by their grace and favour and on their own terms. That is an unacceptable basis and it is at the heart of the Bill. It is why we have needed such a Bill for the past 20 years and why some hon. Members have been arguing for one for so long and on such terms.
      If it maintains that enormous defensive rampart around Government policy, the Bill will cease to be a freedom of information Bill, and will become instead a protection of information Bill. That is not what it is about. It contains a huge class exemption that has to be changed and the means of doing that are at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has just said, there is nothing threatening about what we propose: every piece of freedom of information legislation in the world makes a distinction between fact and discursive opinion.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that his great problem is not being able to find a form of words that would tease out the distinction between fact and subjective advice, let me quote from the Irish legislation, which is the most recent as it is only two years old. It states that materials that should be released include matter
      used or intended to be used by a public body for the purpose of making decisions, determinations or recommendations and factual, including statistical information and analyses thereof and the reasons for the making of a decision by a public body.
      Those are simple words and concrete concepts. If the Secretary of State is listening, he must surely realise that there lies salvation. There must be a way in which he can grasp something or adapt it and get the excellent parliamentary draftsmen who have done so well at creating defensive ramparts to do something constructive. If my right hon. Friend does not like our amendments or those tabled by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), which we shall discuss in a moment, he has here the means at his disposal.
      It is inevitable that the Bill has to change. We cannot seriously pass freedom of information legislation that will not allow the public the right of access to the same factual information as the Government. Factual information is innocent; it is without bias and without weight.
      1006
      Undoubtedly, there are certain areas where one category of information merges into the other, which is why the Bill needs to be clear and why it contains plenty of provisions to protect the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, they are hedged around. Even if we get round this point, the ramparts and baileys will still exist. There is no danger that the Government will be embarrassed, but they should recognise that we should have access to the same facts as they have. I find that not a revolutionary concept, but one of common sense.
      My right hon. Friend showed last night that he had the great good sense and the courage to adapt the Bill as he stood at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will do so again on this group of amendments.
      Mr. David Davis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I am optimistic about the progress of the Bill. I commend the Home Secretary for his comments last night. I hope that they will be reflected in his not moving new clause 6, and tabling a new clause in another place to reflect what he said last night, subject to legal advice.
      It is also a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is nice that even in his 75th year he is still a fount of dangerous ideas, although when the Home Office finds that Hansard fails the harm test and classifies it, I shall hold him personally responsible.
      I want to speak to amendment No. 91, whose aim is clear cut. It is wider than some of the other amendments in the group, all of which I support, in that it seeks to bring into the open facts, options and analyses relating to any decisions, but not advice. I shall not read out the full text of the amendment, but I should like to thank Maurice Frankel and his staff at the Campaign for Freedom of Information for helping me to draft it, particularly considering the risk of collective seizure when someone with my hard-edged reputation in these matters rings them up and asks for help.
      At the risk of being tedious, let me repeat what I said today about my attitude to the amendments. They are proposed not just for the sake of freedom of information, but for their effect. The test is threefold: does it inform debate; does it reinforce democracy; and does it improve government? By improving government, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, I do not mean making government more expedient, smoother or more comfortable either for the Ministers or the Sir Humphreys who serve them, no matter how well intentioned, capable and public spirited they are. The test is whether it helps the delivery of good government for the citizens of this country. In my judgment, amendment No. 91 passes all those tests. Indeed, it would significantly improve the position.
      The amendment would explicitly exclude direct advice to Ministers. As a former Minister, I feel strongly that that should be properly protected. First, it should be protected because Whitehall believes that its inclusion would affect the candour of advice. The policy civil servants who generate and deliver advice believe that they would be jeopardised if that advice were brought into the open. I have some sympathy with that view. I well remember

      1007
      the pain that I felt during the general election when I was attending a negotiating conference and I read a newspaper saying that Sir Stephen Wall, our ambassador in Brussels, would be moved or dismissed by an incoming Government because they did not approve of his views. That did not turn out to be the case. Whoever put those ideas about, the Government very sensibly kept Sir Stephen, and kept him in that job, where he does an excellent job for the present Government, as he did for the last.
      5.30 pm
      Similar rumours float around about other senior, and very capable, civil servants. I suspect that they all come from the kindergarten—I think that that is the correct collective noun—of special advisers that now populates Whitehall. However, the following is not meant as a party political point—it is meant to apply to any Government. If policy advisers believed that they could not give clear, candid advice without risk to their own career, it would be a very bad thing and would undermine proper government.
      There is a second reason for protecting the privacy of such advice. I believe that, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield expatiated, the Bill, if properly amended, would change the power balance in Whitehall between Ministers and their civil servants. It would reinforce the position of Ministers, just as it reinforces the position of the House with respect to Ministers, and the public with respect to all of us. However, if the advice area was brought out into the open, it would have the reverse effect.
      I speak as someone who, as a Minister, probably turned down or reversed about a third of the advice given to me. That would have been much more difficult had it been possible for that advice then to be used against me in a debate. Therefore I believe that it would be a bad thing to bring advice into the open. It would reverse the power balance and make the advice of individual civil servants too much of a bind on Ministers. For two reasons, then, I strongly defend the advice area, as has every hon. Member who has spoken.
      However, that is not to say that the exemption should be used to protect all the other areas that amendment No. 91 addresses. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr. Wright) said in his eloquent opening to the debate, the Bill as it stands falls short of the 1977 Croham directive—Lord Croham was probably one of our greatest permanent secretaries—and falls short of the 1994 code, in which I had a brief involvement, although all the credit for that code falls to William Waldegrave. The Bill falls short of the allowance for facts and analysis in both of those prior decisions in Whitehall.
      As I understand it, the aim of this class exemption is to protect the process of policy formation. There can be no harm to the process of policy formation in exposing the facts. The facts cannot be altered; in fact, such a provision will be advantageous because the people presenting the facts will be more rigorous, in the knowledge that the facts will enter the public domain. If the facts are available during the debate, some of the facts—I am especially thinking of scientific data—may be open to some challenge, and that, too, would inform and enhance our debate and, as such, improve our government. Those
      1008
      reasons should lead us to common ground on the subject; they should lead us to believe that such freedom of information will advance the cause of the Government and of Ministers.
      There is another consideration here—the attitude of the public to the Government. It can only reassure the public if they know the factual basis of policy—if they are not treated as though they were a group to be patronised by the Government, to be told what is good for them, but can see for themselves that they have access to the facts on which decisions are taken.
      Much of what I have said applies to all the amendments that have been debated so far, but I also believe—this is the point of amendment No. 91—that, in most cases, the process will not be harmed by airing the options. In fact, there is a benefit because it would lead the people drawing up the options for the Minister to be more complete and leave nothing out.
      It was my experience as a Minister—I am sure that others will have the same feeling—that one often felt that one was given the choice of options Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and one wondered, "What about Nos. 4 and 5?" The amendment would lead to options Nos. 4 and 5 being put to the Minister; it would lead the options to be better developed than they currently are. That would be a benefit to Government, and it would inform debate. Think of the difference of the debate in the House if we were not simply saying across the Floor of the House, "Yah-boo sucks; we do or do not like that option", but were talking about the various options that were available to the Government and could be developed and could be pursued by the country.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I agree with absolutely everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it not also a fact that the acceptability of Government decisions to the public would be greatly increased if the public knew that all the options had been considered, and that even the ones that had been rejected had at least been considered? The absolute unanimity of Ministers on everything actually makes Government lack credibility, whereas the opening up of the options, the debate about them and the publication of the conclusion is reassuring to people who otherwise think that their arguments might never even have been examined at the top.
      Mr. Davis: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is ahead of me and about three sentences ahead of my comments, so he has shortened my speech, which is no doubt to the pleasure of the House. He is absolutely right in that respect. My proposals cannot be a bad thing for a Labour Government or any other Government in that respect. It must be to the benefit of our democracy for the public to have greater confidence in the decisions taken on their behalf.
      Of course, there will be times when the options are not appropriate to be aired. I worked in the Foreign Office for three years, and I had to deal with negotiations in which there were options that one perhaps did not want to play out in the public domain before they turned up in the European Council or NATO or wherever we were negotiating; but such times are quite limited.
      Mr. Greenway: There are exemptions for them.
      Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says that there are exemptions for them. I encompass a

      1009
      harm test in amendment No. 91, and the harm test should be rigorous, but it will not greatly limit freedom of information.
      For three years during a European negotiation leading up to the treaty of Amsterdam, I appeared almost once a month before the Select Committee on European Legislation and discussed as openly as possible with its members what was happening, and from time to time I had to say, "I am sorry; I cannot tell you that" and it was understood on all sides. Therefore I doubt that the harm test will be a controversial issue. Most of us would accept that it would work easily, work well and work with the support of the House.
      In practical terms, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase—the leader of what is now, I suppose, the Cross-Bench group of Members of Parliament—laid out the point that Lord Butler—Robin Butler, as he was then—made when he was Cabinet Secretary, when he told the House of Lords Select Committee that his senior colleagues and he had given some thought to how they
      could…structure submissions to Ministers in a way that would enable us easily to separate the background…from…subjective advice.
      In that context, "the background" means both facts and options. And he is not alone. Terry Burns—now Lord Burns—said something very similar in that respect. Two of the most senior of our previous permanent secretaries, once free of the shackles of Whitehall and free of the close mafia of the Sir Humphrey club, actually say, "This is possible. This can be done, and done in a way that will not harm—indeed, will improve—the process of government in this country."
      Therefore, it can be done here, on the basis of the facts as they exist, and on the basis of the experience of many of us in government; and it has also been done readily elsewhere. Consider some of the exclusions from the exemptions that exist in other countries' freedom of information legislation, such as Canada's Access to Information Act and similar legislation in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Such exclusions include factual and statistical material—in Ireland, there is an exclusion for the analysis of factual or statistical material—the reasons for a decision, or information publicly cited as the reasons for a decision; scientific research or field research; expert scientific or technical reports or analysis; expert opinion or analysis; the advice of external consultants or persons other than a Government official, which relates to the point that has been made today about lobbyists; a commissioned report of a Government body or interdepartmental committee, other than one reporting to the equivalent of the Cabinet; a feasibility or other technical study or plans and budgetary estimates relating to new or existing programmes; efficiency studies; economic forecasts; public opinion polls; environmental impact studies; product testing results; appraisals and valuators' reports. I cannot imagine how any of that would lead to a problem for government, and my amendment seeks to make such information available.
      In New Zealand, the provisions go further. The legislation there says that advice itself can be brought into the open. There are problems with that but, in many cases if not universally, New Zealand publishes advice at a post-decision stage. That goes further than I or the House
      1010
      would wish. However, that shows that my amendment is not at the cutting edge of the argument; it is in the firm, safe centre ground.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I wanted to intervene on him in yesterday's debate. He has considered whether the release of information to the public could cause any conceivable harm to government. Let us consider the BSE crisis. For a period, the then Government believed that there would be damage to the industry if the public were made aware of the facts that were before the Department about the levels of BSE in cattle. Releasing such information would have caused harm to the Government or their policy of the day, but it would have demonstrably been of great benefit to the public. That is the purpose of the Bill.
      Mr. Davis: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know enough about the information available on BSE in that period, but he is exactly right. We should separate a judgment about the public interest from a judgment about political or personal interest.
      As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I deal with cases in which—to put it bluntly—blame is apportioned. The simple fact is that it is human nature to try to avoid blame. Even when we think that we are making impartial decisions, such supposedly impartial decisions are influenced by an instinct—a comfort factor—that relates to our own position. When I was in government, I had to make decisions that I would have preferred to have been made by someone who was entirely independent of the government process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is much better to have a provision in the Bill to cover such decisions.
      I support the amendments for three reasons. They would properly inform public debate, significantly enhance our democracy and materially improve our government.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments on the formulation of Government policy. I do not know whether you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am not sure whether Liberal Democrats are involved in the formulation of Government policy. However, much information that should be freely available is withheld not just from the public but from Members of Parliament, to avoid embarrassment and for reasons of party management.
      About 18 months ago on 10 November 1988, a declaration was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that we could expect ever closer union between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. The two parties are in coalition in Scotland and, in the past few days, we have learned that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—there is no great secret about this; it has all come out—has said that his greatest regret was that he did not bring the right hon. Member for Yeovil into the Cabinet in May 1997. We know from newspaper reports and the right hon. Gentleman's book that that option was discussed. Two Labour members of the Cabinet would leave, and two Liberal Democrats would come in.

      1011
      5.45 pm
      I decided to find out a bit more about this new constitutional innovation, the Joint Consultative Committee with the Liberal Democrat party. Over a year or 18 months, I tabled any number of questions about it and met a brick wall. I wanted to know when the committee met and I was told, "Secret. Ruled out." I wanted to know not who said what but what was on the agenda, and I was told, "Secret. Ruled out." I wanted to know who from the Labour side and the Liberal Democrat side participated in the Committee and I was told, "Secret. Ruled out."
      That is ludicrous when I can pick up a newspaper and find out, as I did on 14 December 1999, because Liberal Democrats tell the world what is discussed at the meetings. However, when I go to the Table Office, I see wrinkled brows and people there consult their tomes to see whether I should be allowed to table a simple parliamentary question about what is on the Committee's agenda. In The Independent on 14 December, I read that at a meeting of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must keep to the amendment. He is telling us that he was seeking information, but he is going into detail that has nothing to do with the amendment. He can tell these stories outside the Chamber.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Oh no!
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the Chair.
      Mr. Prentice: Let me move rapidly on to a simple point. Will Ministers tell me whether the Bill, as unamended, would allow me to obtain the information that I seek on what happens in the Joint Consultative Committee should it make proposals for voting reform and reforming the European Parliament, the European Commission and so on? If not, should I rely on the amendments? I want an answer to my questions.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: This has been an extraordinarily good debate, but I wanted to latch on to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who suggested that we had misjudged the nature of the occasion and that we were about to see a revelatory conversion from the Home Secretary. All of us who are anxious to see the amendments accepted—they lie at the heart of the Bill—have suffered a little from the right hon. Gentleman's quite deliberate attempt to put us off the scent early in the debates by telling us that the matter is a question of drafting and designing words that would express what he so much wanted to do.
      I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a highly intelligent man and not a disingenuous Home Secretary. However, his argument stretches credulity a little. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested that factual information was neutral, but facts are knowledge and knowledge is power. If power is distributed to the people, the people will have the power. Those who exercise power in the name of the people draw a clear
      1012
      distinction in their own minds between the people participating in the decisions and taking the decisions in the name of the people.
      We are engaged in a fundamental constitutional argument about the role of the House and the Executive. It is not a little problem of definition or of finding the right words.
      Mr. Hawkins: In the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, which I am following carefully, of what the Home Secretary was trying to do last night, does he agree that a particular phrase used in one of the memorandums to the Select Committee on Public Administration is particularly apposite to what the Home Secretary was trying to do and to what the right hon. Gentleman is rightly criticising? The phrase was
      there is no sop like an old sop.
      Mr. Maclennan: I was focusing not so much on what the Home Secretary did last night as on what he did on Second Reading, when we were considering the matter that is now under discussion.
      I am also on the alert. The Home Secretary's intervention on the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) amounted to this: "We will know what the House wants when it has voted on the issue." I suppose that that is a conventional view of the way our parliamentary democracy works. However, I think that it is a gross distortion, and one which we should recognise for what it is.
      The issue before us was debated extensively on Second Reading. It was then debated lengthily in Committee. During these debates, not one voice has been raised in the House in support of what is in the clause. Following the vote, whatever the Home Secretary may say about the House having spoken, I advise our colleagues in another place, however they may have got there, that the opinion of the House should be judged by what it has said. In this instance, it has said in unmistakable terms that if factual information is not to be made available as a result of the Bill, the Government are performing a monumental U-turn. They are betraying the White Paper produced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), going back on their undertaking to the electorate in the Labour party's manifesto and repudiating the agreement entered into with the Liberal Democrats prior to the election, which was one of the reasons that led to the setting up of the Joint Consultative Committee with the Liberal Democrat party, to which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) alluded.
      This is a matter of major importance and not one that allows for nice distinctions to be drawn and for difficulties with parliamentary draftsmen to be alluded to as the only reason why the Government cannot move from their position. I am optimistic that the Home Secretary, if he is to intervene in the debate, will not rely on drafting, for to do so would take us all for suckers.
      Dr. David Clark: I shall be brief because so much has been said this afternoon on these issues in such an eloquent way, with such clarity and in such a comprehensive manner. The case against the Government's proposals and for the amendments has been made comprehensively.
      I find myself mystified by all three Ministers. They are all highly intelligent men. They understand the arguments and I sense that there is a certain empathy with the points

      1013
      that we are trying to make. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, over a number of years, have shared platforms, and at no time more regularly than the 1997 election when it was our desire to modernise the United Kingdom. We wanted to build a new compact with our citizens and to have better government.
      I submit that the Bill and the amendments do just that. I have told the House previously that on my first day in office, when faced with the responsibility of trying to chart the course for the Government's freedom of information legislation, I was faced with the choice of putting the code of practice on a legislative basis or doing the job properly, even if that meant waiting 12 months. I opted for the second course and the Cabinet backed me in that choice. I am therefore concerned when some clauses appear to be weaker than the code which I and the rest of the Cabinet had rejected. I tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the clauses are at least as good—in my opinion they should be better—as what was provided by the code.
      I reiterate that we are not talking about advice to Ministers and the confidential relationship that is essential between Ministers and civil servants. We are talking about background, factual information which, if it were available to our citizens, would empower them. I believe that if such information were made available, it would change the manner in which civil servants conducted their work. It would therefore provide better government for our country. That is a point well worth taking.
      Like the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I am mystified by the Government's continuing retreat. They have empathy with us and they understand what we are trying to do, but the difficulty is the form of words. That is a telling point, but it was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) when he provided us with some words, as do the amendments.
      The amendment would increase better government and rebuild confidence between the Government and the general public, our citizens. At the same time, it is essentially practical. We have the form of words and what we are asking to be done can be done because it has been done. I insisted that after we published the White Paper in December 1997 we would publish thereafter all the background papers leading up to the White Paper. All the factual information was available in printed form. I insisted that it was on the internet as well. That which we are asking for can be done and should be done.
      Yesterday, I was proud to be in the House and to be a part of it as it was doing its job properly. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was acting in a way that Secretaries of State should act. He was listening to the arguments, appreciating them and making his own points. At the end of the day he weighed up the case and answered the debate by changing position. I hope that he will show that stature, statesmanship and maturity again today.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I wish that a wider world could read the propositions that sometimes come before the House. I do not think they would survive a moment of the public's scrutiny. As I said yesterday, perhaps the House is the last great deferential place in the United Kingdom.
      Good friends on both sides of the House have in a sense thrown aside party and said how the clause should be amended. It is not a modest little clause. Indeed, it is an
      1014
      overreaching and firm assertion of who is in control, and it is not the House. No such clause could have been tabled by a Government who thought that they had to convince and win arguments in this place. It is the product of the power of the Whip.
      Clause 33 states:
      Information held by a government department is exempt information if it relates to the formulation of development of government policy, Ministerial communications, the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice, or the operation of any Ministerial private office.
      In truth, little has been left out.
      6 pm
      In all the years since I came to believe profoundly that one of the keys missing to the operation of our parliamentary system is equality of argument, equality of information and the ability to discuss rationally, cogently and on the basis of the facts, there has been a shadow behind Parliament: the Campaign for Freedom of Information. It has tried to advance those arguments based on the common law that sprang from this island, the understanding of arrangements in other countries—parliamentary democracies such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Republic of Ireland—and the system of law that runs like a thread through their constitutions. However, for some reason, the Executive of this country have brought forward clause 33.
      All the arguments relating to the formulation and development of Government policy have been presented in the House, year after year. I can see present in the Chamber Members of Parliament who supported me in the attempt to reform section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. I see individuals—I admit, most of them are facing me—who supported that attack on the Official Secrets Act because they believed that there was a public interest in Government being more open and less covert. Ministers would have to be extremely busy formulating policy not to be aware of the arguments.
      The people who really know the arguments are the clerisy—the repository of wisdom, the bureaucracy itself, without beginning or end, always there. They have heard, recorded and understood the arguments each time the House has groped towards reform—once, on the initiative of no less a person than a Prime Minister, through a directive issued to Lord Croham. I sat through debates in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) engaged with one or two of his colleagues in discussion of the genesis and fullness of information available to members of the Cabinet—ministerial advice—on Chevaline. Those debates were a revelation to me: for the first time, I heard the House debate issues relating to policy.
      The Home Secretary, knowing all those facts, knowing about Croham, after William Waldegrave's exercise in formulating a code, and understanding all the processes that go into the making of the law, produced a draft Bill. That was nearly nine months ago. The elements of that draft Bill were considered by two Committees of the House of Commons and one of the House of Lords—in short, both Chambers had a go. The issue of the formulation of Government policy was not secret or unknown; right from the start, it was a question of judgment.

      1015
      Each Member of Parliament present has a thread in that process. When we ask what is happening, the clause is our answer: it tells us, "Thou shalt not know." That is the message that emanates from all parts of the Bill. Small advances are made—how generous, how grand, how nice of the Government to nourish us with the suggestion that we might be entitled to information. In the end, however, the message is, blow the dialectic, the argument, counter-argument and synthesis, for the net result is the Bill. There is only one fact: the synthesis lies in the hands of the Government. Despite all the representations on the particulars of the amendments made in Standing Committee, in Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, on 5 April we have before us a clause that washes away any prospect of debate.
      The answer lies within ourselves. We know that. There is no argument about it. The Government—the Crown in Downing street, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield calls it, and rightly so—is like the emperor: it takes a little boy to say, "But he has no clothes." It is for the House to say that the Bill has no clothes; only then will we see clearly.
      Yesterday, we were treated to an extraordinary performance by the Home Secretary, but I know the devices that lay behind it—softly, softly here, concede there, do this, say that, talk about drafting difficulties, and so on. The truth is that, even with the amendments, the clause would allow only minimal access. We are still rehearsing the arguments; we are not conceding, but we know that the Government's synthesis is, "I'm listening, I'm engaged." Well, Governments in this country are always listening, but in this case only to themselves and their echo chamber.
      We spend all our time running to become the Government, and we forget that government is the mechanism by which the lives of all of us and those whom we represent are ruled. Today, on 5 April 2000, after all these years and all the good fights, we face a Bill that contains the same monstrous claim—the British Government cannot succeed unless they have the security embodied in clause 33. Our amendments, our arguments are rejected. It will not do. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is eager to speak. I shall finish soon.
      The clause shows the heart of what the Government are up to. We ought to shout about it. I am using the device—amendments—used by others who have participated in the debate. The shame lies not in our efforts but in the knowledge that, despite the feelings of their own supporters, the Government have included such a clause in the Bill, without debate or dialogue.
      I do not think I am betraying a secret when I tell the House that, after a sitting of the Select Committee on Public Administration, Lord Burns—a man who has been through everything that my party got up to at the Treasury and who knows a thing or two about what the Treasury gets up to—told me, "The only thing that has to be protected from exposure is rows between Ministers—that is the really sensitive area." I know that a great academic to start with, afterward a bureaucrat, might have other lines to run, but, in truth, what are those great secrets? What needs such absolute protection?
      1016
      The clause, if unamended, amounts to our saying that we, as a Parliament and as a people in relationship to our Government, are less than the Canadians and the Australians—we are small.
      Mr. Dalyell: Following once again the tour de force of—as I must call him in this matter—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I am overcome by my curiosity about one point. What will Douglas Allen—or Lord Croham as we must now call him—say, following his guidelines, if he participates in debates in another place?
      I have a foreboding that we shall be discussing important matters at some ungodly hour of the morning, when we are all too tired to give them their due. I shall therefore confine myself to a single question, albeit a convoluted one. It relates to scientific evidence. Will the Home Secretary let us into the little secret of what his Home Office advisers have told him in respect of scientific evidence and whether or not it should be made available?
      My experience, and it is long, of scientists is that they are absolutely desperate to get their papers published—they adore getting their papers published. I cannot believe that those who are desperate to be published in Nature or some technical magazine will have any inhibitions whatever about their evidence to the Government being published in suitable form, so that their peers can judge it.
      I ask the Home Secretary this: what discussions have there been with scientists on the matter of scientific evidence about the publication of items and advice that would be covered by the clause?
      Mr. David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is gracious in giving way. Does he agree that that desperation to be published is one area in which personal interest serves the public good? The process of science consists of conjecture and refutation, and much new science is not well developed and gains from the disputation that comes from publication. Such exposure would advance and assist government policy.
      Mr. Dalyell: I dissent from that and give as an example the evidence on BSE presented to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over the years. That generally makes the point.
      I said that I would be brief, and I will stick to that. I hope that the Home Secretary will address my question at his convenience.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate, when so much consensus has emerged from all parts of the House. I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the amendments would be beneficial to Ministers in carrying out the important role that they perform on behalf of the people of this country.
      As for embarrassment, Ministers have been more embarrassed by information that leaks out or by delaying information than by providing it openly and up front. The issue of BSE has been raised. One understands that Ministers at the time were concerned about the effect that giving information might have on the agriculture industry, but it has been shown that by holding back that

      1017
      information, far more damage was done to the industry than would have been if appropriate action had been taken much earlier.
      Like other hon. Members, I am still optimistic that we will get a positive response from the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate. I know from my own contact with him that it is his natural instinct to be open with regard to information and the way in which decisions are reached. I say that not just because he gave me the name of his plumber, but because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leaks."] It was because of a malfunction, not a leak. Other contacts that I have had with him prove that that is the way he tends to go about things.
      I have been campaigning for changes in the law as it affects transsexual men and women, and I have been delighted by the openness and accessibility of Ministers not just in the Home Office, but in the Department for Education and Employment, when considering changes to Government policy in that area.
      I await the report of the interdepartmental working group which the Home Secretary set up to look at the issues. I was pleased that he allowed one of the civil servants involved in that working group to meet the parliamentary forum on transsexualism. I believe that the Home Secretary would agree that civil servants in both the Departments that I mentioned have benefited from the contact that they have had with experts in that area.
      I look forward to the publication of the results of the working group's deliberations. We were advised by the civil servant involved that that paper would provide options and give the facts behind the formulation of those options. I hope that it will. I raise that as an example, in support of amendment No. 91.
      6.15 pm
      I have had experience not in government, but in local government. I would not wish to stifle candid discussions between Ministers or politicians with responsibilities and their officials. Such discussions are vital, but the politicians do not always know what questions to ask. It is to our advantage that the information should be in the public domain. It probably will help to raise questions that Ministers or politicians would not otherwise think of asking.
      We know that the public have a low opinion of politicians and Governments, and a genuine Freedom of Information Act would be a means of starting to build up greater public confidence in the way we govern this country.
      I have also had experience of consultation papers. My hon. Friend—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a Second Reading speech. We have passed that stage. We are dealing with the amendments.
      Dr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion. I support amendment No. 91, which goes further than the factual information being made available. It is also appropriate that the public should have access to the options, unless that is ruled out by the harm test which Ministers have before them when they reach their decision. That too is in the interest of Ministers.
      1018
      The Government have shown that they wish to be open—for example, by publishing summaries of the results of consultation documents. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of the debate and respond positively to the concerns that have been expressed. Even if he cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will present proposals of his own that show that the Government want a Freedom of Information Act of which this country can be proud.
      Mr. Hawkins: This has been a debate of exceptionally high quality. I shall be brief, as so many of the arguments have already been covered, but one or two points need to be mentioned.
      Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary, has frequently said that we will get a Freedom of Information Act over his dead body. He need have no fear; the Home Secretary is giving us neither freedom, nor information, nor any Act worth the name.
      Those are not my words, but the words of a political editor of a national newspaper in his memorandum, which I mentioned earlier, to the Select Committee on Public Administration. He was dealing particularly with the issues that have been raised in the debate.
      In days of yore, the Government may have wanted to dismiss the views of the political editor of The Express, but since that newspaper has been owned and run by one of Tony's cronies, the position is different. When Mr. Anthony Bevins, the extremely experienced political editor, dealing specifically with the Croham directive and its history, writes a formal memorandum to the Public Administration Committee, his words need to be taken seriously:
      Open government is an attitude of mind. It is clear that frontal lobotomy would be required to change the attitude of many in Whitehall to the very idea of openness.
      He continued:
      New Labour's promise is not borne out by the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, these are matters that could be raised on Second Reading, which of course has passed. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendments.
      Mr. Hawkins: I understand that fully, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the memorandum to the Select Committee on Public Administration deals specifically with clause 13. It covers the Croham directive, which many other hon. Members have mentioned in debate—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not read the memorandum verbatim. He can refer to it or paraphrase it, but we do not need the whole kit and caboodle.
      Mr. Hawkins: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of reading the whole kit and caboodle. I shall paraphrase a couple of points which the political editor of The Express made on the issue that we are considering this evening.
      On the Croham directive, he said:
      It is perhaps worth recalling what happened to Labour's open government commitment of October 1974. Those were the days when Labour manifestos were packed with potent, fire-in-the-belly commitment and the betrayal came with the hangover.

      1019
      The then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, announced that
      it would be the Government's intention…to publish as much as possible of the factual and analytical material used as the background to major policy studies.
      That led Douglas Allen, later Lord Croham, to issue his directive.
      Having summed up how the directive failed to work, the political editor of The Express commented on the proposals in the clause and the Government amendments:
      Little has changed since Sir Douglas wrote his letter in July 1977.
      Twenty-two years after that pitiful directive, we now have a pitiful Bill.
      I echo those words.
      As various hon. Members, especially those who tabled the amendment, pointed out, in his preface to "Your Right to Know", to which many hon. Members have referred, the Prime Minister said that the Government were delivering on their promises. In the words of Mr. Anthony Bevins, the Blair betrayal has come with the hangover.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a right hon. Member, who happens to be the Prime Minister, but that makes no difference, once by his Christian name and now by his surname. That should not be done. Has the hon. Gentleman finished?
      Mr. Hawkins: No, I have not. I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Bill provides for a class exemption on policy formulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who took the Bill through Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who made an especially powerful and emotional speech, have drawn attention to what is wrong with the Government's actions in this respect.
      We believe that the criticisms of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and his cross-party colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, were right. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that he knew that his colleagues on the Front Bench were honourable men, but he wondered what had happened to them and how they had been got at. I can answer that question: No. 10 got at them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, Sir Humphrey has got at them.
      Dr. David Clark: I want to make it clear that I never said that my right hon. or hon. Friends had been got at.
      Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman was worried, and expressed surprise that his colleagues on the Front Bench—where he used to be—had changed their stance. I apologise if I paraphrased him incorrectly.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the point well that there is no doubt about the Government's comprehensive change of view. They have rowed back from the previous
      1020
      Government's code of practice. The Campaign for Freedom of Information made it clear that the Government have changed the proposals, which are now weaker than the previous Government's code of practice.
      We support the hon. Members who tabled the amendments. They are members of different parties, and they are right to criticise the Government. The Government's proposal to row back from our code of practice and method of operation and from the White Paper is wrong. We shall support the cross-party amendments.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: I want to make a brief contribution—I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased about that. The jarring contribution of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) reveals that he has again misjudged the mood of the House.
      I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and I listened carefully to the proceedings. I want to place it on the record that that was nothing like the privilege of sitting here today and listening to the high-quality contributions from all parties. I have been a Member of Parliament for almost three years, and today's debate is the best that I have heard; it showed the House at its best. All parties contributed to an important discussion.
      Perhaps the debate was so good because it was informed. Those who spoke, especially the senior Members, had access to information which they considered and used to prepare and present their arguments.
      Mr. Giles Radice: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the debate, and last night's discussions, which were highly dramatic. However, it is interesting that, despite the quality of the debate, the Press Gallery is almost empty.
      Mr. Straw: As are the Tory Benches.
      Mr. Hall: Indeed. The process of opening up our democracy through access to information takes time. Perhaps the media will benefit from it. I sincerely believe that democracy is being served especially well today in this place.
      I support the amendments. We are considering wide access to the background information that informs Government policy. I hope that such wide access will be provided, because it will assist strong, informed democratic participation in the life of this country, not only by Members of Parliament in the Chamber today, but by citizens of our country for all time. Information is the oxygen of democracy. As many people as possible should be involved. Sharing power and trusting the people are vital. The amendments would achieve both.
      When people are informed, they will have something to say, and democracy is the stronger for it. We will all benefit from that cross-fertilisation, as we have seen on a small scale this afternoon. I should like to live to witness that on a daily basis throughout the country, not only during general election campaigns.
      I was privileged last night to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary show that he was prepared to listen to debate. The Bill is an historic example of proposed

      1021
      legislation; this is an historic moment in the life of this Parliament. Great matters are at stake—I hope that we will all rise to occasion.
      Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, this has been an interesting and stimulating debate. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) in particular, for the compliments that they paid me while at the same time expressing some disagreement with the position that they anticipate that I might take, which is fair enough. I had forgotten about exchanging plumbers' telephone numbers with her, but I think that he proved satisfactory. Nothing else was exchanged, as I recall.
      6.30 pm
      Referring back to last night's debate, I am struck by the sense, which many of my hon. Friends may share, that the changes in respect of clause 13 which were made, and those that I announced we would make in the other place, were somehow wholly detached from this evening's discussion. It has proceeded on the assumption that the only provisions relating to factual background information that informs policy discussion are those in clauses 33 and 34. There is a class exemption in clause 33, which applies to central Government, and a pretty substantial exemption through the certificate of a qualified person around the remainder of policy advice and the workings of government in respect of clause 34. However, clause 13, which is to be further strengthened in the other place, will ensure that there is a significant route for the release of factual and background information, including that which has informed policy discussions.
      I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that in every single case in which the Minister is told by the commissioner that he is within his rights to refuse to release information—that which comes under clauses 33 and 34, for example—that Minister has a duty to consider whether the balance of public interest in releasing the information outweighs the balance of public interest in withholding it. In those circumstances and as a result of Government amendment No. 48, which is before the House in this group, the Minister will have to pay particular regard to the public interest in the release of factual and background information. That is specified in clause 13. As we heard yesterday, when the Minister decides that, in his judgment, the balance is in favour of non-disclosure, the commissioner can order disclosure. There could be an Executive override, but the threshold for that has been raised and, as we agreed yesterday, the circumstances in which such an Executive override would take place will be very limited.
      As I said yesterday, any Executive override would have to proceed on the basis that the information that the Minister was seeking to withhold would at some stage become public or could be scrutinised in private. Therefore, if what the Minister was seeking to withhold concerned probity—perhaps some kind of scandalous conduct by him—he would extremely unwise—
      Mr. Tony Benn rose—
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other of my
      1022
      hon. Friends later. It would be an extremely unwise Minister who ever withheld such information. Only in circumstances in which that information would become public quite quickly or with the passage of a little time, would that Minister and the Government behind him—the decision would be collective—have any confidence in favour of withholding it.
      I am of course aware of the 30-year rule, but under the Bill a huge amount of information currently covered by it will have to be released well in advance of that period. I also bring to the attention of the House the fact that, even under the existing regime, there are plenty of occasions on which information that is due routinely to remain—
      Mr. Benn rose—
      Mr. Jones rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield after I have made my point.
      Such information has to be brought out at a much earlier stage because of a public inquiry or for some other reason—a Public Accounts Committee inquiry, for example. I am not for a moment resiling from the suggestion that is made in the House and elsewhere that accountable government requires the maximum degree of openness and I shall respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak about the style in which I have sought to operate as Home Secretary in a moment. I accept entirely that in not only the long run, but the short run, Ministers ought to be as open as possible. Although that can sometimes lead to a slightly uncomfortable ride on the day, it always leads to a better understanding of decisions that they have taken. If Ministers are confident about their decisions, there is a good argument for putting as much information as possible on the public record rather than not.
      Mr. Benn: Those theoretical arguments are interesting, but will the Home Secretary deal with a practical example from the past? In the post-war Government, Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, started building the atom bomb. He did not tell the Cabinet, he did not tell Parliament and he did not tell the public. He also gave to a foreign power—the United States—permanent nuclear bases in Britain. He told Parliament that they were for training missions by American aircraft. Can my right hon. Friend address his mind to the question whether decisions as important as that would have been able to become public as a result of the Bill, which he advocates, recognising that the Prime Minister of the day, having kept it secret, would certainly want to use an Executive override to prevent that information from coming out?
      Mr. Straw: I believe that neither under the Bill, nor under any other example that has been shown to me by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, nor under any system operating abroad would information relating to nuclear secrets have been made public. I know of no freedom of information regime that would have done that. All those with which I am familiar ensure that there is a ring around security matters of that kind.
      I also say to my right hon. Friend that it was well known that we had a nuclear capability when the Visiting Forces Act 1952 was debated and it would have been open

      1023
      to Labour as well as Conservative Members to ask questions. The whole point of the Act was to lay down the conditions under which visiting forces and their equipment could be in this country, and the only ones that we have ever had stationed on our territory have been United States forces.
      My right hon. Friend was present for those debates; I was not. I make no point about that, but that is the truth of it. Notwithstanding the fact that the original decisions were made in secret, the House had an opportunity to lay down conditions for the use of such nuclear weapons here by the United States and the circumstances in which the visiting forces could be in this country.
      Mr. Greenway rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way, but then I must get on.
      Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. The examples of factual information that we have discussed all appear to relate to areas covered by a specific exemption. There is an exemption for defence and an exemption for national security; I suspect that that would have answered the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The Home Secretary, in defence of his argument, has referred only to information relating to public inquiries. That is also exempt. Can he give a clear example of information that a Minister of the Crown would want to keep secret that is not caught by one of the exemptions?
      Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I can think of a circumstance in which the exemption could be used, I can think of a series of hypothetical circumstances in which one might be used, some of which I spelled out yesterday. With respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would rather stick to the core area that we are discussing today. I do not happen to believe that a Minister would seek to use an exemption certificate to prevent the release of factual and background information when that was ordered by the commissioner.
      Mr. David Heath rose—
      Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall make progress. Time is getting on and there are many other debates to come. I will take a few interventions later.
      That is my view. The point is that the override certificate would be used in very limited circumstances and we have raised the threshold of decision making so that that would also apply.
      What we debated last night—and I think that we eventually secured considerable agreement on the Labour Benches—has a direct bearing on the question of whether statistical and background information should be made available to members of the public, and to the House.
      I want to place on record what the Government have done to secure greater openness in government than we ever saw under the last Administration. One of the White Papers of which I am proudest, not because I was the sponsoring Minister in government but because I took the lead in opposition, is Cm 4412, entitled "Building Trust
      1024
      in Statistics". In our manifesto, we committed ourselves to placing the national statistics service on a more independent basis. The Liberal Democrats shared that commitment, and I am grateful for the support that they gave both before the election—in the joint statement that we issued—and subsequently.
      The possession of comprehensive, accurate, reliable data that is beyond reproach, and which generates no suspicion that Ministers or anyone else have interfered, is fundamental to the operation of the politics of integrity. Without that, if there is any argument about whether the data are accurate, there can be no proper democratic debate, and Ministers certainly cannot be held properly accountable. The argument is about the measure of accountability, rather than what has actually been done.
      Mr. Brian White: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Straw: I must ask my hon. Friend to resume his seat until I have finished this point.
      There were worries, to say the least, about the last Government's record on statistics. Some series of statistics were satisfactory, but others were not. We famously remember that, as the unemployment figures rose, the statistical series was reworked, reworked and reworked again. I cannot remember whether there were 22 tax rises or 22 changes in statistics, or both. Perhaps there were 30. In any event, a huge number was involved. It undermined faith in the democratic process, and Conservative Members now recognise the great error that was made.
      We introduced the White Paper in order better to underpin the independence of the national statistics service, to establish a clear framework for national statistics, to appoint an independent statistics commission to oversee the operation of the service, and to appoint a high-grade new director. In many Departments, including mine, individual Ministers have already achieved the standard being set, or even surpassed it.
      We are not talking just about the law, important though that is; we are talking about practice. When I became Home Secretary, I did not have to wait for three years to put into practice certain principles that I considered to be key to accountability and openness; I ensured that the operation of the research and statistics department was at arm's length, and that the Royal Statistical Society—of which I have the honour to be an honorary Fellow—could advise us about the operation of statistics of integrity.
      Let me now reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). A huge amount of research is done in the Home Office. We have established protocols both for the publication of research contracted into the Home Office, and for the publication of research carried out by in-house researchers. The fact that the research is being conducted is published in advance—Ministers cannot interfere with that—and when it is ready for publication, after peer review rather than ministerial say-so, it is published. I believe that similar protocols are followed elsewhere.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Everyone, at least on this side of the House, accepts that the last Government were reluctant to allow the public access to statistical information. But why has it taken more than two years—

      1025
      as we heard yesterday—to reveal the costs of the MI6 and MI5 buildings? That concealment of information took place under the current regime, although not to the extent to which it took place under the last.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Straw: Let me say, with respect—I make the same point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—that, although there was not a particularly good argument for not revealing the cost of the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service buildings, in the end the cost was revealed. I think that it should have been revealed much earlier. I do not happen to believe for a second that anything was disclosed other than what is, I am afraid, a universal truth when it comes to public buildings: the work always takes longer and costs a great deal more than anyone originally anticipated. There is no secret about that.
      As for the way in which the Security Service and the SIS—MI6—operate, I think it is a universal truth—I now use the phrase in a different context—about freedom-of-information regimes that there must be a ring of secrecy around them. At the same time, however, they must be made accountable in other ways, not least—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who usually sits below the Gangway—through the Intelligence and Security Committee established by the House.
      Mr. White rose—
      Mr. David Heath rose—
      Mr. Straw: I will take two more interventions, but after that I must make progress.
      Mr. David Heath: The Home Secretary is explaining his current practice, and I do not hesitate to say that he, within his Department, is exercising very good practice in many ways in regard to the release of information. However, we are not discussing what happens at his behest or in his Department, or in any other Department, or what might happen in a future Government. We are talking about the right of the citizen to receive factual information. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far changes the fact that he is proposing a process of attrition for the purposes of a member of the public who wants access to information that a bureaucracy is loth to share. The Executive override is the end of that process, not the beginning. What we want is a right from the beginning.
      Mr. Straw: I accept—indeed, the hon. Gentleman anticipated my next remarks—that good faith on the part of government, and evidence of that good faith in the form of practice over the last three years, do not constitute change sufficient to meet the concerns of the House, but they are a necessary part of that change.
      I mentioned the practice that I have followed, the practice that many of my predecessors have followed and the practice of the Government as a whole in the context of the changes introduced in what is a very important White Paper, although it has been inevitably much ignored by newspapers, because it aroused no controversy. I wanted to make it clear that we approached the issue—a very difficult issue, when it comes to the detail—in good faith.
      1026
      It is not that, over the past three years, I have sought to withhold information from the House or from members of the public. In one area after another, I have sought to ensure that the House is properly informed, and that when Members ask questions we always go the extra mile and provide additional information if we can. That contrasts with the practice of the last Government, who adopted a liberal approach to questions and were as unhelpful as possible.
      For instance, we have published huge volumes of directives and instruction manuals for the immigration and nationality directorate, and have put them on the internet. I have put the prisons inspectorate on a properly independent basis, with a protocol to ensure that the scandal that occurred under the last Administration will never occur again. When the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was in charge, independent reports by the inspectorate stacked up month after month. A dozen of them a year old were on my desk when I came to the Home Office.
      Such improvements have been made in many areas of Government, both because we happen to think it right and because it is sensible, from a Minister's point of view, for there to be an identity of interest between the need for accountability and the reputation of Government. Both require the greatest possible degree of openness.
      Mr. Radice: No one doubts my right hon. Friend's record, or the improvement on the previous Government. However, on Second Reading, I asked him:
      Is not it possible to separate policy advice from the information behind that policy advice?—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 723.]
      My right hon. Friend said that he had not yet found a formula that safely did as I asked, but that he was happy to continue the search for one. My question is simply whether he has found such a formula yet?
      Mr. Straw: I shall answer my right hon. Friend directly, as that point is at the heart of the debate. We have found part of an answer—a safe one in which there is a proper balance in the conflict between the need of the Government to make their decisions in confidence and the understandable need of the public and the House to ensure availability of the maximum amount of factual information. That is the point of clause 13.
      As I shall explain to the House in a moment, the Government face a genuine difficulty in putting together a form of words that separates what I think people are talking about—basic statistical data, which are already published; although there are not much such data, there are some—from the analysis of that data and policy advice, which people accept, for reasons that everyone understands, should not be published immediately. The position that we have reached so far is the provisions of clause 13, which we propose to amend with amendment No. 48 and the other amendments that the House accepted yesterday.
      I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and hon. Members who have supported him on amendment No. 10 that there are really quite serious difficulties about the amendment's wording. He described the amendment as the simplest and the crispest of the amendments—some of which are alternative amendments—in this group. The problem with

      1027
      amendment No. 10 is that it seeks to ensure that the factual information behind policy advice is made available. It provides no class exemption, and it does not even provide a harm test, which is typically provided in other systems. Nor does it provide a balancing arrangement between the public interest in disclosure of that factual background information and the public interest against its disclosure.
      The difficulty with the amendment is essentially a linguistic one, about what is meant by factual information. The word fact encompasses a huge sphere of human activity. "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" states:
      Everything in the cosmos is a fact or a phenomenon.
      Occasionally, there are arguments—perhaps I should say happy and comradely discussions—in Cabinet Committees and between Ministers. Although those arguments themselves will be an expression of opinion, it will be a fact that those arguments occurred.
      Mr. Fisher indicated dissent.
      Mr. Straw: I do not say that to make a casuistical point. I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the House a more specific example.
      As is well known, discussions are being held between departmental spending Ministers and the Treasury on bids for the next spending round, which will be announced in July. A huge amount of the information that has been submitted, on paper, to PSX—which is the Cabinet Committee concerned—is factual information on the costs of the various bids submitted by Ministers or on the analysis of that information. The conclusion of those Cabinet discussions will be made public very soon, in July 2000, in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the public spending White Paper that will be published with that statement.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has been a Minister, he will know that there is no way in which a Minister can say that the type of information in the bid letters that I have submitted, or in the briefing that is in my folder for meetings with colleagues, is opinion. It is not opinion: it is raw fact and raw data, and, at best, analysis of them. If we were to accept amendment No. 10, virtually everything that is in my brief for PSX and in those of my colleagues—although it goes to the heart of collective decision making—would be available. There is no question but that we would have to release it. I suggest that that would very seriously affect the collective nature of the Government and our ability—on behalf of our constituents, and to follow our manifesto—to make decisions.
      In this debate, every hon. Member has accepted that collective decision making needs to be protected and has to take place in confidence. Everyone has also accepted—as do I—that as much factual and background information as possible should be made available. I have spelt out to the House what we have already done, what we have included in clause 13, how we are strengthening clause 13, and how I hope that we can continue the discussions that I mentioned in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice).
      1028
      It would be idle for me or for any other hon. Member to pretend that it is easy to secure a balance. I say with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that amendment No. 10 does not achieve such a balance at all.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I accept the Secretary of State's points, but he has forgotten about clause 34—which contains a harm test that specifically deals with those points. If factual information is not covered by clause 33, it would not be covered if amendment No. 10 were passed. However, that factual information would also be considered under the provisions of clause 34, which would exempt information that is likely to prejudice maintenance of the convention on Ministers' collective responsibility. Therefore, because of the provisions of clause 34, I think that his fears are unfounded.
      Mr. Straw: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend's comments, but, with respect to her, I do not think that it would be exempt. That was also not the sense of the amendment that I got from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase when he moved it. A note that I have just been handed also says that amendment No. 10 would exclude clause 34—which was the point that I was going to make, from recollection, regardless.
      Dr. Tony Wright: The Home Secretary's invitation to the House to consider the nature of a fact was an interesting moment. However, is he really suggesting that they know what a fact is in Ireland and in New Zealand, and that they have discovered what a fact is in Scotland, but that we in the United Kingdom have not quite managed to work out what a fact is at all?
      Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for New Zealand, for Ireland or, indeed, for Scotland. Nevertheless, in Scotland—as I recall; I am open to correction—the Scottish Executive has published a White Paper. It is easy to say that such matters are easily defined, but much more difficult to define them. That is the difficulty, and that is at the heart of the issue. We are arguing about what is a fact. If my hon. Friend applies himself not only to the Oxford English Dictionary, but to "Words and Phrases Legally Defined", he will discover that there is no complete separation between a fact and an opinion. It is—in fact—a bit like Venn diagrams, in which there is certainly separation at the extremes, but a large area in the middle where things can be both fact and opinion. Additionally, a fact can be made out of the existence of an opinion.
      Mr. David Davis: My point follows that of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). The Home Secretary has almost gone into a theological argument in describing the processes of government, but the processes that he has described are common to Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. They are almost identical structures of government. Why, when those countries can solve the problem without damage, cannot the Home Secretary do so?
      7 pm
      Mr. Straw: I am interested to hear a member of the previous Government professing expertise on freedom of

      1029
      information, when the campaign guide on which he fought the election said:
      The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
      I shall listen to advice from Labour Members, but, with the exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I take with a pinch of salt the Conservatives' late conversion on the issue.
      The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point is that it is for each Parliament to make its own decisions. We have to debate the matter ourselves. I cannot answer for the debates in Canada or New Zealand, but I am sure that there was a proper debate. The dividing line between fact and opinion is not a theological issue; it is linguistic, because law is based on language, which is of critical importance. Such debates took place in those other countries, but it is for us to decide for ourselves on the basis of our culture and practices and, in particular, the way in which our courts have interpreted words such as "facts" and "opinions".
      Bringing the debate to a close, I regret, for the reasons that I have explained, that we cannot accept amendment No. 10 and the others that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase spoke to, not because we disagree with the principle that he put forward, but because we disagree with the practical effect of the amendments. I sought to explain yesterday and today that we want the greatest possible openness in the operation of government. The proof of that is not in the crystal, it is in the book—in the way in which we have operated and will continue to operate. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I accept that that method of operation should be enshrined in law as far as possible.
      During our debates we have strengthened the arrangements for ensuring that as much factual information as possible is brought out. I explained that yesterday in relation to the changes to clause 13. The House will be aware that Government amendment No. 48 affects clause 13 and will ensure that the Minister and commissioner will have to have particular regard to the public interest in making factual information available. I have also told my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that the search for a better form of words will be difficult, but it will continue and we shall not close the door on it.
      Mr. Radice: Clause 13(6) refers to
      communicating to the applicant factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking.
      Surely my right hon. Friend might look at that.
      Mr. Straw: Indeed we shall continue to look at that.
      This has been a lengthy but good debate. In the light of my explanations, I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments and that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary. A couple of centuries ago, that shrewd observer of public affairs, Mr. de Tocqueville, said that an unreformed regime was most at risk when it started to reform. I understand that that is written in bright lights in every Whips office.
      1030
      The Home Secretary is right to point to the seamless nature of the Bill. Each item is intricately connected with all the others. The issue relates to new clause 6, which we will consider later. We listened with care to what the Home Secretary said on the issue last night, but we were not yet persuaded that it was desirable to allow the exercise of a veto. If we allow a veto, it must come with certain conditions: first, it must be a proper Cabinet veto; secondly, it should not be an across-the-board veto, but must concentrate on certain key areas; and, thirdly, it should not apply to local authorities. Based on what my colleagues were saying last night, I think that that is the position.
      I speak with some sadness, because I am a supporter of the Government. I am proud of what they are doing. Indeed, I confess to being a serial loyalist. The problem is that there comes a moment when we have to decide whether we can accept the formula that the Government are offering on issues that affect the workings of our democracy and the rights of our citizens. There are not too many such moments during a Parliament, but this is one on any test.
      The question is simple. Individual Members of Parliament have to make a decision—never mind the party line. I celebrate the fact that much of the Bill has cross-party agreement. We have to decide individually.
      Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but we are considering amendment No. 10, which would drive a coach and horses through any idea of confidentiality of collective decision making. Does he accept that, under his amendment, all the factual information on public spending going before the Cabinet Committee would have to be made public? That is plainly the effect of the amendment.
      Dr. Wright: I shall refer in a second to the amendments, but I should like to continue on the fundamental point. We must ask whether we are prepared to accept clauses 33 and 34. This may seem an abstruse way of putting it to those who have not followed our debates closely, but they are the clauses that say, "Thou shalt not have access even to the factual basis on which Government policy is made." We must make a clear choice on whether that is an acceptable formulation.
      I am still not sure whether I am allowed to call someone on the other side of the House an hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), said extraordinarily eloquently that the answer lies within ourselves. It is as simple as that. There is no great wisdom to be derived from other sources. We simply have to work out whether we think that the formulation given to us in clauses 33 and 34 is how we would like to deal with the issue.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not mind me saying that, during the debate, he leant over to me and said that he could not remember an occasion when Parliament had been so roused collectively by an issue across party lines. He said how good it was for Parliament that this was happening. The Home Secretary illuminated the choice in his reply to the debate, as did the Public Administration Committee report on the draft Bill, saying that there was a fundamental choice in approach between open government and freedom of information. Open government happens when a Government decide to

      1031
      behave in a more open way. It is a gift, or a grant, from a Government. Freedom of information is achieved when rights are claimed by citizens, and bestowed on them. That is the choice before us in clauses 33 and 34.
      Amendment No. 7 would remove what I and other hon. Members consider to be an unacceptable way of dealing with this matter. Other amendments that have been tabled are far more robust, but the minimalist amendment No. 10—on which I hope we will vote later—would simply take factual information out of the list of exemptions. That amendment represents the most minimal approach to making the distinction that many hon. Members believe is necessary.
      For the moment, our attention is turned to amendment No. 7, which says in effect that the proposals are unacceptable and that we should proceed in a more acceptable way. I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 311.

      Division No. 144]

      [7.11 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allan, Richard

      Cran, James

      Amess, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Day, Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Ballard, Jackie

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Beggs, Roy

      Duncan, Alan

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Boswell, Tim

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brady, Graham

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brake, Tom

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Breed, Colin

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnett, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burns, Simon

      Graham, Thomas

      Burstow, Paul

      Gray, James

      Butterfill, John

      Green, Damian

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Greenway, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Chope, Christopher

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Clappison, James

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hammond, Philip

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John

      Collins, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cotter, Brian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      1032

      Horam, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Randall, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Robertson, Laurence

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ruffley, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

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

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lansley, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Leigh, Edward

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

      Letwin, Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Love, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Swayne, Desmond

      McDonnell, John

      Syms, Robert

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, William

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Trend, Michael

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Tyler, Paul

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Walter, Robert

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Webb, Steve

      Mates, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whittingdale, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Willetts, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Moore, Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Winnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Norman, Archie

      Wood, Mike

      Oaten, Mark

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Öpik, Lembit

      Yeo, Tim

      Ottaway, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Adrian Sanders and

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. Ronnie Campbell.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Benton, Joe

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Barnes, Harry

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Barron, Kevin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Bayley, Hugh

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Beard, Nigel

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      1033

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Browne, Desmond

      Goggins, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Burden, Richard

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Burgon, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Grocott, Bruce

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gunnell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hanson, David

      Casale, Roger

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Caton, Martin

      Healey, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chaytor, David

      Heppell, John

      Church, Ms Judith

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoey, Kate

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clelland, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hurst, Alan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hutton, John

      Corston, Jean

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jamieson, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Darvill, Keith

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Khabra, Piara S

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Laxton, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Flint, Caroline

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Follett, Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lock, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foulkes, George

      McCabe, Steve

      Galloway, George

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gapes, Mike

      Macdonald, Calum

      1034

      McFall, John

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWalter, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWilliam, John

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mallaber, Judy

      Singh, Marsha

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Stevenson, George

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

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Pearson, Ian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pendry, Tom

      Todd, Mark

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Touhig, Don

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter L

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tynan, Bill

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Vaz, Keith

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Rammell, Bill

      White, Brian

      Raynsford, Nick

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wills, Michael

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woolas, Phil

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruane, Chris

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Salter, Martin

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 8, line 10, leave out—
      'also have regard to the desirability of'
      and insert—
      'in particular have regard to the public interest in'.
      No. 49, in page 8, line 13, leave out from beginning to "within" and insert—
      'A public authority must comply with this section'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 14

      FEES FOR DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURE
      Amendments made: No. 50, in page 8, line 18, leave out—
      'in pursuance of a decision'.
      No. 51, in page 8, line 20, leave out—
      'in pursuance of a decision'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 15

      REFUSAL OF REQUEST
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department
      (Mr. David Lock): I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 8, line 35, leave out from "that" to "or" in line 36 and insert—
      'by virtue of any provision of Part II the duty to confirm or deny does not arise'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 55 to 60, 62, 67, 85 and 86.
      Mr. Lock: I can say fairly confidently that I will not detain the House as long on this group of amendments as it was detained on the previous group. They are technical amendments—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could we please have more quiet? This is a debate and the Minister needs to be heard.
      Mr. Lock: The amendments are technical and are tabled in response to matters raised in Committee. I draw the attention of the House to amendments Nos. 55 to 59, which were tabled in response to a concern raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who inquired whether information made publicly available in London was "reasonably accessible" if the person seeking it resided in Newcastle, for example. The amendments make the information available only if it is reasonably accessible to the individual applicant who seeks it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter and the background to it, which is dealt with in amendment No. 60. As the amendments are technical and, I hope, reasonably uncontroversial, I will leave it at that. I will be more than happy to respond if hon. Members want clarification of the purpose behind any of the
      amendments.
      Mr. David Heath: I rise only to thank the Minister for listening to what I said in Committee and incorporating it in the Bill. I am most grateful.
      Mr. Hawkins: I can be equally brief. We welcome the fact that the Government have responded to matters raised
      1036
      in Committee. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made some good points. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who took the Bill through the Committee for the Opposition, certainly supported the hon. Gentleman in his concerns and we are delighted that the Government have responded with the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 9, line 1, leave out from "which" to end of line 4 and insert—

      '(a) decides under section 13(3) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing the fact that the authority does or does not hold information of the description specified in a request for information does not outweigh the public interest in maintaining an exemption, or

      (b) decides under section 13(4) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosing any information does not outweigh the public interest in maintaining an exemption,'.

      No. 54, in page 9, line 21, at end insert—

      '(7) A notice under subsection (1), (3) or (5) must—

      (a) contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public authority for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information or state that the authority does not provide such a procedure, and

      (b) contain particulars of the right conferred by section 50.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 16

      THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND THE INFORMATION TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 9, line 22, leave out clause 16.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 56, line 13, leave out schedule 2.
      No. 113, in clause 17, page 10, line 4, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 114, in page 10, line 22, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 115, in page 10, line 24, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 116, in clause 18, page 10, line 28, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 117, in page 10, line 32, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 118, in page 10, line 37, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 119, in page 10, line 39, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 120, in page 10, line 41, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 121, in page 10, line 43, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 122, in page 11, line 3, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 123, in page 11, line 7, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".

      1037
      No. 124, in page 11, line 10, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 125, in clause 46, page 25, line 9, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 126, in page 25, line 15, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 127, in page 25, line 22, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 128, in page 25, line 24, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 129, in page 25, line 26, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 130, in page 25, line 27, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 131, in page 25, line 30, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 132, in page 25, line 35, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 133, in page 25, line 41, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 134, in clause 47, page 25, line 44, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 135, in page 26, line 6, leave out "Commissioner's" and insert "Ombudsman's".
      No. 136, in page 26, line 10, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 137, in page 26, line 16, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 138, in clause 48, page 26, line 18, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 139, in page 26, line 23, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 140, in page 26, line 28, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 141, in clause 49, page 26, line 32, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 142, in page 26, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 143, in clause 50, page 26, line 39, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 144, in page 26, line 42, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 145, in page 27, line 4, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 146, in page 27, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 147, in clause 51, page 27, line 35, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 148, in page 28, line 1, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 149, in page 28, line 6, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 150, in page 28, line 8, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 151, in page 28, line 31, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 152, in clause 52, page 28, line 33, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      1038
      No. 153, in page 28, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 154, in page 29, line 3, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 155, in page 29, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 156, in clause 53, page 29, line 17, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 157, in clause 55, page 29, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 158, in clause 56, page 29, line 39, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 173, in page 30, line 2, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 159, in page 30, line 2, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 160, in clause 57, page 30, line 4, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 174, in page 30, line 8, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 161, in page 30, line 10, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 175, in page 30, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 162, in page 30, line 11, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 163, in page 30, line 13, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 164, in clause 58, page 30, line 15, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 165, in page 30, line 16, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 176, in clause 59, page 30, line 25, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
      No. 166, in page 30, line 28, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 167, in page 30, line 30, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 168, in page 30, line 32, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 169, in page 30, line 34, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 170, in page 30, line 36, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 171, in page 30, line 42, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 172, in page 31, line 1, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
      No. 178, in clause 60, page 31, line 3, leave out from beginning to "provisions" in line 5 and insert "The".
      No. 112, in page 62, line 16, leave out Schedule 4.
      New clause 11—Information Ombudsman and Parliamentary Information Committee—

      '(1) There shall be an officer of the House of Commons called the Information Ombudsman, who shall be appointed by the House of Commons.

      1039

      (2) There shall be a committee of the House of Commons appointed, to be called the Parliamentary Information Committee.

      (3) In this Act the Information Ombudsman is known as "the Ombudsman".'.

      Mr. Hawkins: Although that was a long list of amendments, I am happy to be able to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House that I can be relatively brief.
      Hon. Members who have been following these debates will realise that we are talking here about the belief of the Opposition—supported, I think, by others who sat on the Opposition side in Committee—that there should be an information ombudsman and a parliamentary information committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke about this at length in Committee and I pay tribute to his work on the matter.
      Parliament should have a say in ensuring that the public have access to information held by the Government and public authorities. The amendments would ensure that the task of enforcing the provision once it becomes an Act in some form or another—when another place has dealt with amendments such as No. 7, on which we recently voted—is kept separate from the work of the Data Protection Commissioner and the register. The two are distinct roles. One has the role of ensuring that personal information is not misused and the other has to ensure that as much information as possible is released.
      In debates, the Government appear to have suggested that it would be unwise to give the Information Commissioner any more powers because of what has been caricatured as information override. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that amendments that would allow the Information Commissioner the power to compel disclosure would
      artificially and unnecessarily, create a democratic deficit.
      We think, however, that the arrangements should be based on the very important work that has already been done, which we seek to extend, with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. We feel strongly that this House should have a say in ensuring that the public have access to information held by the Government and by public authorities. Ultimately, it should be notfor Ministers, but for Parliament to decide whether information should be released in the public interest. That is why we have tabled these amendments.
      7.30 pm
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
      A democracy must mean something…Some of the arguments that we have heard, seeking to shift the balance towards allowing an unelected official to overrule the democratically elected Government, are profoundly undemocratic.—[Official Report. Standing Committee B, 8 February 2000; c. 431.]
      There is a simple word to describe that very peculiar argument—oxymoron. The peculiar aspect is that it does not recognise the democratic deficit in the legislation. That may explain why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department is responding to this debate rather than the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. We feel strongly that this House should have a role.
      1040
      The Government believe that Ministers and judges must have the final say. We say that the public interest—which is different from what the public are interested in, although the media constantly seek to confuse the two—should ultimately be determined by those who have been elected to office.
      Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment today, I hope that perhaps in another place, or when the Bill comes back to this House after its consideration in another place, the Government will decide that we are right. If the Government accept our proposals, they will, in the long run, have the gratitude of those who seek to use—
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I follow the thrust of his argument. Will he confirm that we believe that Parliament, rather than Ministers or officials, should exercise discretion in these matters, but that it would be quite wrong wantonly and recklessly to cede that discretion to the Information Commissioner in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to advocate last night?
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government are introducing what they call a Freedom of Information Bill—the number of Labour Back-Benchers who have just voted against the Government shows that they have not even convinced many of their colleagues—they should do it properly. Because the Bill gives the Secretary of State and, ultimately, officials the final say over whether information should be released, there is undoubtedly a democratic deficit. Our proposals in new clause 11 and the amendments are the logical progression to the code of practice on access to Government information, which we introduced when in office.
      Many people, including the Campaign for Freedom of Information, believe that not only have the Government gone back on their proposals in the Bill and the White Paper, but they are now making proposals that provide less freedom of information than the previous Government's code.
      Mr. Lock: The Government's proposal is to create a single Information Commissioner, who will take over the actions and duties of the Data Protection Commissioner and will have responsibility for both freedom of information and data protection. The amendments would keep the Data Protection Commissioner doing her job and create a parliamentary information ombudsman to police the freedom of information regime.
      Two arguments—incompatibility and resources—have been made for that proposal. Frankly, neither stands examination. On compatibility, the commissioner herself says that data protection rights and freedom of information rights are complementary and mutually supportive in practice, and that she supports having a single commissioner. The Conservative proposal is in direct opposition to the view of those who will have to operate the legislation and are most intimately acquainted with it.
      Secondly, the proposals ignore the balance between personal and public data. There has to be a balance between what is confidential and what should be revealed. Under the proposed scheme, mutually inconsistent decisions from two different bodies will define that balance. That is a recipe for confusion and disaster.

      1041
      Thirdly, the proposals ignore the effect on the public. The public need a single point of application if they want data. Quite often, they will ask for mixed personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 and public data under the freedom of information legislation. Instead of having one body to approach, the Conservatives propose having two, so people would have to know in advance the precise structure of the legislation. It is a great shame that the Opposition spokesman cannot listen to the reasons why his proposal is not acceptable.
      The point about resources is entirely false. Yes, it will take more resources to have a single commissioner, but to be honest, that expenditure has to be incurred anyway. The Opposition propose two bureaucracies, two sets of commissioners and two sets of investigations. Resources will be used much better if there is only one.
      The Opposition's wish to divide the Data Protection Commissioner and the parliamentary Information Commissioner is, in one sense, unique. That course of action has been rejected in the common-law jurisdictions of Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. On this occasion, the Conservatives are going the Gallic way. They have been persuaded by the practice in France and are obviously moving further towards the practices of the European Union in this respect. This seems to be the one practice that they have chosen to adopt, having rejected all other aspects of French culture and nationality, and all the other attractions of France. I prefer the system in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, which keeps the Information Commissioner and the Data Protection Commissioner under one roof.
      The amendments would create a parliamentary committee for the exercise of appeal rights instead of the information tribunal that currently exists. That would lead to exactly the same problems as attempting to divide data protection and freedom of information responsibilities. It is constitutionally confused and inept. Such a committee would have to consider many individual cases in which individual pieces of information were being sought. Within the legal structure of the Bill, the committee would have a heavy work load, and would be concerned not with the policy, which is clearly a matter for Parliament, but with the application of that policy to Mrs. Jones who is trying to get information out of her local health authority. Policy is a matter for Parliament; individual decisions are a matter for a tribunal.
      In any event, under the tribunal system, an appeal on a point of law will naturally go to the High Court. The Opposition ignore the fact that, if a matter comes before a committee that interprets the legislation wrongly, it will be invidious to ask a High Court judge to overrule a parliamentary committee. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the process, or ideas, floated in this group of amendments. They simply will not work. There would be a data protection tribunal, which would set a balance between personal data and the disclosure of such matters, and a committee, often dealing with similar information but setting a different balance. The amendments will not work.
      It has often been said that we should learn from the experience of other data protection regimes. Those that have succeeded, such as the ones in Australia, New Zealand and other common law jurisdictions, have recognised that the appeal structure in individual cases, rather than the supervision of policy, is a right matter for
      1042
      a tribunal. I agree that the supervision of policy and its practical operation are matters for Parliament and that they should be kept under scrutiny.
      However, we were not elected to Parliament to sit on a committee to hear appeals from all over the country about Mrs. Jones who wants information from her local health authority. That would be a decision for a tribunal. The operation of the overall policy is a matter for Parliament. The amendments confuse the distinction between individual cases and policy. I therefore urge the House to reject them. I encourage the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), now that he has heard about the problems with the amendments as they are currently drafted, to reconsider them. If he wants to pursue the matter, he might consider tabling in another place amendments that avoid the complications that I have outlined.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department prayed in aid the experiences of other jurisdictions. We are delighted to know that they are a source of inspiration for the Government. On this occasion, we are persuaded that the experience of other Administrations is a good thing. The Liberal Democrats share the Government's view on the structure for the Data Protection Commissioner and for the Information Commissioner.
      We do not take the line proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on behalf of the Conservatives. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's amendment was a probing one or one with more potential. I hope that the debate has persuaded him that it was better as a probing amendment, and that he will reconsider the idea. The Conservatives advanced those ideas in Committee; we did not support them. The hon. Gentleman inadvertently suggested that we were on board on the amendment, but that is not so.
      Sadly, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is accurate in many of his assertions, used an argument that I made yesterday on a different point as support for his intervention in relation to the amendment. My separate point—on which the hon. Gentleman may disagree—was in yesterday's debate on override. We were discussing whether there should be a democratic override, as described by the Government—coming back to Ministers appointed by Parliament—or whether the ultimate decision could be taken by an independently appointed authority. In this case, that would be the commissioner. We argued that it would be better to trust someone who was not a member of the Government on matters relating to Government information. Although I understand the Opposition's point of view, I do not accept it, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, on this occasion, he was inadvertently misrepresenting me.
      Mr. Bercow: On the question of procedural propriety, I readily concede to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. However, the truth will out: I wanted to attack the hon. Gentleman's position yesterday, but he sat down before I had the opportunity to do so, so I thought I would use my intervention as an excuse for doing so today.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: If all the hon. Gentleman's attacks were 24 hours late, I would not have much to worry about.

      1043
      An important issue in the debate is the citizen's knowledge—how to use the freedom of information system—to which the Minister rightly alluded. We have argued constantly—on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report—that we need legislation that citizens can understand and of which they are in charge. The more straightforward the system, the better it will be.
      It follows from that that the person responsible for the management of the processes whereby people are helped to inquire about the data held about them and the person managing the acquisition of information about public authorities could be the same person and could have the same staff. Indeed, that is the Government's position. The nomination has already been made; we know who is intended to fulfil that function. We support the Government on that matter.
      I hope that the fact that we are so happy publicly to support the Government, despite the difference of views in the Chamber, shows how objective we are on each subject under debate. If there is another resurgence of the cross-party view—as I suspect there may be later on—it will be because of the same objective assessment of the facts and of the merits of the case. I hope that the Government will find that especially persuasive—perhaps more so on the amendments on which we have yet to vote than on the previous one, when they were on the defensive and on the wrong side of the argument.
      Mr. Greenway: The House should reflect on three aspects of the proposed amendments. First, the cultural mindset of a Data Protection Commissioner is, in essence, one of secrecy; whereas the amendments would introduce, for the first time, a culture of openness. That is not meant to be critical of Miss Elizabeth France, the current Data Protection Commissioner, who will also undertake the role of Information Commissioner under the Government's proposals.
      However, the longer we discussed the Bill in Committee, the more it became obvious that much of the current work of the commissioner on matters that relate to the Bill involves ensuring the secrecy of personal information about individuals. The work on freeing up information to be carried out by the new commissioner is a different matter. The Government have not given that point sufficient thought. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) were right to pursue the matter.
      The second point about our alternative proposal is that we feel strongly that there should have been a role for Parliament in overseeing the new freedom of information regime. Our debate on the availability of information—the facts and data that have underpinned and informed Government policy decisions—is another example of Parliament wanting to assert itself. Parliament is saying that we still have a role; we are not just a rubber stamp for everything that the Government or the Whitehall bureaucracy think is good for us. A parliamentary Committee to scrutinise the work of the Information Commissioner would be most beneficial.
      The Minister will say, "But how many appeals will that Committee have to deal with?" We are not proposing a Committee in lieu of a commissioner—even if we are
      1044
      talking about an Information Commissioner who is separate from the existing Data Protection Commissioner so as to reflect their two different roles. What we are proposing, however, is a Committee in lieu of the Government's proposed tribunal. How many appeals does the Minister think their tribunal will have to deal with? The impression given throughout the Committee stage was that it would not have to deal with that many—that Ministers will be so reasonable, as will other public authorities, in their interpretation of their responsibilities under the Bill, that appeals to the tribunal will be quite rare. I do not think it would be as onerous a task as the Minister implies for a parliamentary Committee to oversee the work of an independent Information Commissioner.
      My third point is a practical one, which we addressed in Committee but which was not answered satisfactorily. There will be a huge programme of work in implementing the Bill. One must question whether it is sensible for the Data Protection Commissioner, at this key point when the Data Protection Act 1998 is coming on stream, also to have the programme of work under the Bill—work with regard to the 2,000 or more public authorities which it is anticipated will be affected by the Bill.
      Under the Government's proposal, all that will have to be done by the selfsame Data Protection Commissioner and her staff, so there is still an opportunity for the idea of a separation of roles between data protection and information to be progressed further.
      Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath nor I want to detain the House for too long on this point, but one other thing should be said. The Minister said that the Opposition in the other place could think through a better scheme, which the Government could then look at. I was encouraged by that. Perhaps, like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I am unnecessarily optimistic, but the Minister has given us some encouragement. He will certainly have given the other place some encouragement to find a way in which to bring forward a scheme that might command more support and a more favourable response from Ministers.
      Perhaps we have not given the attention to this proposal that we have given to some of the other meaty issues in the Bill. We have perhaps not thought through all the detail and structure in quite the way that we might have done if this were a Government proposal. I have, however, outlined several issues: the difference in cultural approach, arising from the fact that the Data Protection Commissioner is primarily involved in ensuring secrecy—confidentiality is perhaps a better word; the assertion that there should be a role for Parliament in overseeing the work of the Information Commissioner; and the huge practical work load that the Bill will put on the commissioner. Those issues suggest that the matter should be rethought. I hope that, in the other place, a scheme of arrangements that might commend itself not just to the Government, but to the other place as a whole, will be introduced, so that the Bill can be amended. In the meantime, I urge my hon. Friend to press the amendment to a Division to reinforce our view on the matter.
      Mr. Hawkins: Again, I can be very brief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for what he has said. I will certainly accept his suggestion that we press the amendments—

      1045
      which were never intended to be probing amendments—to a vote. I was encouraged by the Minister apparently leaving the door ajar.
      Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a similar regime in France. As a member of the Anglo-French all-party parliamentary group, I am delighted to find that my francophile tendencies are supported by what I am doing as a Front Bencher. I do not, however, accept the Minister's suggestion that the fact that some other Commonwealth countries have not accepted such a proposal is necessarily a criticism of it. As my hon. Friend said both tonight and in Committee, it would be a substantial and useful extra safeguard.
      Like many other hon. Members, I am sure, I have always believed that the more parliamentary scrutiny there is, the better. There are far too many occasions when Members of all parties are ridiculed in the press and media. We are all the targets of criticism. We put ourselves up to be shot at. We must come to expect that. Nevertheless, whatever party we represent in this place, we all, I hope, have a genuine belief in the value of parliamentary scrutiny.
      That is what the new clause and amendments are intended to achieve. We believe that they are right. We do not say that they are necessarily perfect. I was encouraged when the Minister suggested that, in another place, the issue might be returned to. It should be. Ultimately, it will be something that the Government will have to concede—I think the other place will insist that the Government do so. In the meantime I intend to press the amendments and the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 373.

      Division No. 145]

      [7.56 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Flight, Howard

      Amess, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Bercow, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gibb, Nick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Boswell, Tim

      Gray, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Green, Damian

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Greenway, John

      Brady, Graham

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brazier, Julian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hammond, Philip

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hayes, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Collins, Tim

      Horam, John

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Day, Stephen

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Key, Robert

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Duncan, Alan

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Evans, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward

      Fabricant, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Fallon, Michael

      Lidington, David

      1046

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Loughton, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Luff, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Norman, Archie

      Waterson, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Page, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Yeo, Tim

      Robathan, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robertson, Laurence

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruffley, David

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Mr. John Randall.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cann, Jamie

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caplin, Ivor

      Austin, John

      Casale, Roger

      Ballard, Jackie

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Cawsey, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Chaytor, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Church, Ms Judith

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Best, Harold

      Clwyd, Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cohen, Harry

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coleman, Iain

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Colman, Tony

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brake, Tom

      Corbett, Robin

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Corston, Jean

      Breed, Colin

      Cotter, Brian

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cummings, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Burden, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burstow, Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      1047

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Illsley, Eric

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Denham, John

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jenkins, Brian

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dowd, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Keetch, Paul

      Flint, Caroline

      Kemp, Fraser

      Follett, Barbara

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

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kidney, David

      Foulkes, George

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Laxton, Bob

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lepper, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Leslie, Christopher

      Godsiff, Roger

      Levitt, Tom

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Graham, Thomas

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lock, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Love, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Grogan, John

      McCabe, Steve

      Gunnell, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harris, Dr Evan

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Harvey, Nick

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McNulty, Tony

      Healey, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWilliam, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Maxton, John

      Hope, Phil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      1048

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morley, Elliot

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

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

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Olner, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pike, Peter L

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Touhig, Don

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Tyler, Paul

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Tynan, Bill

      Rendel, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rogers, Allan

      Watts, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Webb, Steve

      Rooney, Terry

      White, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Willis, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Wills, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wood, Mike

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Worthington, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 2

      THE COMMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in page 58, line 42, leave out paragraph 19.
      Schedule 2 makes the commissioner subject to a new prohibition on disclosure of information about to come into force under the Data Protection Act 1998. The commissioner and her staff would face criminal charges for disclosing certain information under the Bill. Disclosures could be made only if they were "necessary" for their functions or "necessary" in the public interest. The "necessary" test is a strict one which may prevent disclosure by the commissioner in many circumstances. The present Data Protection Commissioner, who will become the first Information Commissioner, has expressed concern.
      Under section 59 of the Data Protection Act, the Data Protection Commissioner is subject to a statutory prohibition on the disclosure of certain information. Schedule 2(19) of the Bill extends that prohibition to the Information Commissioner. The effect may be to prevent the commissioner and her staff from disclosing information about how or whether they are handling particular complaints, where this involves the release of information about identifiable businesses. That may become relevant where an authority has refused to disclose information about a particular company to an applicant.
      In some cases, businesses may be public authorities in relation to certain functions. For example, under clause 4(1)(a), private bodies with public functions can be brought within the scope of the Bill by an order in relation to specified functions. That might apply to companies such as Group 4 in relation to prison contracts. The registrar has disputed this view because article 28.7 of the data protection directive states:
      Member states shall provide that the members and staff of the supervisory authority are to be subject to a duty of professional secrecy with regard to confidential information to which they have access.
      However, the Data Protection Commissioner has said:
      The Registrar does not believe that the Directive requires the criminal provisions provided by clause 54 [now section 59]. She believes that the existing law combined with appropriate conditions and staff contracts will satisfy the requirements of Article 28.7.
      Whatever the legal position in relation to the Data Protection Act, the offence cannot be required in relation to the commissioner's freedom of information functions. That is relevant to the arguments that were adduced by hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) a few minutes ago, as those functions do not flow from the directive or other Community obligations or assert the primacy of Community law over our domestic legislation.
      The rationale for extending the offence appears to be based merely on an unnecessary preference for consistency. I shall not read out the prohibition on disclosure in section 59 of the DPA, which will apply to the Information Commissioner, as I know that the Department is well apprised of the matter.
      The effect of that provision is to expose the commissioner to risk of prosecution if she discloses information obtained under the Freedom of Information Bill about an identifiable individual or business—the
      1050
      latter will be the real issue—without their consent, unless the information was supplied in order for her to publish it or the disclosure was for the purpose of legal proceedings. In any other circumstance, the commissioner would have to show that one of two conditions could be met.
      The first is that the disclosure is "necessary" for the discharge of any of the commissioner's functions. It is a strict test. If the function can be discharged without releasing the information, disclosure may not be necessary. It may not be possible to show that it is necessary for the commissioner to identify a company that opposes the disclosure of information about defective products, safety problems or discriminatory employment practices, if the commissioner can still discharge her function by referring to it anonymously.
      The second condition is that the disclosure is necessary in the public interest, having regard to
      the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests
      of any person. This would no doubt protect a disclosure made to the applicant or someone else with a direct interest, but it would leave open the possibility of an offence if disclosure were made to the press or public generally. Again, the problem is that "necessary" means that
      the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests
      of any person would be harmed if the information could not be disclosed and that that would be contrary to the public interest.
      8.15 pm
      Disclosure in the interests of the accountability of the authorities to whom freedom of information requests are made, or the accountability of the commissioner herself, may not pass the "necessary" test. A purposes clause which made clear that the Bill was intended to promote accountability could provide some statutory safeguard. However, the Government have resisted such a provision.
      The most objectionable element of the restriction is that it contains no "harm" test. The offence is not limited to the disclosure of trade secrets or commercially damaging information, but could be caused by a harmless disclosure of information about an identifiable business. The perverse consequence would be that information about a business which an authority would have to disclose under the Bill, because it did not reveal a trade secret or prejudice the commercial interests of the business concerned, could result in the commissioner being convicted of a criminal offence if she disclosed it.
      At the time of the Data Protection Bill's passage through the House, the registrar commented:
      The effect of clause 54—
      which is now section 59—
      is potentially to criminalise disclosures of information relating to an identifiable business in circumstances where it could not sensibly be maintained that this could cause any harm. For example, where a journalist queries the lawfulness of a company's processing activities, a member of the Commissioner's staff could commit a criminal offence simply by confirming that the company had discussed the processing in question with the Registrar because this disclosure is clearly not absolutely necessary for the discharge of the Commissioner's functions under the Act. The Registrar has always sought to be as open as possible with the Press. She is aware of no evidence that this has caused any individual or company significant harm. She is therefore concerned that this clause could require her and her staff to be unnecessarily guarded in future.

      1051
      Such a restraint on the Data Protection Commissioner's dealings with the press would be undesirable; to restrain the Information Commissioner would be unthinkable. It could undermine her ability to explain the basis of her approach. Any suggestion of secrecy on the part of the commissioner could damage the credibility of the legislation itself.
      During the Data Protection Bill's passage through the House, the Government suggested that the Data Protection Commissioner's general power to disseminate information—the Information Commissioner would have the identical power—would protect the commissioner in making the necessary disclosures. However, the Minister himself suggested that this would allow the publication of "anonymised" information, implying that the disclosure of company-specific information would be constrained.
      A similar general power to publish information, coupled with the specific prohibition of disclosures, appears in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have long maintained that it prevents them from disclosing information obtained under their powers unless disclosure is strictly necessary for health and safety purposes.
      Mr. Dalyell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very well-sculpted speech, but could he share with us whose view this is? He is reading out a highly technical, carefully worded legal view. Whose view is it?
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Of course it is the view of the Data Protection Registrar, as was. It was put forward during the DPA's passage through the House, but it did not obtain a satisfactory response. That is why it has had to be raised again. I apologise to the House for the sheer technicality of the explanation, but we never succeeded in getting a Minister to focus on it. I gave Ministers advance notice of my previous endeavours to raise the matter and I accept that it is highly technical.
      Mr. Lock: May I speed things up by saying that I have seen the freedom of information brief, that the hon. Gentleman can assume that I am aware of what it says, and that I shall respond to that brief as to his speech?
      Mr. Shepherd: I was referring to the earlier stages when the Data Protection Bill was passing through this place. This speech is almost a repeat of the previous speech so it is in the machinery of Government, and the Whips Office has it—the Minister may relax.
      It was hoped that the debate would not be a dialogue of the deaf, in which I would read a highly technical script and the Government would brush it aside. There is a point of importance in this, and, in that sense, I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. If he has something material to say, I shall conclude my speech. He has the information; he has the brief; he is apprised of the argument; and we would like a response and action.
      Mr. Lock: I shall not detain the House by explaining the background to the debate and the purpose and effect
      1052
      of section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998, other than to say that it requires the Data Protection Commissioner not to disclose information save in specified circumstances. Section 59 is required by article 28(7) of the European data protection directive, and—this may be a crucial point—schedule 2 of the Bill applies the relevant parts of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Bill; and paragraph 19 of the schedule extends the duty of confidentiality and the related offence in section 59 of the DPA to information obtained by the commissioner for the purposes of the Bill. The effect of amendment No. 177 would be to disapply that extension.
      I heard what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, but the Government's view is that the amendment would lead to an impossible situation for the commissioner and her staff, because we do not believe that it is possible for section 59 to bite for one regime and not for another. We have already said that we believe that the vast majority of requests for information and, consequently, complaints to the commissioner, will involve both personal and non-personal information. Therefore, the information obtained by the commissioner will not fall neatly into one regime or the other—one to which section 59 would apply, and another to which it would not. So, because we have to have section 59 for the purposes of the data protection regime, the only practical way forward is to have it also for the purposes of the freedom of information regime.
      However, the Data Protection registrar expressed two concerns. She has expressed concern, first, that she would be unable to share information with other investigatory bodies—such as various public sector ombudsmen—which she may have been in contact with in the course of investigating a complaint; and secondly, that the prohibition on disclosure without lawful authority could act to prevent the commissioner from disclosing the fact that she had received a complaint and that she was investigating it, which would be contrary to the principles of freedom of information.
      I tell the hon. Gentleman that we have listened very carefully to both those complaints. We accept the strength of the argument for an amendment to the Bill to allow information to be shared by and between the commissioner and other proper regulatory investigatory bodies, and we shall table an amendment to that effect in another place to deal with that perfectly legitimate concern.
      We have considered the second objection, and we are not satisfied that schedule 2 would have the effect claimed. From the Government's perspective, nothing in the Bill seeks to prevent the release by the Information Commissioner of information about the handling of complaints where that disclosure was made with the consent of the individual or company to whom the information, obtained in accordance with section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998, relates.
      I have heard the hon. Gentleman's argument, but where information is sought, the application has been made and the person making the application does not wish it to become public at that time that they are making the application, in the Government's view it is right that the Information Commissioner, who is carrying out a statutory function on behalf of that individual, should not be able to overrule that view and routinely disclose the information that she was looking into that complaint. The Information Commissioner's office is not intended to be

      1053
      an alternative source of information that is available under the Bill for public authorities, and there is no need for the commissioner to disclose information obtained from a public authority if that information is obtainable under the Bill.
      Furthermore, the commissioner can lay reports before Parliament about the exercise of her functions under the Bill and will do so, as clause 49 provides. Any disclosure of information in such reports would obviously be done for the purpose of, and be necessary for, the exercise of the commissioner's functions, and there would therefore be lawful authority for that. If the commissioner is worried about any matter that comes up in an individual complaint, the right body to report it to is Parliament through the laying of a report under clause 49; it would not necessarily be right for the commissioner to report the matter to the press against the view of the individual who was submitting the complaint.
      Thus we accept that section 59 of the DPA will inhibit the exercise of the commissioner's functions save in the one respect that I have mentioned, and the Government will table an amendment in the other place. I acknowledge the problem, and the balance that has to be struck, but I hope that that concession concerning the operation of the interrelations between the commissioner and other regulatory bodies is enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the issue seriously and cause him to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am very grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. There clearly is a conflict in the understanding of what is happening here. I am not the arbitrator on this, but my instinct is that when the former registrar, who will be the commissioner, has an anxiety about a matter, that must be weighed most carefully. I hope that, during the Bill's passage through this place and another place, the Minister will reflect very carefully on other representations that will undoubtedly be made to him.
      In the spirit and light of the observations that he and I have made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19

      INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC BY OTHER MEANS
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 11, line 15, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
      No. 56, in page 11, line 18, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
      No. 57, in page 11, line 20, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
      No. 58, in page 11, line 22, leave out from "to" to "whether" in line 24 and insert—
      'communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request'.
      No. 59, in page 11, line 27, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".—[Mr. Lock.]

    Clause 21

      INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY, OR RELATING TO, BODIES DEALING WITH SECURITY MATTERS
      Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 12, line 1, leave out clause 21.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 93, in clause 22, page 12, line 33, leave out from "if' to end of line 34 and insert—
      Its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice national security'.
      No. 94, in page 12, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
      'compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice national security'.
      No. 95, in page 12, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
      No. 96, in page 13, line 1, leave out clause 23.
      No. 97, in clause 82, page 39, line 23, leave out from beginning to "or" in line 24.
      Mr. Shepherd: Everyone who has read the Bill will notice that one of its interesting features, as listed in the schedules, is the fact that the security services are not included. The purpose of amendment No. 92 is to delete clause 21, so that it would not be possible to withhold information merely because it related to, or had indirectly come from, one of the listed bodies.
      Amendment No. 97 would bring the security and intelligence services within the Bill's scope by amending the definition of "government department" in clause 82.
      Amendments Nos. 93 to 96 would revise the Bill's exemption for national security. Instead of a ministerial certificate, information would be withheld only where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice national security.
      I know that the House always treats with the greatest deference the whole concept of those big words "national security" and "the security services", but in truth this is meant to be a freedom of information Bill, and it should reach in and touch every area of our national life if it is to have meaning.
      I know of no one in the House who dissents from the proposition that we have national security needs, and that they are taken very seriously. However, one has only to read the Security Service Act 1996 and look at the remit of the security services to see that it is now vast and comprehensive, moving into areas that we would not readily and easily associate with the general concept of the security of the nation. They have economic functions. They work in Departments in a way that means that information crosses the desks of Departments of state that are listed in the Bill.
      I am mindful of the fact that others have a view on this issue. For example, a recent book reports:
      The police complain that giving MI6 a greater policing role places areas such as drugs trafficking off limits to democratic accountability. The Police Foundation's Barrie Irving has argued that such policies are "short-sighted". MI6 contends that "it needs to operate in secret, but once you change the role to criminal justice you blur the distinction between state security and criminal justice. It seems unconstitutional to conduct policing in this way."

      1055
      8.30 pm
      I do not want to make a meal of this matter. I know that the House wants to get to the nitty-gritty of what we understand by freedom of information legislation. However, in earlier discussions in the House, we heard an assertion about where we stand in relation to the great organisations of the state. The security services, their remit and the legislation covering them enabled them, on a certificate, to act outside the call of the courts in many instances. Officers of the security services were even totally excluded from being able to admit that they were once officers, and absolute offences were attached to the nature of the service itself and to its personnel.
      About 10 or 12 years ago, some of us judged that that was offensive and that it struck at the principle that the security services should be a valued and important part of the apparatus of securing the well-being of our country and our citizens.
      The amendments say that the security services have a series of responsibilities. They include housekeeping and simple functions relating to the costs of buildings. The Home Secretary, no less, told us that he thought that information on the cost of the headquarters of MI5 and MI6 should be available to the House. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee told us how difficult it had been for him, his very distinguished predecessor, and the Chairman of the oversight Committee to act together to bring such information into the public domain.
      Does such information cause a threat or any damage or prejudice? That is the question that I want to be able to ask. However, under the provisions of clauses 21 and 22, we are not able even to ask such a question. There is a total exemption for such information.
      I do not want to dramatise the role of the security services. Much of their work is mundane, but it touches on social security and the economic interests of the country, among other things. That goes to the heart of what many of us believe public debate should involve. The amendments would provide the lowest possible harm test threshold. Would making such information available cause harm, or "prejudice", to use the Government's word? It is a terribly weak test.
      I have been a Member of the House for some years and I see others who were here when even to acknowledge that we had security services would cause grim faces and the grinding of teeth. Ministers would regularly say from the Dispatch Box that they did not comment on such matters.
      The move to put the security services on a statutory basis was forced by judges who said that the services were effectively operating outside the law. They brought them within our cognisance. Today, the security services advertise for recruits and the heads of the services conduct interviews and public lectures. The exemption in the Bill belongs to the past. It seeks an absolute exemption for everything no matter how "small" or "trivial", words that appear in the Security Service Act 1989. There is no deminimis provision governing a security officer reporting something.
      When information crosses a desk, the commissioner should be able to assess whether it involves prejudice. If the Government do not like the response, they have the route under the Bill—we have not discussed new clause 6 yet—of appeal to a tribunal and, as they keep telling us, of judicial review.
      1056
      There is merit in my modest proposal. However, the words "national security" have such a heavy import for the House. Over many years, we have been greatly misled and deceived as to whether an issue was of great national interest or security. The old barriers are coming down and many members of the services did not want to be perceived in the way they were. It simply enabled any rumour or suspicion to be made up about them.
      To defend ourselves, we should apply a weak test to matters of prejudice, even though everything can be construed as causing prejudice. Information, such as costs, should not be exempt, and there will be a proper system of appeal by the Minister to a tribunal. I therefore suggest that the amendments are of no small merit. I would be grateful if the Government reflected seriously on them. The Home Secretary made much of this exemption, and he could not have been sterner. He said no to a prejudice test for social security matters, and for police matters—until we had a report, Macpherson's, that actually suggested a high prejudice or harm test.
      I hope that the proposals will form part of our growing up as a society and the Government as a Government. Distinctions must be made. Frauds and bounders exist and poor processes take place within the security service, as in all walks of life. Making them more effective does not involve secrecy. I notice that a distinguished member of the oversight committee is present, but I am not entirely satisfied by the fact that it must meet in secrecy. Even its reports are subject to editing and white spacing of some of the points that it makes. The House knows almost nothing about what goes on in the committee.
      We shall come to important amendments on the harm test that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). However, I suggest that it would be easy to accept these amendments. Despite all the clangs of yesteryear and all the loud words on nuclear espionage, the security services often produce essential but mundane information that does not give rise to a threat to the security of this country. Because their remit reaches issues of daily life, such as social security and fraud, the amendments should be accepted.
      Mr. Fisher: I had not intended to speak, but as I listened to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) make his case, it occurred to me that, so often over the past 20 years, his has been the sole voice of sanity on these issues, and his was a lone and courageous voice attacking the Conservative Government and the Official Secrets Act that they passed. I do not want to detain the House, and I am sure that he would have answered the case on its merits, but I did not want my hon. Friend the Minister to think that the hon. Gentleman was again speaking from the isolated position of an obsessive. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has pursued these matters with such consistency and determination over the years is not the result of obsession; his is an entirely proper interest and it is to the discredit of other Members of Parliament that they do not often join him in his campaigns.
      The hon. Gentleman's point about the degree of protection afforded by the provisions being out of tune with the times and the rest of the Bill is correct. There was a time when the security services were not mentioned at all. Ministers would refer to them as "the friends", because they could not be named—they were the shades

      1057
      who could not be looked at directly and who were but shadowy figures in government. Fortunately, things have changed over the past 10 years. We now know the names of the heads of MI5 and MI6; they give press conferences and they are public figures. Their headquarters are, at last, a publicly recognised building. The fact that that building is one of the most appalling pieces of architecture ever to blot the London skyline, and that disgraceful sums were spent on it, is a separate matter. I hasten to add that I have a great liking and respect for the excellent architect, even if it is one of the worst buildings of his distinguished career.
      The building's public profile is symbolic of the fact that we now recognise the existence of MI5 and MI6, but by putting such a huge rampart around all their activities, the Bill does not afford them the same degree of recognition. Even the most innocuous and simple matters of public expenditure within that building, such as tenders for furniture and services, maintenance costs, and the number of people on full-time contracts, are outwith parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot make sense. No risk is posed to national security by allowing a degree of scrutiny of innocuous matters—scrutiny that is carefully controlled through a prejudice test that would filter out questions that might prejudice our security, which is something that no Member of Parliament or citizen of this country would want to do.
      The Government have slightly misjudged the changes surrounding the security services—changes that they and the previous Government made. I hope that, between consideration here and in the other place, Ministers will consider, even at this late stage, the possibility that they are being too cautious. Nobody wants information about the security functions of the security services, but they have plenty of other functions and are connected with plenty of other matters of public concern and public expenditure that fall properly within the public domain.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Under existing systems, that material can already enter the public domain. It is filtered through a Committee, and the only material that is excised from the reports of that Committee relates essentially to the security of the state and operational matters. Hence I cannot understand my hon. Friend's concern.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because he makes my point for me: the information is available, so the Bill that gives us the right of access to information should recognise that. The import of my hon. Friend's remarks is that we have nothing to fear—the information is already out. My argument is that that should be recognised in the Bill.
      The Bill will codify the degree and the extent of the access that we as a nation have to information. It is wonderful that the Committee of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member brings such matters to our attention, and that it has functions other than action as a conduit for information. However, we and that Committee would be strengthened if we recognised the reality of the security services as they are today. We should incorporate them in the Bill in a proper sense, not in the slightly neurotic sense revealed by the Bill's current wording.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills
      1058
      (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I had the privilege to be a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when, in 1992, for the first time, the Committee decided to go and see the then director-general of MI5 and thereby started the process of opening up those issues. Many other Members of Parliament, especially the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, have played a far more substantial role in that process than I have ever played.
      8.45 pm
      It is my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and many members of the Government that much can be done more openly with the various security services—the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service, and the Government communications headquarters—to ensure that we have a more accountable intelligence operation. However, I do not agree that the Bill and the at-a-stroke approach that the hon. Gentleman advocates are the way to do that.
      Over recent years we have been feeling our way towards more openness. The various security services have taken the view that they want to be more open, and they have moved quite a long way in that direction. No doubt we are only part way through the process, and in years to come we will move further.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills says that the words "national security" are heavy words. Indeed, they are. This country has been subject to bombing and terrorism, and it has had a great need for a very effective intelligence service to protect our national security. It is right, therefore, that we treat with great respect the work that is done by our national security services.
      I take this opportunity to pay tribute, which I am sure the House would echo, to the work done by the security services in dealing with Northern Irish terrorism in particular, but also terrorism from other parts of the world, to which our country has been subjected.
      For the sake of my family and the families of all my constituents and others in this country, I want to be sure that our security services are able to do the work that we have asked them to do. It is extremely sensitive and difficult work, and it is right that in that context, there has always been a consensus in the House that we should treat with great care any intrusion into the operational activities of our security services.
      I am grateful for the support of the then Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said when we discussed clause 21 in Committee that the Opposition
      also agree with the Minister and the Government that clause 21 should be an absolute exemption.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2000; c. 211.]
      We propose to keep it as such.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He says, rightly, that the Government and he, during his career in the House from 1992, have been involved in creating greater openness. Everyone welcomes that, and when he moved the amendment, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) recognised the big shift that has taken place. However, my hon. Friend seems to be sliding into the misunderstanding that has bedevilled debate on the Bill in Committee and now on Report, confusing greater openness with freedom of information.

      1059
      The Government have been much more open in this area, as were the previous Government. That is welcome, but it is quite different from what we are doing through the Bill—that is, establishing rights to access to information. Openness and freedom of information are two completely separate matters, and my hon. Friend is making the mistake of answering one with the other.
      Mr. O'Brien: I certainly do not mean to make a mistake, and I am not sure that I have done so.
      As clause 76 makes clear, there is nothing in the Bill that requires secrecy. There is nothing in any clause that will require the security services or any other organisation to keep information confidential that they could put into the public arena.
      My hon. Friend says that he seeks to establish rights for members of the public, some of whom may be genuine and some of whom may bear our country ill will, to obtain information about the security services. I would approach that area with a great deal of caution. I do not think that there is sufficient caution in the amendments. Let me set out the reasons for that.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister mentioned the Opposition's view. I wish simply to place on record that we retain that view.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that at least the Front-Bench Members, and probably the majority of hon. Members, believe that we should allow the security services to do the job for which we pay them and that they do so well.
      Some protection and, indeed, secrecy is necessary to retain and foster the exchange of information that underpins the intelligence effort. Clause 21 removes from the scope of the Bill all the information supplied by or relating to the work of the agencies listed in subsection (3).
      It has been suggested that it is highly unlikely that information on security matters would be disclosed because of the way in which some of the exemptions operate. However, the amendments would encourage applicants to believe that such information would be disclosed. In practice, that expectation would be unreasonable, given the nature of the information. We do not wish to feed such expectations.
      The amendments would significantly weaken the protection in the Bill for information supplied by or relating to the work of the security and intelligence services. I ask the House to reject the amendments on that basis.
      Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 would change the operation of clause 22. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 would limit exemption to information that did not fall within the scope of clause 21, but the disclosure of which would or would be likely to prejudice national security. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 would remove the certification process from clauses 21 and 22. However, there are good reasons for the way in which the clause is drafted. The amendments would negate them.
      We do not believe that a single omnibus harm test, which amendments Nos. 93 and 94 propose, is appropriate for all exemptions. We must frame the exemption to fit
      1060
      the information and thus properly protect the public interest. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills agrees that unless the public interest demands its disclosure, such information should not be disclosed if its retention is required to safeguard national security. The clause ensures that that is the case.
      The exemption applies only when it is required; the test is of necessity, not desirability. The clause is drafted in similar terms to section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The two provisions have the same purpose. It is therefore sensible for them to be drafted in similar language. Any difference in approach between the provisions could lead to them being interpreted differently. Clearly, that is not the intention. Government policy is clear on the sensitive subject that we are discussing. Any move from the existing formulation would suggest that the Government intended the provision to be interpreted differently. The Government will not accept any amendment that would risk reducing the protection.
      Let us consider evidential certificates. That information is extremely sensitive, and access to it must necessarily be restricted to the smallest number of people possible. Disclosure in the course of enforcing freedom of information must be to the extent necessary to ensure that the exemption is not being abused, and no further.
      In that unique instance, it is not appropriate for the Information Commissioner to have a role in assessing whether the exemption applies. Without any disrespect to the Information Commissioner or her staff, disclosure to her of such sensitive material is not appropriate. For example, the material requested might be a small piece of a jigsaw. Determining the seriousness, importance or sensitivity may require the Information Commissioner to know the whole context. That of itself would be undesirable. Furthermore, such disclosure would not be necessary to ensure that the exemption was not abused.
      First, the certification procedure would restrict the power to sign such a certificate to a Cabinet Minister, the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland or the Advocate-General for Scotland. A certificate could be signed only at the highest level. Furthermore and crucially, it is important to be clear that those certificates would not operate as ministerial vetoes. The certificates that may be issued under clause 21(2) and clause 22(3) would be nothing more than evidential certificates. The Minister would certify that the information was of the kind specified, not that it should or should not be secret, although that would bear on the eventual use of the certificate. The commissioner or the applicant could challenge the certificate in the tribunal, which would have the power to determine whether it was reasonably issued or, in the case of a certificate issued under clause 21, whether it related to the information of the kind specified. Therefore, that would not be a ministerial veto.
      There are good grounds for formulating clauses 21 and 22 as they stand and for the existence of a procedure, with relevant safeguards, for certifying that the information falls within the clauses. However, that does not mean that the security services need secrecy where that is unnecessary. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), other members of the Committee that oversees the security services and others will introduce a procedure, as the years pass, under which they are able to be more open where that is

      1061
      appropriate, but only where that is appropriate. It is not appropriate to make those changes at a stroke under the Bill. We need to ensure that we protect those who protect us at any difficult time—now as much as any other—when our national security could be threatened. We have a duty to them to do so just as they have a duty to us in the work that they carry out.
      Mr. Shepherd: Well, I got an answer that could have been written 10, 12, 14 or 20 years ago. No one in the Chamber is trying to abuse the national security services. As I tried to suggest, the very words "national security" have a weighty presence. Think of this. I quote a letter from a former Under-Secretary of State for Social Security published in The Guardian on 24 September 1997. He confirmed the role of MI5 in connection with his Department's work:
      Currently, the security service is involved in an audit of security procedures in the DSS as part of its publicly acknowledged role as principal adviser to government on protective security and practice. This involves the examination of the department's internal management and systems controls.
      I knew that the Minister would go heavily on arms, on the war that we fight with terrorists and so on, but there are many functions in the remit of the security services.
      In that instance, MI5 effectively carried out management consultancy for the DSS, but the results of that work, which presumably was no different in substance to that which would otherwise have been done by an outside consultancy, would have been exempt merely because they were produced by MI5 staff rather than the staff of KPMG. There is a blanket response every time that one tries to talk about what should be accessible under the terms of a freedom of information Act. We get the solemn and correct intoning of reliance on a service that virtually no one in the Chamber knows anything about. I know almost nothing about the security services.
      Over the years in which I have tried to advance some of the arguments to bring the security services in from the cold, if that is not a Jeffrey Archer title—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No indeed. One of the arguments is that this is a question of confidence for the House. We respect those who protect us, but we know that because of its remit, which we have discussed on the Floor of the House, the service has been concerned with all manner of things.
      9 pm
      The service has a long history, which is relevant to the Bill. The Bill almost suggests that someone could say, "If I want to exclude a piece of information, I can ask the security services to pass it across my desk". Under the Bill as it is now drafted, an umbrella of absolute exclusion would then be erected.
      I thought that, in presenting freedom of information proposals, the Government were recognising that, although much was already open, we needed such measures as harm tests. Whether the threshold should be higher or lower is not the point at issue. We are saying that some of the great organisations of state—the police, the armed forces, the national health service and organisations whose members rescue people on the roads—should be excluded because of the phrase "national security".
      We know the background to some of the stories. The Minister will have observed my assiduity in not going into certain horror stories with which I am acquainted,
      1062
      whether or not they are true. I am thinking of Greenham common, and incidents involving the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. We learn that the Home Secretary himself, no less, was on a list that included the Secretary of State for Northern Island. However, I make nothing of that.
      That was yesterday; we now look forward to tomorrow. This is not an attempt to undermine any aspect of the proper and legitimate defences of this country, which are a responsibility of Executive Government, and a very solemn one. I recognise and respect that, but I am not happy about a blanket ruling. What if there is a rogue element? Under the Bill as it stands, if the Secretary of State for Social Security's friend from the security services passes a piece of paper across the desk, and if it relates to something about which the Secretary of State does not want to know, that will be subject to a total exclusion. This is what is really behind the measure.
      I understand why the Minister responded as he did. He read a brief that has been read many times here—but there were moments when I thought that, if my memory had been better, I could have joined him and we could have performed as a duo. The same thing often applies to our arguments about freedom of information, and our arguments about the security services, which I know will continue. In many instances the employees of the security services are brave and bonny people, but they should never be out of sight of those who are commissioned and paid for by the state, and are loyal citizens of that state—indeed, fellow citizens.
      That is what this is about. It is not about any of the big things such as bombs and sensitivities about Northern Ireland; it is about the mundane, common things that affect every Department that serves this nation of ours.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 24

      DEFENCE
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 13, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 13, line 21, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 17, in clause 25, page 13, line 24, after "to" insert "substantially".
      No. 18, in page 13, line 41, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 19, in clause 26, page 14, line 18, after "to" insert "substantially".
      No. 20, in page 14, line 26, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 21, in clause 27, page 14, line 29, after "to" insert "substantially".
      No. 22, in page 14, line 35, after "to,", insert "substantially".

      1063
      No. 39, in clause 28, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
      'and if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of those purposes'.
      No. 23, in clause 29, page 16, line 10, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 24, in page 17, line 10, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 25, in clause 31, page 18, line 4, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 26, in page 18, line 9, after "to,", insert "substantially".
      Mr. Heath: Amendment No. 15 stands in my name and in the names of an array of Members of the progressive faction.
      All but one of the amendments deal with the same notion, while amendment No. 39 deals with a separate notion, which I intend to discuss separately. If I do so reasonably briefly, that does not mean that I am undermining the importance of the amendments; it simply means that I believe that the House wants to reach a conclusion on the Bill at some stage. Moreover, many of the arguments were dealt with at length in Committee. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is not present, because he was very much involved in our debate in Committee and expressed clear views.
      The amendment seeks to qualify the prejudice test by inserting the adverb "substantially". That, we think, is a fairly important aspect of making legislation effective, and not over-prescriptive or over-restrictive.
      In Committee, we had a long and rather fruitless debate—which I am sure the Minister will recall—on whether the word "harm" was synonymous with the word "prejudice" and whether the words differ in connotation. Ultimately, we had to accept that the Minister prefers the word "prejudice" simply because he prefers it, and we left it at that. We should debate that point again today, but should consider whether there needs to be a slightly higher threshold.
      Hon. Members will recall that the White Paper was very explicit on the issue, proposing a test of substantial harm. It was critical of the code for not providing a threshold of substantial harm. Although I do not know whether prejudice is a higher test than harm, the White Paper proposed that the Bill should be
      set in specific and demanding terms.
      The background papers to the White Paper, which were very instructive on the issue, noted that substantial harm
      would clearly be more stringent (and so provide greater openness) than the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (which normally exempts on the basis of simple "harm" or "prejudice") and would be closer to the "real damage" test of PII. Practical experience of applying a "real damage" test in litigation indicates that it results in a substantial reduction in the volume of material which would be withheld.
      Therefore, from discussions both preceding and following publication of the White Paper, we have had a clear indication that a test of real damage should be used in disclosing information. The Home Secretary was
      1064
      clearly similarly minded. In his statement on the draft Bill, he expressed his preference for the word "prejudice" and said that, in practice, the prejudice has to be
      real, actual or of "substance".—[Official Report, 24 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 22]
      That is the crucial point. The Minister contends that that is the meaning of prejudice and that it needs no further qualification. He also contends that, even if prejudice does not mean that, that is how—because of Pepper v. Hart, which the Home Secretary had in mind—it would be interpreted.
      The difficulty with that construction is that, as Pepper v. Hart makes clear, a Minister's comments would be taken into account only if the provision were
      ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning
      would lead "to an absurdity". Even then, the Minister's comments would be taken into account only if they addressed the issue. However, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which the courts would test the ambiguity in the word "prejudice". If they were to do so, would they take into account the Home Secretary's gloss on the word? I suspect that they would not. The Bill contains nothing that equates with the Home Secretary's test of
      real, actual or of "substance".
      Like other hon. Members, I think that, if the Bill is to do its job properly and we are to avoid exemptions that cover much wider classes of information than need to be covered, we need that type of threshold.
      Amendment No. 39 would amend clause 28, which provides a blanket exemption protecting all information on investigations by police and regulators, even if disclosure could not harm legal proceedings. The list of regulators is quite broad. It includes not only police, but—as the Minister advised us, for which we are grateful—the Health and Safety Executive, environmental health officers, trading standards officers, fire authorities, the drinking water inspectorate, the Environment Agency, the Director General of Water Services, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Benefits Agency, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Housing Corporation, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Serious Fraud Office. Thus a wide range of bodies are covered.
      That extraordinary blanket exemption does not take into account all the factors that would justify revealing information. It does not apply the harm test which we might imagine would be inherent in any such provision. It simply says that all information held by those bodies in that context would be exempt.
      Amendment No. 39 would allow the withholding of such information only if disclosure would prejudice the purpose for which it is held. That is not unreasonable. The reason for withholding information should be that its disclosure would disadvantage the investigating authority or the police in the execution of their duties. That is not a problem in other countries' freedom of information legislation.
      There is a genuine concern about the circumstances in which material would be exempt. A local authority might refuse to release information on investigations into children's homes or even to admit to there having been

      1065
      an investigation. That is not a healthy situation. That is setting aside the effect on the police. The Macpherson report, which has been given careful attention in the House, says explicitly that there should be no class exemption for the police. It argues that re-establishing public confidence in the police requires
      a vigorous pursuit of openness and accountability across Police Services.
      The report goes on to say that
      we consider it an important matter of principle that the Police Services should be open to the full provisions of a Freedom of Information Act. We see no logical grounds for a class exemption for the police in any area.
      There could be no more explicit endorsement of my case. That view is shared by the Law Society, which has said that it fully supports the amendment.
      The argument that the amendment would prevent the police or regulatory authorities from doing their job effectively is untenable. Even if clause 28 were changed much more radically than the amendment would change it, there would always be clause 29, which clearly says:
      Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 28 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

      (a) the prevention or detection of crime,

      (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

      (c) the administration of justice

      and a list of other roles of regulatory authorities.
      This is a serious group of amendments. The Minister must explain why he has chosen to reduce the threshold. Amendment No. 39 is crucial. He must also explain why there should be a blanket exemption for that critical area of public service. I shall listen carefully to the Minister. I suspect that the House will wish to give an opinion on both matters.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I shall say but a word on the amendments. The Minister argued against an omnibus harm test. We have heard that a lot during debates on these issues over the years. If we accept the logic of that argument, we could also say that there are areas in which it makes sense to say "substantial" and others in which it makes sense not to. That is the point about not having an omnibus test. That was precisely the argument used by the Select Committee on Public Administration when it examined the draft Bill. The Minister has argued that there is no need for an omnibus test. According to his argument, it should be possible to have a substantial test for those matters for which such a test would make sense. I am disappointed that the Government have not been minded to consider that.
      9.15 pm
      It is getting late and we are all tired; that inevitably influences our debate. I do not want to detain anyone, so I shall confine myself to amendment No. 39 to clause 28—the clause that deals with investigations. If the House were in more vigorous mood, it would be mightily exercised by this part of the Bill.
      There is no question but that the blanket exemption for investigations has caused enormous disquiet among consumer organisations and those concerned with public safety. There seems no reason at all for it. I can only believe that, because the Government want to ensure that
      1066
      the police and other organisations are covered, they have decided to extend the provision to all investigatory bodies. The effect will be to place all investigations carried out by them into the exempt category.
      That is quite unnecessary. Jenny Bacon of the Health and Safety Commission expressed the same view in evidence to the Select Committee. She said that the commission's work did not need to be in that category, and that it needed no more than a prejudice test to safeguard those matters that needed to be safeguarded.
      I wish that the Government had considered the matter more closely. The preposterous possibility arises that a trading standards inspector might visit a premises and give it a clean bill of health, but that that information could not be disclosed. That would be because, under the Bill, he would represent an investigatory body that has the power to conduct an investigation. That is a silly and unnecessary conclusion, and the clause should be qualified in the way suggested by the amendment.
      If I were in a more vigorous mood, I would talk at greater length about these matters. However, I place on record my enormous disquiet about this proposal.
      Mr. White: The Government believe that open government consists of them releasing information under clause 13, but nothing demonstrates more clearly than clause 28 their unwillingness to accept that citizens have a right to demand that information for themselves. The Bill is supposed to ensure freedom of information, so it should give citizens the right to have access to the information that they want, once any prosecution is complete and the information has been released from sub judice requirements. The test should revolve around prejudice to an investigation, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the amendment again.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendments Nos. 15 to 26 would all have a similar effect, so it is sensible for me to deal with them separately from amendment No. 39, which deals with a slightly different matter.
      I well remember that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and other hon. Members in the Committee discussed at some length—almost to the point of angels dancing on pins—the various meanings of words and how those meanings could be defined. I shall not burden the House with a dissertation on why we have chosen one word in preference to two.
      However, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) Chairs the Select Committee on Public Administration and I refer those hon. Members interested in this matter to the Committee's very well argued report on the draft Bill, volume 1 of which looked in some detail at the word "prejudice" and other harm tests in UK law. It is a valuable reference work on some of these issues—indeed, I used it in Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 15 to 26 would change the harm test in the exemptions for defence, international relations, relations within the UK, the economy, law enforcement and audit functions, which at present include a test of prejudice, to include a test of "substantial prejudice".
      As I have said in other contexts, it is difficult to place a specific meaning on the word "substantial" and to determine what practical effect this would have in the Bill. For example, if the term means "a great deal of" or "a lot of", the amendments would mean that information that

      1067
      was deemed damaging to a lesser extent—that would involve some lesser prejudice—would have to be disclosed without the need to show that the public interest required that such damage be caused. That would not properly balance the public interest in disclosure with that of maintaining the exemption.
      In addition, the qualification of the term is unnecessary. The Government have consistently stated their view that prejudice means prejudice that is
      actual, real or of substance.
      Prejudice is an ordinary word that is found without qualification in many pieces of legislation. It is a word that is familiar to the courts as well as to others involved with the day-to-day interpreting of legislation.
      Moreover, we must not forget that the judgment of whether disclosure of information would be prejudicial to a given interest will not merely rest with the authorities. The commissioner and the tribunal will be required to consider individual cases that may be referred to them and may overturn the decision of the authority where they consider that the test is not met.
      Amendment No. 39 would convert clause 28(1) into a prejudice-tested exemption. That would mean that the information held for the purposes of investigations into offences and any criminal proceedings that may flow from those would be exempt only where disclosure would be prejudicial to the investigation or proceedings.
      The Government believe that the removal of a class exemption for such information would undermine the effectiveness of both the police and the prosecution services and that it is vital to retain the protection of a class exemption for that category of information.
      The amendment would result in information about criminal investigations being released in advance of court proceedings, which would have a damaging effect on the case. The Government believe that it is essential to ensure that criminal proceedings are not jeopardised by the premature disclosure of information and that the criminal courts are preserved as the sole forum for determining guilt. Information which is, or may be, disclosed in court will continue to be placed in the public domain through that process.
      The right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the amendment may say that surely a prejudice test would meet the concerns. We do not think so. First, in areas of criminal activity and individual liberty, one needs to be very wary of being too quick to assume that no prejudice would be caused. Introducing a prejudice test would lead to a search for demonstrable prejudice, with a real risk of injustices being caused or criminal activity being facilitated where such prejudice cannot immediately be pointed to.
      Furthermore, it is right that the law enforcement agencies should not be subject to the commissioner's view of what would constitute prejudice in this field. The commissioner cannot be an expert in law and order and so must defer to the views of those agencies in this regard. Thus, to introduce a prejudice test would achieve little.
      However, the clause as drafted will not prevent the disclosure of information about criminal investigations
      1068
      where it is in the public interest for such disclosures to be made by virtue of clause 13. Public authorities will release such information when the public interest in releasing it outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. Therefore, in our amendments, we have met some, if not all, the concerns of hon. Members. I should also make it clear that general information about the conduct of investigations, as opposed to the information relating to particular investigations, is covered not by the class exemption but by the prejudice tested exemption in clause 29.
      It is essential that, for information held for the purposes of investigations or criminal proceedings, we retain the protection afforded by a class exemption. It is not appropriate to subject this category of information to a prejudice test, and the Government amendments to clause 13 will in any case ensure that, where there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information, it will be released.
      I therefore ask the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. David Heath: The Minister has simply repeated what he previously said about prejudice. I expected nothing else from him—he is being admirably consistent, and so am I. I still do not believe that the threshold is sufficiently high. We shall have to agree to differ, and see who rallies to our standards.
      We have a very serious disagreement with the Government on amendment No. 39. I do not understand why the Minister suggests that it would lead to premature disclosure of information to the detriment of judicial proceedings. Clause 29 deals specifically with all the areas that would no longer be covered by the exemptions in clause 28. There is no circumstance in which that would not catch information that would prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the administration of justice, the prevention or detection of crime, or anything else about which the Minister is concerned. We share those concerns, of course, and would not have tabled an amendment if we believed that it was likely to do that.
      We will seek the opinion of the House on this matter. If the opportunity arises, we should also like to seek the opinion of the House on amendment No. 39.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 336.

      Division No. 146]

      [9.27 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Keetch, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

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

      Brake, Tom

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Breed, Colin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Moore, Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Oaten, Mark

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Rendel, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Shepherd, Richard

      1069

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

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Ronnie Fearn and

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. John Burnett.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Jean

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dalyell, Tam

      Austin, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Darvill, Keith

      Barron, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davidson, Ian

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beggs, Roy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flint, Caroline

      Browne, Desmond

      Follett, Barbara

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Galloway, George

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cann, Jamie

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Graham, Thomas

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hinchliffe, David

      1070

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoey, Kate

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hope, Phil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      Norris, Dan

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Laxton, Bob

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rogers, Allan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Lock, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank

      McCabe, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McFall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McWilliam, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Singh, Marsha

      Mallaber, Judy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

      Snape, Peter

      1071

      Soley, Clive

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Spellar, John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tynan, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      White, Brian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wills, Michael

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thompson, William

      Worthington, Tony

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wyatt, Derek

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived

    Clause 28

      INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 15, line 4, at end insert—
      'and if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of those purposes'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 321.

      Division No. 148]

      [9.51 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brady, Graham

      Allan, Richard

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Burnett, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Baldry, Tony

      Butterfill, John

      Ballard, Jackie

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Beggs, Roy

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bercow, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clwyd, Ann

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      1075

      Cotter, Brian

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cousins, Jim

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cran, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McWilliam, John

      Day, Stephen

      Madel, Sir David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fallon, Michael

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fisher, Mark

      Moore, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Norman, Archie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Oaten, Mark

      Fox, Dr Liam

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gale, Roger

      Ottaway, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Page, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Paice, James

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Prior, David

      Gray, James

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John

      Rendel, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Ruffley, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hammond, Philip

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harvey, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hayes, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Horam, John

      Spring, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

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

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Key, Robert

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tredinnick, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Trend, Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tyler, Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Walter, Robert

      Letwin, Oliver

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Webb, Steve

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Wells, Bowen

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Willis, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      1076

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Mr. Tom Brake.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Darvill, Keith

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davidson, Ian

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Austin, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Barnes, Harry

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barron, Kevin

      Denham, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beard, Nigel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Doran, Frank

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Benton, Joe

      Edwards, Huw

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Efford, Clive

      Berry, Roger

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Best, Harold

      Ennis, Jeff

      Betts, Clive

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Blizzard, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Follett, Barbara

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foulkes, George

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Galloway, George

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Browne, Desmond

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Burden, Richard

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cann, Jamie

      Grogan, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gunnell, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hain, Peter

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hanson, David

      Chaytor, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clapham, Michael

      Healey, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cohen, Harry

      Hope, Phil

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Colman, Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, John

      1077

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Illsley, Eric

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Jenkins, Brian

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Levitt, Tom

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lock, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCabe, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McNulty, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Maxton, John

      Snape, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Merron, Gillian

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moffatt, Laura

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

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

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      1078

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Timms, Stephen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wills, Michael

      Truswell, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wood, Mike

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Woolas, Phil

      Tynan, Bill

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watts, David

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

      White, Brian

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 31

      AUDIT FUNCTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 60, in page 18, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
      '(b) the examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which other public authorities use their resources in discharging their functions.'.—
      [Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 33

      FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, ETC.
      Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 18, line 32, at end insert—
      '(1A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (1) or section 34 insofar as it consists of factual information.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Question accordingly negatived.

      FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, ETC.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill 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.

    Clause 34

      PREJUDICE TO EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 19, line 12, leave out from "if' to "disclosure" in line 13.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 19, line 15" after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 28, in page 19, line 20" after "to,", insert "substantially".
      No. 43, in page 19, line 23, leave out from "deliberation" to end of line 25.
      No. 29, in page 19, line 24" after first "otherwise", insert "substantially".
      No. 30, in page 19, line 24, after "to", insert "substantially".
      No. 13, in page 19, line 28, leave out from "that" to "compliance".
      No. 14, in page 19, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 20.
      Government amendments Nos. 61, 87 and 88.
      Mr. Maclennan: Clause 34 is probably the most obnoxious clause remaining to be considered in detail tonight. Our amendments are designed to prevent the purposes of the Bill being vitiated in an all-embracing fashion by the elimination of the test of harm being determined by reference to the
      reasonable opinion of a qualified person.

      1079
      That is a bizarre provision, which could sabotage the entire Bill if it is allowed to stand. The provision would allow Government Departments to claim, without any significant harm test, that disclosures would be harmful to public affairs, whereas there are provisions that would allow—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversations are taking place throughout the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.
      Mr. Maclennan: There are provisions that would allow the Secretary of State for Defence, for example, to withhold information, wrongly claiming that disclosure would prejudice the country's defences. In that circumstance, under clause 24 the commissioner could overturn the decision. Other major matters might be those handled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and prejudice to the economy could be claimed. Those matters could be reviewed objectively by the commissioner.
      This catch-all provision is designed to prevent that scrutiny being effective. Its purpose is to enable the so-called "qualified person" to give a view, the reasonableness of which can be challenged only by judicial review criteria.
      In my judgment and that of hon. Members on all sides of the House, this is one of the most unattractive measures in the Bill. It is a belt-and-braces provision. It covers broadly the same matters as clause 33 and is wholly unnecessary. If amendment No. 12 is accepted, as I profoundly hope it will be tonight, or something similar to it on another occasion, it will restore the objectivity of the test of harm. That is a core necessity.
      The test would be applied to information which, in the authority's "reasonable opinion", would inhibit the frankness of advice or exchange of views, or otherwise
      prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
      The language of the clause makes it plain how broad that exclusionary provision is.
      The matter has been considered by a number of bodies. It was considered by the Select Committee on Public Administration, which asked that the "reasonable opinion" test be dropped and gave its reasons, which were forceful and commended themselves to those who are advancing the amendment.
      The House of Lords Select Committee also concluded that the exemption "goes too far" and that
      the test should be an objective one, reviewable by the Information Commissioner.
      if the Minister can produce any new arguments, I have no doubt that the House will listen with enormous interest. So far, the catch-all provision has been defended with arguments that have not carried weight with those who scrutinised the Bill closely in draft form. Those arguments did not carry weight in the Committee that considered the Bill and should not carry weight tonight.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I shall be brief. Although time presses, it would be remiss to allow the relevant provisions to pass without the comment that they deserve.
      1080
      If we were considering them at a different hour, they would receive more attention than they will receive in the next few minutes.
      We are considering profoundly important provisions. Those who were here many hours ago would have heard me describe the four barricades that the Government had erected in clauses 33 and 34 to prevent access to policy areas. The amendment would simply remove one of the barricades. Three barricades would remain.
      The exemption in clause 34 allows any public authority, including Departments, local authorities and quangos to assert that
      in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person—
      a Minister or an official—
      disclosure would…prejudice…the effective conduct of public affairs.
      That means that the commissioner could not challenge that opinion unless it was irrational. That is a strong test. An official could advance all sorts of reasons to show that the opinion was not irrational.
      The Government rightly emphasise the interlocking character and the seamless quality of the Bill. One has to understand one bit of it in order to understand another, and to understand the impact of the commissioner's power on the exemptions. The Bill keeps crucial provisions from the commissioner because it incorporates the test of irrationality. It thus needlessly erects a barrier to access. Such a barrier should not exist. Amendment No. 12 simply asks the Government to remove one of the four barricades that they have erected and move more seriously towards openness and access.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I start by disagreeing with one of the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I entirely agree with his remarks about the substance of clause 34 and the amendments. However, he suggested that we should consider the matter only perfunctorily because of the late hour. The issues that we are examining and the question whether we are, to use the Prime Minister's words before the last election, entering a new era of fundamental change in the relationship between the Government and the public, in which we have the courage to establish new standards of information disclosure and openness in government, are sufficiently important for us to consider the Bill through the night or beyond. We should not therefore be inhibited by considerations of the hour.
      Dr. Tony Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall, but I want to move on to the hon. Gentleman's important substantive points.
      Dr. Wright: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that we should, but that we would, pay less attention to the Bill because of the lateness of the hour.
      Mr. Davies: I am happy to stand corrected and to withdraw any aspect of my remarks that might have been regarded as disparaging or critical of the hon. Gentleman. I accept the exegesis of his remarks in the spirit in which they were delivered. I do not want to develop the bad habit that seems to have been established between the

      1081
      hon. Gentleman and me of disagreeing about secondary or tertiary matters, because we agree on the substance of what is at stake.
      The Bill was sufficiently restrictive of the public's right to know what happens on their behalf behind the green baize door of government before we reached clause 34. Clause 33 excludes a vast range of Government activities, including
      the formulation or development of government policy, Ministerial communications, the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers…the operation of any Ministerial private office.
      10.15 pm
      Other provisions refer to the security services and there are all sorts of other specific exclusions under which information that falls into certain categories could not even be expected and no case for disclosure to the public, ab initio, could be considered. As if that were not enough, the clause contains the catch-all that, even if information was not in an exempt category, the mere decision of a so-called qualified person—that refers not only to Ministers of the Crown, but to all sorts of other people—could override what ought to be the Government's primary obligation: giving the public a fair and true account of events.
      That is thoroughly unsatisfactory and I very much support amendment No. 12, which would remove the obnoxious phrase
      in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person…
      Anybody could say that his opinion was reasonable, which strengthens the argument against the words
      would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
      (i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers…frank and free provision of advice…the frank and free exchange of views…
      Anybody could make a case for any information being withheld on those vague, broadly drawn grounds. At least the amendment would tighten that a little. If the phrase
      in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person…
      were deleted, subsection (2) would state:
      Information to which this section applies is exempt information if disclosure of the information…would, or would be likely to, prejudice…
      Presumably, that would mean that the Information Commissioner would be the arbiter of whether there would be prejudice if the information were revealed. That is a more satisfactory and objective solution.
      We are once again dealing with a great theme of the Bill: Ministers would argue and decide in their own case, without any further appeal, that a matter or information should not be revealed. They are being given amazingly broad grounds: pick one, choose any—there is a whole list with which they could justify the withholding of the information. The amendment represents the absolute minimum requirement if we are even to begin to accept that there is any sincere intention on the Government's part to open up proceedings in the Executive branch and to give real substance and meaning to the Bill.
      Mr. Fisher: If we do not amend the clause, the great danger is that it is likely to be one of the most used. Any of the 340 public authorities that did not want to release information that was not exempt would find it easy not to master the Bill or to see its way through the thicket of
      1082
      harm tests and other matters, but simply to home in on the clause and say that a senior executive thinks that the release of information would prejudice the frank and free exchange of information or the efficient conduct of the body. Anything could be caught. If it is to approve the measure, the House must understand the power that it will give to all those bodies to avoid the Bill's intention, which is to give the public a right of access to public information.
      We are meant to be giving people rights to have information that should be theirs—they pay for it and actions are taken on their behalf. The clause will frustrate that—it is bound to do so—and I fear that it will be used again and again. I draw the House's attention to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in Committee:
      The Government consider that only a qualified person can have a full understanding of the issues involved in the decision-making processes of a public authority.
      That is an extraordinarily bold and broad remark. He went on to say:
      we do not consider that it would be right for the prejudice caused by that sort of information to he determined by the commissioner.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 January 2000; c. 321.]
      That is even more disturbing. The commissioner, who is the one guardian of the rights for the public on which we are legislating, has almost been weighed down with praise from both sides of the House. She is an admirable woman, and everyone is delighted that she has got the job, but she will not be trusted by the Government. The Government do not consider that her opinion should be even weighed in the balance, let alone have priority over the self-validation of senior people in the public authorities.
      The Government's proposal really does not make sense. I trust that if we cannot frustrate this misconceived clause here, those in another place will view it with much more rigour and with less charity.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Earlier, we discussed whether the final decision should remain with this place or with Ministers accountable to this place—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), among others, used the phrase "democratic accountability—or whether it should lie with an authority outside this place.
      Anyone reading the Bill, especially clause 34, would surely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and others that the flaw in the Government's proposal is that it allows someone speaking for the body in question to decide what should be disclosed. In relation to non-public authorities—other elements of public life—it would be reasonable for Parliament, Ministers, chief executives, the Speaker, the Clerk of the House or the presiding officer to make decisions. When it comes to the vested interests of the body involved, it is clearly unhelpful to the public access intentions of the Bill for the person making the decision to be the person who approaches that decision from the point of view of the organisation whose information is to be released. Self-evidently, that person will take the view of the organisation.
      Let me give an obvious example. The amendment seeks to remove the fact that the "qualified person" who would make the decision on the basis of having a "reasonable opinion" and of being appropriately qualified, in relation to

      1083
      a Government Department, would be any Minister of the Crown. Advice would be given by civil servants. The civil servants would say, "Minister, this could prejudice"—that is the test—"the maintenance of collective responsibility", or
      the free and frank provision of advice.
      The Minister, on the basis of the advice given, would be entitled without question to take the view that that was reasonable advice which he or she was bound to follow, but no court could deal with that. The whole point is that, under administrative law, it is outwith the ability of the court to say that a perfectly reasonable decision had not been made. The decision is reached from the prejudiced point of view of the organisation against which, as it were, someone is seeking information. We are trying to establish a mechanism to provide an objective assessment that is not performed by someone within the organisation. What we are discussing is whether an outsider or an insider decides whether prejudice is involved. The history of the debate, in this country and everywhere else, suggests that someone outside must adjudicate, with all the checks and balances that the legislation provides.
      The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggested that, although we had been debating these matters for nearly two working days, we had not given the matter the attention that it deserved. I am sure no one who has looked at the Bill fails to realise that the clause and the amendments are hugely significant. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, this is where the block will come. This is the clause that allows people to say, "No, you cannot have the information", and no one will be able to have that reviewed or overturned. This is the blocking mechanism that can be used by an individual who will act on advice, perhaps in good faith but not necessarily so. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
      I do not know the official Opposition's position on amendment No. 12, but I hope that they will support us on it. Still, I pay tribute to them—they have moved, now that they are in opposition, from thinking that there should not be a statute governing these matters to a somewhat more progressive view. In this debate, of all the forces ranged around the argument, it is the Opposition parties and Labour Members who are not Ministers—
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Not likely.
      Mr. Hughes: I truly believe that, one day, the enlightened will be vindicated, and that even the day of Government enlightenment will dawn. I hope that the hon. Lady and I will be there, walking through the gates, when that happens.
      I hope that Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby. It is important that we should not provide a blocking mechanism to those who have an interest to protect. We have to take the right to decide away from those who could themselves cause the most harm to freedom of information.
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tempted me to say that, in Committee, on behalf of the Opposition, I proposed that clause 34 should be deleted entirely. That
      1084
      is not an appropriate proposal to make on Report. Nevertheless, I agree with all that he said about the clause's provisions—which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), if I heard him correctly, described as belt and braces: the belt is clause 33, and the braces are clause 34. Conservative Members have consistently taken the view that we should not have both.
      I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) may be tempted to suggest that our problem with amendment No. 12 is that—other than the fact that it does not really deal with the pernicious nature of the clause, which we should prefer to be deleted from the Bill entirely; I hope that the other place comes to the same conclusion—it is predicated on the narrow basis of whether there should be a test of reasonableness. I am not entirely sure that I know quite where the balance of the argument lies on that issue. On what basis is the decision maker—be he a Minister, local authority chief executive or the chief executive of any of the many quasi-autonomous national government organisations caught by the Bill—to decide that the release of information is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?
      I think that Ministers—to be fair to them—have reached the judgment that there should be a test of reasonableness. If they have reached that judgment, the Bill should make it clear that that is the test. It should also make it clear that it is open to the commissioner to rule that someone who is qualified to decide on the release of information—on the basis that it would prejudice the conduct of public affairs—made that decision unreasonably.
      The provision is therefore not quite as draconian as Liberal Democrat spokesmen have suggested. It will be possible to ask the commissioner to challenge the reasonableness of a decision not to release. If she concludes that a decision was unreasonable, she can—on my reading of the Bill—issue both her decision and an enforcement notice requiring release of that information.
      10.30 pm
      In Committee, we argued that the clause should be deleted, because it is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. I was one of the earliest speakers in the debate, but I endorse everything that was said by those who spoke later about the quality of the debate and the release of information that informs and advises Ministers on Government policy. If the clause has the validity that Ministers believe that it has in not requiring all information to be released, I fail to understand why it is necessary, given all the other exemptions in the Bill. We would rather it was deleted, but if it is to stay, there has to be a test.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who dealt with the issue in Committee, has set out our position. We have some sympathy with the amendment, but we shall not join the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby if they press the matter to a vote.
      Mr. Lock: The clause rightly focuses on the first test of whether information should be exempt. Should it be the decision of a commissioner on whether disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of

      1085
      advice or exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation, or should it be the reasonable opinion of a qualified person? The issues involved in the decision-taking process of public authorities are so near the heart of government that we believe that only a qualified person, as defined by the Bill, can have a full understanding of them. Although the issues in clause 34 are less sensitive than those in clause 33 and a class exemption is not justified, the Government do not believe that it would be right for the commissioner to substitute her view for that of the authority on the question of prejudice; hence the test of the reasonable opinion of a qualified person.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is right. The commissioner may still overturn the decision of a qualified person if she believes the decision to be unreasonable. I confirm his reading of the Bill. That means that the information would not be exempt and would be disclosable.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If the commissioner ruled that the ministerial decision was unreasonable, would it still be open to the Government to seek a judicial review of that decision?
      Mr. Lock: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, of course it would. Any decision taken in an administrative capacity is subject to judicial review, because the person who takes it is obliged to act within the law. Any decision made by a Minister can be subject to judicial review to determine whether it was lawful. The issue is not what another person would have done had they been the commissioner. The question is whether, applying the Wednesbury irrationality test, the commissioner has acted correctly.
      The clause balances the right to know against the public's right to effective public administration. The amendment strikes at the heart of good administration. The Government believe that there must be a compromise measure between the power of the commissioner to order the disclosure of information and effective public administration. The clause delivers that compromise through the concept of a reasonable opinion of a qualified person. The amendments would overturn that balance and the Government cannot accept them.
      There is a further reason why we cannot accept the amendments. There has been an assumption in some speeches tonight—including that of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seems not to be here to listen to the answer to his speech—that clause 13 applies to clause 34. We heard a great deal about clause 13 last night and the Government have moved significantly to strengthen provisions on what happens when there is exempt information. The fact that information has been certified as prejudicial in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person is not the end of the series of tests. The tests are not barriers so much as hurdles that a Government Department must get over in trying to keep information confidential. So those tests—the balancing act in clause 13, the Information Commissioner's opinion as to whether that balancing act has been carried out correctly, and the scheme involving the intervention of the Secretary of State outlined last night by my right hon. Friend—will all apply to the provisions under clause 34.
      1086
      The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is very well informed in these matters, so I am sure that when he introduced the debate he gave the House only the first line of the argument. However, his introduction did not take account of the subsequent hurdles that Government Departments will have to get over to maintain confidentiality. The balance in clause 34—the reasonable opinion of a qualified person—is thus entirely reasonable.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: By definition, these are untested waters in this country. Can the Minister describe the experience in other Administrations that are similar to ours? How often have provisions such as this produced a decision against Ministers? In my experience of administrative law, Ministers would be upheld nine times out of 10, because their decisions would be judged to be within the parameters covered by the word "reasonable".
      Mr. Lock: I hear the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am not in a position to answer it tonight. I do not have full details of the experience in other countries, and I am not sure that they would be of significant use, as they might not be exact parallels of the proposals in the Bill or of the circumstances in this country. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some relevant examples, and will copy that information to any other hon. Member who might be interested.
      Finally, Government amendments Nos. 61, 87 and 88 are necessary to ensure that references to the Bill's application to Northern Ireland are correct. I shall not say more about them now, but will answer any questions of detail from hon. Members.
      Mr. Maclennan: I forecast that the Minister would have little new to say to us, and that has been proved accurate. I chose not to quote in extenso the opinion of the Select Committee on Public Administration, so I have failed to drive home sufficiently clearly the point that using the device of the qualified person as a preliminary hurdle, and allowing that person's reasonable opinion to be the test of whether there is prejudice, precludes the commissioner from reaching an effective judgment. We believe that the commissioner's judgment of what is prejudicial should be substituted.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked an entirely apposite question about judicial review. It will be much more difficult to overturn the view of a qualified person than it would be if the commissioner did not have that obstacle in the way.
      That would, perhaps, not matter if clause 34(2)(c) did not contain an appalling catch-all phrase. The qualified person can take the view that the disclosure concerned
      would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.
      That means almost anything: it is as wide as the channel.
      It is not true—indeed, it is misleading to suggest, as I think that the Minister did—that the matters covered in the clause are issues close to the heart of Government. That is plainly inconsistent with the language used in that subsection. The reality is that it is a device that could sabotage the whole purpose of the Bill. I predict that it could be used time and again to stop the public exercising a right to know.

      1087
      The clause is most dangerous—it is probably the most dangerous in the Bill—because it could have such a wide and sweeping effect on the right to know. For that reason, I hope that it will be studied with great attention in another place and that there will be a strong disposition there to support the view that was taken by its Committee when it considered the issue and sought a more objective test of prejudice.
      I hope that the House will think it right to express forcefully its view on this matter tonight.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 324.

      Division No. 149]

      [10.42 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Keetch, Paul

      Brake, Tom

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

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Burnett, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burstow, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Moore, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Oaten, Mark

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cotter, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cousins, Jim

      Rendel, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Stunell, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tyler, Paul

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Webb, Steve

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Willis, Phil

      Harvey, Nick

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Blackman, Liz

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blizzard, Bob

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Austin, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Barnes, Harry

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Browne, Desmond

      Beard, Nigel

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Burden, Richard

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burgon, Colin

      Beggs, Roy

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Best, Harold

      Cann, Jamie

      1088

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Casale, Roger

      Grocott, Bruce

      Caton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hain, Peter

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Healey, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoey, Kate

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Denham, John

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kidney, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flint, Caroline

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Lock, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCabe, Steve

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McFall, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McNulty, Tony

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      1089

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Maginnis, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Judy

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxfotd E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Maxton, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Moffatt, Laura

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spellar, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morley, Elliot

      Steinberg, Gerry

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

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mullin, Chris

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      Norris, Dan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pearson, Ian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter L

      Todd, Mark

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig, Don

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tynan, Bill

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wills, Michael

      Rooney, Terry

      Wilson, Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Wood, Mike

      Ruane, Chris

      Woodward, Shaun

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 61, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
      '() in relation to information held by any public authority which does not fall within paragraph (b), (f) or (j) and whose functions are exercisable wholly or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate wholly or mainly to transferred matters, means the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, or any Northern Ireland Minister nominated in relation to that public authority by those Ministers so acting,'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 39
      INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONFIDENCE
      Amendment made: No. 101, in page 22, line 24, after "that" insert "or any".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 42
      PROHIBITIONS ON DISCLOSURE
      Amendment made: No. 62, in page 23, line 4, leave out "is excluded" and insert "does not arise".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 43

      POWER TO CONFER ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS BY ORDER
      Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 23, line 7, leave out clause 43.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 325.

      Division No. 150]

      [10.54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Allan, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Amess, David

      Day, Stephen

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Fallon, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Body, Sir Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Gale, Roger

      Brake, Tom

      Garnier, Edward

      Brand, Dr Peter

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gibb, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gray, James

      Burnett, John

      Green, Damian

      Burstow, Paul

      Greenway, John

      Butterfill, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chope, Christopher

      Hammond, Philip

      Clappison, James

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Harvey, Nick

      Collins, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cran, James

      Hayes, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Heald, Oliver

      1091

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Prior, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Randall, John

      Horam, John

      Rendel, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

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

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Sanders, Adrian

      Key, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shepherd, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

      Lansley, Andrew

      Soames, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Letwin, Oliver

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Swayne, Desmond

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, William

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Trend, Michael

      Maginnis, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Webb, Steve

      Moore, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Norman, Archie

      Willis, Phil

      Oaten, Mark

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Yeo, Tim

      Ottaway, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. Brian Cotter.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Browne, Desmond

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burden, Richard

      Austin, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Banks, Tony

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Barnes, Harry

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Barron, Kevin

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cann, Jamie

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Casale, Roger

      Benton, Joe

      Caton, Martin

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cawsey, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Best, Harold

      Chaytor, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clapham, Michael

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      1092

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, John

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Illsley, Eric

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Darvill, Keith

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jamieson, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Lepper, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Lock, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Love, Andrew

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCabe, Steve

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Macdonald, Calum

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McFall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWilliam, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Martlew, Eric

      1093

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

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

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Spellar, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Olner, Bill

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Tynan, Bill

      Rammell, Bill

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Watts, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      White, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Roy, Frank

      Wills, Michael

      Ruane, Chris

      Wilson, Brian

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salter, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woodward, Shaun

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sheerman, Barry

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 63, in page 23, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
      '(6) Before laying before Parliament a draft of an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Secretary of State shall—
      1094

      (a) consult the Commissioner, and

      (b) publish any written representations made to him by the Commissioner with respect to the proposed order, except so far as those representations contain information which is, or if the order were made would be, exempt information.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

      Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 26, line 18, leave out clause 48.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 50, page 27, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
      Government amendments Nos. 6 and 69 to 71.
      Government new clause 6—Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice.
      Mr. Straw: I hope not to detain the House long, as the substance of the amendments was debated at some length yesterday evening when we discussed amendment No. 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and earlier today when we discussed amendment No.7, which was also moved by my hon. Friend.
      To refresh the recollection of the House, under the original scheme, at the point where the commissioner or tribunal had said that a public authority was not under a duty to disclose information because it was not covered by an exemption or exception under part II of the Bill, there was a procedure for what was described as "discretionary disclosure". The public authority would have to balance the public interest in disclosing the information against the public interest in its not being disclosed. There could be what amounted to an appeal to the commissioner by an applicant whose application had been unsuccessful at that stage, but, as the Bill originally proposed, the commissioner would not make a decision or issue an order, but simply make a recommendation. Hon. Members are aware that, as a result of representations that were made to us, we have changed the Bill, partly in its text and partly by tabling amendments on Report so that the commissioner will have a power to order disclosure subject only to Executive override in the limited circumstances which I described yesterday and to which I referred earlier today.
      I shall pick up any questions about the detail of the amendments, but, as they improve the Bill in the eyes of my hon. Friends and, I believe, the House, I hope that there are not too many questions at this stage.
      An issue was raised with me about whether I intended to move Government new clause 6 in light of the announcements that I made yesterday that we would amend the scheme in new clause 6. I have considered that, and I understand the argument that some of my hon. Friends have made to me outside the House about that, but I shall now explain why I consider that it is more satisfactory than not to have new clause 6 in the Bill as it goes to the other place, albeit I have given, and shall repeat, the most categorical undertakings that the new clause will be amended in the other place in the terms in which I have given those undertakings.
      I suggest that it is our duty to the House to ensure that the Bill goes to the other place properly reflecting the decisions that we have taken, as far as that is possible.

      1095
      The Government have put before the House—and this proposition has achieved the approbation of the House—the scheme to amend the original proposal for discretionary disclosure in the manner that I have described. That scheme is balanced by amendments to clause 13, and by new clause 6, which contains the power of Executive override.
      I believe that, from the Government's point of view, it would be disingenuous for us to send the Bill to the other place having incorporated the change to the position of the commissioner—who would have a power to make an order for disclosure rather than simply what is at the moment a provision for recommendation—without also having on the face of the Bill the balancing arrangement by which there could, in limited circumstances, be an Executive override. For that reason, we do intend to move new clause 6.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am following the argument and understand it, but does the Home Secretary accept that it would be equally proper, and equally clear, for him to tell the House, in a way that is reported to the other place, that, in the light of the speech that he made last night and the undertakings that he gave, the Government are minded to change course; that it is therefore pointless to take the time of the House to add things that support the proposition that he is now discarding; and that the House need not be troubled by those because the Government will seek to amend the Bill and, as they have done in relation to other legislation—indeed, in this Session—as it were, draw the line after last night and then come forward with their new proposals? That would be equally proper, and more consistent with the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made last night.
      Mr. Straw: It is a matter of balance; there is not a huge issue of principle here, but that is the judgment that I have reached. If the whole of new clause 6 had to be recast, I would think that the balance was the hon. Gentleman's way rather than the way that I have suggested.
      However, the following amendments will need to be made to new clause 6 in respect of the undertakings that I have given. In subsection (4)(a),
      in relation to a government department, means any Minister of the Crown
      needs to be redrafted roughly in the terms of clause 23(3), which says
      a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet.
      In relation to local authorities, new clause 6 will need to be recast to take account of decisions, and it may be, although I cannot give a firm undertaking on this, that after consultation with my Cabinet colleagues, not least the deputy Prime Minister, because this should be a matter of collective decisions, and also with the local authority associations—I am not saying that we automatically follow their view, but we need to ask their view—those references to local authorities are removed altogether. The amendments would be easy to make and would be consistent with the basic scheme of new clause 6.
      I repeat the undertakings that I gave yesterday. In place of subsection (4)(a), the clause will contain a provision making it clear that the "accountable person" is a Cabinet
      1096
      Minister or the Attorney-General, with appropriate other consequential amendments. I have described the situation for local government and said that we shall take our time to reflect on that. However, I well recognise the points that have been made.
      11.15 pm
      I also told the House yesterday that we would ensure that written into the memorandum of guidance for Ministers was clear guidance as to how they ensured that, except in the area of quasi-judicial decision-making, decisions would be subject to collective agreement. I wish to inform the House that we are giving further and urgent consideration to whether it will be possible to write such provisions into the Bill. If we can do that, we will.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Straw: Yes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.
      Mr. Hughes: I want clarification. If the Home Secretary is to fulfil what he said last night, he will have to reconsider. More than subsection (4)(a) and the local government clause will need to be amended. He will need to amend subsection (4)(b), which is about Ministers, and the subsection on the Greater London Authority. Does he accept that the amendment will have to be much more significant?
      Mr. Straw: I should not have given way, but I said that there would need to be some consequential amendments. The key point is that the scheme of the new clause is contained in subsections (1), (2) and (3) and the accountable person is defined in subsection (4). As I have said, it is a balanced argument.
      My final point is that if new clause 6 appears in the Bill for the reasons that I have suggested, it in no sense will prejudice those in the other place or back in this House who want to take a different view about areas other than the one that I have already said that we shall change. For reasons that I have given, and because this is part of a balanced but important change, I hope that the House will accept my explanation for proposing new clause 6.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am very much in favour of flexibility on the part of the Home Secretary, and he displayed that last night. However, I am not in favour of legislation on the hoof. His statement tonight on new clause 6 suggests that he thinks that it is better to have a patently defective clause in the Bill, which in no way conforms with his expressed intention, than it is to have a lacuna to be filled. I do not understand the logic of proceeding in that way.
      Furthermore, I suggest that the new clause is defective because it makes a presumption that is counter to what the Home Secretary said last night. He said that he would consider various ways of giving effect to his decision. That includes even the possibility that a decision to withhold information following the use of Executive override might take place along the lines of other countries that use Executive override, such as introducing it by order. Of course, there is no provision for that in new clause 6.

      1097
      It would be wrong to send a signal to the other place that new clause 6 in any way reflects the Government's considered view on how they might exercise in practice their Executive override provisions. Because the new clause is so obnoxious, it would be reasonable to withdraw it now. It no longer reflects the Home Secretary's thinking.
      In his remarks tonight, the Home Secretary has stepped back a little from what he said last night.
      Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
      Mr. Maclennan: With respect, he has. Last night, the Home Secretary made it absolutely plain that he was prepared to consider other ways of giving effect to an Executive override, including introducing it by order. I took him at his word, as I am sure he intended the House to do. I realise that events were happening and minds were moving quickly; as I said, that is welcome. However, I hope that he will not suggest that the structure of new clause 6 is the one he had in mind.
      Mr. Straw: What I said last night is on the record and there it remains; I do not see the point of going over yesterday's debate. I do not resile from what I said yesterday. Of course we shall consider the points that were made, and of course new clause 6 will be amended in the other place. However, I have said why I think it important that the Bill goes to the other place containing not only our amendments to clause 13, but the principle of an Executive override. It would be disingenuous to imply that the absence of that concept in the Bill when it goes to the Lords means that it is not the Government's recommendation that, subject to certain clear limitations, it should form part of the Bill.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not resile from the points that I have already made. The new clause sets out a scheme that is not conformable with the Secretary of State's intention.
      A more fundamental point is that many Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, take the view that an Executive override provision is undesirable. We would prefer that it not be proceeded with at all and that the decision be left to the commissioner. For that reason, I hope that the House will not give its assent to new clause 6. The other amendments could be broadly conformable with a scheme that we could live with, but new clause 6 is unacceptable. I hope that the House will decide that it makes more sense not to support the new clause. To do so would not frustrate in any way the Home Secretary's wishes.
      Mr. Radice: For those of us who have argued for the New Zealand model of having an Executive override operated at high level and based on collective decision making, which I understand the Government have accepted, it would be logical to support new clause 6, provided that the Home Secretary gives assurances that it will be amended as promised last night and reiterated this evening, and that the Government will seriously consider putting the principle of collective decision making in the Bill, where appropriate.
      Mr. Greenway: It was obvious throughout the Committee proceedings that this part of the Bill would have to be altered. Some of the amendments that the
      1098
      Home Secretary has now tabled, especially Nos. 64 and 65, are the very amendments that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State resisted in Committee. We are prepared to offer a word of welcome to, and our thanks for, those amendments.
      However, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) points out, the fact remains that, with new clause 6, we are being asked to signal the acceptability to the House of the concept of Executive override or veto. In more than four months' deliberations—indeed, until yesterday—that concept had never been discussed or debated. It must be obvious to the Home Secretary that he is asking us not only to send a Bill to the other place containing a clause that he accepts is defective—hardly a satisfactory state of affairs—but to underpin a concept that we have not discussed, while failing to meet our argument that the commissioner should have the final say on whether information is released.
      Even without new clause 6, and even if the Home Secretary accepted what I believe to be the considered view of the House, if the commissioner makes a ruling with which any Minister feels uncomfortable, there is still a right of appeal to a tribunal. Following the appeal to a tribunal, there is a right of appeal through judicial review on the question whether the information should be released.
      Anyone outside this place listening to our deliberations might begin to wonder why the Home Secretary should want to include in the Bill provisions that effectively leave the final say with Ministers. They might think that national security might require that the Minister has the final say. The answer would be that national security is exempted in the Bill anyway. Other considerations might be defence of the realm or confidentiality in respect of major inquiries and investigations.
      I shall not detain the House with the list. I simply make the point that every valid argument that anyone could advance as to why a ministerial override is necessary falls because every clause by way of exemption covers all the eventualities that we have ever been asked to consider as issues that would justify a ministerial veto.
      In an earlier debate, I asked one of the Ministers—I think that it was the Home Secretary himself—whether he could give an example in which a Minister would be required to override the release of information and which had underpinned Government policy making, and he could not give me one. The only examples about which we have heard during this debate and throughout Second Reading and Committee are all covered in the Bill by way of exemption.
      We have devoted many hours to consideration of these matters over the past three or four months, during which I led for the Opposition in Committee, and have done so with an open and constructive approach. I am sure the Under-Secretary would agree that that characterised the Committee stage. However, we have ended up at this late stage with an admission by the Home Secretary not just that the Bill is defective, but that the scheme of affairs that he brought to the House on Second Reading all those weeks ago was defective at that stage as well.
      The Home Secretary's contortions on the measure make him appear quite ridiculous. In recent weeks, he has gained something of a reputation for being a political Houdini. On this occasion, he has tied himself up in knots.

      1099
      It would be far better if we sent the Bill to the other place without new clause 6, to give him and his hon. Friends the opportunity to introduce measures that have been thought through for proper consideration.
      Dr. Tony Wright: I dissociate myself from those last remarks. If one thing has distinguished our deliberations over the past two days and previously, it has been the way in which the Home Secretary has been prepared to engage with the debate and respond to concerns that have been raised. I shall go further and say publicly what I said to him privately this evening: he is probably the only Minister in the Government who could have engaged with the House of Commons in quite the way that he did last night. He displayed an openness and a willingness to appreciate different points of view. The House does not usually conduct its business in that way. All of us who have been, in Whips' language, difficult should be the first to acknowledge that.
      11.30 pm
      Deciding who has the last word has lain behind most of our discussions on the Bill. Will a Minister, a public official, who has a potential vested interest, or an independent person have the last word? For many of us, the credibility and integrity of the Bill depended on the answer.
      We have made progress on that fundamental issue. The Bill that we are considering represents progress when compared with the original draft and we have been told that further progress will be made in another place. We must record those achievements. We must also record the fact that the question about the last word remains. Why do Ministers believe that they need a comfort blanket and that they cannot relinquish the final word to an independent commissioner? That is not a rhetorical question; I simply do not know the answer. That is why we wanted to veto the veto. The case for the veto has not been made. That is fundamental because of the way in which the Bill is constructed.
      In a spirit of reasonableness, and
      in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person
      I was prepared to consider a method that would tackle my fundamental objections through the approach that the Government clearly wanted to press. The Home Secretary has moved some way down that route. However, I want to press him a little harder.
      A compromise would have to contain the three ingredients that I mentioned earlier. First, there would have to be a collective Cabinet decision. Secondly, the scope of the veto would have to be substantially narrower. It should resemble the Irish legislation, under which certificates can be served, and which covers key state interests. Thirdly, the veto would have to be removed from local authorities. I want the Home Secretary to assure me that those three conditions will be reflected in the altered new clause 6.
      I should like to believe that we have reached a common position. However, I fear that that has not yet happened. The question about the last word remains. I am willing to be as emollient as possible, but I fear that if the Home Secretary can say no more tonight, I cannot support new clause 6 in its current form.
      Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has played a magnificent part in the proceedings on this Bill. I am therefore diffident about any split in approach. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he marshalled the arguments—
      Mr. David Davis: Public Administration Committee.
      Mr. Shepherd: As Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, he brought the arguments together. We are considering new clause 6. I heard the expression "Executive override" for the first time last night. I thought to myself, "What does it mean?" For a moment, in the lull that occurs in debates, I wondered whether it was a new title by Jeffrey Archer. I see that the distinguished and hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is present. No doubt she has experience of some of the wilder reaches—
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Not of Jeffrey Archer. [Laughter.]
      Mr. Shepherd: I do not want to have too big a josh at Lord Archer's expense, but the concept of Executive override, which the Home Secretary introduced to the debate last night, should make us pause. What does he mean by Executive override? It sounds awfully grand. It is American, is it not? There is lots of chrome—or Croham—on it, and it is surrounded by outriders and CIA agents: it is presidential. It must appear somewhere in the American constitution, no less. But no—it does not mean anything quite like that. It means, "I shall be judge and jury in my own case." That is all. It is a simple concept. No, no, no—I shall not let the Home Secretary do this.
      Anything that touches on the heart of the state is excluded from the Bill—remember that—and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the best of all points on that: all the instances given by the Home Secretary last night in his 40-minute exegesis on new clause 6 revolved round the health of General Pinochet. The right hon. Gentleman said that, prospectively, had the Bill been in existence—it is not: remember that also—and had the commissioner ordered the release of Pinochet's medical records, he would have needed an Executive override to ensure that the commissioner could not receive them.
      All that was prospective and fantastical. Across the Floor of the House and from a sedentary position, I said, "What about data protection?" The Home Secretary said, "No one brought that to my attention." I asked myself, "Is that naivety? Was the Department unaware of it?" Of course no one would have brought data protection to his attention: the Data Protection Act 1998 did not come into force until 1 March, so that was not a weighing consideration. Those provisions are now in place and, one day, the Bill will also be in place. Then there will be a tussle between the instances that the right hon. Gentleman gave yesterday, as if they somehow reinforced his argument.
      When I say that the argument floats, this is what I mean. We already have a belt-and-braces approach, and the Home Secretary can seek judicial review if the Government do not like a decision on these things, which are not very important matters in terms of the security of

      1101
      the state: he can even refer a matter to a tribunal. Those are the stages that relate to the little request from Mrs. Brown in Aldridge-Brownhills to see some information. The new clause has nothing to do with all the excluded matters. It was tabled only a few days ago, after all the consultative processes, all the listening by the Home Secretary and all the work by the Home Office unit. Let us consider it again.
      Executive override! I am so dazzled by it that I should perhaps accept it as a bargain. But what is in it? Who are these Executive overriders? The Home Secretary suggests that the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties—in other words, the House of Commons—should support the new clause going forth to the Lords unamended, containing all these contentions and propositions. That is absurd, and we know that it is because the Home Secretary has told us that the new clause will soon look nothing like this.
      Mr. Greenway: It is defective.
      Mr. Shepherd: Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says, it is defective. Yet I can see that we have often been nodding donkeys: we agree on the balance of the argument and say, "The Home Secretary is a good and humane man. Is it not rather exciting to have an Executive override? We must go along with the proposition." That is what we are being invited to do. With the best of intentions towards the prospective mayor of London, did anyone think that, under a freedom of information Bill, we would pass to local councillors the right to cut off our access to information?
      I do not want to over-dramatise the point; I want to look at the process involved in the Bill. Just a few days ago, at the end of last week, new clause 6 emerged from all the process of generous thought that produced the Labour party's flagship Bill. The construction of yesterday's debate enabled the Home Secretary to lecture us for 45 minutes on its intent, but we did not have a debate on it, although it was pertinent to the general debate.
      The hour is late. I know the devices: I have sat on the Government Benches, and I have heard similar arguments—in truth, we all have. Because of that, we are now having a muted and half-baked debate. Few Members are rising to speak—although, having been through the Division Lobbies with members of all parties, I know of their deep discontent with the Bill. All parties—mine today, but yesterday, and for a long yesterday, the party of government—are frustrated about the fact that we are marched through Lobbies, and that the policy, indeed the polity, is determined by a majority vote in one of the Houses of our Parliament.
      Do we really want to deliver a defective Bill that shows just how craven we are? We have not had a proper debate in this place, although we have heard the Home Secretary's arguments in great detail and we have read Hansard. The clause sends a very weak signal about who we are. Moreover, it does not send a strong enough signal that the House expects the Bill, and the clause in particular, to be radically altered.
      I know that many Labour Members feel that the clause should be amended. I feel that it should be deleted: it is as simple as that. There is no—what were we told about?—dancing by angels on the pins of needles, or pins of
      1102
      needles on the heads of angels. The fact is that we have not had a proper or serious debate on Executive override. All it stands for, in the end, is "I shall be judge and jury in these matters that do not even touch on the intimate security of the state and the intimate well-being of the defence and protection of this island."
      Dr. David Clark: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the way in which he listened to the debate yesterday evening. I feel that we have had a good debate on new clause 6, and I think that the Home Secretary showed his stature yesterday by being prepared to open his mind. Indeed, I understand from what he has said this evening that he has gone a stage further.
      I do not like the Executive override, but, given that there is to be an override on the part of Ministers, I disagreed with the previous arrangement for two reasons. First, it was the result of a decision by an individual Minister. I felt that, if there was to be an objection, it should be made on the basis of a formal collective arrangement. I also felt that the objection should be in the Bill, and should not be subject to some code or ministerial guideline. If the Home Secretary catches your eye yet again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will confirm that he intends, if possible, to specify in the Bill a way in which any override would be exercised by Cabinet Ministers in that formal collective way.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: The Home Secretary, in his speech moving amendment No. 64 and speaking to new clause 6, essentially invited the House to engage with him in a slightly complex negotiation. I think that it is right for the House to be alert and to count our change pretty carefully when we receive such an offer at this stage in a Bill's consideration. I say that despite the considerable charm of manner that the Home Secretary has displayed to the House in the past two days. Judging by his body language and expression in this debate, the effort of that charm of manner may be beginning to tell. We must be none the less grateful for what we have had up to now.
      What we must do, however, is to make a distinction between manner and substance. The House's concern must be with the substance, and also with procedure. We are confronted with great complexity of substance and singular convolution of procedure. What essentially has happened is this. First, the Government made some high-sounding promises at the general election and produced a White Paper which, as we all know, was pretty encouraging. Secondly, the Government introduced the Bill, which to say the least was extremely discouraging, since the great bulk of the substance promised in the White Paper had been removed. Thirdly—under pressure largely from Labour Back Benchers but also from Opposition Members—the Home Secretary made a concession, which was to remove clause 48 and to substitute for the discretionary disclosure recommendation the principle that the commissioner can instruct that disclosure should occur. Fourthly, the Home Secretary introduced his new clause 6, which effectively negates that concession by allowing it to be overridden by the mechanism of Executive override. Fifthly, after upsetting everyone by negating his own concession, the right hon. Gentleman offered a thimbleful of new concessions—which amount to changing the reference

      1103
      from Minister of the Crown to Cabinet Minister, while not acceding to the request of Labour Back Benchers and Opposition Members to include the very different concept of collective Cabinet responsibility, which has a constitutional significance of its own.
      The right hon. Gentleman's action has been a wonderful example of giving something with the right hand, but taking it away with the left. We have to be very careful before we continue in this vein, and must wonder about what type of deal we will ultimately be left with.
      I think the solution is extremely clear. There would have been consensus among hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of the right hon. Gentleman if only he had left matters at the third stage—if he had removed clause 48 and replaced it with a right for the Information Commissioner to give an instruction. Why could he not leave it there? If he did that, we would all be extremely happy. By negating his own concession, he can only arouse the worst suspicions about the Government's real intentions and good faith in the matter.
      Mr. Fisher: I do not think the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) fully understands what happened last night or the current state of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said when speaking to Government amendment No. 64, the final say in all freedom of information legislation is crucial. Although every piece of freedom of information legislation has exemptions, barriers and caveats—those are in the nature of this type of legislation—the final say of the arbiter, who is the commissioner, is crucial. That is why so many Labour Members and Opposition Members felt that new clause 6, with its ministerial veto, was so wrongheaded and offensive.
      Let us be clear about the veto. It was to override the final decision of the Information Commissioner. That made it deeply offensive. It was remarkable, proper and admirable that the Home Secretary listened to our criticisms in a good debate last night. While he was on his feet, he redrafted his approach to the issue and accepted the idea of a compromise, suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and other Labour Members, between those of us who wanted to leave everything to the Information Commission and his belief that some form of ministerial last word was essential. The obvious compromise was the New Zealand model. The Home Secretary went a long way towards that last night. What he is offering the House is not as strong as the New Zealand model, which has greater in-built ritual and more formality. That ritual is one reason why, since the veto became a collective responsibility, it has not been used in New Zealand.
      Mr. Shepherd: That point interests me and should interest the House. New Zealand is governed by a coalition, as Scotland will be. The Cabinet override is an important check, because the tensions that are manifested through party make it very difficult to impose an agreed veto across a coalition.
      Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, because the change from a decision by a single Minister—the original system in New Zealand that was so abused in the
      1104
      first year—to collective responsibility happened in 1987. There have been single-party Governments since then. The important point is the nature of the agreement. It has nothing to do with the balance of power in Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had already gone a long way and went further tonight by saying that the provision would be in the Bill—or at least that he would try to put it in the Bill. Given the distance that he has moved in the past 24 hours, if he says that he is going to do that, the House owes it to him to have some confidence in him.
      However, the praise that is rightfully the Home Secretary's because of the way in which he has moved makes it all the more baffling that he is now asking the House to vote for a clause that he has turned on its head, having promised us something very different. It would be extraordinary for us to vote for a clause that the House objects to and that the Home Secretary recognises is wholly deficient.
      The Home Secretary made an interesting comment in his opening remarks. I made a careful note of his words. He said that the Bill should go to the other House properly reflecting the changes that we have made. We have not yet made the changes that the Home Secretary mentioned last night, but he knows that, because of the good will that he engendered last night, the whole House wants those changes to be made. The will of the House is that we should introduce a collective responsibility to minimise the extent of individual ministerial vetoes. If we vote for new clause 6, the Bill will not go to the other House reflecting those changes, but precisely the opposite.
      I understand the Home Secretary's political problem, but we are not sending a clear message to the other House. I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend delivering on his promises of last night and today and, I hope, making them even stronger. They need strengthening in some areas—for example, in respect of local authorities. However, I cannot vote for a clause that the whole House will be glad to see the back of and that, thanks to the Home Secretary, we shall see the back of.
      Mr. Hawkins: The official Opposition will support the cross-party group's amendment No. 5, and oppose Government new clause 6, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
      History repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce. The "Yes, Minister" scriptwriters once produced an episode called "The Right to Know". Tonight, the House should say, "No, Minister."
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, and I agree with him, but one matter remains untouched. According to the procedures of the House—and if the Government so chose—it would be perfectly possible for this Report stage to be adjourned. The House could reconvene, at short notice and by agreement between the parties, to debate a replacement to new clause 6 that covered the points raised by the Home Secretary in yesterday's debate.
      I for one have some sympathy with some of the problems encountered by the Home Secretary and the Government over these matters. However, I have very

      1105
      little sympathy with legislating in this fashion. We should not send to the other place a Bill that is totally unsatisfactory and which contradicts what the Government intend on one important matter.
      I wish that we could improve the House's procedures so that in future we could legislate properly. The Government have admitted that the Bill is unsatisfactory, and we should not send it on to another place as it stands.
      Mr. Straw: I shall respond briefly to the points made in the debate. I can tell the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that a very small area of Government activity is excluded from the Bill, and that includes matters relating to the royal family and the security and intelligence agencies.
      One way or another, the rest of Government activity is covered by the Bill, including many aspects to do with safeguarding national security. The hon. Gentleman suggested that, according to the examples I gave, those aspects would always be covered by the exemptions. That is true, but, over the past two days, I have tried to explain that, when a Minister claims an exemption or exception for a piece of information—in other words, when he claims that it should not be disclosed—and when the commissioner and tribunal agree that it should not be disclosed under the exemptions and exceptions in part II, the Minister is still under a duty to consider, under the mechanism of clause 13, whether that information should or should not be disclosed.
      The effect of clause 13 is felt right through the Bill, except in respect of matters mentioned in one of its subsections, and that subsection was the subject of amendment No. 1, which the House discussed yesterday. That is why the mechanism of clause 13 is so important.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that any compromise on what has been called Executive override depended on three key conditions. I enjoyed the rather delicious and apposite description of Executive override by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), with his references to paraphernalia out of the American constitution, chrome and Croham.
      The three conditions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase were that there should be a collective Cabinet decision, that the area of veto should be made narrower than at present, and that local authorities should be removed altogether from the provisions.
      If the House agrees new clause 6, I have already made it clear that, when the Bill goes to the other place, the new clause's provisions will have been amended to ensure that the decision will be made by a member of the Cabinet. There is already a definition of that in clause 23.
      12 midnight
      Secondly, I can answer my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on a collective Cabinet decision. I said yesterday that that would be written into the code to Ministers, which is a public document. I mentioned the possible exception for quasi-judicial functions. I have considered the matter further today and I am happy to answer yes to my right hon. Friend's question. If it is at all possible—I will be happy to discuss this with him outside the House—we
      1106
      will write the requirement of collective decision making into the Bill. If it is not possible for constitutional law reasons, and after serious advice from parliamentary counsel, I will explain that to him outside as well as inside the House.
      I hope that that deals with the first limb of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. His second limb was that the area of veto should be narrower. I think that he will accept that I did not give undertakings on that. They are obviously a matter for debate. I do not give undertakings in that respect, although I am open to argument on it—no more than that.
      On the matter being removed from local authorities altogether, I repeat that I understand the arguments and promise that we will actively consider the idea. I hope that it will be well understood that we need to secure a collective Cabinet decision on the matter and that we need to consult the local authorities. However, I understand my hon. Friend's argument. To some extent, it fits in with his second point, which is that the level of decisions and, therefore, of documents and information held by local authorities is not of a sufficiently high pitch to justify an Executive override, to paraphrase his argument.
      The other arguments concerned whether it is right to vote on the new clause tonight. The simple truth is that whether we include new clause 6 or not, the Bill as it is transmitted to the other place will not completely reflect the decisions of the House, given the undertakings that I made yesterday.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) seemed—
      Mr. Shepherd rose—
      Mr. Straw: I will not accept an intervention from the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Shepherd: You never do!
      Mr. Straw: I always do. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, gently and with great affection, that he should not seek to have it both ways: to complain that we have not listened to an argument and then to complain about the consequences when we have listened and have agreed to amend the Bill.
      The truth is that, given my undertakings yesterday, the Bill—whether or not new clause 6 is in it—does not wholly reflect the opinion of the House. However, it is my judgment, as I explained to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that the new clause is better in the Bill because then the complete scheme of change in principle—the change from discretionary disclosure to a power to the commissioner and a duty to abide by that save for the circumstances of Executive override—is there. Amending the new clause will not disturb the principles, which will be there. That is a less disingenuous way to present the Bill to the other place than to leave out new clause 6.
      I hope that the undertakings that I have given are satisfactory and I urge the House to support the amendments and the new clause.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 50

      APPLICATION FOR DECISION BY COMMISSIONER
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 27, line 26, at end insert—
      '() Subsections (5) and (6) do not apply in relation to a decision notice which relates to a failure to comply with section 13.'.
      No. 66, in page 27, line 27, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      '(7) This section has effect subject to section (Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice).'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 51

      INFORMATION NOTICES
      Amendment made: No. 67, in page 28, line 32, at end insert—
      '(8) In this section "information" includes unrecorded information.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 52

      ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 28, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 69, in page 29, line 10, at end insert—
      '() Subsections (3)(b) and (4) do not apply in relation to a decision notice which relates to a failure to company with section 13.'.
      No. 70, in page 29, line 12, at end insert—
      '() This section has effect subject to section (Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice).'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 56

      APPEAL AGAINST NOTICES SERVED UNDER PART IV
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 30, line 3, at end insert—
      '() Subsection (1) does not confer any right of appeal in relation to a decision notice which relates to a failure to comply with section 13; and subsection (2) does not confer any right of appeal in relation to an enforcement notice which relates to such a failure.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Schedule 6

      FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998
      Amendments made: No. 89, in page 64, line 24, at end insert—
      '. In section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (right of access to personal data), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
      "(3) Where a data controller—

      (a) reasonably requires further information in order to satisfy himself as to the identity of the person making a request under this section and to locate the information which that person seeks, and

      (b) has informed him of that requirement,

      the data controller is not obliged to comply with the request unless he is supplied with that further information.".'.
      No. 90, in page 64, line 26, leave out—
      'the Data Protection Act 1998'
      and insert "Act".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 74

      POWER TO AMEND OR REPEAL ENACTMENTS PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 36, line 40, leave out—
      'in pursuance of a decision under section'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 75
      OFFENCE OF ALTERING ETC. RECORDS WITH INTENT TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE
      Amendment made: No. 73, in page 37, line 18, after "section 1", insert "or 13".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 77
      COPYRIGHT
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 37, line 39, leave out Clause 77.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 78

      DEFAMATION
      Amendment made: No. 75, in page 38, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
      'under section 1 or 13'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 81

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 38, line 34, leave out from beginning to "section" and insert—
      'A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions)—
      (a) an order under'.
      No. 77, in page 38, line 34, after " 4,", insert " 6(3) or (7),".
      No. 78, in page 38, line 34, leave out from " 74" to "has" in line 35 and insert—
      'or
      (b) regulations under section 9(3),
      shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument'.
      No. 79, in page 38, line 37, leave out "containing" and insert—
      'which contains (whether alone or with other provisions)'.
      No. 80, in page 38, line 38, after " 3(1)", insert—
      'or (Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice)(4) or (6)'.
      No. 81, in page 38, line 38, leave out "or 6(3) or (7)".
      No. 82, in page 38, line 39, after "Act", insert—
      'not specified in subsection (2)(b)'.
      No. 83, in page 38, line 40, at beginning insert—
      'and which is not subject to the requirement in subsection (2) that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,'.
      No. 84, in page 39, line 1, after " 4", insert "or 6(7)".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

    Clause 82

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 39, line 26, after first " "information" ", insert—
      '(subject to sections 51(8) and 74(2))'.
      No. 86, in page 39, leave out lines 30 and 31.
      No. 87, in page 39, line 32, leave out from first "Minister"" to end of line 35 and insert—
      'includes the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland'.
      No. 88, in page 40, line 2, at end insert—
      ""transferred matter", in relation to Northern Ireland. has the meaning given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    New Clause 6

      EXCEPTION FROM DUTY TO COMPLY WITH DECISION NOTICE OR ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
      '.—(1) A decision notice or enforcement notice which relates to a failure to comply with section 13 in relation to any one or more requests for information shall cease to have effect if, not later than the twentieth working day following the day on which the notice was given to the public authority, the accountable person in relation to that authority gives the Commissioner a certificate signed by him stating that he has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the authority did not fail to comply with section 13 in relation to that request or those requests.
      (2) Where the accountable person gives a certificate to the Commissioner under subsection (1) in relation to a decision notice, the accountable person shall, on doing so or as soon as reasonably practicable after doing so, inform the person who is the complainant for the purposes of section 50 of the reasons for his opinion.
      (3) The accountable person is not obliged to provide information under subsection (2) if, or to the extent that, compliance with that subsection would involve the disclosure of exempt information.
      (4) In this section "the accountable person"—

      (a) in relation to a government department, means any Minister of the Crown,

      (b) in relation to a Northern Ireland department. means the Northern Ireland Minister in charge of that department,

      (c) in relation to the House of Commons or the National Audit Office, means the Speaker of that House,

      (d) in relation to the House of Lords, means the Clerk of the Parliaments,

      (e) in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Audit Office, means the Presiding Officer of that Assembly,

      (f) in relation to the National Assembly for Wales or an Assembly subsidiary as defined by section 99(4) of the Government of Wales Act 1998, means the Assembly First Secretary,

      (g) in relation to the Greater London Authority or a functional body within the meaning of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, means the Mayor of London,

      (h) in relation to a local authority or, in Northern Ireland, a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, means a member, committee or sub-committee of that local authority or district council designated by the Secretary of State by order,

      (i) in relation to any public authority not falling within paragraph (b), (e) or (h) whose functions are exercisable wholly or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate wholly or mainly to transferred matters, means the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern
      1110
      Ireland acting jointly, or any Northern Ireland Minister nominated in relation to that public authority by those Ministers so acting,

      (j) in relation to any public authority specified in Part II of Schedule 1 which is not a local authority but whose members include members of local authorities, means—

      (i) a committee or sub-committee of the public authority designated by the Secretary of State by order, or

      (ii) a member of a local authority who is also a member of that public authority and is designated by the Secretary of State by order, and

      (k) in relation to any other public authority, means a Minister of the Crown designated by the Secretary of State by order.

      (5) An order under subsection (4)—

      (a) may designate specified persons or persons falling within a specified description,

      (b) may designate different persons in relation to the same authority in relation to different cases, and

      (c) may make any designation subject to conditions.

      (6) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise of the functions conferred by subsection (1) on the accountable person (whether designated by subsection (4) or by an order under that subsection) in the event of any vacancy in the office held by the accountable person or in the event of the illness or absence of the accountable person.
      (7) In this section—
      "local authority" means—

      (a) a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972,

      (b) the Common Council of the City of London, or

      (c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

      "working day" has the same meaning as in section 9.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 173.

      Division No. 151]

      [12.6 am

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Browne, Desmond

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burgon, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Austin, John

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cann, Jamie

      Beard, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benton, Joe

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clelland, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coaker, Vernon

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      1111

      Coleman, Iain

      Hutton, John

      Colman, Tony

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cummings, John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davidson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Denham, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kidney, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Doran, Frank

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dowd, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Laxton, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lepper, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Leslie, Christopher

      Efford, Clive

      Levitt, Tom

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lock, David

      Flint, Caroline

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Follett, Barbara

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foulkes, George

      Macdonald, Calum

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McNulty, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      MacShane, Denis

      Goggins, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McWalter, Tony

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Martlew, Eric

      Grogan, John

      Maxton, John

      Hain, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hanson, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moffatt, Laura

      Healey, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Heppell, John

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

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hill, Keith

      Mountford, Kali

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hope, Phil

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Norris, Dan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Neill, Martin

      1112

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Stevenson, George

      Pendry, Tom

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pike, Peter L

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Plaskitt, James

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pond, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Pope, Greg

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pound, Stephen

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Timms, Stephen

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruane, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tynan, Bill

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Vaz, Keith

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sawford, Phil

      Watts, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      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)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. Don Touhig and

      Spellar, John

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Amess, David

      Burnett, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Burstow, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Baldry, Tony

      Beggs, Roy

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clwyd, Ann

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brady, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      Brake, Tom

      Cousins, Jim

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cran, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Dalyell, Tam

      Breed, Colin

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      1113

      Day, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mates, Michael

      Faber, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Fisher, Mark

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Norman, Archie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Oaten, Mark

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Paice, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Prior, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Rendel, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hammond, Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harvey, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Heald, Oliver

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Syms, Robert

      Keetch, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

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

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Key, Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tredinnick, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Trend, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tyler, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Viggers, Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Webb, Steve

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Wells, Bowen

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Love, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Luff, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Willis, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McWilliam, John

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Madel, Sir David

      Jackie Ballard.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      INFORMATION ALREADY DISCLOSED
      '.—(1) Information is not exempt information if it is substantially similar to any disclosed information.
      (2) In this section "disclosed information" means any information which has been lawfully disclosed in accordance with the provisions of any statutory or other scheme requiring or authorising the disclosure of information within any administration in the United Kingdom, but does not include personal data relating to the individual to whom it was disclosed.
      (3) In this section "administration in the United Kingdom" has the same meaning as in section 26.'.—[Mr. Shepherd.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House will see that the new clause is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Its purpose is to learn from the experience of others. It highlights the fact that we may have three freedom of information regimes within this island. The basic, simple, bottom-line argument is that, if a piece of information is available, albeit under the different regime of the devolved authority of the Scottish Parliament, for example, that information should become available in the United Kingdom. Let us remember that we are talking primarily about things such as education and local government, so the processes are common throughout the island. The new clause highlights the fact that Scotland seems, in its White Paper, to be using stronger tests and giving greater accessibility, and it would be profoundly inconsistent if information were available in Scotland that was ruled to be unavailable in England. I suggest that the new clause would strengthen the comity of the island, help us to learn from the experiences of other places and reinforce unity. In a spirit of comity, therefore, I commend the new clause to the House and hope that hon. Members will see value in it and support it.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) explained that when drafting the new clause he had in mind the extraordinary anomaly that would arise if information were disclosed under Scottish freedom of information legislation which could not lawfully be disclosed in another part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, that would contribute to the loss of any sense of legitimacy that the Bill will have if it becomes an Act. It would be one of many aspects that will undermine the Bill's credibility.
      If, however, the new clause were adopted, it would have a wider impact, because subsection (1) makes it clear that it would be possible to argue that a Department should disclose information if it was substantially similar to information that it, or another Department, had already disclosed. One can easily foresee situations in which a Department might regret having disclosed information or might subsequently seek to detract from the effect of a disclosure, so it might well refuse to confirm its original disclosure or to release other documents that would confirm it.
      The new clause would be extremely useful in preventing any Department even from being tempted to do that, because once information had been disclosed, that would be the end of the matter. That would clearly be part

      1115
      of the jurisprudence, because if all the papers relating to a subject had been disclosed and other information emerged which was substantially similar—to use the phrase in the new clause—that would automatically be disclosed without further let or hindrance. That would clarify matters and increase the scope of freedom of information, and one would like to think that that was the Bill's purpose.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, and if he will allow me to do so in a moment, I will explain to him precisely how the Bill delivers what he and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) want.
      Mr. Davies: In the light of the Minister's assurance, which is one of the more encouraging assurances that he has given during our proceedings, I certainly do not want to keep the House in suspense, so I shall immediately terminate my contribution.
      Mr. Hawkins: I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) not to be too confident, because we have not yet heard the Minister. I shall not detain the House for long, but, before the Minister replies, it is only right that Labour Members who have supported the Campaign for Freedom of Information should be aware that it has expressed several concerns.
      In particular, the proposed Scottish freedom of information Act will allow Scotland's information commissioner to make legally binding rules on disclosure in the public interest, where harm-tested exemptions are involved. The campaign has shared with Opposition Front-Bench Members its concern about the precise issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) are raising via the new clause.
      The fact that we may have two different regimes is a cause for concern. Now that Scotland has issued its own proposals for freedom of information, which we suggest—so does the Campaign for Freedom of Information—will enable much more information to be released than under the Bill, and which will positively encourage the release of factual information on policy making, we feel that there is a severe danger that the whole system will be brought into disrepute if information that is secret in England is available to the public in Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to square the circle, but it seems that once again the Government are tying themselves in knots.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: There is no circle to square. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill would prevent the withholding of information that had been released by another Administration. It is quite simple. A balance must be struck in respect of the public interest in disclosing information in any case where an exemption applies. I can think of no circumstances in which it would be possible to maintain an argument for the public interest in withholding a particular piece of information if, in practice, that information had already been placed in the public domain under the scheme operating under another
      1116
      Administration. Nor, I suggest, would the Information Commissioner be convinced by any argument that the public interest in withholding minor or trifling details of substantially similar information would justify maintaining the exemption in the public interest. The information would enter the public arena in any case.
      The new clause is ambiguously worded. It includes the phrase "substantially similar" information. However, if despite the substantial similarity there were additional information, not already disclosed but which if disclosed would be contrary to the public interest, it should be capable of being lawfully withheld. Therefore, not only is the new clause unnecessary because the Bill will deliver what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills wants, but the ambiguity in its wording could cause some mischief that I am sure he would not intend. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not intend to delay the House, but he brings an interesting fact to our attention. There may well be different harm tests, so it may be easier to secure information under regimes in Scotland or Wales. That puts a question mark over the purpose of some of the arguments behind the Bill.
      I am glad that the Minister believes that the provision I was seeking is already available. I shall read his remarks carefully; in those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 10

      DUTY TO PUBLISH MANUALS ETC.
      '(1) A public authority to which this section applies shall, subject to subsection (2), publish any manuals, instructions, precedents and guidelines used by it for the purpose of—

      (a) interpreting any enactment, or

      (b) administering any scheme for which the authority is responsible.

      (2) A public authority is not required by subsection (1) to publish any exempt information unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
      (3) The public authorities to which this section applies are—

      (a) any public authority in respect of which an investigation may be made by:

      (i) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman

      (ii) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (or the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland)

      (iii) the Health Service Commissioner for England; the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland; or, in respect of health service bodies in Northern Ireland, the Commissioner for Complaints

      (b) any other public authority which has been notified in writing by the Information Commissioner that it is subject to the provisions of this section.'.—[Mr. Shepherd.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

      1117
      I feel that I am the night man here. The new clause was discussed in Committee and the Government are well aware of it. It deals with the duty to publish guidelines. I shall not go through the details, but it involves a right that was established under the code of practice. I know that some hon. Members have denigrated the code of practice, but it had that one great value.
      The Government said that, as it was drafted in Committee, the new clause was too burdensome. So it was redrafted to meet that valid point and now it applies only to the status quo. It is an important principle, however, and I hope that the Government will agree to accept it.
      Mr. David Heath: I certainly do not intend to detain the House, except to say that the Liberal Democrats support the spirit of the new clause and we hope that the Minister will provide a satisfactory answer so that there is no retrogression from the provision under the codes of conduct in respect of bodies that are currently subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the health service ombudsman.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. If they do not accept the new clause, come up with a practically identical proposal, or at least give a firm undertaking to introduce the provision in another place, it will be quite clear that part of their hidden agenda is to regress from the position established by the previous Government's non-statutory code. That would be a pretty horrifying state of affairs.
      12.30 am
      As each year goes by, it becomes more and more important that the manuals of practice and precedents and guidelines used by various parts of the bureaucracy in interpreting legislation should be made public, because in this country we have the phenomenon of government not merely by secondary as well as primary legislation—which is worrying enough to all Members of the House—but increasingly, by tertiary administration, whereby parts of the bureaucracy interpret the law and have their own practice manuals according to which they tell their staff which way to interpret matters, how to pursue certain types of activity and not others, and so on.
      The Revenue works on the basis of practice manuals the whole time. It is thus enormously important that such manuals be made available. They are, in effect—I regret this state of affairs, but we have to acknowledge it—part of the law of the land. Citizens can find that they have transgressed the law without knowing that they have transgressed something which some manual said somewhere was a matter that should be pursued or prosecuted. If these manuals can then be changed, unknown to the public, the citizen might believe that, because the precedents suggest that a certain pattern of activity is accepted, he can quite legitimately arrange his affairs in such a manner—only to find that the law has been changed surreptitiously and that he is now on the wrong side of the law as a result. That is an intolerable situation for any citizen to find himself or herself in, in a free society based on the rule of law.
      The new clause is enormously important. It goes beyond even the importance of freedom of information that all the practice manuals and other documents referred
      1118
      to in the new clause should be incorporated in the Bill. I have to warn the Minister that there will be the most extraordinary degree of concern in this country if the Government cannot accept the new clause, and it is not a matter on which we should be content with any kind of shilly-shallying, of which we have already had far too much from the Treasury Bench in our debates in the last two days.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's trying to claim the high ground on this matter, but it was the Conservative Government who refused to publish the immigration guidelines, and it was the present Government who did publish them, after the Home Secretary took up office, so I will take no strictures from the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues on this.
      New clause 10 has been amended as a result of the discussion in Committee, but I think not enough, and I am not convinced that it has any real value. The information that is being sought in the new clause is available on request in any event, and it is not as though such manuals were kept secret, because lists are published of the manuals that are published by the Government. Some of those manuals—such as internal directories with numbers for a telephone system that has no gateway for public access—will be of absolutely no public interest; and the requirement that they all be published at great public expense is an unnecessary burden when anyone who seriously wants them would be able to gain access to them. Moreover, if there were a likelihood that the public wanted access, there would be a requirement, under the publication scheme that any public authority must have, to make them public anyway, and that publication scheme must be approved by the Information Commissioner.
      On all those grounds, the new clause would be completely unnecessary. The information is available anyway; if it is likely to be requested by the public, it would be in the publication scheme approved by the Information Commissioner; and if it is unlikely to be requested by the public, they could request it anyway if they happened to want it out of interest. There is no restriction on such manuals because the exemption does not apply to them.
      There is also a defect and a technical problem with the new clause. It refers to a number of bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland and responsibility for those bodies rests with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would not be right for this House to seek to legislate for them without their consent.
      For all those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for the Minister's swift response, but I have been slightly pole-axed at this late hour to learn that there is a defect in the drafting of my new clause. Naturally, I do not want the House to support it and send it to the House of Lords, because, unlike the Home Secretary, I cannot assure the House that it will be amended in a form that is satisfactory; I have no such powers.
      I am disappointed to hear that the new clause is defective and, for the moment, I accept the Minister's judgment on that. The issue will be pursued in another place, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) pointed out,

      1119
      the availability of, and access to, manuals is important for people to understand their rights and where they stand in relation to the law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      12.36 am
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I will not detain the House by more than a couple of minutes. One of the paradoxes of the discussions that we have had—and great discussions they have been—is that, unlike many debates about Bills on which there is a clash of argument about the principle, everyone, I believe, agrees that we need a Freedom of Information Bill. I would therefore find it extraordinary if anybody voted against Third Reading.
      In what I hope is a spirit of generosity, I welcome the conversion of many Conservative Members on this issue. They have come a long way even since the general election, when we were told that freedom of information Bills were simply the domain of left-wing eccentrics. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is welcome to the fold.
      This is an important Bill. It fulfils one of the important manifesto commitments that we made at the general election. It has genuinely been improved as a result of discussion and debate in Committee, and on the Floor of the House over the past two days. I commend it to the House.
      12.38 am
      Mr. Hawkins: At this late hour, I want to respond with only one or two points. When I paid tribute much earlier to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), I referred to a document that was prepared by the Campaign for Freedom of Information and that mentions responses to the Government's Bill that are still relevant on Third Reading.
      The document quoted not my words but an editorial about the Bill. It said that
      so long as the Commons public administration Committee, chaired by Dr. Tony Wright, remains troubled about the Bill, the Commons ought to be troubled too.
      The real test of this Bill will come in Committee, where, according to usual parliamentary practice, Labour's legion of doubters should be sturdily represented.
      They were, and not least by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). It continues:
      If the Bill remains as inadequate as we still think it, a wider range of dissenters will have to stand up for their doubts at report stage.
      They have done so, led by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The editorial in The Guardian continues:
      More freedom, of some information, won't do. We want the full month they promised us when they were seeking our votes…Two years in power has finally suppressed the clearest ideal that Labour formed during its years of impotence. The freedom of information bill marks its definitive transition from a party dedicated to changing the world, into a Government determined its own world shall not be
      1120
      changed…The purpose of this reform, as canvassed in opposition, was to alter the balance of power between citizen and state…The bill now disgorged is a spectacular betrayal of any such idea.
      The Home Secretary has turned himself into, not Houdini, nor a character invented by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, but Jim Hacker.
      12.41 am
      Dr. Tony Wright: I was not going to say a word on Third Reading, but I have been provoked by the speech I just heard. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) got the tone wrong last night and he has got it wrong tonight. All that was required from the Opposition during consideration of the Bill on Report was a little humility, to reflect that the fact that the Conservatives consistently opposed any such legislation throughout all its years in office.
      My first experience of serious business in the House of Commons was as a member of the Standing Committee on the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the Right to Know Bill. We won all the arguments in the Committee, but then the Government of the day ruthlessly moved to kill my hon. Friend's Bill in the Chamber. I always carry with me that example of the Conservatives' lamentable record on freedom of information. The Conservatives have not shown the required degree of humility, with the honourable exceptions of some hon. Members I see sitting over there—one of the virtues of the process we have just been through has been what someone described as the progressive coalition.
      The Labour party has been committed to legislation on freedom of information since 1974. In the past, Oppositions have said that they would legislate, but they have failed to do so once in government. What is unique about the current Government is that they are doing in government what they said they would do when in opposition. Those who say that the Bill is so lamentable that it would be better not to have it at all are wrong. The Bill has defects and flaws; we have corrected some of those through our consideration of the draft Bill and in Committee; we have corrected yet more in the past 24 hours, and Third Reading is not the end of the story.
      Even at this unearthly hour, let us celebrate this historic piece of legislation. Let us congratulate the Government on introducing it. Let us then increase our resolve to make it as good as it can be.
      12.43 am
      Mr. Maclennan: That we are debating the Bill is in large part owed to the effort of many heroes of Opposition, among whom I count the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), Roy Hattersley, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). That the Bill is a Government Bill is due to the deliberations that took place prior to the election between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, in the effort to gain wide support throughout the country for a change that had defeated parties in government in the past. That dialogue was maintained after the election, and for that we are grateful. I believe that it has had some merit and produced some benefits. There have been useful exchanges of view.

      1121
      I must admit candidly that I sometimes felt that the entire process was going backwards. Most of us could have signed up with enthusiasm to the White Paper introduced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We would simply have tinkered at the margins of his Bill, whereas in the present Bill, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) honestly admitted, there were real flaws, and they still deface the Bill.
      There are departures from the Government's expressed intentions, particularly the intention expressed in the White Paper that decisions on disclosure would be based on a presumption of openness. That is the principle from which the Government have been stepping back throughout. The right to know has been so hedged round by conditions—by categories of exemption—that were explicitly and almost outspokenly rejected by the Government in their White Paper.
      Those backward moves have been a depressing feature of the process. At the same time, it is honestly fair to the Home Secretary to say that although he started from a very different point from his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, he has courteously and openly allowed us to make our case and our arguments. The door has not been closed.
      We have seen definite and substantial improvements, but many are still required if the Bill is to fulfil the hopes that were well expressed by the Prime Minister in the preface to the Government's White Paper, in which he wrote about changing the relationship between the citizen and the Government. If that is to be more than a pious expression of hope, a rebalancing of the Bill is required. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to return to that before too long.
      12.48 am
      Mr. Shepherd: I had hoped that the Third Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill would be one of the greatest occasions of my life. [Interruption.] The man is a foolish man who shouts out, "It is", when I have an argument to set out and a case to make. It is absurd for a Whip to tell me what I should think or say. [Interruption.] I apologise if I misdirected my remark, but let us have none of that.
      This was a great occasion. From 1974 onwards, the Labour party was committed to freedom of information, for it had seen that in such a measure lies our emancipation as a people. It was a changing of the guard from those who had been cursed by war, who knew the need for secrecy and became obsessive about it. That secrecy filtered through every layer of our society.
      I had hoped, and I believed, that when the Labour Government proclaimed that they were committed to a Freedom of Information Bill, we would have one. There was no reason to dissent from that judgment. The White Paper gave us every expectation and every reason to believe that it would be delivered.
      I cannot dissent from the generality of the observation that in some measure the Bill does advance freedom of information, but it is not what we understood in those brave and bonny days, when a White Paper was published. It is not. I would not want the Bill to go from the House in its present form, and I would not want the other place to think that it was finished business.
      1122
      Having marched through the Lobby on these issues over many years, I believe that deep, deep within the feeling of the House, and certainly within the new generation that marches, marking the changing of the guard for each and every Parliament, there is a desire for true freedom of information that will give us equality with an Executive. It was within our grasp; it may still be within our grasp. However, as it leaves this House—in a defective state, as the Home Secretary admits—to be amended in another place, I ask why it could not have been created in our House, the democratic, elected and accountable Chamber in our Parliament.
      12.50 am
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I shall be extremely brief. I simply want to make three rapid points. First, we owe a great debt to the cross-party group of colleagues who played such a major part in keeping the campaign going for many months and in the debates of the past 48 hours. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
      Secondly, the Home Secretary, who was again in a conciliatory mood, said that we had had a great discussion in the past two days. I agree, but it has not achieved the results for which I hoped. Perhaps the most momentous and salient aspect of the discussion was that, apart from Ministers' contributions, not a single contribution was made in favour of the Government's position. It is extraordinary to hold a debate for two whole days on a matter of such enormous interest to the House—the Chamber is still full at 1 am—when no one was inspired, not even members of the Labour party with its massive majority, to support the Bill in its current form. I trust that the moral of that will not be lost on those who need to note it.
      Thirdly, the Bill is not worse than nothing; it is better than nothing. I said that about the previous Government's non-statutory code. However, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, this cannot be the end of the story. Although the Bill is better than nothing—I am sure that many colleagues agree about that—it is far from being an adequate Freedom of Information Bill.
      We live in a democracy, and the Government depend on the people and are accountable to them. A proper Bill would therefore begin with a purpose clause, which stated that information should be available to the public unless the Government explained precisely why, in the national interest, it should not be revealed. The onus should be on the Government to explain.
      The Bill should provide for a proper method of dispassionate arbitration when the Government refuse to divulge information, to ascertain whether that refusal is genuinely in the national interest. The Information Commissioner should have that power. Without fulfilling those conditions, the measure is not a Freedom of Information Bill worthy of the name. We do not have such a Bill, but I hope that, in another place, we may be able to build on the small foundations that we have been able to lay in the past two days and create a satisfactory measure.

      1123
      Against the background, it would be churlish and foolish of us to kill the Bill and not allow their lordships to do the task that, despite all our efforts, is sadly uncompleted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.

British Sign Language
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
12.54 am
Mr. Tom Levitt: It is appropriate that this Adjournment debate on British sign language should take place after a two-day debate on freedom of information. As I shall show, sign language could be considered to be a freedom of information issue. I must first acknowledge that we are following the path that has been taken by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which debated sign language on 30 September 1999 and 16 February 2000 respectively. Both debates took place at an hour rather more conducive to argument and discussion.
This is the third debate that I have initiated on issues to do with deafness and I believe that there is scope for many more. However, I want to focus on British sign language and its use, the provision of interpreters and the right of those for whom it is the first language to have it recognised in a practical, effective and useful manner. We need first to explain exactly what we are talking about.
British sign language is a genuine language with its own grammar, tenses and expression, but a year or so ago in the other place this was said:
It is correct that…sign language…is a distinct language, but it is based on…English.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 749.]
It is not. Sign language is a genuine language, but not an international language, which has also been suggested. Indeed, its history mirrors that of spoken languages and each country has its own. There are regional sign language dialects in this country, as one would expect of a spoken language. In particular, the ways of describing colour and counting differ considerably.
Sign language is a visual language in every respect. It is partly iconic, partly abstract and partly derivative. It is capable of sensitivity, great detail and great delicacy. It is a language not only of the hands, but of the whole upper body. It is easy not only to misunderstand the effectiveness of sign language as a language, but to consider it not to be a language at all. It must not be confused with finger spelling, which is simply the spelling of the English language on the fingers, or with sign-supported English, which is the speaking of English with the support of signs borrowed from sign language.
Also in the other place, a former chairman of the BBC board of governors said that
individuals have their own system; there is no common language in signing.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1999; Vol. 607, c. 1133.]
Again, that is simply not true, but it is typical of the misunderstanding that leads to sign language not having the recognition that it richly deserves. Sign language is the first language of one in every 1,000 people in this country. At least 50,000 people have British sign language as their only or main functional language. That is more than the number who have Welsh, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic or any other indigenous British language as their first language, although it represents only a fraction of the 8 million people in this country who have impaired hearing.

1125
We must also recognise that people who are born deaf or who lose their hearing profoundly before developing speech and spoken language have to rely on a language that does not depend on hearing. They should be given opportunities to develop their first language—sign language—wherever possible. We could have a different debate about the role of sign language in education, but it helps to explain why people who cannot develop language skills through hearing have to do so through other senses. They perhaps tend not to grasp English as well as hearing people unless they are given the facility to develop their first language. I can provide an example.
A friend of mine—a deaf man—was told that he had the best voice and was the best speaker of English in the whole of a school for the deaf. He was very proud when he left and went straight to a job on a shop floor. However, on the first day, his voice provoked so much ridicule and teasing from his workmates that he did not speak again from that day on. That was 40 years ago. He has not tried to speak aloud ever since. It was unreal and unreasonable to expect someone whose first language was sign language to be able to function in the world of speech.
Until 20 years ago, sign language could only be used locally: there was no way in which it could be used to communicate over distances. It was used on television occasionally, but only the advent of videotape, signed television and cheaper video cameras enabled people to use their own language to communicate over distances. Then it was as easy as sending a letter.
Let me say a little more about the grasping of English by those who have been profoundly deaf since birth. It is often assumed that all deaf people can lip-read, but they cannot: if someone is not speaking properly, that person cannot be lip-read, and people for whom English has never been the first fully functional language cannot be expected even to start using the complex skills that lip-reading requires.
There are 50,000 people in this country whose first or only functional language is sign language. They are profoundly prelingually deaf. Most are born to hearing parents. In many cases, meningitis in the early years of life has been the cause; there may be genetic reasons, or reasons connected with rubella during pregnancy, for them to have been born deaf.
The gentleman I met in 1986 who opened my eyes to the world of signing around us was born deaf, and went to a deaf school where he learned sign language. His parents were told that sign language was just a phase that he was going through. They were told that it was not worth their while to learn the language of the deaf because, after all, it was not a proper language. They were told, in essence, that they would never, and should never, have a language in common with their son. Again, that was 40 years ago, when he was at school.
I am afraid that some of the attitudes that I have described are deliberate, rather than arising from negligence.
I believe that all children must be given the opportunity to be fluent in their first language, and in the language of the community in which they grow up. There is a slight incongruity, in that, as I have said, most profoundly deaf children are born to hearing parents. Nevertheless, if they have no hearing they cannot be expected to function fully in a hearing world during the process of language acquisition.
1126
Let us assume that a person grows up developing sign language and living in a deaf community. After all, deaf communities in this country tend to centre around areas in which services to deaf people are well advanced. They are thriving and lively communities, often built around deaf clubs, in which the person who speaks is the odd one out and sign language is, as it were, the lingua franca. How, then, do we bridge the communication gap between what those people need in order to function as citizens, and the language of the society around them?
Unfortunately, according to the 1998 figures, there were only 102 trained and qualified working sign-language interpreters for those 50,000 people—20 fewer than 10 years earlier. The current total is only about 132, plus 170 training to be interpreters for the whole of England, Wales and Scotland. There are 132 qualified interpreters for 50,000 potential clients.
It is essential for deaf people to have access to high-quality interpreters when they face life-or-death experiences such as getting a job, going to the doctor, going to hospital, going to court or being interviewed by the police.
Ms Candy Atherton: In my rural area of Camborne, which has a large deaf community, there is a real problem with access to interpreters. People have to travel up to 150 miles to take part in debates or go to the deaf club. It costs me nearly £250 to hold a surgery to which my deaf community can have access.
Mr. Levitt: I commend my hon. Friend for holding surgeries in a deaf club—and for doing so at considerable cost to herself because of the need to bring interpreters such a long distance. I hope that other hon. Members will follow that model, and that we can a find a way of ensuring that cost does not make it difficult for hon. Members to provide that service to their communities.
As with any language, it takes years to become fluent in British sign language. Many of today's interpreters are the hearing children of deaf sign language-using parents. In 1997, 18,000 people undertook the stage 1 sign language qualification, but only 2,500 went on to stage 2. Of those, only 250 went on to stage 3. The pool of those whom we can train as interpreters for work in the community is remarkably small. There is also virtually no career structure for interpreters, many of whom have to work as freelancers. Moreover, there is no formal training in sign language for hearing people under 16. Therefore, the opportunities and facilities not only for developing sign language to a high level, but for career development as a sign language interpreter are very limited.
The British Deaf Association is conducting a campaign for formal recognition of sign language, and suggests achieving that recognition by means of the European charter on minority languages. Although my understanding is that, in its current form, the charter does not apply to non-written language, the most important objective is that British sign language should be recognised in practice rather than theory. People should have access to an interpreter—to information in their own language—when and where they need it.
I tell my hon. Friend the Minister—with whom I was very proud to serve on the Committee that discussed the Disability Rights Commission Bill—that the excellent

1127
disability rights legislation that the Government have brought into force will increase demand on interpreters, on signed video information and on CD-ROM-based information containing, for example, sign language avatars.
If we are to ensure deaf people's human rights, it is essential that they have access to their first language. Access to high-level sign language interpretation is not only reasonable and justifiable, but it is essential in life-and-death circumstances.
The Government have made progress on the sign language issue in several ways. As originally drafted, the Representation of the People Act 2000, for example, provided that someone who wanted assistance with voting in a polling booth had orally to request assistance from the presiding officer. The Government accepted an amendment moved in another place that provides that, for those who cannot use speech, that request may be made in writing.
The use of video recorded interviews in police stations should be increased. It is essential in matters involving sign language users. In cases involving deaf people, it should be obligatory throughout the legal system to include the sign language interpreter in the video recorded interview. That is the only way in which we can check that what has been recorded as being said is what was meant, and it is the only way in which we can ensure justice for deaf people.
We also have to make progress on the right of deaf and hearing-impaired people to sit on juries, which is another issue that has been raised in the House before. At Question Time, the Prime Minister himself has said that that is a legitimate objective. I understand that the British Deaf Association has been in discussions with the Lord Chancellor to see how best to achieve that objective.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires reasonable adjustment in employment and the provision of goods and services. Poor, inappropriate or absent interpreting is not reasonable. I also accept that 100 per cent. interpreting on demand—having an interpreter on every street corner—is not reasonable. However, it is reasonable to include British sign language in any corporate public communication strategy. BSL can be used on videos or CD-ROMs, with human interpreters and with staff with signing qualifications. Deaf people whose first language is sign language can be employed in circumstances in which they are of particular help to fellow deaf employees or service users.
There must be a proper system of booking sign language interpreters at a reasonable cost, given reasonable notice. That should be paid for by the state when circumstances demand it. The Lord Chancellor already pays for all sign language interpreters who are needed in the courts.
It is essential to have interpreters on call for emergencies. I heard a story about a profoundly deaf girl who was hurt in a car crash and taken to hospital. She said afterwards that the experience in the hospital was far more frightening than the car crash, because at least in the crash she could understand what was happening once she had had a look round. In the hospital, nobody could tell her what was happening in a language that she could understand. It is particularly important that there should
1128
be high levels of deaf awareness among staff in front-line service provision where British sign language is not available.
This debate has come from the heart. I am delighted to say that my first debate on deaf awareness is available on video with a sign language insert on the screen from the Royal College for the Deaf in Derby. I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament who has studied British sign language. As a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, I have spent many years campaigning on the civil rights of deaf people. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well disposed towards my arguments. I am only sorry that the rules of the House do not allow me to have a sign language interpreter standing at my side so that television viewers can appreciate not just what I have said, but, perhaps more importantly, how my hon. Friend the Minister responds.
I am grateful for this opportunity. I look forward with great hope and expectation to hearing not just sympathetic, but constructive and positive proposals from my hon. Friend.
1.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): It is worth observing that there were nearly 500 Members in the House to discuss the Freedom of Information Bill that we have just passed to another place. There are now a bare half a dozen of us here to talk about an issue of key importance that provides freedom for a large minority group of those who are deaf or have a hearing impairment and for whom sign language is their first language. That is a sad reflection on the House, but even at this late hour there are many people outside following our debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). He is well known for his commitment on disability issues, particularly his interest in deaf people. He is a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and undertook his Parliament Industry Trust fellowship with Leonard Cheshire. His contribution to disability causes is warmly acknowledged and recognised. I am grateful for the great support that he gave to my work on disability issues before he became a Parliamentary Private Secretary.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of important issues that I want to address. More than 8 million people in this country have a hearing impairment, of whom 670,000 are profoundly deaf. Of those 670,000, 50,000 use British sign language as their first language. The recognition of the language is crucial to facilitate communication for them and is a civil rights issue.
Since I have had ministerial responsibility for disabled people, there has been a strong lobby on the recognition of BSL, with particular focus on specifying the language in the Council of Europe's charter for regional or minority languages.
As my hon. Friend knows, officials and lawyers are arguing over whether we can give recognition to BSL and whether it can be classified as a minority language under the terms of the charter. I have assured my hon. Friend and others that the Government will explore the matter with other parties in Europe, once we have ratified the charter, and I repeat that commitment now.
The charter has now been signed. It will he ratified, by means of the processes of the House, in the near future, and then we shall open the discussions. A range of

1129
difficulties will have to be overcome, and this country's lack of a written constitution creates additional problems in the recognition of official languages, including BSL.
In preparing for this debate, I have gathered information about the action being taken by other countries. The Finns, the Swedes and the Danish are probably the most advanced in giving formally recognition to BSL, but other countries are also making advances.
The Dutch Government set up commissions in 1995 and 1997, and reports and recommendations have been passed to that Government. The federal Government in Germany is discussing the matter with the Lander, and Westphalia has commissioned a report on the legal implications. The Portuguese approved an amendment to the Portuguese constitution covering sign language in 1997. In Belgium, associations for deaf people are forming close links with political parties with the aim of speeding up the process of recognition. Although sign language is not recognised in Italy, a number of laws include a specific reference to the use of a sign language interpreter.
On reflection, therefore, I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that I will ask officials to look again at what we can do, outside formal recognition in the charter, to achieve the objectives that he set out—that is, the acceptance of the language's legitimacy, its systematic use by all authorities, and the willingness to allow submissions to be made in that language. I will also write to the Disability Rights Commission as soon as it opens its doors on 25 April, asking it to explore the issue further.
I can also tell the House that I recently wrote to all Government Departments to find out their views about what they might do with regard to sign language. Responses have started to come in, and I thought that my hon. Friend and the House would like to know what I have heard.
Progress is being made. For example, as my hon. Friend said, since April 1998 the courts have operated a system by which any form of communication support can be booked for parties involved in civil or family proceedings. I was also pleased to see that users of the electronic version of the community legal service directory—the "Just Ask" website—can select to choose an agency offering BSL as one of the search criteria. That directory contains more than 15,000 entries, and the site was launched on 3 April.
The Benefits Agency has set a standard for communicating with people who do not speak English or Welsh, and it applies to users of other languages, including BSL. When it is necessary to interview customers who need interpreters but cannot or do not wish to provide their own, the Benefits Agency makes arrangements within 24 hours for the provision of such an interpreter.
Further examples of which the House may be aware include the signed video magazine programme "Public Scene", which is produced and distributed by and on behalf of Government Departments by the Central Office of Information. In addition, the Department of Health produces BSL-signed videos when the information involved is particularly relevant to deaf people on issues such as direct payments and the long-term care charter.
1130
I was also pleased to learn from my write-around that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is currently cataloguing videos that include titles filmed in BSL. My own Department has produced a BSL version of the disability rights taskforce report.
My hon. Friend mentioned education. We believe that choice is crucial for deaf children and their families in connection with special educational needs. We are strengthening the process, as my hon. Friend knows, and emphasising inclusion in legislation that we intend to introduce later in the Session.
It is for local education authorities to decide on the provision in the light of local circumstances and the child's need. However, we have established 11 special educational needs regional co-ordination projects covering the whole of England. Their aim is to establish a more effective co-ordination across local education authority boundaries, in particular for low-instance disabilities. A number of those projects are studying sensory impairments such as deafness. The aim is to ensure some consistency of provision throughout the country. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that we want to ensure that we provide a choice that suits the needs of children and their families.
My hon. Friend mentioned disability legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is having an impact. The code of practice that we published on the changes in the provision of goods and services, which was published in October, contained a number of examples showing where BSL would be an appropriate adaptation that should be made to ensure that people were not discriminated against. For example, a hospital would be expected to have a BSL interpreter for an appointment. That would be considered a reasonable step in a large hospital, although it might not be reasonable in a doctor's surgery.
My hon. Friend spent some time talking about interpreters. There has been a shortage and in my desire to do something practical to ensure that BSL can become a real language to many more people, without getting involved in the legal niceties of what we can or cannot do under particular charters, I am trying to tackle that shortage.
We have undertaken some research, which I have been anxiously awaiting. Again, in preparing for this debate, I asked for the results of the research but was told that it had been delayed because of the illness of one of the academics undertaking it. The purpose of the research was to identify the gaps and whether we could take action to ensure that existing interpreters were better used. I will ensure that my hon. Friend has access to that research as soon as it is with me and has been published.
In the meantime, I have been talking to both the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Council for the Advancement of Communication for Deaf People. I propose to try to find a shorter-term solution to the undoubted shortage of interpreters and to set in place a longer-term solution that will provide us with a steady stream of interpreters to meet what will undoubtedly be a growing demand.
Whatever we do, it will not have a totally immediate impact, simply because, as my hon. Friend knows, it takes

1131
time to go through the long training and qualify to become an interpreter. I can assure the House and my hon. Friend that, by Easter, which is not too far away, thank goodness, I hope to be able to announce funding to provide an urgent boost to the number of trained BSL interpreters. That will be the first step. In the second step, I hope to announce the first stages of the longer-term strategy and how we go forward.
Those are some examples of the progress that I have been able to make since I have been the Minister responsible for disabled people. We still have some way
1132
to go. I am sure that this debate has helped to raise awareness of the issues and has helped me, officials in the Department and those in the community at large to concentrate minds.
I very much hope that, working together with those in the community for whom this matter is important, and with my hon. Friend and others who have an interest in the issue, we can make real progress so that we can break down the barriers that prevent those deaf people whose first language is BSL from taking a full part in civil society.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Burma
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.30 am
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am pleased to have the opportunity to draw Parliament's attention to the appalling and systematic genocide taking place against the Karen, Shan and Karenni minority peoples in Burma. As far as I know, this is the first debate in Parliament devoted to that genocide. The atrocities in Burma must rank among the worst in the world; yet, unlike the similar situations in Kosovo and Bosnia, the international community and the media have failed dismally to give the slaughter the coverage that it deserves.
At a recent meeting set up by the British human rights group, the Jubilee campaign, I met representatives of the Karen movement. I talked to the president of the Karen National League and saw Kwe Htoo from the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People. They both impressed on me the systematic extermination being inflicted on the Karen, Shan and Karenni ethnic minorities. They urgently appealed for the maximum international pressure to be put on Burma's military regime to stop the genocide, and for extensive aid to stem the growing humanitarian disaster among Burma's ethnic minorities.
With an estimated 7 million people, the Karen is Burma's largest ethnic minority. More than 300,000 Karen are internally displaced as a direct result of Burmese military action. Many of them hiding in the jungle, with little or no food or medicine, and they are normally killed on sight when discovered. For example, on 27 July 1999, at least 22 internally displaced Karen people, including a baby and two children aged two and eight, were killed by Burmese troops from Infantry Battalion 101 at Kawei and Hpway Plaw villages in Mergui district. Many of the victims were literally beaten to death with rice pounders, and 19-year-old Naw Nail Naw was gang-raped by the soldiers before she was murdered.
The overall population of internally displaced people in Burma is about 2 million, which means that it has some of the worst internal displacement in the world. There is probably no other nation like Burma; hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people have to hide in the jungle in the most primitive conditions, and they are hunted and slaughtered like animals. Since 1993, more than 30,000 Karen civilians have died as a result of Burmese military action. That is one example of the atrocities routinely inflicted on the Karen by the Burmese military.
These atrocities are regularly reported by organisations such as the Jubilee campaign, the Karen National League, the Karen Human Rights Group and the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People.
202WH
They include forced labour, the systematic destruction of villages, forced relocation, widespread and persistent torture and rape, and extrajudicial executions. That regime is the policy of the so-called State Peace and Development Council, which is an Orwellian change of name from what used to be called the State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—which more correctly sums up the regime. The SPDC policy in response to any form of armed resistance by ethnic minorities is what the Burmese call draining the ocean so that the fish cannot swim. In other words, it seeks to undermine the opposition, attacking the civilian population until there is no possibility of their giving any support to opposition rebels.
That is the fundamental idea behind the stated policy of the regime—the four cuts policy—which was initiated by General Ne Win in the 1970s. The idea is to cut off supplies of food, funds, recruits and intelligence to ethnic resistance groups. The direct attacks on the civilian population, characterised by forced mass relocations, destruction of villages and the village economy, extrajudicial executions and completely unsustainable levels of forced labour, have become even more prevalent in the Burmese regime's policy since the 1990s.
In their acts of violence, Burmese troops make no distinction between adults and children. For example, Burmese soldiers killed two Karen children of five and eight in Ko Reh Hta, Karen state. On seeing the children in the forest, the soldiers simply slaughtered them with a knife. Saw Ta Plah Plah and Naw Mi Mu Wah, a little boy and girl aged three and two respectively, were left behind in their village when everyone else fled and it was shelled by Burmese troops from Division 77. The SPDC soldiers found them walking around crying and threw them into their burning house, where they were burnt to death. On 15 October 1998, eight-year-old Naw Mu Lay and two-year-old Naw Dah Dah were killed when Burmese soldiers fired grenades from a rocket launcher at their house.
The widespread rape of minority women by Burmese soldiers also extends to children and youth. On 17 December 1998, Naw Tha Paw, a 17-year-old Karen girl from Maw Kee village, was ambushed by SPDC troops from Light Infantry Battalion 361, raped, then shot or stabbed to death; 14-year-old Saw Maw Dah was with her when they were ambushed, and was shot and killed. On 13 October 1998, 15-year-old Naw Maw Nyunt was raped and killed by soldiers from Infantry Battalion 59.
The Burmese army uses both children and adults for forced labour. The youngest children, who are taken for road and railway building, are usually aged eight or 10, while the others, who are taken for heavy portering duties, carrying supplies for the Burmese army, are usually 12-year-old boys and 14-year-old girls. Conditions for porters are brutal, with female porters being regularly gang-raped at the end of the day. Porters are also used as human minesweepers triggering landmines with their own bodies. In one typical case, Naw Sah Mu, a 15-year-old girl from Papun district in Karen state, stepped on a landmine while portering and had her right leg blown off. Her 16-year-old friend, Zaw Zaw Oo, was hit in the face by the shrapnel and blinded. After they return home, many children die from diseases contracted while portering, combined with exhaustion.

203WH
The International Labour Organisation has rightly condemned the SPDC's widespread use of slave labour as a "crime against humanity."
The United Nations Special Rapporteur, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah QC, has acknowledged the systematic nature of the atrocities carried out against Burma's minorities. He submitted a report to the UN General Assembly, dated 10 September 1998, entitled "Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar." Paragraph 59 of the report reads:
The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the serious human rights violations that continue to be submitted by the armed forces in ethnic minority areas. The violations include extra-judicial and arbitrary executions (not sparing women and children), rape, torture, inhuman treatment, forced labour and denial of freedom of movement. These violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years as to suggest that they are not simply isolated or the acts or individual misbehaviour by middle and lower-rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest level entailing political and legal responsibility.
I emphasise the words "at the highest level". They are not just individual acts of barbarism by soldiers; they are condoned at the highest level of the regime.
The Jubilee campaign, Karen National League and the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People have told me that what is happening in the Shan and Karenni ethnic minorities in Burma is genocide. What is the international legal definition of genocide? This is where the British Government comes into the picture, so it is important to get the definition right. The international legal definition of genocide is found in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which Burma has ratified. The legal definition of the term is contained in article 2. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for reading it out, as it is important to get the legal position absolutely right so as to understand what the Government can and cannot do.
The convention, which we have all signed, states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Some points must be noted in relation to the legal definition of genocide. First, genocide need not be an attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group. An attempt to destroy part of an ethnic group suffices. What is happening to the Karen, Karenni and Shan minorities in Burma falls within the scenarios set out in article 2 of the convention. There can be no doubt that it constitutes

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

204WH
Only one of the five acts set out in article 2 need apply in order for the activities in question to be considered genocide by the international community, but in the case of Burma, at least three of them apply. International law does not require a minimum number of fatalities for a situation to be defined as genocide.
Without any shadow of a doubt, what the Burmese military regime is doing to the Karen, Shan and Karenni minority peoples clearly fits the international legal definition of genocide. Article 3 of the convention on genocide states:
The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempts to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

That is the international law, under which genocide is a very serious crime that requires an urgent global response. Sadly, such a response has not yet materialised.
I believe that the international community should swiftly and firmly press for prosecution of the Burmese military junta and its subordinates for genocide. An international tribunal should be set up by the United Nations Security Council to try the Burmese regime, just as was done in respect of the atrocities that occurred in Bosnia.
The British Government should use their permanent seat on the UNSC to lobby for the establishment of such a tribunal; that is why I am speaking directly to the Minister—and I am pleased to see him here. The Government should also lobby the UNSC for resolutions calling on the SPDC to end the genocide against the Karen, Shan and Karenni people and for global economic sanctions, including a universal arms embargo against Burma.
Would the action that I am suggesting the British Government should take be supported by democratic forces in Burma? The answer is that it would. Aung San Suu Kyi, the legitimate democratic leader of Burma, who is part of the National League for Democracy and who won the vast majority of votes in the 1990 elections, has repeatedly urged the international community to institute economic sanctions against her country. In a statement dated 6 September 1999, she said:
Burma is like a huge prison with a military dictatorship holding the keys and locking us away from freedom. Help us open the door of our prison. Economic sanctions are necessary for the fast democratisation of Burma. We would like the European Community, the United States and the rest of the world to be aware that sanctions help the movement for democracy in Burma. Unilateral sanctions are better than on sanctions at all.
That is the verdict of the democratically elected leader of Burma.
Foreign investment, I am sorry to say, has directly caused human rights violations. For example, whatever the intentions of the company may be, the Yetagun gas pipeline operated by the British company Premier Oil has fuelled the forced displacement of many Karen and Mon minority peoples by the Burmese army, because the pipeline runs through their areas. The Burma Campaign UK reports that since oil companies first invested in Burma, with plans for piping gas across the

205WH
Tenasserim division into Thailand, the Burmese military have stepped up their activity in the area. In 1990, there were 1,750 armed soldiers in the investment area, but by 1998 this had increased to 11,230 and two artillery units. Villagers have been forcibly relocated, partly to secure the division for foreign investment. There is no compensation for any houses, crops or belongings stolen or burnt by the Burmese army.
The United States Government has already banned all new investment by US companies in Burma because of the country's appalling human rights record. When I refer to the United States, which is a close ally of ours, I look at the Minister and I hope the British Government will do the same. The establishment of an international tribunal on economic sanctions would give teeth to the calls on the Burmese regime to end its genocidal activities and demonstrate the resolve of the global community to end these horrific and systematic atrocities.
I would like to know whether the British Government are willing to lead attempts to end the genocide by taking the measures that I have suggested and encouraging other nations to follow suit. Even starting to talk about this issue in terms of genocide, even holding this debate, may put some small pressure on the regime in Burma, which could well save lives. It would be tragic and irresponsible if Governments continued to wallow in indecision and ignore the plight of the Shan and Karenni peoples as they are systematically treated in this way. If there is one lesson that the world ought to have learned from the tragedies of the 20th century, it is that the only way to deter genocide is to respond to it swiftly and firmly. If we do not, this century may prove to be even bloodier that the previous one.
I want to make one last comment. We owe a debt as a nation to the Karen people. I took Field Marshal Viscount Slim's book "Defeat into Victory" out of the Library. In it, he writes about the fighting in Burma during the Second World War. He says that as the Japanese drew south in their retreat,
their way led them through the country of the Karens, a race which had remained staunchly loyal to us even in the blackest days of the Japanese occupation, and had suffered accordingly. Over a long period, in preparation for this day, we had organised a secret force, the Karen Guerrillas, based on ex-soldiers of the Burma Army for whom British officers and arms had been parachuted into the hills. It was not at all difficult to get the Karens to rise against the hated Japanese; the problem was to restrain them from rising too soon. But now the time had come, and I gave the word, "Up the Karens!".
Winston Churchill, in a debate in this House on 5 November 1947 said:
in the infliction of vengeance upon the loyal Burmese—the Burmese who were patriotically fighting with British and Indian troops to defend the soil of Burma from Japanese conquerors—great cruelties were perpetrated on those men, because they had helped us to resist the Japanese.
He said later in his speech:
Burma is an appendage of India and is likely to reproduce, though, of course, on a far smaller scale, the horrors and disasters which have overspread her great neighbour and which should ever haunt the consciences of the principal actors in this tragedy. All loyalties have been discarded and rebuffed; all faithful service has been forgotten and brushed aside. These is no assurance that the power of the new Government will be sufficient to maintain internal order: or, I might add, national independence…We stand on the threshold of another scene of misery and ruin …—[Official Report, 5 November 1947; Vol. 443, c.1848-52.]
206WH
That was 53 years ago. Nothing has changed. Misery and ruin go on under our noses in that sad country.
I look forward to the Minister giving us some hope. I spent yesterday morning thinking about this debate, after which I dealt with constituency correspondence. It contained the usual flood of small cases about the Child Support Agency and planning. Although those are important matters to our constituents, their problems pale into insignificance when we consider that hundreds of thousands of people on this planet are being moved from their homes and thousands are being murdered. Surely the House of Commons, of all places, has a moral responsibility to lead the court of world opinion and do something about the Burmese regime.
9.50 am
Mr. Andrew Miller: I endorse every word of the speech made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am delighted that he obtained the debate. It is pleasing to know that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will reinforce his points.
I shall start where the hon. Gentleman left off, with a case that relates to Field Marshal Slim's involvement in Burma. My interest in that country began with a small constituency matter. A constituent came to see me soon after I was elected in 1992 and told me his story. He fought for the British Army and had the opportunity after the war to enter Britain as a British citizen. He chose to return to his people, the Karens, to help them build their lives. Sadly, they have not been able to build their lives. Bruce Humphrey Taylor eventually came to this country and spent 50 years working here until his death last year. He came to see me about how to get his great niece out of a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees camp on the Thai-Burmese border. That is when I learned about the atrocities to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred.
The atrocities are well documented. There is no doubt about the credibility of the evidence that will be presented to the House today. It is sad that a nation that is so far away and so remote from our considerations is forgotten. Burma has the most corrupt regime on the planet. We can pluck out examples of problems in other countries, but where else is there such systematic use of forced labour, destruction of villages and killing of people?
I shall refer to the atrocities in the context of the hon. Gentleman's reference to the United Nations convention on human rights to which, ironically, as he said, Burma is a signatory. An independent report published by the Karen Human Rights Group in 1998 entitled "Wholesale Destruction" has been widely circulated around the world, but no one from the Burmese regime has challenged one word of its content. The section on the destruction of villages sets out the activities of the State Law and Order Restoration Council. SLORC launched a campaign in many parts of Burma forcibly to move or wipe out all rural villages that were not under the direct physical control of an army camp.
The issue of forced of labour is also well documented. Groups of people have been forced to build roads and grow food for the army—not for the sake of the nation's infrastructure, but to improve the wretched army's

207WH
ability to terrorise them. The evidence is overwhelming. One day we shall have the facility to show photographs during our debates. Photographs exist that would make right hon. and hon. Members' blood curdle—of people being burnt alive, shot, maimed and tortured by that wretched regime.
To what degree is the regime responsible? The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that he presumed that the instructions came from the highest authority. I believe that it is now clear that that is so. A book published towards the end of last year, "Voice of a Hungry Nation", has a fascinating appendix 6, which contains facsimiles of military orders. One, requiring paddy cultivation, is an invitation to the head man of a village.
Regarding the above, we want to discuss the agricultural cultivation situation with you, so everyone must come to the following meeting.
(To: pay back left over loans given for crops)
That refers to crops that people are forced to grow to sell to the regime. If they want to feed themselves they must buy them back at a much higher price. There are documents about provision of food to the army and about porter duty for the army. A minor military instruction to send porters states:
Regarding the above matter, in relation to the provision of military operations servants, the Village Tract Head must arrange for the sending of four military operations servants as outlined below, without fail.
Those are fairly blunt military instructions. They do not state directly what will happen to the people if they fail to comply, but the truth becomes clear as one reads on. A document about the "matter of voluntary labor contribution to construct a dam" states that
Ten people must come with tools for voluntary labor
to build the dam. Those people must report to a military camp. Another document is identified as an order to relocate. No one relocates voluntarily. That is clear military evidence of the beginnings of the destruction of villages. The document states:
An order has been issued to—
a village, the name of which has been deliberately deleted—
to vacate the place and move
to another village
or to any other place where the villagers have relatives…After the date of issue of this order, it is warned that the Army will go around clearing the area and should any village or small huts in the paddy fields be found still standing, they will all be dismantled and destroyed.
That is an acknowledgement by the regime that it is engaged in destroying people's homes. This country was up in arms when Ian Smith tried to do the same thing on the borders of what was then Rhodesia. Why are we not up in arms now when the exact same thing is happening in Burma?
The ultimate military order in the selection reads as follows:
Subject: Notification. As has come to light, tracts, elders and villagers of the Mehpletdoe region have all heard the KNU's notice that it will plant land mines 4 ft 6 in from the edges of roads to be set off by its enemies. While we don't intend to further increase the problems of the villagers—
208WH
joke—
we also hereby inform our village parents, brothers and sisters that we will also start to do the same thing. We have great love for you all. We cannot protect you all.

(1) We will start to lay mines and ambush as of 20/2/99.

(2) Whatever place/village we enter, absolutely don't run away.

(3) We won't accept responsibility for anyone who runs.

Those military orders provide unambiguous evidence of the approach that is being adopted and such documents provide evidence that should be submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
There is no doubt that genocide is being committed by that regime. The destruction of villages, forced labour and murder is being authorised at the highest level. The problem is that Burma is a long way away. Television cameras go to Rangoon and, quite rightly, give coverage to the bravery of Aung San Suu Kyi, who was elected as the democratic leader of the Burmese nation, but the television cameras do not go into the remote jungles and see what is happening there, where 30,000 people have been killed in a short time, many of them in the most barbaric way.
We have a responsibility to do something, not least because British companies are seeking to invest there. To be fair to British industry, most companies have heeded the Government's warning that further investment is unacceptable. Not only has Premier Oil ignored the advice of the British Government, but its very acts have exacerbated the situation. To be fair, Britain has played a small part in trying to bring about democracy and justice in Burma, but much more needs to be done. We need to raise the matter robustly in the United Nations and the European Union. We have a serious problem with foreign policy issues and the EU. For example, if the French decide not to play ball because they have oil interests in a country, that presents difficulties for Britain as a member of the EU, but we must take a much more robust position. Small countries, such as Norway, are doing more than Britain to re-establish human rights and democracy in Burma.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is moved by the issues that have been raised today. I know that our good friend, the late Derek Fatchett, had started to move the debate on, and I know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who is in the far east at the moment, is also very keen to see some positive action taken. One thing that the House can do is show unity of purpose and collectively asks the Government to do all that they can to bring this terrible situation to the attention of the world. I hope that the media will take this debate seriously and that the Government will use the unity of purpose in the House at least to begin to put more pressure on the authorities in the United Nations and the European Union. In memory of the thousands of people who have been killed, we must do everything that we can to restore democracy in that country.
10.5 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Both he and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) have painted a tragic picture of what has been going on in Burma. My own interest,

209WH
like that of others, stems partly from wartime understanding, because a number of constituents and friends in Belfast served in Burma, and one of my cousins' husband was a Japanese prisoner of war through serving in Burma. More recently, I have had contact with a young Burmese student in the Belfast Bible college. However, most of the information that I have gained has come from the campaigning bodies that seek to remind us all that one of the greatest tragedies in the world continues in Burma.
A recent report reminds me that although, as Christians and because of our British connection with the Karen and Karenni people, we have emphasised their lot, the reality is that different groups throughout Burma are affected, not only the Shan and the Mon, but the Rohingya and others. It is a desperate situation when a so-called Government seeking to govern a country terrorise and persecute their own people.
Lest some think that we are dealing only with Christian people, a report that I received today from a joint Australian-United Kingdom Christian Solidarity mission to Burma and Thailand in October 1999 makes solemn reading. The bulk of the people that the mission met were Buddhists, and the report says that it may have been because most of the Christians have already been displaced. It is a humanitarian issue of the greatest moment. It is not a religious or sectarian conflict, but a Government seeking to force their views on people by terror.
My colleagues painted the picture on the ground; I want to probe some of the issues. Although Governments have signed accords and agreements, quite often, as in Burma, they do not implement them. One problem that permeates the situation today is European Union co-operation. What representations has the Minister made to his European colleagues concerning the EU's participation in Association of South-East Asian Nations meetings at which Burma is present? I understand that the Government has taken a firm line on that, but if the Burmese Government are seeking to make their own citizens outcasts, the world at large should make them outcasts until they return to democratic practices.
There are some who claim that the Karen and Karenni are seeking to be independent. I am not convinced that that is true. They want to be able to live in their own country, perhaps as part of a proper democratic Burmese society. Is the European Union prepared to respond to Aung San Suu Kyi's views that economic sanctions should be imposed on Burma by ending all links—tourism, trade or investment by European companies—between the European Union and Burma? People will say immediately that that will put pressure on the poorest, but the harsh reality is that the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or the State Peace and Development Council—SLORC or the SPDC; it changes its initials to suit different situations— already imposes such sanctions on its own people.
For two years, the people who have been displaced and forced to live in the jungle have managed to survive. However, because of a severe drought in 1998 and the campaign by the San Tha Lone, or SSS—a particularly vicious group of terrorist soldiers, who ravage and burn villages—there is no longer sufficient food, even in the countryside, for people to exist on. It is a question not of our penalising those people, but of our starting to put
210WH
pressure on those who are doing the levelling. I think that I use that term correctly: the Minister of Education in the Burmese Government has very little education, so he spends his time closing the universities in Burma. That is a form of levelling with which I do not agree, as I would prefer to level upwards, rather than downwards.
The time has come for the international community to put pressure on the Burmese authorities. I appreciate the problems faced by the Government in their dealings with the Burmese authorities. I know that the Burmese authorities can be arrogant and that, at times, they are not prepared even to answer the phone and discuss the issues with our representatives. However, if they take that line, we should mobilise international opinion to keep up the pressure on them. The issue has been given some emphasis in the European Union and in the United States, but there is a case for asking our Japanese allies to start acting effectively. The Japanese—willingly, unwillingly or simply in the natural desire to foster trade in the interests of their own people—are giving support to the Burmese Government that is keeping them going.
The concept of economic sanctions is important, and I urge the Government to maintain pressure not only on British companies, which, by and large, have abided by that concept, but also on their European counterparts. What discussions have been held with the International Monetary Fund about financial aid packages, and are they linked with reforms in Burma? There have been suggestions that this nation has moved away from its ethical foreign policy; I would not like to think that that was the case. As well as dealing with financial and material needs, the IMF should consider the ethical issues relating to policies that are impoverishing many people.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to the campaign against landmines. People who have spoken to us about the burning of villages do not mean only the torching of a row of terraced houses; they are talking about people going from one house to another, destroying them deliberately—and destroying many of the people as well. The Burmese authorities will say that they have to take such strong action because the liberation army of the Karen people is fighting them and that it is a war of independence. I would put it in another way: it is a war of protection. In one area of Burma, about 25,000 Burmese soldiers are operating in four districts, where approximately 1,000 members of the liberation army are operating to protect their people against butchery by soldiers on behalf of a disreputable Government. I support my colleagues in bringing the issue before Parliament, the nation and the world, and saying that we stand by a persecuted people. They are persecuted simply because they face a totalitarian regime that is not prepared to play by the rules.
10.15 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), not only on securing the debate, but on his presentation of the case. He made an extremely good speech and is right to say that we have been remiss in not having this debate and not bringing the issues to Parliament's attention before.
I also welcome the speech by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who spoke alarmingly about some of the military objectives. I had

211WH
not heard about those before, and they shocked me greatly. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked the Minister some important questions about sanctions, and I hope that he will answer those directly.
I want to place on record the thanks that we all owe to the work of the Burma Campaign UK and the Burma Action Group UK, which consistently raise important issues. I have to confess that, unlike the previous three speakers, I am not an expert on the matter; it is very much new to me. I have spent the past 48 hours preparing for the debate and have been appalled to read about what has been taking place in Burma. Those groups have been extremely helpful in providing information, as have the speeches that we have just heard.
Some of the minorities that we are discussing have been fighting for independence for almost 50 years, mostly against the backdrop of a bloody civil war with a military regime. It is appropriate that we look back at the role of the Karen people, who fought bravely alongside the British in Asia during the Second World War. The Karen people assumed that they would get British assistance in the foundation of an independent state in return for their courage and actions. We have heard a number of quotes from Viscount Slim, and I will add to them: he described the Karen people as "far from fair-weather friends". However, instead of getting an independent state, which they might have expected, the Karen people, as well as other ethnic minorities, have been blatantly abused by the Burmese Government ever since.
Sadly, it is an everyday occurrence for the Karen people, as well as many other minorities, to work in forced labour camps, often for little or no pay. Worse than that, as the International Labour Organisation has pointed out, is the fact that a significant proportion of those workers are children, the elderly and disabled people. In addition, the forced labour is often in opium fields, so workers are contributing to the appallingly high heroin production in that part of the world. Such atrocities are deplorable. Quite rightly, the ILO—an agency of the United Nations—passed a virtually unprecedented resolution expelling Burma from that organisation last June.
Unfortunately, the problems do not end with forced labour. As we have heard, the Burmese Government has targeted ethnic minorities as political enemies by birth. They are constantly tortured, imprisoned, murdered and harassed by that Government. Nearly 2,000 people are imprisoned in Burma solely because of their ethnicity. The Government can get away with that, because the shadow of a judicial system that exists is not independent from the executive military junta, and almost no one receives a fair trial—especially not those from ethnic minorities.
The United Nations estimates that between 300,000 and 400,000 Burmese refugees have fled into neighbouring countries, specifically India and Thailand. Because of political affiliations there, Thailand and India find it hard to recognise those individuals as refugees. Will it be possible to make representations to India and Thailand to see what they can do to assist those refugees?
212WH
In 1990, the military Government agreed to hold democratic elections, and 82 per cent. of the seats in Parliament were won by the National League for Democracy. The fact that Burma was holding elections was seen as a promising development. However, that elected Parliament was never allowed to convene; worse than that, 78 of its Members were jailed by the Burmese Government, and two of them died during their imprisonment. Six students who took part in that election and supported the National League for Democracy await execution.
There has been a massive build-up of the military arsenal in the area and, as John Jackson of the Burma Campaign UK says, nearly 40 per cent. of Burma's gross domestic product is spent on the military. The country's active military numbers around 400.000, a figure that is double that of 20 years ago, despite the fact that Burma has no real external enemies in that part of Asia. With that spending increase, health, education and social security have all been denied to people there in the past few years. John Jackson says that spending on health and social security has dropped below 5 per cent., and education below 10 per cent., while defence remains at around 40 per cent. of GDP.
It is important to look at some of the conditions to which those policies are leading. As the United States Central Intelligence Agency has said, life expectancy at birth is only 54 years, and infant mortality stands at 76 deaths for every 1,000 born, which is higher than in Vietnam and Thailand combined. Schools have been closed down for years on end and, with the exception of the two universities in Rangoon, no higher education is available.
Mr. Miller: I want to clarify that the statistics that the hon. Gentleman is citing refer to the whole of Burma, and that they include the privileged people who are supported by the regime. The statistics in the ethnic minority areas are substantially worse than the bad statistics that he has quoted.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The picture is much worse if it is narrowed down to the ethnic minorities. The education figures are dramatically reduced when they are considered for the ethnic minorities alone.
According to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, in my judgment, the Burmese Government's campaign against minorities falls within the legal guideline for genocide. I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the evidence for genocide is compelling. To date, the Government has at least acknowledged that, and it is true that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has sent some positive messages on the matter, but the Government has so far merely noted the concerns rather than taken positive action. In opposition, the Labour party urged the Conservative Government to support a Danish-led European sanctions campaign. I want the Minister to acknowledge that the Government has perhaps not been as robust as they could have been in fulfilling their pre-election promises to impose investment sanctions.
Sanctions are never an easy option, and there are many legal issues that need to be addressed. The Government originally claimed that they could not

213WH
impose sanctions against Burma because of article 73(g) of the treaty of Rome, which forbids any EU member state to impose unilateral trade sanctions separately from the Union. A number of us are calling for, not trade, but investment sanctions, which are protected under article 60.2 of the treaty of Rome, provided that there are serious political reasons and the situation is urgent. The Government and the European Commission can claim that, because the situation has been going on for such an extended period, the matter is not urgent, but it is my belief that genocide and such extensive human rights violations, no matter how long they have been going on, remain an urgent matter. Investment sanctions could be imposed and would be protected under article 60.2.
It is often argued that such sanctions hurt those most in need. However, only the upper class and the Government benefit directly from investment. It pays for their extravagant life style and for the intense military build-up. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough said, even the leader of the National League for Democracy said that such sanctions would do good. She said that the real profits from investments
do not go to the people of Burma. It is all concentrated in the hands of foreign investors or privileged people…The poor people will not suffer because of a boycott.
Obviously, the evidence points in the direction of the greater use of sanctions. The chronic abuse of human rights of the minorities of Burma, as well as the horrid overall state of affairs, requires action by the Government. Amnesty International, the National League for Democracy, the United States of America and others all endorse investment sanctions on Burma. The United States has imposed such sanctions since 1997. The matter is urgent and I hope that the Minister will set out a plan of action so that we can do more to help the people about whom we have heard this morning.
10.26 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for introducing the debate. This is the first time that the issue has been debated in the House of Commons. I am sure that the Minister will respond aptly to the heart-rending stories and pleas from hon. Members of all parties about a forgotten act of genocide that has continued for more than 52 years. I hope that, like me, he will acknowledge the great role that has been played by Wilfred Wong of the Jubilee campaign and Dirk Patterson of Christian Solidarity, who have been bringing the act of genocide to the attention of Members of Parliament for some time. We are grateful to them for their work.
Burma was a British colony. It was part of British India until 1948, when it became independent from the Commonwealth. From 1964, it was a one-party state ruled by the Burma Socialist Programme party under General Nei Win, which was allied closely to the armed forces. In 1988, an economic collapse provoked popular unrest that threatened the position of the BSPP. Although Nei Win retired officially, he retained influence behind the scenes. At first, the unrest was put down with force, with massacres of opposition demonstrators as the military attempted to maintain its position. Since then, the country has remained in a parlous state.
214WH
Since independence, Burma has been in a state of civil war and the Burmese military has indiscriminately abused the human rights of ethnic minorities—whether they be insurgents or civilians—with widespread disappearances, extrajudical killings and torture, as well as forced labour and relocation. The points that were made by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) reflect a great consensus among the parties in our attitude towards the regime in Burma and what is happening to the people of that country.
The Karen people are the largest minority group in Burma, with 7 million or more people. In the past fortnight, I have met four of their representatives. They were quietly spoken and brought with them tales of horror, deprivation, murder and rape. No one could fail to have been moved by their testimony. The Karen are facing genocide at the hands of the Burmese army. Since 1993, more than 30,000 Karen civilians have died as a result of Burmese military action. Many have died of starvation and illnesses resulting from being displaced. Since 1995, the slaughter has intensified, as more extensive parts of Karen territory have come under Burmese military control. In fact, since the 1990s, the Burmese military has delilberately targeted civilians during military operations.
There are more than 300,000 internally displaced Karen people in Burma. That figure comes from the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People, a representative of which has met me and my hon. Friends in the past 10 days. Many of those people are hiding from the Burmese army in the jungles, with little or no food and water. They are shot on sight. One of the representatives who saw me spoke perfect English. I asked him where he learned English and he replied, "I studied in the jungle. I taught myself so I could communicate." The fact that civilians are shot on sight makes Burma almost unique. There is probably no other country in the world where so many civilians are forced to hide in the jungle and are slaughtered like animals when they are found.
Counting other ethnic groups as well as the Karen, the total population of internally displaced people in the region is about 2 million—one of the highest in the world. There are about 120,000 Karen refugees in Thailand. They have been forced to flee by the atrocities of the Burmese army. The Karen, Karenni and Shan minorities are experiencing all the privations that have been described by other hon. Members, such as the systematic destruction of their villages, crops and food stores, and forcible relocation to sites of forced labour without pay or food. Those who flee the relocations are hunted down by the Burmese troops and shot on sight.
Extrajudicial executions are widespread and frequent, and the victims include women, children, babies and pregnant women. The rape of minority women is extensive. We discussed the role of women in development in this Chamber during the debate on the International Development Committee's first-class report. We know that the Serbs used rape against Bosnian Muslims as part of their ethnic cleansing policies. That has received much publicity, but not much has been said in the media about the systematic rape by the Burmese army of the women of ethnic minorities in that region.

215WH
Those atrocities have been widely documented by human rights organisations, such as the Karen Human Rights Group and EarthRights International, but they have not been extensively reported in the press. I do not believe that the average person in the street would think of Burma if asked to name the regions of the world in which the worst atrocities have been perpetrated. I hope that this debate will raise the profile of what is being done in that part of the world. It gives the Minister the opportunity to make some practical suggestions on how to proceed.
I do not want to shock anyone, but some examples of the atrocities that have been perpetrated should be put on record. The examples were given to EarthRights International by the villagers. One witness said:
In my village, there were two spinsters…The soldiers came to the house…and asked the spinsters to show them the way to a military camp. The woman staying in the house saw them talking to the soldiers and saw the spinsters go with the soldiers. The next time the villagers saw them, they were dead and lying face down on the ground. The soldiers raped and killed them. When we found them, they were lying down on the ground without any clothes on below their waists. One of the women's throats had been cut; the other had been shot.
Another witness said:
In my village, the soldiers did not try to marry with the women, but they went to the houses to sleep with the women. They did not ask. They went to sleep with them. The soldiers would go quietly to sleep with the women without asking the permission of the owner of the houses where the women lived. The girls would scream. It happened every time the soldiers came to the village. When the soldiers were in the village, they cried every night.
The Minister has a difficult task. He has to satisfy all parties in this Chamber that he will take action. There have been developments involving the Government and the European Union. I hope that he will not only answer the questions raised by the hon. Members but tell us, especially in the light of his responsibilities, what is happening at European level. We know that the European Union has observed a package of sanctions against Burma since 1996. That was set out as a common position on 28 October 1996, amended by a Council decision in October 1998 and then extended. What have those sanctions achieved? Does he have evidence that sanctions have worked in any way, shape or form, or does he believe, as I do, that it is time to review what is happening, and consider whether another strategy might be more effective?
Aid has been supplied to Burma through non-governmental organisations. I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no point in supplying aid through a Government organisation in this country. Nongovernmental organisations provide the sensible route. It appears that only limited amounts have been given to Burma, or any of the minorities, in the form of emergency assistance, including relief for flood victims—only £272,000 in 1998 and a small additional amount for a health project run by World Vision.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what further aid has been provided. Does he plan to discuss the question of aid for the region with his colleagues in the Department for International Development?
Mr. Miller: I want the hon. Lady to be absolutely clear about sanctions, as it is important to express a
216WH
unified position. Is she saying that the official Opposition want to strengthen sanctions, as we did against South Africa? Would she support the channelling of aid through bordering countries to ethnic minority groups, which Norway, for example, is doing?
Mrs. Gillan: I believe that there is no consensus on economic sanctions in the EU or the UN Security Council. I am asking the Minister, who has access to the information, to provide an assessment of what those sanctions have achieved. What, in his judgment, would be the next step? Clearly, the sanctions regime is having little effect.
I am especially keen on the delivery of aid through NGOs. In previous debates, I have called for Government aid to Zimbabwe to be stopped and channelled through non-governmental organisations so that it reaches those who are most in need. What aid and resources have been delivered to Burma, and what future plans exist?
I want to link the regime to the international criminal court, on which the Government has hung their hat. We have talked about that a great deal and are looking forward to seeing legislation on it. Will the court's powers cover the Burmese regime? What stage has the legislation reached? What are our plans for that international institution? The perpetrators of genocide in Burma could be prime candidates to be hauled before an international criminal court.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but does she agree that it will take time to establish the court? We need not wait for it to be in place. Procedures exist to deal with the problem.
Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. I would not want to delay the process of passing judgment on the perpetrators of such crimes, but I want to take this opportunity to press the Minister on legislation to establish the international criminal court. That has been much promised and much vaunted, but so far we have had only hot air and warm words.
There is a common purpose among us. We all want to know what the United Kingdom can do to restore the rule of law and to encourage the development of a benign Government and the restoration of civil society in Burma. Everyone who spoke made a great contribution to developing the case against the regime. If the debate moves the process forward, it will have been worthwhile. I hope that the Minister will reassure us and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
10.41 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for giving us a unique opportunity to debate the appalling situation that faces the Karen and other Burmese ethnic minorities. The issue rightly continues to be of great concern to the House and the other place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for their

217WH
contributions. I have not attended many debates in the House on which there has been such unanimity. Those who spoke, especially the hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Belfast, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, have a long and close interest in the matter.
Her Majesty's Government and I share the outrage expressed by many at the dreadful human rights abuses in Burma. The Burmese regime's brutal policies, including torture, rape, forced labour, forced relocations and arbitrary executions, towards ethnic minorities have led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people across Burma's borders into neighbouring countries.
We understand that there are 22,000 Burmese refugees in Bangladesh and, officially, 105,000 mostly Karen and Karenni in camps near the border in Thailand. Thousands of other refugees are either internally displaced in Burma or living illegally in Thailand outside the refugee camps. The appalling suffering of ethnic minorities in Burma is a symptom of a wider malaise—the subjugation of a nation by military despots who continue to ignore the people's democratic choice. While that dreadful state of affairs lasts, we shall give the regime no respite. In all the international forums, on every possible occasion, we shall continue to press it to move forward. It can expect no relaxation of the pressure and measures that have been adopted for as long as it holds out against political and economic reform.
Later, I shall explain what we are doing in greater detail, but first I should like to respond to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and describe how we are helping the ethnic minorities and refugees. We use a variety of channels; we are providing direct British humanitarian assistance, and working closely with neighbouring countries on repatriation issues and safeguarding the security of refugees. The activities of our embassies in Rangoon and Bangkok are another channel of support. I pay tribute to our ambassador, John Jenkins, and to his small team in Rangoon for their dedication and perseverance in trying and difficult circumstances.
British humanitarian assistance delivers vital relief to the region. Our assistance to organisations working on the ground in Burma targets some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups. Since 1996, we have provided more than £1 million in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. This year alone, we have allocated £270,000 to support the excellent work of the Burma Border Consortium in providing humanitarian assistance to refugee camps in Thailand. With our EU partners, we have also supported work in repatriating and resettling Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to Burma and ensuring their protection on arrival. We are always open to suggestions and other workable ideas on how we can alleviate the suffering of ordinary Burmese people. The hon. Member for Gainsborough told the House about his meetings with affected parties. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), also has such experience, as, before his sad demise, did my colleague Derek Fatchett.
The large number of refugees in Thailand places a considerable burden on that country. Occasionally, the Thai authorities crack down on illegal economic
218WH
migrants, a large number of whom are Burmese. We have sought and received assurances from the Thai authorities that there will be no forced repatriations of refugees. Since 1998, when the UNHCR established field offices in Thailand, there has been no evidence of such repatriations. We shall continue to pay close attention to this sensitive issue.
Mrs. Gillan: I am most grateful to the Minister for the way in which he is treating the debate and for his responses so far. Will he clarify one point? He has put into the region aid of some £270,000 this year and £1 million since 1996. In the light of the size of the problem, will he undertake to review that amount and to consider whether it can be revised upwards? It is a small sum and I hope that he will perceive from this debate the need for more resources to be put into the area, which is of great fragility. Will he undertake to review the amount spent on humanitarian aid, bearing in mind the number of requests that he will undoubtedly have received?
Mr. Vaz: I can tell the hon. Lady and all hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider all the points that have been made. We constantly monitor the situation and we will continue to do so.
Refugees must enjoy adequate security. The 1998 attacks on Wangka and Mawker refugee camps in Thailand by a splinter Karen group highlighted the acute dangers faced by Burmese refugees there. While we welcome the important role played by the Thai authorities in providing shelter for refugees, we have urged them to ensure that the camps receive adequate protection. The British embassy in Bangkok regularly visits the camps to monitor the situation. We fully support the role of UN agencies in providing protection for the Rohingya refugees in northern Rakhine State. Our ambassador travelled to the state last month to see the situation for himself. Embassy staff in Rangoon regularly monitor the work of the UN and international NGOs operating in difficult circumstances.
The plight of Burmese ethnic minorities flows from the wider political and human rights situation in Burma, which remains, as we have heard this morning, appalling. Human rights violations by the regime are among the worst in the world. In addition to the atrocities that I have mentioned, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross estimate that there are 1,500 political prisoners in Burma. There is no democracy there, despite democratic elections in 1990.
Our policy on Burma is to press the regime to improve its human rights record and to enter into a substantive dialogue with the National League for Democracy, which was the overwhelming victor in the 1990 election, as well as with ethnic minority leaders, to find a political solution to the country's problems. On Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will meet Dr. Sen Win, the leader of the pro-democracy movement in Burma. Our policy recognises the need to sustain the Burmese opposition and to resist the regime's efforts to wear down the international resistance to its undemocratic rule. We are determined to keep up pressure on Burma on every front, bilaterally, regionally and multinationally, in whatever forum is available.

219WH
Burma's record is an affront to the United Nations principles that it has undertaken to uphold. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the hon. Member for Belfast, South asked what we were doing with our EU partners. We are working with them on a strongly worded draft resolution to be adopted at the UN Commission on Human Rights in the coming weeks. The resolution catalogues the widespread human rights violations that have resulted in the displacement of people—particularly ethnic minorities. We cosponsored a similar resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November. It is the responsibility of the Burmese Government to respect their obligations and implement United Nations resolutions swiftly and in full. We shall maintain all pressure to ensure that they do so.
We are always ready to look for ways to inject momentum into the engagement of the United Nations with Burma. I was therefore delighted to learn this morning of the appointment of Razali Ismail as the UN Secretary-General's new special representative to Burma. Mr. Razali brings to the job a wealth of UN experience, having previously been Malaysia's permanent representative in New York. I am sure that he will carry out his role with dynamism and creativity and I am certain that Foreign Office Ministers will seek to meet him at the earliest opportunity to pass on the concerns of the Government and Members of Parliament.
As the hon. Member for Winchester said, the United Kingdom led the charge at the governing body of the International Labour Organisation in condemnation of Burma. The regime has consistently ignored the ILO's recommendations on stopping forced labour. However, I point out that it has not been expelled from the organisation. In an unprecedented move, the organisation has arranged a discussion for its June 2000 conference, which could result in an appeal to its other 174 member states to review their relationship with Burma, and to take appropriate measures to ensure that it
cannot take advantage of such relations to perpetuate or extend the system of forced compulsory labour
practised against the country's citizens. It will be the first time that such steps have been taken against an ILO member and that will be implicit recognition that Burma's behaviour in this respect is worse than any other labour issue anywhere. We are pressing hard with our EU partners to strengthen the common position on Burma when it is renewed later this month.
We have withdrawn all financial support for trade missions to Burma and we do not encourage British companies to trade or invest there; nor do we encourage tourism. After all, Burmese democratic leaders do not think that that is appropriate. We maintain very close contacts with pro-democracy groups in Burma including Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, the general secretary of the NLD. Embassy officials in Rangoon and visiting officials frequently meet with her and other members of the NLD. We all value this important contact. Our thoughts are with her at this difficult time, the first anniversary of her husband's tragic death. Were it not for the international support that she and her colleagues receive, they would probably have been locked away long ago.
220WH
The Government shares fully the concerns that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and other hon. Members have expressed today, about the plight of the Karen and other ethnic minority refugees in Burma. We are deeply disturbed by the continued violation of human rights by the military regime. The Government are second to none in bringing international pressure to bear on that regime to make it mend its ways. The regime has a duty to its people to implement democratic reform. The plight of the Burmese people will remain high on the list of the Government's priorities until such time as we are able, as a result of genuine change in Burma, to welcome the country back into the international fold.
The eloquent and passionate speech made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough has ensured that the focus of Parliament and, indeed, the world is on the events in Burma. He was right to say that this debate could result in the regime listening to us. It could also result in some lives being saved. I can assure him that if there is anything further that he feels that the Government can do to strengthen our already strong position, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be happy to meet him and his delegation of Members of Parliament to discuss matters further. It would be helpful if that delegation included the Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Winchester, as that would demonstrate the unanimity of purpose among all the parties.
Mr. Leigh: It is important that we state that the actions of this regime amount to genocide, according to the legal definition. By doing so, we will be able to persuade the United Nations and our European Union partners to take action. Will the Minister please address that point?
Mr. Vaz: I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises the matter. The descriptions that he has given us are appalling, but he must know that the term "genocide" has a precise meaning in international law. To be frank, under international law and all the rights and responsibilities that bind one under that law, genocide is difficult to prove. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I can assure him that we will keep looking at this point, but genocide is a legal term and has a particular definition. I know that he does not use the word loosely. Defining the actions of the Burmese regime as genocide is important to him and to what he hopes that the Government and the international community can do. I assure him that we have noted what he has said and will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: I will not give way because we have nearly finished the debate.
Our message to the Burmese people is that they are not forgotten; that is demonstrated by what is being done here in the House of Commons, at the European Union, in the General Affairs Council, and through continued international contacts. We are committed more than ever to work with them and we will not rest until there is an end to human rights abuses and a return to democracy and constitutional rule. I thank the hon.

221WH
Member for Gainsborough for introducing the debate and so giving Parliament an opportunity to discuss this issue and the Government an opportunity to reiterate their commitment to the people of Burma.
10.59 am
Mrs. Gillan: I am sorry that the Minister would not take an intervention from me. I understood from his speech that he does not believe that genocide is taking place in Burma. I ask the Minister to write to me and clarify the Government's position on the atrocities that have been described this morning and to inform us whether the Government believes that they fall within the definition of genocide. I think every hon. Member who has participated in the debate would find that helpful.
Mr. Vaz: I have made it clear to the hon. Member for Gainsborough that genocide is a legal definition and a legal term. I will write to the hon. Lady if she would like me to.

Housing Benefit Fraud
11 am
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to introduce a debate on the Government's measures to combat housing benefit fraud. As hon. Members will know, this year approximately £12 billion will be paid out in housing benefit by local authorities to almost 5 million people in England, Scotland and Wales. Labour's 1997 manifesto overstated the case, saying that housing benefit fraud amounted to about £2 billion a year. According to Government figures at the time, fraud cost about £1 billion a year. The National Audit Office reached the same conclusion in its press notice of 8 April 1999.
The Secretary of State estimates that housing benefit fraud and error cost taxpayers around £840 million a year, but, allowing for a margin of error and differing methodology, there is no real evidence that fraud has declined very much in the past three years. The problem remains real and acute.
The Government's determination to tackle the problem is commendable. I am sure that all political parties and all hon. Members share that objective. However, we are entitled to expose Government policies to scrutiny and to hope that the ensuing debate fully and frankly reflects the realities of what is a complex issue.
The Secretary of State for Social Security told the House on 6 March:
We are completely driving fraud from the system.
If only we could be certain that that were true. The latest departmental figures that I have seen show a negligible fall, which the Department has reportedly described as not statistically significant. I understand that a third of all councils have never prosecuted anyone for housing benefit fraud and that the National Audit Office has found that 25 per cent. of councils that it visited were in on the act. The Benefit Agency's own fraud investigation unit ran out of money in September 1998 and the Government has abandoned the London organised fraud investigation team, although much organised fraud takes place in London.
Similarly, the Secretary of State's further pronouncement on 6 March that
the last Government did absolutely nothing—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 756.]
about benefit fraud does not advance the quality of debate. It cannot be reconciled, for instance, with the steady increase during the early 1990s in prosecutions for all benefit fraud to more than 10,000 a year in 1995–96 and 1996–97, with a 99 per cent. conviction rate. Nor can it be reconciled with the rise in total fraud savings to an average of more than £1.5 billion in each of the last two years of the previous Administration.
The truth, which the Government are reluctant to acknowledge, is that most of their policies and initiatives have evolved from ideas and measures that pre-date the 1997 general election.
In reply to my written question on 7 February at columns 52-53W, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) highlighted four key points in the Government's strategy against housing benefit fraud. Since then, I have been widely seeking comment on her reply and by no

223WH
means exclusively from my Labour-Liberal controlled local authority, Basingstoke and Deane borough council.
It seems that the situation on the ground may not be quite so straightforward as Government statements suggest. First, in the Minister's reply to my question, she pointed to the reform of
the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure that they can be rewarded for detecting and prosecuting cases of fraud.
I welcome that approach and I am sure that it is the right way to set about the task. It re-expresses the principle in the 1993 and 1994 schemes, which gave local authorities a share in savings above their share of a national baseline. By 1995–96, around 90 per cent. of all local authorities—421 of them—were receiving bonus payments as a direct result of their efforts to curb fraud. That year, £28 million in extra subsidy was earned from those incentive schemes.
I have one qualification. All too often, the efforts of local authorities are undermined when it comes to prosecuting cases of fraud. They are at a disadvantage compared with the Benefits Agency and they do not have the assistance of the Department's prosecution service. Local authorities have to secure the cooperation of their local police force, which then takes benefit prosecutions using the Crown Prosecution Service.
Unfortunately, as many local authorities have learned, the police are not always willing to act on housing benefit matters and it often falls to the council's solicitors to prosecute cases. That is a labour intensive, time-consuming and costly task and, to add insult to injury, the sentences are often derisory. The solution lies in local authorities having access to the Department's prosecution service.
Secondly, the Under-Secretary of State said in reply to my question that the Government had
made an additional available £100 million over the next three years to enable councils to adopt the Verification Framework…which will help make housing benefit more secure.—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 53W.]
The Government tell us that they are looking for a total saving of some £1 billion during the course of this Parliament through a tighter identification regime. I hope that they succeed, but there is a downside.
My Labour-Liberal controlled local authority is certainly not alone in having discovered that, while the verification framework has been in place, there has been a detrimental impact in one key respect: the time taken to process a housing benefit claim has virtually doubled. That is a regressive step. It means that some of the most vulnerable are left exposed and in dire circumstances for longer. There are even some indications that the delay may be deterring some of them from claiming housing benefit. I therefore urge that the workings of the verification framework are kept under close scrutiny. I suspect that, ultimately, the objectives of security and speedy processing of claims are incompatible and that an acceptable balance has to be found. I fear that that balance may not have been achieved.
I wish to raise another issue, which I hope that Government will consider seriously. Administration is certainly more secure under the verification framework,
224WH
but the performance of housing benefit sections nationally has suffered a severe blow. It is therefore reasonable to expect performance indicators to reflect that. When the Government talk about setting indicators that provide a faster, more accurate service that is more secure against fraud, provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients, one fears that they might be living in dreamland.
Thirdly, the Under-Secretary, in reply to my question, said that the Government had invited all local authorities to participate in the Royal Mail "do not redirect" initiative, which prevents claimants from using the Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to make false claims for multiple addresses. As the Minister of State, who will reply to this debate, knows, that scheme was conceived by the previous Government and would have been enacted regardless of the outcome of the 1997 general election. In 1996, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) initiated discussions with the Royal Mail over access to the database of redirected mail to assist in tackling multiple identity and other frauds involving false addresses.
I do not doubt that the "do not redirect" initiative has a part to play in combating housing benefit fraud, but it should be seen in its true perspective. My local authority reacted more than a little cynically to the proposition that it had been invited to participate. I have been told that there is no option but to subscribe now. However, the initiative is not proving of great value. Indeed, in the experience of Basingstoke and Deane borough council, the service has produced absolutely nothing. In the past year, only two letters have been returned to the benefit service as a result, and those two accounts had already been closed by the housing benefit section.
Even the Government's estimates make pretty uninspiring reading—256 councils identifying only 174 cases of fraud a month. Although I acknowledge that the initiative may have an unquantifiable deterrent effect, the Government's prediction that "do not redirect" can realise savings of £5.3 million a year seems on the optimistic side.
The fourth dimension in the Government's anti-fraud strategy that the Under-Secretary highlighted was the £4 million made available to install computer terminals in local authorities to provide access to the Department's benefit systems. That, of course, evolved from the housing benefit review of January 1996. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, announced the creation of a national register of housing benefit and council tax benefit, with a view to matching data across local authorities against departmental fraud detection systems.
I welcome that initiative and its extension, but it has latent drawbacks and deficiencies. In the experience of my local authority, the remote access terminal, a means whereby a housing benefit section can share information about an income support claim, has strictly limited advantages, for one reason: the fact that council staff have limited access to Benefits Agency records. I gather that the Government are seeking to increase that access. I am told that it is greatly needed.
I encounter here some cynicism—and not only from my own local authority. I am told that there has been little or no consultation between the Department and

225WH
local authorities about the remote access terminals. In principle, the intention to exchange information electronically and to reduce paper flow between organisations is sound, but the receiving of information from the Department and how it can be handled effectively in council offices appear not to have been thought through.
The Government claim that, as a result of remote access terminals, 20 million fewer paper notifications of benefit changes will be made. Those councils that operate a document imaging system will have an advantage over those that do not because, although the electronic transfer of information into council document imaging systems will avoid the use of paper, those councils that do not use imaging will need to put the information from the terminal on paper, and many local authorities throughout the country will find that efficiency is not increased.
I have another, more general, point to make under this heading. Closer working initiatives are being encouraged by the Department, to enable Benefits Agency staff and local authority benefit staff to liaise and work together more closely. However, that is not always working out in practice. Benefits Agency staff at local level is not empowered to break with protocol, and all too often they do not feel able to co-operate with councils in the way that is needed. There are too many constraints. I have no reason to believe that my local authority is alone in finding that it is proving difficult to make any gains in that regard.
I genuinely applaud the Government's commitment to combat housing benefit fraud. I do not quarrel fundamentally, or in principle, with the measures that they are introducing, although I think it unlikely that the measures will live up to the Government's claims and expectations. Most of these initiatives evolve from, or are natural expressions of, the policies that we sought to implement during the previous Parliament, but I do find fault in two key respects.
First, almost all the initiatives that the Government has introduced have a downside. They have been thought through inadequately, sometimes with insufficient prior consultation. They may be basically sound in theory—I believe that they are—but they are flawed in implementation. They have negative as well as positive implications and repercussions that had not been anticipated.
Secondly, the rhetoric and polemic that the Government often employs in presenting their case oversimplifies and overstates. These are complex issues, and they are worthy of serious debate. I hope that the Government succeeds in this policy area: benefit fraud is one of the several cancers gnawing away at today's society. However, at the moment, the evidence that the Government are succeeding is strictly limited.
11.17 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on raising the important issue of housing benefit fraud. Whether the figure involved is £800 million or £1 billion, these are substantial sums that could, I suspect, be better spent by all of us, and the hon. Gentleman has done the House a great service by drawing attention to the issue today.
I shall make a relatively brief contribution. First, I shall touch on the conclusions and three of the supplementary recommendations of the Scampion
226WH
report on benefit fraud, and offer a few comments on some of those as they apply to housing benefit. Secondly, I shall make a few comments on the housing Green Paper that was published yesterday, which has a section on housing benefit fraud and gives some idea of the Government's thinking on the issue.
The Scampion report recommends the idea of a common baseline application form for housing benefit for all local authorities. Although the recommendation allows for local supplements to that form to reflect local circumstances, I very much support the idea that there should be one form for what is, in large measure, still a national benefit, albeit administered locally. Clearly, when thresholds are set locally, various other aspects are determined locally, but the information needed to assess a claim is pretty standard throughout the country, and yet the quality of information that is being sought appears to vary greatly. That worries me considerably, as it has implications for counter-fraud strategy.
We had discussions in this very Room about common application forms when the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), initiated a debate on a related issue, but I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us the Department's latest thinking on the development of a common form, which in principle I would support warmly.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Another thing that was striking in the report was the finding that local authorities did not get the opportunity to pass on information on tips and scams. If there was a common form and there was, let us say, a problem in Basingstoke, information about the problem could be passed on to Brentwood, Northavon and Birmingham.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The sharing of good practice must be encouraged, and a common form might be part of the strategy.
Scampion's second supplementary recommendation is to establish a working group to consider data matching and data protection. He considers the balance between a citizen's right to privacy and the state's need to protect public funds. In that context, I can see few reasons for preventing extensive data matching. There must be a good and effective gate-keeping arrangement, so that there cannot be easy and willy-nilly access to information on people's personal circumstances. However, when a good and grounded suspicion of fraud exists, all the information should be brought together. Different arms of government collect the information and they perhaps receive different answers from the same person at different times or answers from people using different identities. Therefore, they are sometimes unable to bring the information together. Provided that gate-keeping safeguards take account of civil liberties issues, that privacy can be protected from the gratuitous trawling for data and that certain steps are taken before data can be accessed, I would warmly support much more effective data matching.
I fondly look forward to the day when I succeed as Secretary of State for Social Security and set up one big computer to bring all such information together. On Monday, the Minister told us about another scheme that the Government had in mind and he said that the

227WH
computers were not up to it. However, the pace of technological change is so fast that it is hard to believe that, in the medium term, the Government cannot set up computer systems that would facilitate data matching and have a real impact on fraud.
The third supplementary recommendation that I want to draw to the Chamber's attention is the possibility that the Department will join the credit industry's fraud avoidance scheme. I notice from today's Order Paper that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has tabled a question to ask the Government about their plans to join the scheme. Perhaps, the Minister will anticipate the answer by telling us the Government's views on joining a private sector counter-fraud initiative. The hon. Member for Basingstoke rightly referred to incentives and the private sector has the biggest incentive to crack down on fraud, because its money is involved. I shall be interested to learn whether the Government think that they should play a part in that scheme; I think that they should.
The Green Paper that was presented yesterday has a slender chapter on housing benefit. It contains the equivalent of two sides of A4 on housing benefit fraud, but some interesting items are mentioned and it is relevant to bring them to the Chamber's attention. Paragraph 11.28 of the Green Paper appears under the heading "Tackling Fraud and Error" and it mentions the "do not redirect" scheme. There is some uncertainty about how the scheme is working in practice. The hon. Gentleman suggested that councils are effectively obliged to be part of it, but the Green Paper says that the Government have got
two-thirds of local authorities to join…and more are joining all the time.
Perhaps the two statements are not completely inconsistent, but I am puzzled why the Government did not take a much firmer line from the start and why they did not lay down the law to oblige local authorities to join the scheme. I do not know why the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is going through the House, could not contain a clause to oblige councils to be part of it. I see no reason why we might want to allow them not to join or why they might not want to part of it. We can argue about the scale of the savings—they may not be vast—but there are potential benefits.
If the Post Office knows that the post from a dozen or two dozen addresses is being redirected to just one address and the local authority knows that housing benefit is claimed at all those addresses, that raises questions about whether we should post so many cheques to one address. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that all local authorities will be part of the scheme. If not, I hope to know why not.
I commend the Government—I do not make a habit of that—on the proposals in paragraph 11.29 of the Green Paper. I have always thought that we needed to know—the hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to this in passing—how much benefit fraud takes place each year and the overall trend. One of the most frustrating things about Government announcements on benefit fraud crackdowns is that they always tell us how much they will save, but the scale of the fraud that
228WH
remains is left unknown. We can never test the claims of how much the different measures will save, because we do not know what the starting number was. Indeed, the figures given for benefit fraud tend to be remarkably stable on the whole, despite announcements telling us every year that we will make hundreds of millions of pounds of savings. Something, somewhere does not add up.
The need for reliable, consistent information at a national and local level about the scale of fraud is vital. I welcome paragraph 11.29, which says:
We also need to be able to monitor progress in reducing levels of fraud…Previous exercises to measures levels of fraud…produced national snapshot estimates, but did not allow us to track changes over time.
That is the right approach, and I welcome it unreservedly.
The Green Paper contains a section entitled "Taking this forward", which describes the Government's thinking on housing benefit fraud. I want to make a few remarks about that. Paragraph 11.30 refers to giving local authorities the right incentives, a point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Incentives are central to the debate. We all have contact with our local authorities, and the hon. Gentleman has obviously researched thoroughly his local authority's approach to the issue and its views on the Government's plans. It is clear to me that local authorities have weak incentives to tackle fraud. They are extremely overstretched and their benefit departments have to cope with a hefty workload and all manner of changes to the rules that add to the system's complexity. Tackling fraud involves the expenditure of taxpayers'—and not the councils'—money. Therefore, getting the incentives right is important.
Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman extend his comments to my point about the reluctance of local authorities to prosecute? They have to use the council solicitor, and prosecution involves time and cost. That additional dimension aggravates the problem.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right. A council faces the costs, such as the legal and staffing costs that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of prosecuting cases when the return to it is pretty limited. Will the Minister set out in more detail the Government's thinking about how they will reward much more substantially councils that take the issue seriously?
Mr. Pickles: I have a note, which is the result of a conference, on the position in Milton Keynes and it adds force to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I have been informed that Milton Keynes saved £1 million over three years, but none of that money was returned to fraud investigation.
Mr. Webb: That comment shows the scale of benefit fraud in one authority. However, I am not sure that I necessarily want the money to be returned to fraud investigation; I want some money to go to the council to give it the incentive to pursue fraud further. It can then decide how much of that money it wants to spend on fraud investigation. Councils should feel that it is their money, but—apart from some incentive schemes at the margin—they do not. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will beef up the incentives.

229WH
The central recommendation of John Scampion's report was an integrated approach to tackling benefit fraud. Although the Green Paper, at paragraph 11.31, mentions the report and refers to strengthening the professionalism of investigation and co-ordination of intelligence on benefit fraud, I am not convinced that the Government are going the full extra mile. I am not convinced that they have accepted the recommendation that there should be an integrated service. I hope that the Minister will clarify what is intended when he replies.
Although in many senses I am young and naive, I have quickly become cynical about the Department. I tend to assume that the volume of press releases on an issue is in inverse proportion to what is actually being done. Housing benefit fraud has seen a flurry of press releases, which makes me sceptical about whether anything is happening. I should like to be proved wrong.
It is regrettable that the Government has not set themselves measurable targets against which we can hold them to account. They tend to blame the previous lot, as it were, but they have had responsibility for these matters for three years. Three years on from the general election, we still have only a Green Paper, which in effect says, "We don't really know over time how much fraud there is." We need to know the extent of it. I know that that cannot be ascertained on day one, but, after three years, it is rather disappointing that it is now being discovered that we need to be able to measure the fraud that is taking place.
I hope the Minister will convince us when he responds that there will be a serious attempt to provide reliable estimates of the scale of the problem and measurable targets against which he can be held to account for reducing fraud. I hope that there will be a far more credible strategy than the rather weak practical steps that have been taken so far.
11.31 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I thought that he was kind to the Government in terms of the housing Green Paper. He said that, after three years, they seem not to have much of a clue about what to do with fraud. It would be fair to say that they do not have much of a clue about what to do with housing benefit. If they have opinions on the matter, it seems that they are not prepared to share them with the House. The hon. Gentleman said that he looked forward to becoming the Secretary of State for Social Security. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be offended when I say that only in a parallel universe will that honour fall to him.
Mr. Hunter: I think that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was announcing that he was about the cross the Floor.
Mr. Pickles: That may be. If that is the case, our loss will be the Government's gain. If the Minister wants to offer some inducements, we would be prepared to turn a deaf ear.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that improvements in the computer system might be helpful. I think that computers would be helpful if he were Secretary of State. Only with computers could we keep track of the hourly changes of Liberal Democrat policy.
230WH
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on initiating the debate and allowing us to redirect our efforts in respect of housing benefit. There was a debate in Westminster Hall in early February on the subject, and many of the points made then have been repeated. However, my hon. Friend brought an interesting perspective, if not a practitioner's eye, to some of the problems, especially the redirecting of mail. I have not come across that before, and he made a valid point. His remarks about co-operation with local authorities were most illuminating.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, for too long—this applies especially to the Government—we have been very quick to take credit and to say that things are improving without there being any evidence to show that anything has improved. That has made the Government look ridiculous, and it has given to those who seek to damage the system by fraud the false hope that we will not get on to them and will not try to stamp out their activities.
The hon. Member for Northavon referred to paragraph 11.29 of the Green Paper. He said that it was rather good that the Government is to make an attempt to try to work out exactly how much fraud is within the system. It seems that they will try to determine whether housing fraud amounts to £2 billion, or is considerably less than that. The Government will have some problems in arriving at a true estimation because fraud is endemic and deep within the system. The process of unravelling is not confined to anti-fraud measures because it will be necessary also to try to simplify the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke outlined various figures, but the best guess is that fraud amounts to about 7 per cent. of total expenditure on housing benefit. We know also that, above that figure—probably taking it to 10 per cent.—there are discrepancies because of client or administrative error.
It is not surprising that there is a great deal of money to be saved. It is not surprising also that the Labour party in the shape of the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, presented a manifesto that stated:
Just as we owe it to the taxpayer to crack down on tax avoidance, so we must crack down on dishonesty in the benefit system. We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year, and will maintain action against benefit frauds of all kinds.
Given the prominence of the issue in the Labour party manifesto, it is perhaps not surprising that the Secretary of State for Social Services was keen to say:
We are already beginning to see results.—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 8.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke referred to various claims that have been made by the Secretary of State. I, too, was struck by a press release of 20 January, headed, "Darling welcomes successes in fighting benefit fraud", which states:
Today's figures show that our tougher anti-fraud measures are beginning to bite…we are winning the fight against fraud.
However, as my hon. Friend said, the Office for National Statistics said that the reductions to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring were not statistically significant. If that is right, I suppose that the figures could have gone either way; they could have gone down or up.

231WH
There is a problem when, at every false dawn, the Government claim a victory. My hon. Friend is right when he says that the quality of debate is not enhanced by that process.
I suggest that we need to get three things absolutely right in establishing an anti-fraud strategy. First, we must defend the gateway to benefits to ensure that fraudsters do not pass through it. However, we do not want to guard the gateway so strongly that folk who need benefit and help cannot get through. There is a fine balance to be struck. Secondly, we need to get fraud out of the system, and an important factor in so doing, as the hon. Member for Northavon suggested, is benefit simplification. Thirdly, we need to improve investigation skills and share knowledge with local authorities and the Benefits Agency.
The Audit Commission's report on tackling fraud paints a gloomy picture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, the commission found that housing benefit administration was poor in 44 per cent. of councils. It also found—this should give us cause for thought—that speed, not quality, continues to be the sole target for the assessment of claims. The process is to get claims through as quickly as possible. Some simple checks are made, but the system means rushing things through.
I served for 12 years on a local authority, and I find it shocking and unacceptable that too many types of council have been experiencing fraud that has been perpetrated by officers and members of those councils. If we cannot run a ship without the crew being on the fiddle, what chance has we of commanding the confidence of the public? The lack of prosecutions of such offenders is a disgrace that besmirches those of us who are involved in local government. I do not care about the political make-up of the councils concerned: whether a council is Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour or hung, it is not acceptable to allow such a situation to continue.
The Audit Commission also found in one third of councils an unsatisfactory level of overpayment. Worse still, prosecutions were rare, for several practical reasons. Investigative journalism tells us that, in practice, councils are encouraged to chase only the worst offenders, so petty offenders can be confident, not only that they will never be caught, but that they will never even be investigated. At the end of January, the Government confirmed that local authority investigators ignore elaborate housing benefit fraud, because the financial incentives encourage them to hit relatively easy targets for prosecution.
The verification project is welcome, in that it systematically lays down minimum standards for verification and processing of claims. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke says, all is not well within the verification framework programme. The Local Government Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has accused the Department of "escaping its responsibilities" by contributing to the poor delivery of housing benefit. The LGA claims that the Department has ignored its concerns about the bureaucracy involved in the verification framework, and warns the Government that
232WH
the verification framework threatens to submerge benefits staff in bureaucracy because of lack of funding. I shall quote two further LGA comments. First:
It is important that the DSS and its agencies work collaboratively with local government in taking forward a comprehensive strategy for tackling fraud.
I am sure that we all applaud that. Secondly, the LGA states:
Many of the operational difficulties associated with anti-fraud initiatives on housing benefit have arisen through a failure to fully involve the LGA and local authorities at the development stage or an unwillingness to take on board constructive proposals.
We have to work together to stamp out fraud—no one has a monopoly of knowledge.
Ignoring the experience of local authorities is not the way in which to obtain their co-operation; nor is it the best starting point for one of the three new initiatives announced by the Government, listed in paragraph 11.33 of the Green Paper, which is
Setting up new arrangements with local authority and DSS fraud investigation units to pool resources, cut down on duplication of effort, share intelligence, and targeting investigations properly across the whole social security system.
That cannot be done on the basis of the Department telling local authorities to do as they are told; there has to be acceptance of partnership. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us the exact extent to which the Department intends to co-operate with local authorities.
During an intervention on the hon. Member for Northavon, I pointed out that one of the problems is that local authorities do not share information among themselves: they all have different forms and different criteria. One authority might crack down on a specific fraudster, but another fraudster using an identical method in another area escapes. Apart from an annual conference at which information might be exchanged, there is no systematic method of sharing knowledge. Such co-operation will start only if the Department takes local councils into its confidence.
We put off much of our work on, and many of our suggestions about, dealing with fraud while we awaited the Green Paper. However, it announces only three new initiatives. We were told many times that we had only to wait—everything would be dealt with in the Green Paper, all our problems and worries would be settled by the Green Paper, and everything would be made clear. I was looking forward to the Green Paper. We had been told that it would not be published in July, so I commend the Government for having brought forward its publication, but if I had eagerly taken it home to read over the long recess, I should have been a most disappointed Member of Parliament to find only three measly measures on housing benefit fraud.
Now, we want to know the answers to the questions that we were promised would be answered by the Green Paper, but have not been. Specifically, we want to know what has happened to the housing benefit simplification project, the details of which were due to be published a year ago—in fact, I think that the anniversary of its intended publication date has passed. In addition, the Minister must explain why, if there are about 250,000 known cases of housing benefit fraud, there are only about 700 prosecutions. The simplification project would help to secure the three measures to which I referred—guarding the gateway, removing fraud from the system and improving investigation skills.

233WH
We wanted a dedicated anti-fraud agency, and the payment of benefit cheques directly to landlords to be banned. The Secretary of State said that all those matters would be dealt with in the Green Paper. However, on page 112, I find the new special arrangements for co-operation between local authorities and the DSS, which I have already mentioned, and the offer of "a national, single agency" and a "fraud hotline". So, we are to have a telephone number. I do not mock that measure—it would have looked marvellous in a list of 30 or 40 initiatives. However, it is the lead item in a list of three options. Perhaps it should be a premium line, so that we can recoup some of the money that we lose on fraud through people reporting fraud.
In addition, local authority staffs are to be allowed
on-line access to DSS systems to trace National Insurance numbers.
That is welcome. It would be useful if the Minister were kind enough to tell us how many people he estimates have two numbers, and how many duplicate numbers there are. We know that duplicate numbers exist—that someone in Blackpool can have the same national insurance number as someone in Brentwood.
I look forward to the Minister's reply, but I think that I have time to deal with a local matter connected with housing benefit fraud. During Social Security questions four weeks ago, the Secretary of State attacked Brentwood council, a Liberal Democrat council, for its record on fraud. My council officials are entirely innocent of being Liberal Democrats and run a tight ship, in my view, despite the incompetence of the administration.
I have a reply from Mrs. S. Keeble, the borough treasurer. She was astounded by the Secretary of State's charge that Brentwood council was soft on fraud. She writes:
This is simply not true. The Council has, for a number of years, had difficulty in providing one of the government's statistical returns because of the way the data was stored in its computer system. The DSS are aware of this and it has never been raised as an issue before…The Council purchased a new computer system and it was installed at the beginning of the financial year.
Mrs. Keeble explains the difficulties and states:
I am pleased to tell you that the first statistical forms were produced last week, for the third quarter of the year, and have now been sent to the DSS…I am concerned that our problems with this statistical return have been interpreted as a lack of concern over Benefit Fraud and I must refute this strongly.
She lists the steps that the council has taken, and reports that, recently, it successfully prosecuted a local resident, who was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and had to pay £120 in costs.
I trust that the Minister will pass that on to the Secretary of State, and I look forward to the poor burghers of Brentwood receiving an apology from the Secretary of State, whose remarks caused them great pain. When people are working hard to stamp out fraud, they deserve not to be part of the political football.
What do we want? A consensus is starting to form across the Chamber. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he wanted a consensus on housing benefit, and we are seeing the start of a broad coalition. We want the Government to implement the Scampion report. We do not want the Government to pick and choose, or to
234WH
produce a hotline and nothing else. We want a proper, co-ordinated approach. Scampion knows what he is talking about.
The way in which the Scampion report was announced to the world could not have been less attractive. It was dumped—lodged—in the Library on a Friday evening. All Members of Parliament want to stay in the House as long as possible during the week, but Friday evening is not the time most conducive to getting wide publicity for such an important report. The Government has nothing to be ashamed of. They have made a number of commitments.
If we could take the politics out of the issue, and recognise that it will be difficult to remove fraud from the system, that it is not the Government's fault and that it is not up to the Secretary of State to deal personally with the problem, we could move towards some kind of consensus. As Scampion said, we need a single national intelligence system and a single investigatory agency. We want a proper partnership to be set up and to be given a time scale to submit proposals to the Department to deal with organised fraud.
The Minister is familiar with that and other suggestions that were offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Northavon. We are looking for a robust response from the Minister this morning, and I am sure that he will give it. If we were to sum up all our arguments in a single phrase, it would be: "Give us Scampion!"
11.54 am
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am happy to congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing the debate. At the risk of upsetting the cosy little consensus, I must say that I have been listening to a load of whinges from inefficient local authorities. That may seem unfair, but as a headline, "Whinges from local authorities" would be accurate.
Hon. Members are elected to Parliament to represent their constituents, not to represent local authorities. I want to put that on the record. We want to work with local authorities, and I shall explain how we do so, but I do not accept that out there, everything is sweetness, light and massive efficiency. There is far more red tape and bureaucracy in local government than in central Government. That is my experience from my terms in the House and my short period in government.
Mr. Pickles: If the Minister were not seeking consensus and co-operation from local authorities, what would his opening remarks have been?
Mr. Rooker: I wanted to set the tone. We do not intend to be the punch-bag for local authorities that are not doing what they should be doing or which are merely seeking excuses.
I shall respond as best I can to the points raised in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basingstoke for informing my Department of the matters that he would raise, arising mainly from the parliamentary answer that he received earlier in the year.
On the request "Give us Scampion!", we will indeed give the country Scampion in due course. The first step, though, is to carry through the commitment that we

235WH
made when we published the Scampion report—to appoint a head of profession. The post has already been advertised. I regret that it takes a long time to consult, advertise and carry out the proper scrutiny that is necessary for public appointments. The interviews will be held fairly soon. We expect the head of profession to be in post by August or September.
By the time we return from the long recess, I expect us to be in positive mode with regard to the other Scampion recommendations accepted by the Government. We may not have implemented them all, but we will have begun to get the plan ready. However, the first step is the appointment of the head of profession.
I shall deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, which encompass many of the issues raised by the other two Members in their cosy consensual representations from their local government masters. That is the last time that I shall allude to that, but I think I have made the point that the Government do not accept the whinges and criticisms from local government of what the Department has been trying to do to tackle fraud. To speak of rooting out fraud is too strong a term, because ending fraud is like searching for the holy grail—there will always be fraudsters around. Nevertheless, we do our best to tackle a serious issue.
On the verification framework, I know from my own local authority, which is the largest in England, the problems that that has caused in delay and in respect of due procedures and training. I recently met about 40 representatives of local authorities to discuss aspects of the matter. We are trying to make improvements to the scheme and to help them phase it in over two years.
In many cases, local authorities have managed the verification framework so that vulnerable groups are not put at risk. I accept that many of the people in receipt of housing benefit are members of vulnerable groups, so non-payment of housing benefit puts the home at risk. That is the bottom line. If the benefit is not paid, the home is put at risk by the debt, the arrears and the other difficulties. We do not want to cause homelessness; that is the opposite of our intention.
We have removed the requirement for people in hostels to provide a national insurance number to support their claim. For those of us who live in the world of torrid bureaucracy, the idea that people do not have ready access to their national insurance numbers is surprising. We tend to believe that everybody has a national insurance number, but that is not so in the real world. People who live in hostels constitute a mobile population. For all the reasons people become hostel dwellers, it is easy to lose such information.
We have therefore issued guidance, which states that third party information from responsible organisations can be used to support claims from people in that position. We have learned that lesson from implementing the verification framework. I do not therefore simply claim that the framework has been established, that it is working and that we have made no change. We have made changes. We appreciate that they have caused difficulties for many local authorities.
The ordinary, common or garden honest claimant and well-run local authority have nothing to fear from operating the verification framework. Local authorities
236WH
are required only to ask the questions and do the checks that they, as the guardians of public money, should have done in the first place.
That picks up a theme that the hon. Member for Basingstoke introduced. He said that local authorities did not own the money or the benefits. I freely admit that there is a long-term problem unless we can get local authorities to establish some sense of ownership. They own the administration of the money, but some do not believe that they are responsible for the benefit payments. When a senior official and I were in discussion, he said that he was not responsible for the amounts of housing benefit. He was a local government assistant director, yet he claimed that he was not responsible, and that the money was not part of his department's budget. He said, "It's not my money, it's the Government's money." Yet the Department was paying the local authority considerable sums of money to administer the system on behalf of the public.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) mentioned incentive. He was right: incentives are built into the rest of local authority money, because inefficiencies in spending on one responsibility mean cuts in others. Local authorities do not like telling citizens that they are making cuts. However, council tax and housing benefit are different.
Mr. Pickles: The Minister mentioned ownership. Paragraph 11.39 of the Green Paper on housing considers the long-term future. It states that administration will remain the responsibility of local authorities. However, it also considers the ONE pilots and local authorities working closely with them on housing benefit administration. Is it absolutely clear that administration will remain with local authorities in the long term?
Mr. Rooker: I stand by the words of the Green Paper. We have no plans to remove housing benefit administration from local authorities, but nothing lasts forever. That is not a hint or a threat. The words in the Green Paper are valid. I shall consider the ONE pilot later. If local authorities can administer housing and council tax benefit efficiently and satisfy our constituents, they will encounter no difficulties. The Green Paper makes the position clear.
We have agreed with the Audit Commission and the Accounts Commission that any performance data that they publish will state that a local authority has been involved in operating the verification framework. I am almost expressing a caveat: operating the framework may slow down performance. We do not intend that to happen, but we understand that in the real world, operating a different system which is much more rigorous and a little slower can slow down performance.
I do not want a local authority that takes the verification framework seriously, and genuinely tries to make it work, to be penalised unfairly in the Audit Commission's published charts, which we receive regularly. I do not want us to observe that our local authority has dropped below a performance line and demand to know why. Local authorities will claim that it is not fair that they do extra work, which takes time, yet the report does not refer to it. They feel that they have been penalised. I hope that those comments will be

237WH
taken in the spirit in which they were meant. We also take account of implementing the framework in the subsidy to local authorities. The Government, not local authorities, pay for the verification framework.
I regret that the hon. Member for Basingstoke forgot to mention the Royal Mail "do not redirect" scheme. Again, local authorities do not pay for that; it is fully funded by the Department. It is also voluntary. There may be arguments about it. One of the first questions that I asked on my first day in the Department eight months ago was, "Why is this voluntary? It is such a good idea." However, no local authority has complained about that. Not one has claimed that we are forcing local authorities to accept a scheme that they do not want to implement.
We have asked local authorities that do not implement the scheme the reasons for that. We got some stupid answers—for example, "We're waiting for another supply of envelopes, so we can have them reprinted." We have received barmy reasons which an alert local government officer would have tackled immediately.
I am surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Basingstoke about his local authority. He said that only two envelopes had been returned to the council and that the accounts had been closed. I whispered to my colleagues that I wondered why the local authority was sending out envelopes if the accounts had been closed. That is the obvious question. The envelopes had been redirected back, but if the accounts had been closed, why did the local authority send out the cheques? Basingstoke council must answer that question.
Given that the Government have asked local authorities to undertake so many tasks, there are good grounds for establishing some schemes on a voluntary basis. I can understand frustration about not achieving 100 per cent. implementation, and about slowness, but I expect improvements by the end of the year. The service is recommended and part of good practice. Local authorities can learn from it.
One local authority has made dramatic savings through the scheme. It reported that "do not redirect" cases accounted for 10 per cent. of its fraud investigation case load. Two cases revealed fraudulent payments of £26,000 and £18,000. It is a good scheme, but no single policy initiative can solve all the problems. We must move forward on a wide front. There is no holy grail. I would not claim that we had won the battle and that benefit fraud was under control.
The benefits system pays £2 billion a week to our fellow citizens. The scope for fraud by organised criminals is great, and we spend a lot of money on trying to close the gateways and thus make it more difficult for the wrong person to get into the system and easier to root out fraud. We prosecute approximately 200 people a week for benefit fraud—and not only housing benefit fraud, which is the subject of the debate.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that remote access terminals are not very useful because they offer limited access, but they are a big innovation and providing local authority officers with a computer terminal so that they have direct access to the Department of Social Security computer network for certain benefits is pretty radical. I am not claiming credit and, as he said, a lot of those initiatives have come
238WH
through the system, as is the case with any change of Government. I freely admit that our computer network is not exactly blue sky technology, but we are considering widening the range of DSS benefit information available as part of the housing benefit improvement programme through the access terminals. We hope to pilot some of those improvements later this year, with a view to rolling them out nationally in 2001.
The electronic transfer of data is also an issue. We consulted local authorities about initiatives during the evaluation of the ETD programme and 20 were involved in pilots during development. One does not consult every local authority, as more than 400 deals with housing benefit and we carried out a representative pilot. Before the national roll-out of electronic data, the local authorities were consulted through the remote access terminals national user group and they attended seminars on ETD, so we have involved them. We want to work in partnership, but sometimes new ways of doing things ruffle feathers or challenge local empires. There may not always be the degree of good will that there should be, but we have put our hand out to local authorities to work with them.
The electronic transfer of data offers other benefits, even if the local authority does not have the document image processing system. For a start, it reduces the time that it takes to process housing benefit and council tax benefit claims. It increases security in terms of data protection and data transmission and should enhance customer service by improving the speed and accuracy of benefit processing. There is no question but that it contributes to reducing the scope for fraud and error, and we hope that it will lower the housing benefit and council tax benefit programme expenditure.
I should make the point that the words "benefit fraud inspectorate" did not cross the lips of any hon. Member today. The inspectorate is a service provided by my Department to local authorities to go over the systems that they use. It is not a hit squad, but a systems squad that goes into local authorities to examine how they administer housing benefit and council tax benefit. In some ways, I regret that it does not consider other benefits such as student loans. There is a great deal of scope for that, because the inspectorate is expert in studying systems.
We publish reports for each local authority, although we remove any failures as they could be invitations to commit fraud more easily, and the good practice can be shared, one local authority to another. Local authorities do not necessarily even have to pick up the phone, as they can read reports on authorities with a similar demographic and geographic background or a similar housing benefit profile to see whether they can learn something.
This year, the benefit fraud inspectorate has been asked specifically to go into the 30 local authorities with the highest housing benefit spending. One knows which they are, by and large: they are big city authorities, and my own city of Birmingham is one. They are due to be dealt with—I hope in a way that brings them up to scratch and improves the situation—and I do not deny that we have had problems in the city of Birmingham with housing benefit administration. Of about 400 local authorities, 30 spend a third of the £12 billion of housing benefit, so it is sensible to target our resources there.

239WH
On Monday, we announced the programme for the next 30 authorities into which the benefit fraud inspectorate will go. They work in co-operation and are proceeding by agreement. There are set dates and a programme of work. The inspectorate will not knock on the door one Monday morning and say, "By the way, we have come to audit your systems." That is not the way to do it. The process is helpful and the more we can extend it, the better.
Mr. Pickles: May I make a straightforward point? It is right to examine the 30 highest spenders because most money will probably go to them, but they are likely to run a fairly decent show. Which authorities are not up to scratch or do not have the necessary? Would the Minister care to characterise them, but not in political terms? What kind of authority are they?
Mr. Rooker: The 30 biggest spenders come mainly from the 32 metropolitan districts, so we have probably covered most of those. A point came to me when I was asked to consider which authorities would be the next 30 to be examined. These programmes are planned well in advance and I specifically asked whether there were pockets of district councils that were small in terms of local government but had a preponderance of housing tax benefit and council tax benefit claimants and were a bit different from the average; or whether there was an authority that we had not heard about for a long time, perhaps because someone had not sent forms in; or whether there was an authority that was not involved in Royal Mail "do not redirect". I wanted to consider those factors, so the next 30 are a real mixed bag. There is no set pattern, but some of those thoughts went into the programme.
Perhaps we should have a look at some authorities: we may not have heard from them for a bit, but that does not necessarily mean that everything is okay. I certainly hope that when we have considered the top 30 and the next 30, along with those that have already been examined, we shall have a good picture of the local authority performance for the rest of the country. There are lessons that we can hope to roll out in the rest of local government.
May I touch on the point about cost, which is a fair one? I came across it in my previous role at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Local authorities are basically the enforcing authority in terms of food safety, and court costs can be horrendous. A small local authority in the north of England told us that a case would cost £250,000, but all the evidence suggested that it was important for it to go to court. It rightly claimed that there was unfairness, since a bigger authority would have the resources to take the case on and more lawyers would be available.
Authorities think that that on-cost might arise, but we have provided £200,000 as a pilot for my Department's lawyers to undertake housing benefit prosecutions and to develop longer-term options to encourage local authorities to pursue prosecutions. If a change is to be made, undertaking a pilot is always worthwhile. The pilot started in November 1998—a similar one began in Scotland in June 1999—and was available to 144 local
240WH
authorities. It has been extended, partly because we have not used much of the resource that we offered to local authorities. I am not here to complain about why it has not been taken up, but I assure hon. Members that the figure I saw for what we were to spend was horrendous—it was only £200,000 to start with—so we have extended the pilot, because we want to learn from it. Unless it is decent, we will not learn lessons for the future. Although access to legal services is one aspect, some local authorities lack training in bringing prosecutions because of the absence of a formal prosecutions policy.
We have built in extra payments to the existing weekly benefit savings scheme for local authorities that have prosecuted fraudulent claimants since April 1999. Many of us see sentences reported in the press every day of the week and think, "How on earth can they do that?" However, "they" are the courts—not the House, not the Government and not the local authorities. Sentencing is the role of the magistrates and the judges in the courts. We give them the maximums, but it is their job to set the sentences. Benefit fraud cases that appear in the papers occasionally cross my desk. Ministers are warned in advance so that they do not get a big shock, and I sometimes see the result later on. I had a couple on my desk this week and the amount of fraud was the same in both. The circumstances, however, must have been entirely different, because the sentences were so far apart that they could have been on separate planets. Nevertheless, that was the judgment of those who had all the evidence. I, as a Minister, did not have all the evidence. In any event, we are co-operating with local authorities as much as we can.
The verification framework was originally developed with the full input of local authorities. Someone—I think it was the hon. Member for Basingstoke—mentioned the London fraud investigation. That was a joint local authority/DSS initiative designed to tackle organised fraud, which was ended owing to serious doubts about its effectiveness.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked about the ONE project, in the context of Scampion and the common claim form. It is ludicrous that there should be more than 100 different designs for housing benefit application forms. I did not know that that applied to claims for benefit, other than national benefits; it had never crossed my mind. We have issued guidance within the verification framework and in the benefit fraud inspection report, but we are considering the overall programme in the context of the ONE project, with the aim of providing a single gateway for all state benefits. We have schemes operating throughout the country, and they have important implications.
As hon. Members will know, we recently announced, in the context of the working age client group, what is in effect a merger between a large parts of the Benefits Agency with the Employment Service. That is a major change in the machinery of government, announced by the Prime Minister less than a fortnight ago. It will mean that everyone dealing with the Government will be in one place, and it will enable us to ensure that people do not miss out on their benefits and are aware of opportunities of which they are not always aware when they make claims.
Mr. Pickles: Last month, I heard the Minister refer to the lack of stigma attaching to claims for housing benefit

241WH
and council tax rebate. How, then, can he explain the fact that claims for those two benefits effectively separate clients with the ONE project?
Mr. Rooker: I cannot, but the question is valid. Indeed, on Monday I drew attention to the paradox inherent in the fact that people were claiming housing benefit and council tax rebate but not claiming income support—all three being means-tested. I suggested that there should be a more friendly delivery service at the local neighbourhood office for people who did not want to go to "the social" or the Benefits Agency.
The solution to the pensions problem is to provide a freestanding, separate, brand new agency, or mini-Ministry. Planning for that has begun within the last few days, and it was announced within the last month. It will provide a one-stop shop for people wishing to discuss anything to do with pensions. It will be central, but there will be local access throughout the country. It will not involve uniformity, and it certainly will not involve the Benefits Agency.
This is probably one of the biggest changes ever to be made in the machinery of government. The jobs of tens of thousands of civil servants will be involved. Extracting the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency from the general system, enabling them to deal with a specific client group, is almost like planning a new Government Department. It will not be a five-minute job; it will take several years.
Welding that with the ONE project, and dealing with housing benefit, council tax rebates and so forth will be part of the agenda, and that means getting it right. We must not exacerbate the fraud problem by accident. Cutting out the problem in one area might open gateways for organised crime, as opposed to one-offs. We must root out error as well as fraud, because an error may later become a fraud. For instance, someone might discover an error and say nothing about it. Our central task in regard to housing and other benefits is to ensure
242WH
that the benefit is right at the outset, and goes to the right person. That should be axiomatic, but the system has been such that it has not been possible.
Three years ago, when we came to office, we discovered that a horrendous number of income support payments had been wrong to start with. I do not want to initiate a debate about that; I merely say that we chopped the number by half, and will therefore be able to save £1 billion over the life of the current Parliament. I am not saying that that constituted fraud. The systems, the procedures and the training were wrong, and there was not the necessary challenge to ensure that benefits were paid to the right people. The new system will provide all the advantages, and none of the disadvantages.
I hope that I have given hon. Members some idea of where we are going. I cannot tell them all that they would like to know—for instance, how much fraud is going on. It is impossible to obtain a positive figure, by definition, although the statistics are likely to remain the same. Overall benefit fraud currently amounts to between £2 billion and £5 billion; housing benefit fraud amounts to about £800 million, which apparently is 7 per cent. of the total. Those figures are too high, and we must get them down, but there is no single magic solution: we must work on a series of fronts.
I know that I have my little dig occasionally, but I have tried—and we must continue to try—to operate on a consensual basis. That is in everyone's interest. If we do not do this, the public whose money is being spent will lose confidence in the benefits system, which will undermine the system. Rooting out fraud is in the interests of all, especially those who pay for the system in the first place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Will hon. Members not wishing to stay for the next debate please leave quietly, so that we can have a nice early start?

Disability Living Allowance
12.27 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the appalling experience of my constituent Mrs. Susan Cole, and what her dreadful ordeal has taught me about the need to reform the backdating of disability living allowance. Let me begin by saying that this is not part of a general whinge about the Government not doing enough for disabled people. I do not believe that to be the case; indeed, throughout the current Parliament I have fully supported the Government's strategy of providing work for those who can work, and security for those who cannot.
The new deal for disabled people is beginning to work in my constituency. The disabled persons tax credit, providing a guaranteed minimum income of £155 a week for a single disabled person who moves from benefit to full-time work on the national minimum wage, is also beginning to help disabled people in my constituency to return to work. The Government rightly made a tough decision in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 to means-test incapacity benefit. I think that that measure was justified, in that its aim was to generate significant increases in the incomes of the disabled people most in need. For example, there has been an increase of up to £26 per week for severely disabled young people who become disabled early in life.
We are reforming pensions, in order to provide contributions for those who care for disabled people and therefore cannot make contributions throughout their working lives. I have long been concerned about that issue, and I consider the reform to be a significant step. I am also pleased that, during the current Parliament, spending on sickness and disability benefits will increase by more than £2 billion as the Government meet rising demands and do more for those in the greatest need.
I consider that to be a record of real achievement. I am not saying that the Government has got it wrong on disability benefit in general terms; far from it. I think we are beginning to bring hope, support and opportunity where previously there was none. However, I think that, on the specific issue of backdating of disability living allowance, we are simply continuing with the rules that we inherited from the last Conservative Government, and I strongly believe that we should think again.
I should like to deal with one aspect of Susan Cole's experience that highlights the need for change. Prior to 12 July 1996, Mrs. Cole had worked all her adult life, although she had for 15 years suffered from colitis. Anyone who has suffered from colitis or knows anyone who has suffered from it knows that it is a very debilitating condition. Because of the severity of her condition, Mrs. Cole sought a private medical consultation at the private Rivers hospital, in Sawbridgeworth, near my constituency of Harlow.
During the examination, without warning, the consultant performed a bowel biopsy, which caused Mrs. Cole extreme pain. Although the consultant reassured her that that was routine, only two hours after the consultation, Mrs. Cole found herself suffering from severe rectal bleeding. Later that day, she was admitted to the national health service Princess Alexandra hospital, in my constituency of Harlow, where she was
244WH
put on a drip and detained in hospital for 10 days. The length of that stay is a clear indication of the severity of her condition. The significant point of the story is that, towards the end of her stay in hospital, she started suffering from the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder—severe depression, fear, flashbacks and extreme anxiety and insecurity.
Mrs. Cole was discharged from hospital, and, very shortly afterwards, because of her symptoms and experience, was advised to claim incapacity benefit. However, despite the severity of her condition, no one at the Benefits Agency suggested that she should claim disability living allowance. One month after her stay in hospital, her general practitioner suggested that she might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That suspicion was finally confirmed in November 1997. Both before and after that date, however, over a period of three or more years, Mrs. Cole has suffered from enormous stress and anxiety and from other major problems. She has had to be admitted to hospital, occasionally for up to seven days, suffering from extreme anxiety and stress.
I think that it is incontestable that, in the whole of that period, and certainly since November 1997, Mrs. Cole should have been eligible for disability living allowance. Throughout that period, she was regularly in contact with the Benefits Agency office and regularly spoke to the agency's staff, who were well aware of her condition. When she had her first six-month renewal for incapacity benefit, because she was—to put it bluntly—in such a state, she sent some press cuttings on her ordeal at the private hospital. However, still no one at the Benefits Agency suggested that she might claim disability living allowance.
Finally, in August 1999, Mrs. Cole rang the Benefits Agency office on a different issue, to inquire about her sister's eligibility for incapacity benefit—her sister is suffering from cancer—and used her own claim as a reference point. The person at the Benefits Agency office whom she spoke to finally asked her why she was not claiming disability living allowance. The net result was that she did submit a claim successfully, and she has been successfully claiming ever since.
The crucial point is that that occurred three years after she had started claiming incapacity benefit. She had at least five renewals for incapacity benefit, and numerous discussions with Benefits Agency staff. Although it was at the very least arguable that she had been entitled to claim disability living allowance, not once in that three-year period, until August 1999, did anyone suggest that she should be claiming DLA.
It is also interesting that, in January 2000, when I took up the issue with the Benefits Agency—I have evidence of this in writing—the agency was able to check its records to assure me that there was no evidence that Mrs. Cole had made any inquiries about any other benefits to which she may have been entitled. Therefore, the agency's systems were clearly very rigorous and detailed. The agency could check to ensure that Mrs. Cole had not inquired about claiming, but it could not tell me why no one at the agency had told her about her possible eligibility for DLA, although she was clearly entitled to it.

245WH
One might ask why, for example, anyone who is in receipt of incapacity benefit does not automatically receive a leaflet on disability living allowance, informing him or her of the possibility and chance of being able to uptake that benefit.
Nevertheless, from August 1999, Mrs. Cole started claiming DLA—despite all the evidence showing that she had been eligible to receive it significantly before that date. However, according to a very tight set of criteria, backdating of DLA is allowed to a maximum of six weeks. Mrs. Cole could therefore not receive benefit backdated beyond that date. Those are the rules that we inherited from the Conservative Government.
I have pursued the issue in detailed correspondence with the Minister, and his responses have been very helpful and detailed in explaining the current system. However, it is intriguing that some of the arguments used by the Department are the same as those used by the previous Government. The first argument is that the onus is on the claimant to claim at the appropriate time. That argument was the central thrust of some of the changes introduced by the previous Government. My first response to that point is to ask why. If it can be genuinely proven that one was eligible from a prior date, but that one was simply not aware of eligibility—as opposed to choosing not to claim—there is a strong argument in principle for backdating.
The second argument against backdating in deserving cases is that it would be difficult to operate fairly. However, that is exactly what we do—on a much wider basis, and with a much longer period of backdating—in, for example, council tax benefit and housing benefit. As the Minister will know better than I, backdating may be allowed if "good cause" can be demonstrated. "Good cause" may be based on facts that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the claimant's state of health, would probably have caused a reasonable person not to claim at the time that they should have claimed. In such circumstances, based on that "good cause", one backdating—for up to 12 months—is allowed.
I contend that Mrs. Cole's state of health, with post-traumatic stress disorder, was the very specific reason why she was not aware of her eligibility to claim DLA. For council tax benefit and housing benefit, that one reason would have been sufficient justification to backdate for up to 12 months. If that is sufficiently good cause for backdating those benefits, why is it not good enough for backdating DLA?
The final argument made against backdating DLA is, according to correspondence, a straightforward rule against doing so, on the basis that
this has been regarded as the most equitable in all the circumstances.
"Equitable" means reasonable and fair. I do not think that it is reasonable and fair to deny all retrospective claims regardless of circumstances and merit—both legitimate and illegitimate—rather than conducting the necessary debate on how we should widen both the objective criteria for, and the length of, backdating. That is all that I am asking for. I am not arguing for a free for all in which any claim can be backdated if a reasonable case is made, requiring the Benefits Agency then to make a discretionary judgment. Such a system would be arbitrary, difficult to administer and, in many
246WH
senses, unfair. I acknowledge that it would also be an open-ended commitment on public expenditure—which I know that not only the Treasury, but any reasonable person charged with the responsibility of managing public finances, would not wear.
I am arguing, however, that further legitimate objective criteria could be established to justify backdating. We can debate what those criteria might be. I would certainly argue that they should include written documentary evidence of a condition at a particular time, and a sworn statement from a doctor that a condition existed at a particular time, allied with the type of "good cause" reason why a claim was not made at that time. Those criteria apply in housing benefit and council tax benefit claims.
I would also certainly argue that, as with those benefits, backdating should be available for up to 12 months. I am not arguing for indefinite backdating, which clearly would be an open door to massive claims. However, a 12-month period would be reasonable.
There is a basic unfairness. I recognise that eventually it all comes down to money. I long ago became a financial realist. I know that there is only a certain sum of money allocated to the Department of Social Security and the benefits budget and if there is a huge increase in backdating we will have to limit the overall increase in benefits, spreading the money more thinly.
However, we need a specific change on the backdating of DLA compared with other benefits, because the take-up of DLA is so low. A low take-up means several things, particularly that people are not aware of their eligibility. Mrs. Cole's experience has certainly demonstrated that. On top of that lack of awareness, which might reasonably prevent people from claiming in time, DLA has the tightest backdating rules of almost any benefit. To underline that point, let us consider the evidence on take-up among the eligible population for various benefits: for income support, the figure is 70 to 80 per cent.; for housing benefit it is around 90 per cent; for jobseeker's allowance it is 70 to 80 per cent; for family credit it is 70 to 80 per cent. and we hope that the working families tax credit that replaces it will have an even higher take-up. However, only 30 to 50 per cent. of the eligible population take up the care component of disability living allowance and the figure for the mobility component is 50 to 70 per cent. Those figures come from a recent answer from the Minister in the Lords.
A lack of awareness restricts take-up. We are penalising people by not allowing backdating if they do not find out that they are eligible. In a sense, it is a double whammy and it is a serious problem. The case of my constituent has highlighted the unfairness of the current backdating rules. Susan Cole was eligible, but she did not know it. She was traumatised because of her condition and the system did not help her as it should have done. Her case demonstrates the need for change. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider my arguments and will review the backdating of DLA, focusing specifically on how we can widen the eligibility and increase the period of backdating.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on

247WH
securing this debate on an important issue and making such an exemplary case on behalf of his constituent and a more general case on the need to look again at the backdating of disability living allowance and its sister benefit, attendance allowance.
I pay tribute to the enormous support that my hon. Friend gave to the range of improvements to disability benefits that the Government has been able to introduce, including the introduction of the disabled persons tax credit, the extension of the DLA higher rate mobility component to younger children aged three and four and the extension of incapacity benefit to people who are born disabled or are disabled so severely early in life that they are never able to work. Those important reforms are available to many people.
I also extend my sympathies to Mrs. Cole, who clearly suffered a terrible experience in 1996, when she went for a routine procedure at a private hospital. She claimed, and was awarded, incapacity benefit in 1996 and later, in 1999, she claimed disability living allowance and was awarded the lower rate mobility component. That award was made in respect of mobility needs arising from her experience in the hospital three years before. My hon. Friend argued powerfully that the symptoms arose from post-traumatic stress disorder, which she suffered as a result of the procedure.
Disability living allowance is not awarded because of particular symptoms or the existence of a particular disability or disease. It is awarded in respect of a disabled person's care needs or their mobility needs—the need for assistance with getting out and about. It is awarded because of a consequence of a disability rather than because of the disability itself.
Mr. Rammell: I wholly accept that point. I was trying to show that the post-traumatic stress disorder led to Mrs. Cole being unable to look for benefits or be aware of them. That is what prevented her from claiming when she should have done.
Mr. Bayley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I shall refer to it later. As he has rightly pointed out, there are good cause procedures for some benefits. If someone can show good cause for not applying for the benefit earlier, they may get up to three months' backdating. A health problem that makes it difficult to apply is one such good reason.
I should explain a little more about the background to the benefit. Different people may be affected to a different extent by the same disability of the same severity. The amount of care or help with mobility that someone has as a result of a particular disease or disability may increase or decrease over time. The fact that someone has a particular mobility need in August 1999 does not necessarily establish that they had similar needs at an earlier date.
Mrs. Cole claimed disability living allowance on 2 August 1999. She was notified on 23 September that she had been awarded the benefit, but she asked for backdating. The rules on DLA and attendance allowance are clear. Unlike other benefits, they cannot be backdated. Under the present rules, the earliest date on which a claim can be paid is the date on which an inquiry was made at the Benefits Agency about the benefit. In this case, the relevant date is 2 August.
248WH
Decisions are made by adjudication officers—or, since October of last year, by decision makers in the Benefits Agency. Ministers cannot interfere in the individual decision any more than they can interfere in the decision of a court or any other judicial or quasi-judicial body. It appears that the rules were correctly applied in this case. My hon. Friend is asking whether the rules are appropriate and whether the Government should re-examine them.
One of Mrs. Cole's key complaints is that she did not know earlier than August of last year that she could claim disability living allowance. One of the fundamental rules of the benefit system is that the claimant has a responsibility to claim. My hon. Friend asked the Government to think about that. I shall think about it, but the basic reason for the rule is that the person claiming the benefit is the only one who knows about their needs—their medical or care needs if they are a disabled person, or their financial needs if they are claiming an income-related benefit. The Benefits Agency does not and cannot hold that knowledge, so it cannot have the ultimate responsibility to claim.
In a letter to me in February this year, my hon. Friend said that whether somebody knew of a benefit ought to be immaterial to a decision on whether they are entitled to it. I cannot agree with that. Only the claimant can know about their likely entitlement. The Benefits Agency does not have that knowledge.
However, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the Benefits Agency has a responsibility to inform the public of the existence of benefits, and to inform people how to claim them. He made a strong point about the low take-up of DLA: we ought to be able to do better with regard to take-up of DLA and attendance allowance.
We take seriously the requirement to inform the public, and spend more than £10 million a year on leaflets and posters. They are placed in post offices, doctors' surgeries and other appropriate places to try to ensure that people have the information that will enable them to decide whether they have a prima facie case and whether they should put in a claim.
My hon. Friend asked why the Benefits Agency does not send a leaflet to all those claiming incapacity benefit to advise them that they may be entitled to disability living allowance. In fact, it does: I have a copy of the claim pack used in 1996, when Mrs. Cole made her claim for incapacity benefit. The pack has changed slightly since then, but that does not affect the point that I want to make.
The claim pack contains a leaflet entitled "Notes About Incapacity Benefit", which contains advice about other benefits. The first of the other benefits mentioned in the section headed "Other help" is disability living allowance. It states that DLA is a
Social Security benefit for people with an illness of disability for people who need…help with getting around or…help with personal care or…help with both of these.
If you want to find out more about this, get leaflet DS 704 Disability Living Allowance—you could benefit from any Social Security office.
I do not think that it is enough for the Benefits Agency to say that it need do nothing else because that information is in the claim pack, but I hope that I have

249WH
answered my hon. Friend's point. The wording has been amended slightly since 1996, but the information is still prominent.
My hon. Friend asked why we do not invite all people who claim incapacity benefit also to put in a claim for disability living allowance. I think that that would be a mistake. Only one third of people in receipt of incapacity benefit also receive DLA. The entitlement conditions are different, and it is not immediately obvious to people in a Benefits Agency office that a person entitled to one benefit should be entitled to the other.
Both benefits are, of course, awarded in relation to a medical condition, but they have different purposes and tests of entitlement. Therefore, entitlement to one does not necessarily mean entitlement to the other. If everyone claiming IB were invited to claim DLA, two thirds of those so invited probably would not be entitled to it.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Benefits Agency already experiences considerable difficulty in processing the volume of DLA claims. We want to encourage more claims from people likely to be entitled to the benefit, to ensure that the low take-up rate is raised, but we do not want to gum up the works with a lot of claims from people who are not entitled.
We therefore need to focus our publicity very carefully. We are introducing a number of new measures that I think will help with the problem identified by my hon. Friend. For example, we are piloting a new claims service for benefits for people of working age called "The ONE Service". It will bring together the work of the employment service and of the Benefits Agency. As a result, people claiming any working-age benefit, including incapacity benefit, will get counselling and advice about training and searching for available jobs, given that a million people on incapacity benefit say that they would like to work.
In addition, the new service will give advice about the full range of benefits, including DLA. That was not the case in 1996, before the general election, when Mrs. Cole applied for incapacity benefit. Had the new system been in place then, she would have been advised, in a one-to-one interview with a personal adviser, that other benefits were available. I hope that that will help to avoid unfortunate circumstances such as those that my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House.
A benefits inquiry line—on 0800 88 22 00—has also been established, and is a source of advice for thousands of people every day. In addition, we publish a wide range of leaflets and posters.
The Department has been working with a range of bodies representing disabled people to examine how to improve the gateway to disability living allowance. That working group of voluntary bodies has brought forward proposals for new tests of eligibility that it calls "Activities of Managing Life". In some ways, the tests are closer to those used in the personal capability assessment, which is the test of entitlement to incapacity benefit.
The proposed tests are not the same as the present IB entitlement tests, so it would not be possible for a person to undergo a single examination. However, they may facilitate better co-ordination of the benefits in future. I hope that we will be able to test the AML tests in small-
250WH
scale pilot studies later this year, but any change would have to be fully debated in Parliament as it would require primary legislation.
Finally, we will be piloting shortly an exercise called "Keeping in Touch", under which officials from the Benefits Agency will contact people on incapacity benefit periodically to review their entitlement to that benefit, and to others. That is an attempt to improve take-up and the accuracy of the benefits being paid.
In the few minutes remaining, I want to talk about the problems that the Government would face if we were to allow DLA to be backdated, as are some other benefits. DLA is already the most complicated benefit of all, and it is also the most subjective. That is why so many applications for it are turned down.
For jobseeker's allowance, for example, it is fairly simple to determine whether a person is in work or not. Similarly, it is fairly easy to determine a person's income or level of savings when deciding a claim for income support. However, determining how much help a person needs, by day or by night, to cope with a disabling condition or a chronic illness is a matter of subjective judgment by a doctor.
A determination on DLA requires judgments from a number of doctors. Evidence will be submitted by a person's general practitioner, and also probably by a specialist. In certain cases, the Department's doctors will also submit evidence, and the decision will be made accordingly. However, it is hard for the person making the decision always to make the right one. We are trying to improve that, and to get decisions right first time, but nevertheless a high rate of decisions are being overturned on appeal—usually because new evidence is submitted at that stage.
It is hard to get such decisions right where there is contemporary medical evidence. It would be even harder if a doctor's feelings about a person's care needs six months or a year before were sought. Because of the difficulty in getting accurate evidence that would be an appropriate guide to decision making, the backdating for DLA that my hon. Friend suggests has never been considered possible.
Some conditions make it easier to make assumptions about past needs. For example, a rule in disability living allowance states that double amputees qualify for the higher rate mobility component without having to demonstrate mobility needs. For a person who underwent a double amputation a year before making a DLA claim, the prima facie case is that, had that person applied earlier, he or she would have been entitled to DLA.
However, that is not true for all conditions. For example, it would be extremely difficult in relation to mental health conditions—
Mr. Rammell: I accept that the matter is extremely difficult, but should not the Government continue to consult—with people from the medical profession, and others—to see whether it would be possible to allow a limited extra backdating in accordance with a certain set of objective criteria? I am asking only that we keep looking at the problem.
Mr. Bayley: I most certainly will keep looking at it. Some of the disability organisations already accuse us of

251WH
unfairness, in that an amputee will automatically be entitled to DLA, but a person with a sensory disability, say, is much less likely to qualify.
I shall explore some other connected issues in correspondence with my hon. Friend. He has raised some very important matters, which have given the Government reason to pause. We will stop and think about what he has said, and I will reflect on his proposals with my officials. I shall write to my hon. Friend with a more detailed response.

Volunteering and Time Banks
1 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: The reason for this debate is to focus on the importance of volunteering and the voluntary sector and to provide some new thinking, in particular on time banks and the role that they can play not merely in promoting volunteering and assisting the voluntary, public and private sectors, but in rebuilding our communities.
There are a variety of volunteers and volunteering tasks, from the scouts, guides, girls and boys brigades, to hospital friends and those who go into schools to help children to read. I am sure that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), will agree that the volunteers in his constituency are as valuable to its life and vibrancy as volunteers are to mine. We need to celebrate them.
The borough of Kingston is blessed with volunteers—local organisations and community groups totalling more than 300. I take this opportunity to thank everyone who is involved with all those organisations because they have played such a key role in the royal borough. They are key in our area because, as the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear, we suffer from some underfunding. We are seen as a leafy borough. That means that such groups often struggle for funding, both from the local authority and the national lottery. We do not get our share of national lottery funding in Kingston, Mr. McWilliam, and therefore many of our groups struggle.
An umbrella body, Kingston Voluntary Action, tries to pull the groups together to assist them to develop. Unfortunately, it is strapped for cash, too. It is a shame that a certain political party in Kingston—the local Conservatives, who have a minority administration on Kingston council—has tried to cut the budgets of those struggling organisations. This year, it proposed a cut of £56,000. The Minister will probably be pleased to know that the Liberal Democrats, working with the Labour group on Kingston council, managed to restore those cuts and those much-needed funds for our voluntary groups.
Kingston churches are a strong source of volunteering. Kingston Churches Action on Homelessness plays a vital role in tackling our severe housing problems.
A superb network of people works for the local citizens advice bureau. I could not do my job as a Member of Parliament properly if I did not have the back up and support of the citizens advice bureau throughout Kingston. It does a fabulous job and has helped me on many occasions with the casework that I undertake for my constituents.
There are many social volunteers in Kingston. In mental health, we have MIND—National Association for Mental Health—and mental aid projects that undertake fabulous work. We have groups that focus on volunteering and promoting volunteers for senior citizens. CARE is a group in Chessington that brings people together to shop for, and talk to, each other and for house visits, and it does a fabulous job. We also have Age Concern and Milaap, which provide meals for elderly people from ethnic groups. There are voluntary

253WH
organisations to help families. Welcare looks after families with financial problems and lone parents who need support.
We also have charities and voluntary groups that focus on those with disabilities, such as Kingston Association for Disabled People and Scope; on individuals in distress, such as Kaleidoscope, which is a cutting-edge drugs project, Kingston Bereavement Service and Victim Support; and on the needs of ethnic minorities, such as Kingston Racial Equality Council and Refugee Action. We have many such groups and they do a fabulous job. The challenge for us as politicians is to ensure that we value those groups, give them the support that they deserve, and encourage them to grow, so that more people volunteer and support the groups and more groups start up.
Time banks could play a role, not merely through the traditional form of volunteering, but through a new complementary form. Time banks move away slightly from the traditional notion of volunteering because a degree of mutuality is involved. People pledge time, for example to support someone by visiting them, shopping for them or giving them a lift, and receive a credit in the time bank. They can draw down on that credit for help from someone else. That is not the usual form of volunteering. Sometimes, people expect something back.
Interestingly, Mr. McWilliam, when the time banks are set up—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Personally, I do not mind that form of address—I have been Mr. McWilliam for a long time. However, the House has directed that, for the purposes of this Chamber, I am Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Davey: Thank you for bringing me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In practice, although the time banks are based on mutuality, people often do not claim the credits that they have gained—they give them to other people or back to the time bank. However, they like the notion of being given time credits because it is recognition for the work that they have done for others. While some people believe that the banks are a totally different form of voluntary action, I believe that they are a way of getting people to volunteer who would otherwise not do so. That is their significant role: they help to build communities.
For that reason, time banks have a profound message on how we approach many areas of public policy and how we rebuild our communities. Indeed, the guru of time banks, an American, Edgar Cahn, described them as:
a tool for rebuilding community.
That is the core message that I would draw to the attention of the Chamber today.
Government policy on volunteering has been rather good. In recent weeks, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made speeches supporting the voluntary sector. That is a welcome development. New Labour, unlike old Labour, does not appear to have any doubts about the important role that the sector plays, and that is welcome. The Prime
254WH
Minister's speech at the Active Community convention and his idea for a paid day off for employees—he is to take the lead on that—are welcome, as is the millennium volunteers scheme and so forth.
Those ideas are important because it is clear from various surveys—the 1997 national survey on volunteering, for example—that volunteering is dropping off to some extent, in particular among young people. If we are to promote it and to ensure that it plays a central role, as it should, we must ensure that more people volunteer. That is where time banks have a role to play.
The time banks that I am describing are very different from the national time bank that was launched recently. That idea came from Comic Relief charity work. It is a good idea—a link between the BBC and the Government—getting people to visit a website and pledge their time to voluntary action and putting them in touch with people in their local community. I am talking about community-based, local time banks, which will be built, and participated in, by the people themselves.
I have given hon. Members a rough idea of what time banks are, but I will quote Edgar Cahn to give them a clearer notion. He described them as working like a blood bank or a baby sitting club. He wrote:
Help a neighbour and then when you need it, a neighbour, most likely a different one, will help you.
The system is based on equality. One hour of help means one time dollar, whether the task is grocery shopping or making out a tax return. In the Edgar Cahn scheme, the credits are kept in individual accounts in a bank or personal computer. Credits and debits are tallied regularly. In America, some of the time banks provide monthly balance statements, to record the flow of good deeds.
Time is the unit of currency. The idea is similar to the local exchange trading systems—LETS schemes—but is simpler because it focuses simply on hours of time, which buy things that money cannot buy, such as friendship, neighbourliness, community and people helping each other.
It is time spent visiting people or on small tasks, small DIY, childcare, caring for carers and listening to people. Therefore, it is a powerful currency. Time banks are a good way to organise our individual time for the collective good to make our community a better place. They can work on housing estates to do things that the council and housing associations would never do, or in general practitioner's practices—a prescription written for someone's time, what a marvellous idea. There can be time banks in a community centre, a prison, a school or a village. They can be turned to a variety of needs. They could be focused on the needs of education and training. People could provide courses for others as part of their volunteering. In schools, older pupils might mentor younger pupils and help them with their homework. Time banks can be applied to healthy living; they can break down the barriers between people and could, I believe, do marvellous things when it comes to the improvement of mental health. In addition, of course, time banks can be used to help the elderly.
Let me be clear on what is involved in making time banks work. They are very simple. A little technology helps, but basically they can be run by one person who

255WH
would be paid as the broker of people's time. That person might need a small room, a telephone, a refurbished computer on which to run a small piece of software to manage the bank and produce the statements of the debits and credits that people have accrued over a month or a quarter. The person running the bank and some of those helping might need training on vetting and monitoring people, and on how to run the software. Getting time banks up and running requires only tiny amounts of money. Those tiny amounts of money can lever in huge amounts of time.
There are many working examples of the system in the United States. Seventeen inner-city schools in Chicago have a type of time bank system. Children mentoring others earn time dollars, which they can use to buy refurbished computers. What is amazing is that not only are computers recycled, but also the grades in the schools go up and bullying is reduced. We see a virtuous circle in schools that were previously failing.
Health insurance companies in Brooklyn use the system to improve health care facilities for their members. In Sentara hospital in Richmond, Virginia, the costs of dealing with asthma fell by 70 per cent. because of volunteers counselling people whose children and families were suffering from asthma.
I know of 11 projects in Britain that are using the time bank idea. There are two in Newcastle, and one was recently set up in Lewisham, in the Rushey Green doctors' practice, which is taking tremendous strides in promoting primary care. There is an hour bank in Peckham, a time swap in Watford and six fair share schemes in Gloucestershire, which promote a real sense of community in local villages and towns.
These projects are working now, providing huge social benefits. They are meeting some of the Government's key goals in rebuilding communities and putting people back to useful work. I think that they could be an adjunct to the new deal. There could be involvement with the sure start scheme. They could even be linked to the individual learning accounts.
I conclude by asking the Government to do five things to take time banks on to the next stage and build on the success that we have already seen. First, will the Minister be a strong advocate of time banks within the Government? I should like him to tell the Prime Minister about time banks.
Secondly, will the Minister ensure that people in the Government's policy units and task forces are told about the system so that they can study it in depth to see how it could be used to our benefit? Will the social exclusion unit, in particular, study time banks? Could time banks be built into the neighbourhood renewal strategy that is due to be published?
Thirdly, I should like the Minister to sort out a problem with the benefits system. In Newcastle, the social services departments are assessing time credits earned as income, and withdrawing benefit from those who earn them. I think that that is wrong, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to look into that problem.
Fourthly, can time banks play a proactive role in the Government's various modernisation programmes in education, health and crime?
256WH
Finally, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I want his assurance that he will ask the Chancellor to provide some money to promote time banks. I am not talking about huge amounts of money—billions of pounds, say—but a few million pounds. Only a tiny amount is required to establish and run time banks. If a few million pounds—a pot of money—could be found in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, possibly through the social investment task force that the Chancellor announced recently, and local communities and organisations could make bids for money to set up their own time bank, that would greatly encourage this development.
I believe that the Government should be sympathetic to this idea. They have certainly made sympathetic noises so far. This surely is the third way that we have heard about from new Labour thinkers, and I hope that the Minister will embrace it.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I am delighted to respond to the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is to be congratulated on choosing this topic. The voluntary sector and volunteering play a crucial part in the local infrastructure of our communities. The hon. Gentleman has shared with us a useful insight into the 300 or so groups in his constituency. As he took us on a Cook's tour of some of the highlights of the voluntary sector in his constituency, I was, with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), reflecting on how each of us, in our own constituency, could engage in a similar exercise and how the community life of our constituencies and our work is enriched by the experience, wisdom and activity encapsulated by volunteers.
It made absolute sense, therefore, for the Government to take forward an agenda that the Prime Minister has initiated and described as supporting active communities and the Chancellor has characterised as an exhibition of civic patriotism. It made sense that we should take forward a body of work—across government but led by the Home Office and its active community unit—to highlight and deliver a step change in the contribution of volunteering to the development of strong and sustainable communities. Therefore, we are looking, in this year, to see an increase in the number of people who are giving of their time, efforts and energy to voluntary activities.
The latest survey available to us showed that 29 per cent. of adults gave time regularly to such activity at least once a month and that 74 per cent. of adults have taken part in informal voluntary activity during the past year. That effort is vital to the success of our communities, and we want to see it stepped up. However, it is not part of the Government's role to preach or moralise. We need to inspire, support and create a context in which it is possible to have that explosion of giving of which the Prime Minister has spoken.
Volunteering is at the heart of strong, successful communities, and we want it to stay that way. We recognise what individuals can contribute to their communities, as well as the potential that they can unlock in themselves through voluntary activity. The

257WH
life skills, experience and sense of common purpose that the hon. Gentleman has described in his constituency are engendered by volunteering.
We need to bring together voluntary organisations, business, the media and others to ensure that an active community strategy takes root to rebuild and refurbish that sense of community throughout the country. That is part of the role of the working group led by my noble Friend Lord Warner. We need to base that strategy on the experience of groups such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I assure him that I shall feed back into that process the experience of the time bank in Kingston and Surbiton and the value that he attaches to it.
Mr. Davey: There is no time bank in Kingston and Surbiton, although I hope that we shall create one. The experience is in other areas; I know of 11 such groups.
Mr. Boateng: We shall draw on the experience to which the hon. Gentleman refers in order to ensure that, as the Government's strategy is developed and rolled out, it acknowledges the role of time banks. We have not lost sight of their contribution. Indeed, our funding aims to help about 120 time banks get started by March 2003. The hon. Gentleman's constituency may be a beneficiary of that funding. I shall be happy to ensure that the active community unit informs him of the opportunities for support that are available for the time bank group in his constituency.
We must ensure that communities are enabled and empowered to determine how best to meet their local needs through the voluntary sector. The last thing that we want to do is to apply top-down solutions to local community issues. One of the great strengths of the voluntary sector is its independence and its closeness to the grass roots.
Sometimes, Liberal Democrats make the error of suggesting that new Labour has only just discovered the voluntary sector and that the grass roots are the sole preserve of the Liberal Democrats. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. We were, and are, the grass roots in the communities that we represent. We represent a good handful more constituents than the Liberal Democrats—
Mr. Tom Levitt: Ten times more.
Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right.
We well understand the importance of grass-roots community activity; the voluntary sector is an strong manifestation of that. I shall highlight several strands of the work on volunteering in the wider community on which we are engaged. In 1999–2000, the active community unit distributed about £17.1 million in grants to the voluntary and community sectors. In the
258WH
current financial year, there will be £17.5 million. Resources are being made available. The time bank concept is important.
The report of policy action team 9 on community self-help provided about 33 recommendations to increase community activity and informal mutual support in our poorer neighbourhoods. A key plank of the strategy is to raise such activity in all neighbourhoods, not only in deprived ones. We do not want a stereotypical view of the voluntary sector as largely the preserve of the leafy suburbs—as the hon. Gentleman characterises his constituency. The sector has an important role to play in rural areas and in urban centres. It takes different forms in different places, but its value everywhere is that it binds communities together and is a reflection of them.
The strategy on which we have embarked is important. It is not about the provision of quick-fix solutions—there are none. It is a strategy for active communities over a five or 10-year period. The building blocks are being put in place. The hon. Gentleman referred to several of the Government's initiatives—for older volunteers, for young people and for black and minority ethnic communities—and to the millennium volunteer scheme. Those projects are rooted in community experience. Furthermore, we work with employers in large, medium and small businesses, to stress the value to them of promoting and supporting volunteering in the local communities that they serve. We can undertake such work together; it is about partnership and about unlocking community resources. We must do all that we can to make it possible.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the initiatives announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. We have taken steps to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not regard the benefits of time banks as taxable. I note the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the Department of Social Security. The Department is already considering benefits issues. It will be important for local offices to reflect in their approach to volunteers and volunteering the support that the Government has shown for the activities of the voluntary sector. I shall speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) about the problem in Newcastle to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We want to ensure that there is joined-up thinking in this matter.
It is a good news story, although we should not be complacent. We shall introduce new initiatives. My commitment to the hon. Gentleman is that we shall ensure that the example of good practice set by his community is taken on board. We shall celebrate together the work of the voluntary sector in building strong and effective communities. We have a real opportunity to mark the new millennium so that the spirit of the voluntary sector remains intact and is strengthened through what we do in the House and in Government but, above all, through what we do out there in the wider community

NHS Staff (Remuneration)
1.29 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of pay for non-pay review body national health service staff. It is particularly appropriate that the issue should be discussed in the House today, when many Members are receiving visits from constituents as part of the lobby of Parliament by MSF—the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union—for fair pay for all NHS professionals.
By way of introduction, I should explain who is covered by the label "non-pay review body staff." When the NHS is mentioned, people mostly think of the important work of doctors and nurses, without which the NHS could not function. Those and many other direct patient clinical professions are covered by pay review bodies, which independently review salaries each year and make recommendations to Government, but in addition to the 600,000 staff who are covered by pay review bodies, there are another 300,000 to 400,000 staff without whom the NHS could not function.
Those staff are not covered by pay review bodies and do not receive the same recognition as is given to those who are traditionally seen as front-line staff. They include laboratory technicians who analyse specimens, pharmacists, hospital physicists, speech and language therapists, as well as ambulance, estates, domestic and administrative staff and others. All those people together make up the NHS. All of them are vital to the end product of quality patient care.
It is only through all those groups of people working together that we produce good-quality patient care, yet successive Governments have failed to regard all NHS staff as full members of one team, pulling together for patient care. Instead, staff have been divided into the categories of pay review and non-pay review bodies, leading the latter group to feel like second-class citizens in the NHS. There should be an end to that division, which has a particularly negative impact on pay and morale for those staff.
The debate follows recent ones led by the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who raised issues on biomedical scientists and pathology services. However, I should like to address the issue of pay as it affects all non-pay review body staff: the pharmacists without whom we could not use medicines in the NHS, the estates and domestic staff who keep patients fed and housed in as good an environment as possible and, yes, those often maligned administrative staff in the NHS, without whom it could not function either.
Doctors and nurses together are the biggest group of staff in the NHS and do a fantastic job, but the NHS is much more than doctors and nurses. I hope that the debate goes some way towards recognising that.
The Government deserves congratulation on the work that they have already done on pay. They have recognised many of the problems. They have awarded significant pay rises to many staff in the NHS and are addressing many of the issues that lead to a decline in morale. In its pay strategy "Agenda for Change" the Government set out their vision for replacing the incredibly complex current pay system.
260WH
With the current system, suitcases would be needed to carry all the books covering the terms and conditions of staff. The Government want to replace that system with three national pay spines: one for doctors and dentists, one for staff currently covered by the nurses pay review body and one for other staff not covered by pay review bodies.
That simplification is welcome and must be the way forward, but the three pay spines still leave non-pay review body staff vulnerable to continuing to be left behind, with the consequent loss in recognition, pay and morale. I hope that we will hear from the Government today a guarantee that that will not happen.
The concerns of non-pay review body staff are real. Since 1984, pay increases for staff covered by PRBs have been around 30 per cent. higher than awards to non-pay review body staff.
That has left, even after this year's pay offer, a graduate trainee medical laboratory scientific officer starting work on £9,400, compared with a nurse starting on £14,400. The comparisons with graduate salaries outside the NHS are even starker, but it is not only graduates who receive low pay. Many in the NHS work tirelessly for patients, both in direct patient care and behind the scenes, for very low pay. The Government need to take action to ensure that all NHS staff feel supported and rewarded in their roles.
The current division into pay review body and non-pay review body staff demoralises staff in the second group. It adds to the bad feeling created under the previous Government. Under their proposals for private finance initiative schemes, staff were divided into core and non-core staff. The latter were offered out to private sector contractors, giving the staff affected a feeling that they were peripheral to the NHS, when they clearly were not.
Again, the Government are to be congratulated on the fact that, while getting on and building hospitals under the PFI to see what they can deliver for patients, they have found a way to ensure that future PFIs do not have to classify staff as either core or non-core staff in that divisive way. However, I urge the Government to go further.
Staff pay can be affected by whether the service that they provide is done in-house or by a private contractor. Although the Government say that doctors and nurses are safeguarded from being transferred to private contractors, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), tells me that the Government are not dogmatic when it comes to support services, and that pay and conditions for those staff could be set by private contractors, who would be able to take over contracts for support services where they can offer greater value to patients. That again sounds like one rule and one lot of pay and conditions for one lot of NHS staff, and another rule for another group of staff.
Someone once described the NHS to me as a perfect illustration of the British class system, where groups are divided into categories whose members ostensibly live and work in the same world, but which actually do much to ensure that the dividing lines between them remain in place. Doctors defend their separate dining rooms with the utmost vigour and porters do not feel that they can make suggestions for improvements to services because

261WH
they will not be listened to. Those attitudes are changing, but they can still be found in parts of the NHS. It is only by changing those attitudes that we will maximise the benefits for patients.
I turn to some specifics of this year's and next year's pay rounds. Although the Government improved their original offer, the 3.25 per cent. award, with a pledge for next year of at least 0.5 per cent. above inflation, will not solve the problems of recruitment and retention for some groups of scientific and laboratory workers in particular.
I recognise that some of the worst paid staff benefited from much higher increases, but they affect only a small number of non-pay review body staff and still do not go far enough towards solving the significant recruitment and morale problems.
In my constituency of South Swindon, our hospital has 12 vacancies out of a complement of 50 lab staff. The resulting pressure on the remaining staff is unsustainable in the long term. The Government must therefore not allow pay awards for non-pay review body staff to fall further behind those of the review bodies.
Swindon is not unusual in that respect. The pressure in its labs exists in many other areas. That is why the MSF is lobbying Parliament today. It thinks that the proposed pay awards are inadequate and will not have a big enough impact on those problems. Those concerns are shared by many Members. There are 92 signatories to early-day motion 461 on the issue.
The Government must listen. A further deterioration in the situation must be prevented. In a sense, it seems unfair that, in three years, the Government are being asked to put right 18 years of the knocking down of public services by their Tory predecessors—it is unrealistic to ask for all the problems to be solved overnight, but the issue of low pay in particular for non-pay review body staff is a real one. There is a risk that, unless more can be done, the Government will alienate a loyal and long-serving staff from the NHS for good, with the consequent reduction in quality services for patients.
NHS staff who are not visible in the delivery of front-line care find it harder to attract media attention and to generate public sympathy for their cause. Their position is not as well understood. Subsequently, the pressure on Government to deliver change is considerably less, but pay awards should be decided on their own merits, not on staff's ability to command a high public profile, or to attract media attention. That is unlikely to be achieved if all NHS staff are not covered by the same pay review arrangements.
I recognise that the Government are working with the National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians to develop an employment environment that is attractive to and supportive of these staff, but that is a promise of jam tomorrow for them. Until more is delivered, many non-pay review body staff will not have the confidence that their needs will be met.
The recruitment and retention problems to which low pay contributes have serious implications in terms of costs to the NHS. Not only are vital services understaffed and overstretched, but an exorbitant amount is spent on agency staff. For example, a medical laboratory scientific officer at the top of the scale receives £360 a week, and a locum to fill a vacancy at
262WH
that level costs £603 a week—a difference of about £13,000 a year. Such figures show that if a larger pay award were made to NHS staff, the NHS would have to rely less on agency staff, and that a larger award would be cheaper for the NHS than a lower one.
I know that in my constituency the spending on agency staff in laboratories is high, and hard-working NHS staff cannot understand why greater funds cannot go into recruiting and retaining NHS staff. They also find it ironic that while all UK staff have to be registered, overseas agency staff do not go through that process, so more is being spent on possibly less well-trained staff. It cannot make sense for so many trusts to be relying on agency staff to run labs when a better pay award would attract more NHS staff to the profession as trainees and full-time staff.
As the Government rightly point out when announcing pay awards, in the face of what sometimes seems like opposition by the Tories, there is not a straight trade-off between paying staff less and having more money for patient services. Of course there may be an element of that, but there is also a win-win element because paying staff fairly reaps huge benefits in increased commitment and less stress and sickness, and that leads to better patient services.
I have already mentioned the positive improvements to the pay system that the Government set out in "Agenda for Change". They state that
modern forms of health care rely on flexible teams of staff working across traditional skill boundaries.
That strengthens the argument for going further than the document outlines and creating a single pay spine and a single pay review body for all NHS staff, facilitating and encompassing that extra flexibility.
Progress on pay should be matched by progress on harmonisation of conditions of service; it is illogical to address one without the other. One example would be to reduce the working week of ancillary staff.
It is essential that avoidable divisions in the work force do not undermine the Government's vision for a united, modern NHS. Different pay arrangements for different groups of workers cannot achieve that as effectively. NHS staff should not be made to feel that some are more important than others and some more dispensable than others. Every cog, however small, is necessary to ensure that this huge machine works well. I remember Frank Dobson describing the NHS as an oil tanker that needed to be turned around. Well, it is the staff who will turn that tanker around, and they are doing so. However, unless they pull together we will not turn it around quickly. Staff should not be set one against the other so that they pull in different directions and fight among themselves.
In spite of the divisions in the pay structure, there are many examples of staff in the NHS working well together in teams, and it is those smooth-running teams that produce the best patient care. However, to get those teams working better and to replicate that work throughout the NHS, we need an end to the divisive pay structure in the NHS.
Ultimately the aim is to deliver high-quality patient care, and that is what the Government want to achieve. Good progress has been made on NHS pay. The Labour Government are putting right many of the problems

263WH
created by the Tories, and staff and unions recognise and welcome that. However, as negotiations for new pay levels draw to a conclusion in the coming months, it is essential that the Government demonstrate their commitment to the vital staff outside the scope of the pay review bodies.
We know that problems cannot be solved overnight, but we need to know what steps will be taken to tackle the problems of recruitment, retention, low morale and inadequate pay, now and in the future. One united system bringing together all the staff in the NHS would send out the clear message of admiration and respect that all NHS workers deserve.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I did not want to break the hon. Lady's flow, but, before I call the Minister, I must point out that the former Secretary of State for Health should be referred to in this Chamber as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
Ms Drown: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on being successful in the ballot for this debate and on deciding to raise the matter of remuneration for non-review body staff in the NHS. As my hon. Friend said, this is a very important group of staff, numbering more than 300,000.
NHS staff whose pay is not determined by the doctors and dentists review body or the nurses review body are a diverse and wide-ranging group covering many different occupations. As my hon. Friend said, it is often too easy to give the impression that it is only doctors and nurses who run the NHS. Non-review body staff play a vital role in delivering high quality health care to patients.
The largest of those groups is administrative and clerical staffs who provide essential secretarial and management support and look after medical records and computers. Ancillary workers including cooks, cleaners, porters and maintenance staff such as electricians are essential to the successful running of every hospital. Ambulance staff, including paramedics and those working in the control room, directly contribute to saving countless lives each year.
Clinical psychologists, speech and language therapists and health care pharmacists directly provide specialised patient care. NHS scientists and other scientific and technical staff make a crucial contribution to patient care through their work on diagnostic techniques and treatment, playing vital roles in the treatment of people with life-threatening conditions such as cancer and coronary heart disease. I, too, want to begin by emphasising the importance of the work done by those different staff groups, all of whom deserve fair and affordable pay awards.
As my hon. Friend recognised, we have made a strong commitment to all non-review body staff groups. For the first time in the history of the NHS, we have been able to guarantee above-inflation rises not just for one year, but for three years.
264WH
In January, we offered all non-review body staff an innovative above-inflation three-year deal that gives special help to the lowest paid. We have made some progress, at least, because from this year no adult worker in the NHS on a national contract will earn less than £4 an hour. That is the first longer-term deal of its kind in the public sector. I believe that it does give staff the security of real-terms increases for the whole of that period. Last year's increase has resulted in a real-terms increase of 1.4 per cent. We project that by the end of our three-year deal, pay increases will amount to at least 9.25 per cent. against projected inflation of 6.5 per cent.
Those figures should be compared with the increases awarded by the previous Government. During their last five years in office, rises ranged from below the rate of inflation to a meagre 0.4 per cent. above inflation.
In January, staff were offered increases of 3 per cent. or £250, whichever was greater, from April 1999, 3.25 per cent. or £300 from April 2000 and a minimum of the underlying rate of inflation plus 0.5 per cent. for next year. As a result some 75,000 of the lowest-paid staff working in the NHS will benefit, including porters, messengers, storekeepers and domestic staff. They will receive an average 3.2 per cent. in year 1 and 3.7 per cent. in year 2.
In addition, as part of the long-term deal, our pay offer for April 1999–2000 makes special provision for some of the scientific, professional and technical groups. Junior health care pharmacists received increases of up to 12 per cent. All scientists have been offered at least 3 per cent., and about half of all biomedical scientists—some 6,000 in the lower grades—have been offered 7 per cent. to address special recruitment problems.
Trainee biomedical scientists have been offered a particular deal, too. There are about 1,000 of them altogether, and around 100 at the bottom end of the scale have been offered 26 per cent., and we have offered the rest increases ranging from 7 to 22 per cent. by restructuring their pay scale. In addition, we have offered to increase London weighting by 13.5 per cent. to restore it to 1995 values.
I do think that that is a fair offer in the current circumstances. We needed to target funds where the need was demonstrably greatest—to address recruitment and retention problems that would have damaged patient care. There is a problem in recruiting staff at the bottom end of the biomedical scientist scale, including medical laboratory scientific officers and path lab staff. We recognised that, and have offered larger increases to staff in that part of the profession. That means that some pathology staff will be getting more than many review body staff; biomedical scientists are receiving a rise of up to 7 per cent., and trainees up to 26 per cent. That compares favourably with the 4.7 per cent. awarded to most nurses in 1999-2000.
The current position is that unions representing about 75 per cent. of non-review body staff have now accepted our offer. Advance letters instructing employers to implement the pay increases have now been issued for administrative, clerical, ancillary and ambulance staff. I look forward to the remaining groups being able to benefit from this long-awaited award in the near future.
The offers have been made within the context of the current pay system, and it is worth pointing out that that system allows considerable flexibility to address the

265WH
needs of key groups of staff. There is, for instance, the provision within Whitley to restructure on-call and call-out payments to suit local service organisation. This and similar action has been taken by a number of NHS employers in order to pay staff more attractively to ensure that key services are provided when they are needed. One example that is local to my constituency is the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare Trust, where staff working in biochemistry and haematology may have their annual pay increased by £3,744 for providing on-call services twice a month.
More widely, there is also provision to offer local pay supplements of up to 30 per cent. in the London area and 20 per cent. elsewhere, specifically to address recruitment and retention issues where management considers that proven problems could be redressed by pay enhancement. That is one way of addressing the reliance on agency staff to which my hon. Friend referred.
I have set out the current offer and the flexibility that exists, but everyone accepts the need to modernise the NHS pay system, which is outdated and has become a barrier to modernising working practices. Too often, services have to be organised around the barriers created by the pay system rather than around the needs of patients. My hon. Friend rightly spoke of the importance of teamwork in the NHS involving different professional and occupational groups and across traditional barriers.
As part of its modernisation, we intend to make a substantial investment in the NHS to enable services to be more patient-centred. Staffs need to be encouraged to work effectively in fluid and flexible teams to provide seamless care. They need to break down professional demarcation lines and work in partnership across professional and other occupational groups.
The problem with the current pay system is that it reinforces the barriers and the inflexible ways of working that the current system promotes by tying staff incomes to ways of working that go against team working and patient-centred care. It is also frustrating for staff because it is not always clear to them how the responsibilities of their jobs and the competences that they develop are actually rewarded in their pay at present.
Over the next five years, the Government intend to modernise the care system—health and social care alike—from head to toe. Modernisation of the system is necessary to secure a lasting improvement in people's health and to tackle inequalities.
Hon. Members will be aware that last week's Budget announced substantial injections of funding into the NHS—an extra £1.4 billion for the NHS in England plus additional revenue from taxation on tobacco. Those extra resources represent a huge opportunity to modernise the NHS and improve patient care. We must not waste that opportunity. No one should be in any doubt about what the public expect us to do with the money. If we fail to produce improvements in patient care where they are most needed to tackle ill health and inequalities in health care, we will be judged to have failed to deliver the changes the public and NHS staff expect and deserve.
266WH
We need to make sure that we can continue to make fair and affordable pay offers, to address recruitment and retention and—fundamentally—to invest in a pay system which rewards new and better ways of working. That is why on 15 February last year we published "Agenda for Change", which outlines our proposals for modernising the NHS pay system. We want a new system that is based on efficiency, fairness, flexibility and partnership and gives all staff better career progression and fairer rewards for taking on extended roles, widening their skills and working in teams. We want to give all staff modern conditions of service. My hon. Friend mentioned working hours and other issues that will inevitably arise in negotiations.
We also want to provide a fair basis for pay rises in the security of a national pay system. That will entail substantial changes to the current system in which staff are often defined by a combination of their titles, their pay and how they are trained rather than by what they do for patients. It means changing the existing conditions of service, with their range of arcane allowances which too often distort working patterns.
Over the past year, we have had positive and constructive discussions with trade unions, NHS health professionals and NHS staff on the proposals set out in "Agenda for Change". I genuinely believe that we are working in a real partnership with all the recognised unions to make sure that the concerns of all staff groups are properly represented.
"Agenda for Change" proposes three pay spines for doctors and dentists, an expanded healthcare professional group and a single negotiating council for staff groups whose skills are attractive to employers outside the NHS. Although we propose different mechanisms for pay uplift for those three groups, it is essential—and it is recognised in the agreements that we have reached so far—that there should be a means to ensure that future pay increases on the three spines do not result in different rates of pay for jobs of equal value which could not be justified under the relevant legislation.
We also recognise that, for various reasons—often rooted in history—some smaller groups of highly qualified health professionals are outside the remit of the nursing pay review body. Those groups could well be included, although it is not intended that there should be any change to the fundamentally professional character of the coverage of the NPRB. As I have said in several debates over the past two or three months, it is too early in the negotiations to be specific about proposals for particular staff groups, but the matter is under discussion. I am confident that pay modernisation will bring benefits to all NHS staff, whether or not they are covered by a review body.
We have the opportunity to change the pay system for the better so that staff can be rewarded fairly for the work that they do rather than the title that they hold. We need the flexibility to design jobs within the security of a national pay system, to offer better career progression and modern terms and conditions for all staff and crucially, to allow managers and staff to deliver the quality of services that everyone wants. A national

267WH
system of job evaluation will allow creative approaches to job design to match exactly the redesigned care processes that are so important to patients. If our negotiations continue to be successful, I hope that we will have an agreed package by the summer so that we can move ahead to implement locally and nationally to an agreed time scale over the coming years.
Although pay is important, it is not the only thing that matters to NHS staff. The quality of their working lives is also important. My hon. Friend mentioned people not being listened to and feeling that their views were not of value because they did not belong to the right profession or group of staff. She will know that, over the past year or so, we have undertaken an extensive exercise on staff participation within the NHS and I hope that we shall be able to publish a report and the Government's response to the staff participation proposals in the very near future.
268WH
We recognised from the outset that it is important that all staff in the NHS should have the ability to contribute their views about how services should be run and the right to expect those views to be listened to and taken seriously.
We are not prepared to leave good employment practice to chance. We are developing more supportive, flexible and family-friendly working practices; we are extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development: we are tackling violence and racism in the workplace and we are insisting that employers make those changes happen by setting clear priorities and targets to improve employment practice.
My hon. Friend has raised some important issues, some of which we have been able to address in the offers that we have made recently and others which we shall need to address in the context of wider change, but I am sure that we shall continue to make progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr.Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ban investment in Burma by United Kingdom-owned companies; and if he will make a statement. [117508]

  Mr. Battle
  We do not encourage trade with our investment in Burma and tell business enquirers so; we have also suspended all financial support for trade mission to Burma and for trade promotional activities there as was made plain in June 1997.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr.Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain is making to support initiatives for peace in Sri Lanka. [117642]

  Mr. Hain
  We take every opportunity at bilateral meetings to stress the need for a political settlement to end the conflict in Sri Lanka. We have made it clear that we stand ready to help if both sides ask us to play a role. We welcome the Norwegian Government's efforts to bring the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam together for peace talks.

  Lisbon Summit
  Mr.Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the(a) total cost and (b) cost per passenger of the jets used to fly Ministers and officials to the Lisbon Summit; and if he will break down the cost by Government department. [117042]

  Mr.Robin Cook
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 March 2000, Official Report, column 248W.

  Mr.Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who took the decision that three separate jets would be used to fly Ministers and officials to the Lisbon Summit. [1170401]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: This was a collective decision, in the light of operational requirements. 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.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) officials and (b) political advisers accompanied Ministers to the Lisbon Summit. [117041]
  466W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 390W.

  Geneva Summit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to involve non-Governmental organisations in consultation as part of the preparation of the Government's position for the Social Summit in Geneva in June. [117326]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided £25,000 to help the United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee (UNED-UK) co-ordinate UK civil society's input to the Special Session. We have financed an internet website, the creation of a key stakeholders' group, and a conference for nongovernmental organisations. The Department for International Development has provided £270,000 for the International Council for Social Welfare to help it enhance the role of civil society groups worldwide (and especially those from developing countries) at the Special Session.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which department is the lead department for preparing for the Social Summit in Geneva in June; and which other departments are involved in the preparation. [117325]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead Department for preparations for the General Assembly Special Session on follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development. All other Whitehall Departments with responsibility for social development issues, both nationally and internationally, are fully involved in the preparatory process.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations Social Summit in Geneva in June. [117324]

  Mr. Hain
  The full composition of the UK delegation is still being considered. The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, has plans to attend for some of the discussions.

  Middle East
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of recent negotiations between Israel and Syria. [117598]

  Mr. Hain
  The meeting between President Clinton and President Asad in Geneva on 26 March was a demonstration of the efforts being undertaken to achieve the resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria and progress towards agreement. The Government support these efforts and believe that a settlement remains possible. Time is, however, short. The Government will spare no effort, in co-operation with the United States and our European partners, to help the parties reach agreement.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the creation of the St. Helena Business Forum has had on unemployment levels. [117797]

  Mr. Battle
  The St. Helena Business Forum was formed in 1997 at the instigation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In 1998 it became the St. Helena Focus Group and is now run by the private sector. It is a voluntary organisation that was established to promote St. Helena to the private sector in the UK. One of its members has been appointed as a part-time Commercial Representative to the St. Helena Government. The Commercial Representative and Focus Group have greatly improved the service to potential inward investors and have taken a proactive role in inward investment promotion activities. In 1997 unemployment was 20 per cent., at the end of 1999 it was 15 per cent.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans has he to develop employment opportunities on St. Helena in non-governmental areas. [117799]

  Mr. Battle
  The St. Helena Government in its Strategic Review 2000–2010 and Country Policy Plan 2000–01, 2002–03 clearly sets out its commitment to promote employment opportunities. These include increasing contracting out of government services; the promotion of tourism and inward investment; and increased export promotion. Many of these activities are undertaken in conjunction with the St. Helena Development Agency (SHDA) which has been instrumental in creating or sustaining well over 120 jobs in 1998 in the private sector. The Department for International Development has funded a £1.386 million project to provide working capital for the SHDA. The SHDA provides grants and loans particularly for small and medium-scale enterprises as well as training and advice.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many St. Helenians are serving in the Armed Forces; and what percentage of the population that represents. [117801]

  Mr. Battle
  Thirty six St. Helenians have joined the UK Armed Forces since November 1997 which represents roughly 0.72 per cent. of the population. Several have returned to St. Helena since recruitment because they have either not completed basic training or for other, personal, reasons. Currently 29 are in the services.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans has he to assist St. Helena in developing the fishing industry. [117798]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1996, the St. Helena Government (SHG) has been engaged in the establishment of a joint venture with Argos Ltd. On 29 February 2000 Argos Atlantic Cold Store was officially opened at Ruperts Bay in St. Helena. This increases fish freezing and cold storage capacity to 800 tonnes. Quotas placed on the local fishermen during times of high catches will now be eliminated. I understand Argos intend to take immediate steps to increase the volume of fish caught by importing bait and improving fishing expertise.
  468W
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist St. Helena in diversifying its economy. [117800]

  Mr. Battle
  The St. Helena Government set out their vision for the future and long-term development strategy in their Strategic Review 2000–10 and Country Policy Plan 2000–01 to 2002–03. This is clearly based on the need to continue to develop the island's private sector and attract inward investment. The St. Helena and British Governments agreed during this January's discussions on a new three-year aid agreement that progress towards a more sustainable economy will remain difficult until access to the island is radically improved. The outcome of the Department for International Development's proposed comparative costs study of future air access versus sea access will be relevant to future tourism development.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  NHS Computer Fraud
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many persons were prosecuted for involvement in fraud over the procurement of computer equipment in the NHS in each of the last six years. [116858]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of the number of persons prosecuted for involvement in fraud over the procurement of computer equipment in the NHS in each of the last six years. The information requested could be obtained only by examining each relevant file in every CPS office, at disproportionate cost. The Serious Fraud Office has not prosecuted any persons for involvement in fraud over the procurement of computer equipment in the NHS in each of the last six years.

  R. v. Doran
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the report of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the case, R.v. Doran & Others, is due to be handed to the Attorney-General; and if the report will be published. [117318]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been informed by His Honour Gerald Butler QC that his report is close to completion, but I am not in a position to provide a specific date by which the finished report will be provided to the Attorney-General. The question of publication is a matter for the Attorney-General and the Chairman of HM Customs and Excise. As the previous Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) stated in his parliamentary answer of 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 607W, a summary of the report and its recommendations will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what factors led to the delay in the reporting of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case, R.v. Doran & Others. [117319]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been informed by His Honour Gerald Butler QC that the inquiry took longer than anticipated for three reasons: (1) there were delays in providing the inquiry with all the relevant
  469W
  documentation; (2) the documentation was substantially more voluminous than anticipated when the inquiry was established; (3) there were far more witnesses to be interviewed than was thought to be the case at the outset. The inquiry has received evidence from, and interviewed, 37 witnesses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Class Performance Programme
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when his Department will provide the projected funding figures for the World Class Performance Programme for 2000–01 in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [115329]

  Kate Hoey
  The World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) is administered by UK Sport for UK governing bodies and includes athletes from all parts of the United Kingdom. Sport England is responsible for the administration of the WCPP for English governing bodies and for the World Class Potential and World Class Start Programmes for English athletes. In addition, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland administer their own elite programmes for their national athletes below the level of World Class Performance.

  The Sport England projected budget for 2000–01 will be submitted to its Council for approval on 3 April and is not yet available. The projected funding figures for 2000–01 for the elite programmes for Scotland and Northern Ireland are as follows:

  £

  Sport Scotland—Talented Athlete Programme

  2,000,000

  Sport Scotland—Scotland Junior Groups Programme

  750,000

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland—Development of Talented Individuals Programme

  530,000

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the individual awards for the World Class Performance Programme specifying the sports to date. [115328]

  Kate Hoey
  The World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) is administered by UK Sport for UK governing bodies and by Sport England for English governing bodies. The awards made by UK Sport and accepted by governing bodies since the Council became a lottery distributor on 1 July 1999 are given in the table. Sport England is currently upgrading its grant management system and information prior to 1 July 1999 and on the Sport England WCPP. I will write to the hon. Member with this information shortly and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  £

  Sport

  Award1,2

  Athletics

  3,045,839

  Athletics (Disabled)

  2,315,009

  British Paralympic Association Games

  61,002

  Bobsleigh

  316,687

  Cycling

  444,267

  Diving3

  395,522

  Equestrian

  728,200

  470W

  £

  Sport

  Award1,2

  Goalball (Disability Sport)

  110,220

  Gymnastics

  1,773,806

  Ice Skating

  94,252

  Judo

  425,636

  Modern Pentathlon

  100,000

  Orienteering

  449,743

  Powerlifting (Disabled)

  112,566

  Rowing

  2,754,621

  Sailing

  1,744,320

  Shooting (Paraplegic)

  65,000

  Swimming3

  2,522,836

  Swimming (Disabled)3

  1,356,912

  Table Tennis (Disabled)

  11,820

  Trampoline

  188,203

  Triathlon

  34,290

  Water Skiing

  31,300

  Wheelchair Rugby

  149,476

  1 The list comprises only those awards that have been accepted by the Governing Body and are hard commitments.

  2 The total awards committed may not necessarily equate to exact outtum expenditure. Athlete subsistence costs are a best estimate and may not be taken up in full. Performance costs are normally taken up in full but where an underspend does arise lottery funding may be recouped or withheld.

  3 Diving, Swimming and Disability Swimming include awards that have been backdated to cover extensions to earlier awards.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason there has been a reduction in funding of the World Class Performance Programme from 1998–99 to 1999–2000. [115330]

  Kate Hoey
  There has been no reduction in funding of the World Class Performance Programme. The information included in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) of 22 February 2000,Official Report, columns 849-51W, provided details of the funding to elite sport by each of the Sports Councils and related to expenditure for the first 10 months of 1999–2000, not to the total value of awards.

  The expenditure figures for the financial year 1999–2000 remain incomplete since payments for March have still to be made. The expected outturn for 1999–2000 will be broadly in line with that for 1998–99. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the full year figures are available.

  Lottery Funding
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery funding projects in Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency have received since the National Lottery began. [117313]

  Kate Hoey
  The total value of National Lottery awards to projects in the constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale since the lottery began is £5,374,323. The data are taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Historic Engineering Projects
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on National Lottery funding for historic engineering projects. [117595]
  471W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Heritage Lottery Fund can support a wide variety of projects involving the acquisition, repair, conservation and restoration of buildings, sites and collections relating to industrial and technological history, which will include historic engineering projects. To date the Heritage Lottery Fund has committed over £104 million to projects in the industrial, maritime and transport sector, and expects to continue to allocate 9 per cent. of its income annually to this area within the period of the current Strategic Plan.

  Charleroi Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the Football Association, (b) UEFA, (c) the Official England Supporters Club and (d) the Belgian Police Federation regarding the suitability of the Charleroi Stadium for holding major international football matches; and if he will make a statement. [117243]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has raised concerns about the suitability of Charleroi as a venue for the England v. Germany match with the Belgian Government, who have provided assurances that the stadium complies with UEFA and Belgian safety standards. The Home Office is overseeing preparations for Euro 2000 and there is extensive liaison with the host countries and with UK agencies involved in the tournament.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had concerning safety issues at Charleroi Stadium. [117275]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I recently discussed this matter with the Chief Executive of the Football Licensing Authority.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday, 5 April. [117370]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burmese Refugees
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision her Department has made for assistance to members of Burmese ethnic minorities held in Thai refugee camps. [117288]
  472W
  Clare Short
  My Department provides assistance to Burmese refugees in Thailand through a grouping of NGOs called the Burma Border Consortium. This Consortium supports around 106,000 Burmese refugees from the Karen and Karenni ethnic minorities in Thailand. Over the last two years, DFID has provided the Burma Border Consortium with £537,500 for its work.

  Debt Cancellation
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her policy in relation to cancellation of third world debt on discrimination in favour of aid recipients which have exercised good stewardship of aid received. [117405]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of giving debt relief is to benefit the poor. I welcome the international agreement that this should be the main criterion for debt relief. Under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, countries will produce poverty reduction strategies which set out policies and programmes to tackle poverty. The strategy will then provide a framework for all poverty reduction resources available to the country—Government revenue, debt relief savings and international development assistance.

  I welcome the IMF and the World bank commitments to use the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) as a basis for their programmes of support. In countries committed to poverty reduction, our bilateral country strategies will take their lead from the PRSP, and I encourage other bilateral donors to do likewise.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in the Lord Chancellor's Department for each financial year since 1992. [117480]

  Mr. Lock
  Current financial systems cannot provide a figure for expenditure on works of art without recourse to disproportionate time and expense. All major paintings in court buildings are either part of the Government Art Collection or are on loan from private museums or collections. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392-93W.

WALES

  Press Officers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press officers are employed by the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales. [116323]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Office of the Secretary of State for Wales employs one press officer with an assistant. I am also advised on media matters by my Director of Information and Communications.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers are employed by the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales. [116332]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office employs two special advisers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) the Basildon parliamentary constituency, (b) Basildon and (c) Thurrock are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. [117054]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Angela Smith, dated 4 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners in (a) the Basildon parliamentary constituency, (b) Basildon and (c) Thurrock are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee.
  The minimum income guarantee relates to Income Support pensioners aged 60 and over. The figures provided in reply to parts b and c of your question relate to Local Authority areas. The figures provided are shown in the table attached.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support pensioners, by parliamentary constituency and local authority area

  Thousand

  Area

  Pensioners on Income Support

  Basildon parliamentary constituency

  2.7

  Basildon local authority area

  4.4

  Thurrock local authority area

  2.8

  Notes:

  1. Sample size 5 per cent., therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or their partner are aged 60 years or over, (including those in residential care and nursing homes).

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  4. Data taken in November 1999.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to ensure that a separated or divorced husband or wife is not liable for mortgage arrears on his or her former marital home which accrue after he or she has left that property. [117121]

  Angela Eagle
  This Department has no plans to introduce such legislation. This is a matter for those concerned to resolve.

  Family Credit
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the parliamentary 474W
  constituency of Basildon were in receipt of (a) Family Credit and (b) Child Care Allowance in each of the last five years. [117056]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Numbers of Family Credit recipients in Basildon parliamentary constituency—August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Number of Family Credit recipients

  August

  1995

  0.6

  1996

  0.9

  1997

  0.8

  1998

  0.9

  1999

  1.1

  Notes:

  1. Caseload figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

  2. Sample size is 5 per cent. As the numbers are based on a relatively small number of sample cases the estimates are subject to a high degree of sampling error, i.e. for an estimate of 1 thousand the true value will lie somewhere in the range 700 to 1,300.

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  4. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 2 of the postcode directory, and as such represent constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  6. Due to the relatively small numbers, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the number of cases with allowed help with child care costs by parliamentary constituency.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards

  Family Credit recipients benefiting from the Child Care Disregard, East Government Office Region—August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Number of recipients

  August

  1995

  1.3

  1996

  1.8

  1997

  2.0

  1998

  2.4

  1999

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. Caseload figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

  2. Numbers are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Basildon and (b) Thurrock were in receipt of (i) Family Credit and (ii) child care allowance in each of the last five years. [117055]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  475W

  Numbers of Family Credit recipients in Basildon and Thurrock local authorities, August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Basildon LA

  Thurrock LA

  August 1995

  1.3

  0.9

  August 1996

  1.5

  1.1

  August 1997

  1.4

  1.1

  August 1998

  1.7

  0.9

  August 1999

  1.8

  0.8

  Notes:

  1. Caseload figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

  2. Sample size is 5 per cent. As the numbers are based on a relatively small number of sample cases the estimates are subject to a high degree of sampling error ie for an estimate of 2,000 the true value will lie somewhere in the range 1,628 to 2,382.

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  4. Local Authorities are assigned by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 1 of the postcode directory.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  6. Due to the relatively small numbers, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the number of cases with allowed help with child care costs by local authority or parliamentary constituency.

  Source:

  Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

  Family Credit recipients benefiting from the child care disregard, East Government Office Region August 1995–99

  Thousand

  Number of recipients

  August 1995

  1.3

  August 1996

  1.8

  August 1997

  2.0

  August 1998

  2.4

  August 1999

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. Caseload figures are taken at a point in time for which the month is August.

  2. Numbers are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends, under the draft stakeholder pension regulations, the no penalty requirement (exemptions from employer access, Part IV) to relate to the contributions made on behalf of the member by the employer; and if he will make a statement. [117599]

  Mr. Rooker
  The draft regulation seeks to ensure that a personal pension which is to provide exemption from the employer access requirement does not impose additional penalties on members because they transfer out of the scheme or stop paying into it. It will relate to the total amount in the fund at the time of transfer or cessation.

  Computers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect 3COM's announcement that they are to quit the high-end networking market will have on his Department's existing and planned computer systems. [R][117622]
  476W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: This Department has purchased 3COM products through a procurement channel and uses major Service Providers for their day by day support. The Department has been advised that existing products will have at least two years' ongoing support and 3COM are looking to other third parties to supply for a further three years. The Department will work with existing and future direct service providers to manage this and to plan for alternative supply through initiatives already under way.

  Pension Sharing
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will introduce pension sharing. [118217]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have decided that pension sharing will be available in respect of divorce and nullity proceedings that begin on or after 1 December 2000. The necessary regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fujitsu Plant
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government aid was given to the north-east to deal with the effects of job cuts at the Fujitsu plant; and how much this was per worker facing redundancy. [116285]

  Mr. Caborn
  £415,000 was made available through the rapid response fund to help those facing redundancy from Fujitsu quickly to take up new jobs or training, where no alternative provision is already available.

  The allocation of £415,000 was not on a per head basis but resulted from a bid by the Fujitsu Response Group to provide job search and training beyond that available through the Employment Service and Durham Training and Enterprise Council.

  The number of employees made redundant was 576.

  MOX Fuel Data Report
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the Kansai Electric Interim report on the MOX fuel data published on 1 March; and if he has ordered a translation of the report. [116442]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Kansai Electric's interim report on its investigation into the falsification of quality assurance data for MOX manufactured by BNFL was made publicly available in Japan on 1 March 2000. The report is in Japanese. A formal English translation has not been produced by Kansai. For their own internal use, BNFL arranged for an unofficial English translation of the report. A copy of that English language text has been passed to officials in my Department.

  ECGD (Turkey)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 49W, what types of goods are

  477W
  covered, broken down by category of equipment, by the ECGD guarantees issued in respect of contracts with Turkey in 1999–2000. [117073]

  Mr. Caborn
  The ECGD cover for defence business with Turkey in 1999–2000 relates to the supply of air defence missiles.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis he set the target for an increase in favourable media coverage of the activities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority contained in the authority's corporate aims and objectives programme. [117071]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UKAEA target for favourable media coverage is based on industry established monitoring methodologies. The target set for this year improves on what they achieved last year. It is at a level which is challenging and attainable. This measure is part of the framework to monitor UKAEA performance on safety, environment, value for money and public acceptability.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the combined heat and power capacity where planning consent has been given over the last 15 months is under construction. [117766]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since the publication of the White Paper, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation", in October 1998, 14 combined heat and power schemes have been approved. Implementation of those approvals is a commercial matter for the developers concerned and not a matter for my Department, although my Department has no information to suggest that any of the approved projects will not go ahead.

  Renewables
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on net metering from(a) business, (b) environmental groups and (c) others; and how he intends to enable domestic producers of renewable and clean energy to gain access to the grid. [117709]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have received a number of representations on net metering from industry, particularly solar energy companies, environmental organisations and private individuals. Many of the issues in those representations have been debated in the House—most notably in the Standing Committee debate on Clause 30 of the Utilities Bill, held on 14 March 2000.

  The Government are keen to ensure that all renewable generation, including that produced by domestic customers, is treated in an equitable fashion and receives full and fair value for energy exported to the distribution system. To this end, the DTI last year mounted an internal review of a wide range of issues associated with embedded generation and a consultation paper which set out the outcome of this review was issued in December.

  Many informative and helpful responses to the consultation document were received from the renewable industry, distributors and other interested parties. A joint
  478W
  industry-OFGEM-Government working group has now been established to take the process forward, and this will report before the end of the year. The working group represents a major opportunity to resolve a number of long-standing issues relating to the treatment of renewable and other embedded generation and to ensure access to the distribution networks on an equitable and fair basis.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all those goods requiring export licences which have been licensed for export to Sri Lanka since 1 December 1999. [117646]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 December 1999 and 24 March 2000, 11 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and one Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licences issued between 1 December 1999 and 24 March 2000 covering the export to Sri Lanka of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  ML4

  1

  0

  ML5

  0

  1

  ML6

  2

  0

  ML10

  1

  0

  ML11

  2

  0

  ML15

  1

  1

  ML22

  1

  0

  PL5017

  2

  0

  PL5031

  1

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  Information on export licensing decisions in 1999, including details of the military equipment licensed, will be set out in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which will be published later this year. Similar details of the military equipment licensed in later years will be set out in the relevant Annual Reports.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08W.
  479W
  In addition, Sri Lanka is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [117472]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392–93W.

  Utility Meters
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that low-income consumers using pre-payment meters are charged the same amount for their gas and electricity as those who pay by direct debit. [117509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Provision of a gas or electricity supply through a prepayment meter (PPM) is inherently more expensive than via a standard meter because the meter itself is more complex and because of the additional payment infrastructure that is necessary. We have, however, encouraged the regulator and the energy supply industry to bring PPM tariffs closer to the cost of standard credit, so as to reduce the burden on those PPM users who may be on a low income. As part of the new price controls on the Public Electricity suppliers, the Office of Gas and Electricity Management (Ofgem) has proposed a new licence condition limiting the maximum additional annual surcharge for a PPM to £15 above the standard credit tariff. For gas, Centrica, which has about 90 per cent. of gas PPMs, has already reduced its PPM prices so that they are the same as those paid by standard credit customers who have not paid promptly enough to receive a discount for quick payment.

  I should point out, however, that the use of PPMs should not be taken as a proxy for fuel poverty: a wide range of people use these meters because they like the control it gives them over payment. Many PPMs are in second homes or holiday lettings. About half of those reckoned to be fuel poor are pensioners; and yet less than 10 per cent. of pensioners use a PPM.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what commitments he has been given by the management of BNFL regarding the reorganisation of management structure and methods at the company. [117616]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have asked the Chairman of BNFL to carry out a "root and branch" review of the company. I expect to receive his proposals shortly.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the deadlines for implementing the recommendations and requirements of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate reports published in February 480W
  regarding BNFL, will be met; and if he will list the (a) expected and (b) achieved completion date for each such requirement. [117618]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published three reports on 18 February. The report of the "team inspection of the control and supervision of operations at BNFL's Sellafield site" requires BNFL to produce a programme within two months to address HSE's recommendations. Their report "into the falsification of pellet diameter data in the MOX demonstration facility (MDF) at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of this on the safety of MOX fuel in use" says that the MDF will remain closed until BNFL have met all 15 of HSE's recommendations. The third report, which deals with the storage of liquid high level waste at Sellafield, requires BNFL to produce within six months a strategy to reduce stocks of such waste to a buffer volume by around 2015. Copies of all three reports were placed in the Library of the House on 18 February.

  I expect BNFL to respond positively, constructively and on time to all the recommendations in the HSE reports. However, it is for the company, in discussion with HSE, to produce detailed implementation plans.

  Artists' Resale Rights
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the proposed EU Directive on Artists' Resale Rights has recently been discussed by EU Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [117401]

  Dr. Howells
  The proposal for a Directive harmonising droit de suite went to four Internal Market Councils last year but, on each occasion, a decision was delayed to provide more time to explore ways of overcoming UK concerns. Negotiations have continued this year in the Committee of Permanent Representatives where a workable compromise was finally agreed unanimously on 15 March. This reflects an acceptable balance between the competitiveness of the art trade, the rights of artists and the need to complete the Single Market.

  The British Art Market Federation has paid tribute to the Government's achievement in securing a compromise which will greatly limit the damage to Britain's international competitiveness in the global art market. The Directive will now go forward to Council as an "A" point—i.e. for agreement without discussion—and, thereafter, for approval by the European Parliament.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the European Commission's approval of the UK's proposed Objective 2 Structural Fund areas. [118218]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to say that the European Commission approved the UK's Objective 2 Structural Funds map on 30 March 2000. This is confirmation of their agreement in principle on 22 December 1999.

  This is good news for UK, and ensures that many of the most needy areas in the UK will benefit from £3 billion of European regional funding between 2000 and 2006.
  481W
  Regional partners can now finalise their draft programme plans, which will need to be submitted to the Commission for consideration by the end of April in order for funding to be backdated to 1 January 2000.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of cross-departmental co-operation on EU Objective 1 programmes. [116412]

  Mr. Caborn
  There has been a great deal of effective inter-departmental co-operation on the Objective 1 Programme, at both ministerial and official level.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish an annual estimate of the costs of Government regulations to businesses which employ fewer than 100 people. [116403]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no plans to publish such information.

  All Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) contain information on the costs associated with new regulations; copies of all RIAs are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  BMW/Rover
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library details of his contacts with BMW and Rover between 1 June 1999 and 16 March 2000. [118219]

  Mr. Byers
  I have placed copies of these in the Libraries of the House.

  Private sector1

  Local authority1

  Registered social landlords2

  Other public sector3

  of which: Government Departments

  (a) London

  1995

  109,500

  19,000

  7,400

  1,900

  1,600

  1996

  101,800

  20,800

  7,000

  1,900

  1,600

  1997

  94,800

  18,500

  6,600

  1,700

  1,400

  1998

  88,300

  15,700

  6,500

  2,200

  1,900

  1999

  89,300

  14,700

  8,100

  2,100

  1,800

  (b) England

  1995

  689,900

  71,800

  20,900

  20,000

  17,000

  1996

  667,400

  79,600

  23,600

  20,000

  17,000

  1997

  640,000

  81,200

  26,800

  19,000

  16,000

  1998

  623,200

  81,700

  29,300

  19,000

  16,000

  1999

  636,800

  83,900

  32,600

  19,000

  16,000

  1 Estimates from the annual HIP Operational Information return from local authorities.

  2 Housing Corporation RSR form from Registered Social Landlords.

  3 Government Departments and estimates from the annual HIP Operational Information return from local authorities.

  Note:

  A level of vacancy is a usual feature of housing management, reflecting turnover and movement within the stock.

  Bus Shelters
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what policy guidelines his Department has issued to authorities responsible for bus shelters regarding consultation prior

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Neighbourhood Regeneration
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for neighbourhood regeneration. [116174]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government's policy responses to neighbourhood regeneration will be brought together through the Urban White Paper later in the year, and through the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, a consultation draft of which will be published shortly. We will ensure that programmes such as the New Deal for Communities, Single Regeneration Budget and Sure Start all play their part in delivering the coherent and co-ordinated response needed to deliver sustainable change.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of empty properties in(a) London and (b) England owned by (i) private landlords, (ii) local authorities, (iii) housing associations, (iv) Government Departments and (v) other landlords for each of the last five years. [116697]

  Mr. Mullin
  Estimates of the numbers of vacant dwellings in(a) London and (b) England on 1 April are given in the table. Information is collected on the total private sector and it is not possible to distinguish between private landlord and owner occupied empty properties.

  to erecting new shelters; and what plans he has to re-issue such guidelines to require consultation with local residents; [117274]

  (2) what targets he has for building new bus shelters and upgrading existing bus shelters for each of the next three years. [117273]
  483W
  Mr. Hill
  Decisions on expenditure on bus shelters are a matter for each local authority taking account of the availability of resources and the assessment of needs in their area. In developing bus strategies as part of their local transport plans, authorities will need to consider what improvements to bus infrastructure are needed, and what targets are appropriate in this regard. Local partnerships with the private sector can make an important contribution to achieving these improvements.

  Bus operators and local authorities have permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide passenger shelters. The current guidance in DOE Circulars 15-92 and 9-95 makes it clear that there should be arrangements for advance notifications and publicity for individual proposals, wherever appropriate. We have no plans to re-issue this guidance.

  London Transport has separate powers to erect and maintain shelters in London; these powers will be transferred to Transport for London under the Greater London Authority in July.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of rail freight's share of the freight market following the introduction of 44 tonne lorries. [117082]

  Mr. Hill
  In its interim report "Permitting 44 tonne lorries for general use in the UK", the Commission for Integrated Transport considered carefully the impact of 44 tonne lorries on the rail freight market. They concluded that work to estimate the precise effect on rail freight's market share would be unlikely to produce reliable results in the light of the Rail Regulator's forthcoming review of track access charges and other factors.

  The Commission has invited the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) to develop detailed recommendations on measures to promote the growth of rail freight. We expect to be able to take the sSRA's proposals into account in developing our Transport 10-year Plan, due to be published in July.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many households in homes heated by community heating schemes are in fuel poverty; and if such households will be eligible to benefit from the Affordable Warmth Programme. [116676]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The present estimates of the number of fuel poor households in England are based on data from the English House Condition Survey. Unfortunately it is not possible to identify the number of households heated by community heating schemes who are also suffering from fuel poverty.

  I can confirm that households heated through community heating schemes will be able to benefit from the Affordable Warmth Programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Capital allowances will be made available to lessors on de-mountable heat exchangers, radiators and heating controls installed inside dwellings under the Programme.
  484W
  Lessors will be able to write off 25 per cent. of the cost of this equipment each year on the reducing balance basis against their taxable income, provided their expenditure is incurred by 31 December 2007.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how frequently he intends to monitor the number of households in England which are in fuel poverty. [116677]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The present estimates of the number of fuel poor households in England are based on data from the English House Condition Survey which is carried out quinquennially. The Ministerial Group on Fuel Poverty is looking at how progress in tackling fuel poverty should be monitored in the future, and will consider whether estimates can be made available more frequently. This will form part of the overall strategy which the group aims to publish later this year.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2000,Official Report, column 624W, on second homes, what change there was in the number of second homes owned between January 1995 and January 2000 in the South East, excluding London. [116776]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: It is not possible to give a robust estimate of the change in the number of second homes in the South East between 1995 and 2000. The following table shows the latest available regional estimates, based on averages over the three years ending March 1999.

  Location of second homes in England

  Thousand

  Government Office Region

  All second homes1

  Owned second homes

  North West and North East2

  31

  27

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19

  16

  East and West Midlands3

  33

  28

  East and South East2

  70

  64

  London

  28

  21

  South West

  44

  40

  England

  225

  197

  1 Second homes in England owned or rented by households whose main residence is also in England. Excludes homes which are the main residence of another household, or which the owners are intending to sell.

  2 Cannot be separated as the regional definitions changed during the survey period. Neither is it possible to give separate estimates for the 'Rest of South East' region used for regional planning purposes.

  3 East and West Midlands combined due to small sample sizes.

  Note:

  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to a certain amount of sampling variation and are not absolutely precise.

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, three-year average to March 1999.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [117483]
  485W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392-93W.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his targets for asset sales for each local authority in the next financial year, listed alphabetically by Government Office region. [117296]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have not set targets for asset sales for individual local authorities.

  The Government wish to see local authorities make the best possible use of their land, buildings and other capital assets, including the identification and disposal of those surplus to requirements. My Department has recently issued guidance on good practice in strategic asset management as part of the move to a 'single pot' for capital allocations.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the Government fulfil their commitments under the Ospar agreement in respect of radioactive discharges; and if he will make a statement. [117154]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The Government are fully committed to the agreement reached at the Ospar Ministerial Meeting in 1998, on the reduction of radioactive discharges. The UK's intentions for implementing this agreement were submitted to the Ospar Secretariat in October 1999 and a copy is in the Library. The UK is developing a national strategy for radioactive discharges, to cover the period 2001 to 2020. It is planned to issue a draft of this document for consultation before the summer and to publish the final strategy by the end of the year.

  Disabled People (Transport Facilities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had on improving transport facilities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [117824]

  Mr. Hill
  There are frequent and regular discussions with representatives of disabled people, including our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), with the transport manufacturing and operating industries and with local authorities.

  We have already brought forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 setting detailed technical access standards for all new trains. This year we will be bringing forward similar regulations applying to buses and coaches and we will be consulting on proposed regulations for taxis. These regulations cover facilities for wheelchair users and for people with a wide range of other disabilities.

  Through the Local Transport Plans we are also ensuring that local authorities give due weight to the needs of disabled people across the whole spectrum of their
  486W
  responsibilities, including pedestrian facilities, transport infrastructure and voluntary and community transport services.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will bring forward legislation to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police to give them the same constabulary powers as Home Office police; and if he will make a statement. [117668]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government announced on 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 637W, their intention to seek to establish, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, an independent national police authority for the British Transport Police (BTP). Following consultation with the police service, my Department is considering with the Home Office an extension to the BTP's jurisdiction in specific circumstances. If accepted this extension would be included within the legislation.

DEFENCE

  AWE
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation took place with regulatory authorities in relation to the appropriateness of BNFL as a partner in the consortium set up to bid for the contract to manage AWE. [113667]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: MOD has regular meetings with officials of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and of the Environment Agency on safety and environment at AWE, including the conduct and progress of the competition to appoint a new management and operating contractor. Both bodies were consulted on the suitability of all consortia member companies before RFQs (Requests for Quotation) were issued for the competition and both have been kept fully informed of developments. On 13 April 1999, the NII and EA made presentations to BNFL and all other parent companies of the competing consortia informing them of the standards that would be required of the successful contractors. Both regulators were given copies of each consortium's management prospectus and bid material relevant to environmental, safety and health matters. The NII has also given presentations and has taken part in syndicate discussions and assessment meetings with bidders. Finally, as detailed to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on 29 March 2000, Official Report, columns 159-60W, the most recent review found nothing which would cause them to oppose AWE ML's take over of the sites on 1 April.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria against which the applications for the new contract to run AWE Aldermaston were assessed. [113668]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: In assessing bids to manage and operate the Atomic Weapons Establishment from 1 April 2000 information was required from all participating consortia to demonstrate that their parent companies met full compliance on safety performance. This was essential to

  487W
  qualify for further consideration of the bids. Once over this hurdle assessment was made against the following criteria:
  Safety (the risk of harm and potential harm to people, property and the environment to be as low as reasonably practicable).
  National Capability (the ability of AWE to underwrite safety and reliability of nuclear warheads without recourse to nuclear testing and to maintain minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident if this were to be deemed necessary).
  Security (the protection of assets, information and people).
  Management (including the provision of Directors, adequate management measurement criteria and public relations).
  Infrastructure (the maintenance of the capital asset base to support outputs and waste management and decommissioning).
  Material (the production and through life support of weapons).
  Commercial (including the costs of the contract).

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the areas of responsibility assigned to each of the three members of the AWE management consortium under the terms of the contract to manage the AWE Aldermaston site. [116344]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: It is intended that at the start of the contract responsibilities will be allocated to parent company nominees as follows:
  Serco—Chief Executive, Business Services, and Communications
  Lockheed Martin—Deputy Chief Executive, Research, and Production
  BNFL—Assurance. Infrastructure, and Human Resources and Strategic Development.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings Ministers in his Department have held with members and officials of the United States Government to discuss proposed US plan to deploy a national missile defence system since 1 January; when each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved; and which members and officials of the United States Government and from which departments attended each meeting. [117077]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 400W, to my hon. Friend for Milton Keynes, South-West, (Dr. Starkey).

  Nuclear Arsenal
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the 70 per cent. reduction in the explosive power of the UK's nuclear arsenal is matched by an equal reduction in the combined potential destructive power of each separately targetable warhead. [117094]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) announced that we need a stockpile of less than 200 operationally available warheads. Against levels at the end of the Cold War, this represents a reduction in the potential explosive power of the deterrent of more than 70 per cent. The SDR also made clear that the one Trident submarine on patrol would carry a reduced load of 48 warheads. The SDR did not refer to the potential explosive power of individual Trident warheads; such information remains classified.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of the United Kingdom/United States Stocktake meetings to review the co-operation on nuclear weapons under the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement which have taken place since 1 January, 1996; how many members of his Department and which United States Government departments took part in each of these stocktake meetings. [117079]

  Mr. Spellar
  Two UK/US Stocktake meetings have taken place since January 1996. The first was on 18 June 1997, in London, at which a total of nine officials from my Department were present. In addition, five AWE Aldermaston staff attended. The second meeting was held on 10 June 1998, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at which seven MOD officials and four AWE Aldermaston staff were present. At both meetings, US representation was from the Departments of Defense and Energy.

  Zinc Cadmium Sulphide Trials
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Professor Peter Lachmann and his panel were appointed to conduct a review of the zinc cadmium sulphide trials; how many times he and his team visited the Porton Down chemical and biological defence establishment and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency during the course of their inquiry; and on what dates he and his team made each of their visits. [117059]

  Dr. Moonie
  Professor Lachmann was appointed on 23 August 1999 to lead the independent study of the zinc cadmium sulphide trials. Other members of the team, namely Dame Barbara Clayton, Professor Paul Elliot and Dr. Clive Philips, were selected by Professor Lachmann following his own appointment.

  Professor Lachmann and two of his team visited CBD Porton Down on 29 September 1999.

  Israeli Arrow Missile System
  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the Israeli Arrow missile system. [117561]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: A Pre-feasibility Programme (PFP) that was undertaken in 1994–1996 examined possible options, cost and timescales for ballistic missile defence of the UK and its deployed forces. This was carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Defence by a consortium led by what was then BAe. In considering potential system architectures, the PFP examined publicly available material on all government funded BMD capable weapons systems. The Arrow weapon system was assessed within this limited context.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British military personnel(a) currently employed by his Department and (b) on the Reserve List have been on secondment to Sri Lanka (i) military training establishments and (ii) units since 1 January 1997. [117644]
  489W
  Mr. Spellar
  An Army officer has been loaned to the Sri Lankan Army Command and Staff College to advise on syllabus development and training since January 1998. No other British military personnel have been seconded to Sri Lanka since 1 January 1997.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security clearance has been awarded to Lord Levy in respect of his meetings with the Chief of Defence staff. [117775]

  Mr. Hoon
  All personnel who have access to sensitive material are subject to security clearance procedures. It would not be appropriate to give details of the particular level of clearance held by individuals.

  Computers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the announcement by 3COM that they are to quit the high-end networking market will have on his Department's existing and planned computer systems. [R] [117623]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: None.

TREASURY

  Self-employment (Bogus Claims)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action(a) he is taking and (b) he plans to take to prevent bogus claims of self-employment, with particular reference to the construction industry; and what estimate he has made of the loss of revenue as a result of such claims. [116509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Whether an individual is employed or self-employed depends upon the terms of the contract under which they are engaged. This is true for all industries including the construction industry.

  The Inland Revenue is, however, aware that workers in the construction industry in particular have been incorrectly categorised in the past. Following consultation with the industry, the Revenue increased its compliance activity in this area to ensure that there was a consistency of treatment across the industry. The Revenue continues to police the status of workers in all areas including those in construction to ensure that the rules are properly understood.

  The Inland Revenue has no information that can accurately provide an estimate of revenue, which may have been lost in cases where the contract has not been categorised correctly.

  Earnings Thresholds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy consideration led him to raise the threshold for earnings liable to 40 per cent. income tax by an amount less than the average growth of earnings; and if he will make a statement. [116879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 2000–01, the basic rate limit, above which the higher rate of income tax of 40 per cent. is payable on earnings, rises to £28,400 in accordance 490W
  with the provisions of Section 1 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The legislation provides that, unless Parliament determines otherwise, the basic rate limit for a year should be increased in line with the rise in the Retail Prices Index in the year ended in September in the previous year of assessment, rounded up to the nearest £100.

  Budget Changes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of Budget changes including the(a) abolition of the married person's tax allowance, (b) decrease in the standard rate of income tax, (c) establishment of the 10 per cent. rate of income tax and (d) indexation of tax allowances on a married woman earning £14,000 a year, who is the sole income earner for a family of a husband and two children, and who has no more than the basic tax allowances. [116831]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have introduced a range of measures to make work pay and to improve work incentives, including the lop starting rate of income tax, basic rate cut, National Minimum Wage, National Insurance Contributions reform and the Working Families Tax Credit.

  The income tax and National Insurance Contributions liability for a married woman earning £14,000 a year, who is the sole income earner for a family of a husband and two children under 11 would be £2,728 less in 2001–02 compared with the 1998–1999 regime with all of the allowances and limits increased in line with inflation. That is over £52 per week better off.

  For 1998–99 it has been assumed that the woman claims the married couple's allowance and family credit.

  The family would also gain from Child Benefit which increased by £179.40 per year more than inflation.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy with excisions of matters of operational sensitivity to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, of Martin Taylor's report on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling and any accompanying correspondence. [117680]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy, with appropriate excisions of matters of operational sensitivity to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, of the Taylor report on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling and the accompanying correspondence. [117544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. Martin Taylor's advice to the Chancellor was personal and confidential. It would therefore not be appropriate to disclose his advice. However his recommendations on how to tackle tobacco smuggling were summarised in the Government paper "Tackling tobacco smuggling". A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Martin Taylor's report on the Government's strategy to combat tobacco smuggling has been made available to the senior officers of HM Customs and Excise at policy and operational levels who are responsible for the control of tobacco smuggling. [117501]
  491W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Senior Customs and Excise officials are aware of the advice Martin Taylor gave to the Chancellor on how to combat tobacco smuggling.

  Petroleum Products Smuggling
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss to public revenues in each of the last three years and the current year to end of March consequent on the smuggling of(a) petrol, and (b) other fuel oils from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland. [117677]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 442W.

  Vehicle Conversion (Disabled Access)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant tax relief on the costs of conversion of minibuses and coaches to allow for wheelchair and disabled access. [117639]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The capital costs of providing wheelchair and disabled access to minibuses and coaches will normally qualify for capital allowances at 25 per cent. a year on the reducing balancing basis. Small and medium-sized businesses will qualify for first year capital allowances at 40 per cent. on these costs. This is increased to 100 per cent. if the costs are incurred between 12 May 1998 and 11 May 2002 by such businesses on the conversion of minibuses and coaches for use primarily in Northern Ireland.

  Married Persons Tax Allowance
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on people who will be of pensionable age in the next five years of the ending of the married persons tax allowance. [115896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Government will be spending an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners over the course of this Parliament.

  Pensioners who are taxpayers can benefit from the 10p starting rate of income tax on pensions and savings income and from the cut in the basic rate to 22p in the pound from April. Those aged 65 or more saw the age-related income tax personal allowances for 1999–2000 rise by up to £200 more than required by statutory indexation. In 2000–01, the allowances will rise to £5,790 for someone aged 65 to 74 and to £6,050 for someone aged 75 or more.

  The majority of pensioners have no income tax to pay. All households with someone aged 60 or more will benefit from the increase in the winter fuel allowance to £150, an increase of £50 on the fivefold increase to £100 announced in the Chancellor's 1999 Budget. The poorest pensioners will gain from the minimum income guarantee which will stand at £121.95 per week for a pensioner couple under 75. Pensioners aged 75 or more will also benefit from free Television Licences from this autumn.

  Exemption Certificates
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the benefits of introducing tax incentives 492W
  for new companies which operate below the threshold of turnover above which they would receive exemption certificates; and if he will make a statement. [117338]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: There are no plans to introduce tax incentives for companies (or other businesses) that carry out construction operations but whose construction turnover is insufficient to enable them to pass the turnover test for the new Construction Industry Scheme.

  However, a Joint Working Group comprising officials from the Inland Revenue, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and representatives from the Construction Industry, is being set up to review the scheme. This group will be considering the introduction of in-year repayments for companies that do not pass the turnover test, which will improve the cash flow position of those companies that receive payments under the scheme after deductions on account of tax and NIC.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco on the retail sector, with particular reference to newsagents. [117551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Government recognise that smuggling damages legitimate businesses. They are responding with a strategy worth up to £209 million, which aims to put tobacco smuggling into decline within three years. This is described in detail in "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling". Constraining the growth of smuggling will help retailers by preventing them losing market share to criminals.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the amounts of alcohol and tobacco smuggled into the UK for each of the past 10 years; and what estimate he has made for the next three years; [117552]

  (2) what was the estimated tax lost to the Treasury in smuggled (a) cigarettes, (b) rolling tobacco and (c) alcohol in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [117547]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 3 April 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" paper published on 22 March 2000 by HM Customs and Excise and HM Treasury; to my answer given on 26 November 1999, Official Report, columns 254-55W; and to the technical report on cross-Channel smuggling placed in the Library of the House on 19 September 1998.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current penalties are for smuggling tobacco and alcohol; and what plans he has to revise them. [117550]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have a range of penalties available including:Seizure of the goods and any vehicle carrying them;
  Payment of a compounded penalty;
  Prosecution in Court, including disqualification from driving, revocation of a liquor licence or haulier's licence, removal of lottery terminal, compensation or confiscation orders.

  The penalty regime is kept under constant review.
  493W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions there were for smuggling(a) tobacco products and (b) alcohol in each of the past 10 years. [117548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I regret that records are not kept in this format.

  Bootlegging Hotline
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to advertise the Bootlegging Hotline; and what the budget was for advertising it. [117554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: In order to improve efficiency, HM Customs and Excise amalgamated all its hotlines into one number—Customs Confidential on 0800 59 5000. On 21 July 1999, I launched a public information campaign to highlight the hotline in relation to tobacco, alcohol and drugs smuggling.

  The publicity campaign included:
  an advan that travelled throughout England, Scotland and Wales, to ports, airports and summer tourist events
  leaflet distributed to all cross-channel operators as well as being inserted in ticket wallets
  limited amount of national press advertising
  a radio news tape distributed to all national and local radio stations
  wallet cards for distribution at Customs events and to cross channel haulage
  vehicle window stickers for cars and lorries
  flyers distributed via the DVLA with license renewals—the flyer will also be produced in Welsh.

  We will be expanding the public information campaign considerably to focus primarily on tobacco smuggling. The Customs Confidential hotline number will continue to feature widely as part of the campaign.

  The overall budget for the campaign was £145,000.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls the Bootlegging Hotline has received in each month since its introduction; and how many successful prosecutions have resulted from the Bootlegging Hotline. [117553]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The "Bootlegging"" hotline was consolidated into the Customs Confidential hotline on 21 July 1999. This hotline is for reporting of all information and suspicious activity which may be of interest to the Department.

  Since June 1999 the total number of calls by month relating to "Bootlegging" are:

  Month

  Number

  June

  788

  July

  846

  August

  944

  September

  851

  October

  742

  November

  912

  December

  966

  January

  680

  February

  774

  March

  924

  Total

  18,427

  494W
  It is not possible to state how many prosecutions are directly related to calls received on the hotline but it is estimated that 70 per cent. of the calls provide valuable intelligence which is having a major input into the middle and lower end of the tobacco smuggling problem.

  Annual Departmental Reports
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 2000 Departmental reports will be published. [118094]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The publication dates for the 2000 Departmental Reports will be:

  Date

  Departmental report

  Thursday, 6 April

  Health

  DfID

  Friday, 7 April

  DfEE

  Treasury and Chancellor's smaller departments

  Monday, 10 April

  MAFF

  MoD

  FCO

  DCMS

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  C and E

  Cabinet Office

  Tuesday, 11 April

  Main Estimates

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses

  DTI

  DSS

  DETR

  LCD

  Law Officers Departments

  Wales Office

  Scotland Office

  Northern Ireland Office

  Personal Service Companies
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the basis for the revision of the figure for the expected revenue in 2000–01 from his changes to the tax and national insurance treatment of personal service companies between table 1.11 of the 1999 Budget report and table A2.1 of the 2000 Budget report. [117302]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of extra revenue generated in 2000–01 from the pre-announced measure to tackle avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) through the use of personal service companies is based on new, more up-to-date information which has been collected by the Inland Revenue since Budget 1999.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay his estimate of the fall in revenues resulting from his changes to the tax and national insurance treatment of personal services between 2001–02 and 2002–03, as shown in table A2.1 of the 2000 Budget report. [117303]

  Dawn Primarolo
  People using personal service companies are currently able to avoid National Insurance Contributions altogether and pay tax on their income much later than an employee would pay tax through PAYE. The new legislation will ensure that affected personal service companies will pay the correct amount of tax and NICs, at the right time, rather than delaying
  495W
  what they do pay until well after the end of the tax year. The large first year yield in 2000–01 arises because the payments of PAYE and NICs are scored as they accrue whereas the reduction in corporation tax occurs when it would have been paid, nine months after the end of the accounting period. Subsequently, the 2002–03 expected yield is lower than in 2001–02 because the full effect of the corporation tax reduction takes three years to build up.

  Revenue Statistics
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) UK citizens and (b) UK-registered companies paid capital gains tax on (i) stock market investments and (ii) other investments in each of the last three years; [117232]

  (2) what was the annual revenue gained by the Treasury from (a) income tax and (b) capital gains tax on (i) stock market investments and (ii) other investments in each of the last three years; [117233]

  (3) what annual revenue the Treasury received from investments in stocks and shares held by (a) UK citizens and (b) UK-registered companies in each of the last three years. [117234]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Such information as is available for 1996–97 to 1998–99 on income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax on capital gains and taxpayer numbers is given in the following tables. Tax is charged on the basis of UK tax residency or trading, and there is no information available to identify those who are UK citizens or UK registered companies.

  Income tax from UK dividends and other investment income

  Amount of tax: £ billion

  Income tax liability from UK dividened Income

  Income tax from other investment income

  Total income taxliablity from investment income

  1996–97

  3.6

  5.2

  7.8

  1997–98

  3.9

  5.1

  9.0

  1998–99

  3.3

  6.6

  9.9

  The figures are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and exclude income of trusts.

  The estimates are consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities and taxpayer numbers

  It is not possible to directly attribute CGT liabilities to type of asset as certain reliefs eg Annual Exempt Amount are deducted from the aggregate gains of the taxpayer. However total CGT liabilities and taxpayer numbers (individuals and trusts) are as follows:

  CGT accruals (£ billion)

  CGT taxpayer numbers (Thousand)

  1996–97

  1.45

  119

  1997–98

  2.00

  172

  1998–99

  2.40

  185

  The latest available information on the distribution of not gains (before relief at tax payer level) by type of asset
  496W
  shows, for 1996–97, that 81 per cent. of gains were in respect of financial assets and 19 per cent. in respect of non-financial assets. Further details are available in Table 14.4 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1999.

  Corporation tax on capital gains

  Companies are charged to corporation tax on their total income including trading profits, net capital gains and other income. It is not possible to attribute part of the charge to investments in stocks and shares, but estimates of receipts from all capital gains are as follows:

  Receipts from corporation tax on gains (£ billion)

  Related corporation taxpayer numbers with gains (Thousand)

  1996–97

  1.03

  10

  1997–98

  1.06

  11

  1998–99

  1.35

  13

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [117482]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 393-94W.

  Excise Duties
  Mr.Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer what inflation index and period of measurement was used to calculate the increases in exercise duties in budget. [117638]

  Mr. Timms
  As set out in Appendix Al of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, the index base for calculating changes in fuel, tobacco and alcohol duties in this Budget, as in previous Budgets, was the projected increase in the Retail Prices Index over 12 months to the September following the Budget.

  Business Taxes
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in business taxes since May 1997. [117343]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is in the Financial Statement and Budget Reports, which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many operations were carried out by officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise concerning heroin imported from Pakistan in controlled deliveries; and how much heroin was imported in respect of each operation, in each year between 1 January 1990 and 1 January 2000; [117321]
  497W
  (2) how many operations involving controlled imports of illegal drugs by officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise there were in (a) each year between 1 January 1990 and 1 January 2000 broken down by quantities and types of illegal drugs and (b) between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1998, involving heroin imported from Pakistan and if he will specify the quantities. [117345]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not Customs policy to release information of this type which could compromise a key operational technique.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in road fuel duty announced in the Budget, in relation to the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement. [117576]

  Mr. Timms
  Nil. The main fuel duties were indexed in line with inflation. The methodology is set out in Appendix A1 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households with children there were in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 where (i) both parents were married and the children were born to those parents and (ii) stepchildren formed part of the households. [117536]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 5 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on how many households were (a) both parents are married and the children were born to those parents and (b) stepchildren formed part of the household. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The estimated number of married couples with only natural dependent children was around 5 million in Great Britain in 1991. There were about 500 thousand families, which included at least one dependent stepchild living in them in Great Britain in 1991. (There are no other official estimates of the numbers of these married couples and stepfamilies).

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of households with children where the parents are not married and are cohabiting. [117529]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 5 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on an estimate of the number of households with children where parents are not married and are cohabiting. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The estimated number of households containing cohabiting couples with dependent children was 750 thousand in Great Britain in 1999.

  Source:

  1999 Spring Quarter Labour Force Survey
  498W
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single mothers with dependent children in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 were (i) widows and (ii) divorcees. [117537]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 5 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on how many single mothers with dependant childern were (i) widows and (ii) divorcees in (a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 I am replying in the Director's absence.

  The estimated numbers of lone mothers in Great Britain were (in thousands):

  1971

  1981

  1999

  Divorced lone mothers

  120

  320

  460

  Widowed lone mothers

  120

  120

  60

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) single parent and (b) single mother households there were in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) 1999. [117546]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 5 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on how many (a) single parents and (b) single mother households there were in 1970, 1980 and 1999. I am replying in the Director's absence.

  The estimated numbers of lone mothers in Great Britain were (in thousands):

  1971

  1981

  1999

  Lone parents

  570

  900

  1,700

  Lone mothers

  500

  800

  1,500

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 how many dependent children lived in households where the parents were not married and were cohabiting. [117535]

  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 John Pullinger to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 5 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on the estimate for how many dependant children lived in households where the parents were not married and were cohabiting in (a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The estimated numbers of dependent children living in cohabiting couple families in Great Britain were (in thousands):

  1989: 780

  1996: 1,100

  1999: 1,200.

  Computers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect 3COM' s announcement that they are to quit the high-end networking market will have on his Department and the Inland Revenue's existing and planned computer systems. [R] [117621]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The Office of Government Commerce and the Debt Management Office have purchased 3COM components through standard procurement channels. In the event of their failure alternatives from other suppliers are readily available. Neither the rest of the Treasury nor the Inland Revenue use high-end networking equipment from 3COM, and so their departure from this market will have no effect upon existing computer systems, or those that are being planned.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the revenue from rises in the rate of landfill tax announced since May 1997 will go to (i) the Exchequer and (ii) local environmental causes. [117762]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The standard rate of tax, which applies to active waste, rose from £7 to £10 per tonne on 1 April 1999 and by a further £1 per tonne to £11 per tonne from 1 April 2000. Figures are not yet available for 1999–2000, but for the calendar year 1999 there was an increase in revenue for the Exchequer of £67 million. In the same period there was an increase of £20 million in tax credits claimed in respect of contributions made by operators to environmental projects.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to hypothecate the revenue from landfill tax to environmental protection measures. [117712]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: I have no such plans. Revenues from the landfill tax contribute to Government spending on their priorities.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to Table 4.2 of the Red Book, HC346 p. 79, how many families experienced marginal deduction rates of(a) 55 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 45 per cent. and (d) 40 per cent. or more (i) before the 1998 Budget and (ii) after the 2000 Budget. [116853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The available information is contained in the table. It illustrates the combined effect of tax and benefit reforms in the last three Budgets. These will reduce the number of households facing marginal deduction rates of over 70 per cent. by two thirds, significantly relieving the poverty trap.

  The post Budget 2000 figures take into account all announced measures to be implemented by 2001–02, including the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit.
  500W

  Marginal deduction rate 1

  Before Budget 1998 1

  After Budget 2000 1

  100 per cent. or more

  5,000

  0

  90 per cent. or more

  130,000

  30,000

  80 per cent. or more

  300,000

  210,000

  70 per cent. or more

  740,000

  250,000

  60 per cent. or more

  760,000

  950,000

  55 per cent. or more

  760,000

  1,100,000

  50 per cent. or more

  760,000

  1,100,000

  45 per cent. or more

  780,000

  1,130,000

  40 per cent. or more

  800,000

  1,150,000

  1 Figures are for working households in receipt of income-related benefits or the WFTC where at least one person works 16 hours or more. The before and after figures are based on 1997–98 and 1999–2000 estimated caseload and take-up rates.

  The increased generosity of the working families tax credit (WFTC) compared with family credit will see an extension of in-work support for families with children. Even those whose marginal rate increases as a result of this change will be better off in cash terms and see an increased return to work compared to being on benefit. On average WFTC will give low earning families an extra £24 compared with family credit.

  Employment Records
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue National Contributions Office began charging a fee for the provision of their own employment details to members of the public. [117776]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue National Insurance Contributions office does not normally make a charge to individuals for the provision of information recorded on its National Insurance account. However, an employment history will normally be supplied in the following circumstances:Where a claim is being made against an employer or former employer for illness injury or disease sustained as a result of the employment.
  Medical Negligence claims.
  Serious road traffic accidents.

  A fee will be charged, and this service commenced 10 years ago.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are carried out on(a) raw and (b) UHT milk imported into the UK from (i) EU and (ii) non-EU countries. [116561]

  Ms Quin
  All milk for human consumption produced in the UK and other EU member states is subject to EC legislative production standards. Milk is therefore traded freely in accordance with single market provisions and is not required to be tested on entry into the UK. Raw cow's drinking milk cannot be imported from other member states or third countries and sold for human consumption in the UK.

  No testing is required on milk imported from third countries. However, EC rules require that milk imported for human consumption may come only from EU

  501W
  approved establishments in approved third countries and is accompanied by public health certification signed by an official inspector stating that it meets EU health standards. EC Regulations require Environmental Health Officers to carry out hygiene and quality tests on milk at the point of sale or manufacture.

  Dog Exports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a comprehensive record system for dog exports; and if he will make a statement. [117018]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: We have no plans to introduce a comprehensive record system for dog exports. This Department currently holds some information which is derive7/28/2006d from applications for export health certificates. This information does not, however, cover all exports of dogs since some countries allow dogs to be imported into their territories without an export health certificate.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote scientific debate on the safety of genetically modified foods. [116398]

  Ms Stuart
  As responsibility for food safety and standards matters has now passed to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which reports to Parliament through Health Ministers, I have been asked to reply.

  The recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Edinburgh hosted by the United Kingdom brought together scientific experts from around the world to debate the safety assessment of genetically modified foods. We will be considering very carefully with our G8 partners the recommendation of the Chairman, Sir John Krebs, for an intergovernmental panel to be set up to continue this process.

  In the meantime, the FSA will promote and develop the ongoing programme of scientific research to consider the safety of genetically modified foods and encourage contractors to publish their findings in scientific journals. Final research reports will also be made publicly available by the agency. In addition, the FSA plans to hold regular workshops for research contractors and other scientists to allow the exchange of new ideas and data in this area. The results of these will also be published and further comments invited.

  Finally, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes now makes available, on its website, http//www.foodstandards.gov.uk, details of data submitted in support of applications it receives for approval of novel (including genetically modified) foods so that comments can be made on these before decisions are reached.

  Aventis T25 Maize
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what applications have been made to him for clearance of Aventis T25 maize for use as animal feed; and if he will place in the Library the details of all clearances granted. [117276]

  Ms Stuart
  As responsibility for food safety and standards matters has now passed to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which reports to Parliament through Health Ministers, I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that AgrEvo (now Aventis) submitted an application, to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for voluntary approval of food and feed safety clearance of glufosinate ammonium tolerant maize in 1995. In addition, an application to market AgrEvo's T25 maize for cultivation and importation for processing into food and animal feed was received, via the Department of the Environment, under Council Directive 90/220/EEC from the French competent authority in 1996. Details of the food safety clearance are contained in the annual report for 1996 of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The marketing consent under Directive 90/220/EEC was issued by France in 1998 following publication of the Commission's Decision in the "Official Journal of the European Communities" (L131, 5.5.98). This consent, which authorises the marketing of T25 maize for use in food and animal feed, was agreed by the Member States taking into account the advice of the EC Scientific Committee for Plants. The committee's remit included the consideration of any adverse effects on human health or the environment arising from the placing on the market of this maize. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

HEALTH

  Birth Weights
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 139W, for each of the weight categories for the year 1997, what percentage of those (a) babies conceived by IVF and (b) other babies were single births. [105430]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  I regret that three incorrect figures were given in my previous answer. These were in the figures provided for 1997, in respect of babies born in Scotland and Northern Ireland and babies born by in vitro fertilisation in the United Kingdom. Revised tables with the correct figures have also been placed in the Library.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the balance of income and expenditure of health authorities and NHS trusts in England for the financial year ending 31 March 2000. [116380]
  503W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: The audited annual accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2000 for all health authorities and National Health Survice trusts will be available in the autumn.

  NHS Staff
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how information on changes within the NHS is communicated to NHS staff, with particular reference to those working in the blood donor collection service. [116938]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department uses a wide range of media to communicate with National Health Service staff, including electronic communications via the internet and NHSnet; paper communications such as newsletters, magazines and circulars; and face to face briefings such as conferences, seminars and roadshows. The National Blood Authority uses a similar range of internal media to keep its staff informed about developments both within the blood service and in the wider NHS. This includes intranet technology, written material and face to face briefings.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing, midwifety and health visiting staff within the paediatric area of work, per 1,000 population in each health authority in England, as at 30 September 1998

  Number (headcount)

  Health authority

  Paediatric staff by health authority

  Census population

  Paediatric staff per 1,000 population

  England total

  20,030

  49,494,580

  0.40

  Hillingdon

  60

  251,160

  0.25

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  380

  390,770

  0.96

  Enfield and Haringey

  70

  486,440

  0.14

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  70

  453,320

  0.15

  Bedfordshire

  170

  556,630

  0.31

  Berkshire

  230

  800,180

  0.29

  Buckinghamshire

  200

  681,870

  0.29

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  150

  467,980

  0.32

  Bexley and Greenwich

  210

  432,930

  0.49

  Bromley

  30

  297,120

  0.10

  Croydon

  40

  338,220

  0.10

  East Kent

  290

  601,060

  0.48

  West Kent

  260

  973,500

  0.27

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  760

  745,240

  1.02

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  310

  626,990

  0.50

  East Surrey

  130

  419,940

  0.31

  West Surrey

  130

  640,600

  0.20

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  290

  747,180

  0.38

  West Sussex

  110

  751,840

  0.15

  Barking and Havering

  160

  383,890

  0.42

  Barnet

  40

  331,550

  0.12

  Brent and Harrow

  100

  464,450

  0.21

  Camden and Islington

  1,180

  367,570

  3.20

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  100

  671,170

  0.15

  East London and The City

  240

  612,420

  0.38

  North Essex

  240

  897,080

  0.27

  South Essex

  100

  708,540

  0.15

  South Lancashire

  30

  312,660

  0.11

  Liverpool

  980

  461,480

  2.11

  Manchester

  240

  429,810

  0.57

  Morecambe Bay

  110

  310.300

  0.34

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  70

  333,000

  0.22

  Salford and Trafford

  840

  446,220

  1.87

  Sefton

  40

  287,740

  0.15

  Stockport

  250

  292,810

  0.85

  West Pennine

  290

  472,040

  0.61

  East Norfolk

  100

  628,090

  0.16

  Northamptonshire

  220

  615,800

  0.37

  Job Evaluation
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is standard nationwide process for awarding discretionary points for job evaluation for pay purposes in the NHS. [116949]

  Mr. Denham
  National agreements reached in the Nursing and Midwifery Negotiating Council and the Professions Allied to Medicine (PTA) Council set criteria for payment of discretionary points and the process by which they should be implemented at local level. These were issued to National Health Service employers under cover of Advance letters (NM)2/98 and PAM(PTA)2/98 on 11 September 1998, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric nurses there are per 1,000 of population in each health authority in England. [116721]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  505W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff within the paediatric area of work, per 1,000 population in each health authority in England, as at 30 September 1998

  Number (headcount)

  Health authority

  Paediatric staff by health authority

  Census population

  Paediatric staff per 1,000 population

  North West Anglia

  160

  413,970

  0.38

  Oxfordshire

  220

  616,710

  0.36

  Suffolk

  110

  671,100

  0.17

  Barnsley

  70

  228,100

  0.29

  North Derbyshire

  110

  370,190

  0.30

  Southern Derbyshire

  170

  567,460

  0.30

  Doncaster

  90

  290,470

  0.32

  Leicestershire

  360

  928,720

  0.39

  Lincolnshire

  140

  623,130

  0.22

  North Nottinghamshire

  80

  388,890

  0.21

  Nottingham

  560

  642,700

  0.87

  Rotherham

  80

  254,420

  0.31

  Sheffield

  370

  531,140

  0.70

  Bury and Rochdale

  90

  391,010

  0.22

  North Cheshire

  80

  311,910

  0.25

  South Cheshire

  170

  672,370

  0.26

  East Lancashire

  220

  511,230

  0.43

  North West Lancashire

  190

  466,270

  0.41

  North and Mid Hampshire

  190

  556,940

  0.34

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  200

  544,680

  0.37

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  310

  542,340

  0.57

  Isle of Wight

  60

  126,990

  0.46

  Somerset

  100

  489,280

  0.20

  South and West Devon

  180

  589,120

  0.30

  Wiltshire

  160

  605,510

  0.27

  Avon

  410

  999,300

  0.41

  Birmingham

  1,150

  1,013,430

  1.14

  Wigan and Bolton

  70

  577,980

  0.13

  Wirral

  150

  327,140

  0.45

  Bradford

  240

  483,280

  0.50

  County Durham

  160

  607,770

  0.26

  East Riding

  120

  574,530

  0.20

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  90

  353,470

  0.26

  Leeds

  430

  727,390

  0.60

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  530

  470,070

  1.13

  North Cumbria

  40

  319,260

  0.12

  South Humber

  140

  308,580

  0.45

  Northumberland

  40

  309,640

  0.14

  Sunderland

  140

  292,310

  0.47

  Tees

  230

  556,340

  0.41

  Wakefield

  140

  318,800

  0.43

  North Yorkshire

  190

  742,400

  0.25

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  210

  583,770

  0.36

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  90

  490,370

  0.18

  Dorset

  210

  691,220

  0.30

  North and East Devon

  60

  479,260

  0.12

  Gloucestershire

  130

  557,260

  0.23

  Coventry

  90

  304,330

  0.29

  Dudley

  80

  311,470

  0.24

  Herefordshire

  40

  167,920

  0.22

  Sandwell

  80

  290,520

  0.28

  Shropshire

  130

  430,210

  0.30

  North Staffordshire

  250

  469,210

  0.54

  South Staffordshire

  90

  592,070

  0.15

  Walsall

  100

  261,170

  0.36

  Warwickshire

  60

  506,710

  0.11

  Wolverhampton

  130

  241,620

  0.53

  Worcestershire

  140

  538,200

  0.27

  East and North Hertfordshire

  90

  499,600

  0.18

  West Hertfordshire

  130

  534,020

  0.24

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 where appropriate.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. Figures do not include Special Health Authority and Other Statutory Health Authority staff.

  Sources

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Population figures from Estimates based on 1991 Census.
  506W

  Health Authority Finances
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) sums and (b) percentage increase in funding required, to achieve financial balance in each NHS health authority area by 2000–01; and what percentage of the additional NHS funding recently announced is required to achieve financial balance in each case. [117267]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available as health authorities and primary care groups have not finalised their commissioning and financial plans for 2000–01.

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to fund Buckinghamshire health authority at its capitation level. [116954]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: Buckinghamshire health authority's share of the £660 million announced on 28 March 2000 is £8.1 million. Together with the allocation already announced, this brings their allocation for 2000–01 to £407.6 million, a total cash increase of 9.41 per cent. This is more than the average cash increase of 8.88 per cent.

  Dentists
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the demand for more NHS dentists in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [117291]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service dentistry is accessible for much of the population of Shropshire, although we are aware of long-standing problems in some areas. Together with Shropshire health authority we have taken steps to deal with the problems through a dental access centre based in Shrewsbury and Donnington, where services are offered to non-registered patients.

  Number of general nursing homes, mental nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics within County Durham Health Authority

  Type of accommodation

  11994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  21998

  31999

  General nursing homes

  4—

  4—

  4—

  94

  92

  Mental nursing homes

  4—

  4—

  4—

  28

  26

  Private hospitals and clinics

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1

  0

  Total

  103

  113

  113

  123

  118

  1 Information for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 relate to the period 1 October to 31 March.

  2 Information for 1998 and 1999 relates to 31 March.

  3 Information for 1999 is provisional.

  4 Not available.

  Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of alleged Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy there have been in parents of children with autistic spectrum disorder in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [117140]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally about the number of cases of alleged Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy there have been, in parents of children with autistic spectrum disorder.
  508W
  In addition, we awarded eleven "Investing in Dentistry" grants in Shropshire which generated promises of 24,750 extra patient registrations with dentists. We will publish further plans for modernising and improving access to NHS dentistry soon.

  Waiting Lists (Berkshire)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment at Berkshire hospitals at the end of 1999; and what target had been set for outpatient waiting lists at Berkshire hospitals for 1999. [116756]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 March 2000]: The table shows the total number of people waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment by each National Health Service trust in Berkshire at December 1999. Trust targets are agreed locally with the relevant health authorities.

  Organisation

  Total number waiting 13 weeks or over (Q2)

  East Berkshire NHS Trust for People with Learning Disabilities

  0

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  165

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  702

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,748

  West Berkshire Priority Care Services NHS Trust

  374

  Total

  3,989

  Nursing Homes (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many privately-run and owned nursing homes are registered with Durham Health Authority; and how many were so registered in each of the last five years. [117213]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available is in the table.

  However, the Department recognises that suspected cases of Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) are among the most difficult and demanding areas of activity to undertake for paediatricians and other professional groups devoted to child care and protection.

  Whatever the circumstances of individual cases, it remains true that the professionals involved are best placed to decide on the most appropriate means of determining whether MSBP is at issue and, if so, how to act in the best interests of the child and the carer throughout any intervention.

  Nursing and Residential Care
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing care and residential care beds

  Local authority supported residents, by type of accommodation 1993 to 1999

  England as at 31March

  Year

  Total of supported all residents 1

  Local authority staffed homes

  Independent residential homes

  Independent nursing homes

  Other and unstaffed homes 1

  1993

  98,359

  77,596

  19,270

  2,3—

  1,493

  1994

  148,731

  70,444

  48,714

  25,154

  4,419

  1995

  185,865

  67,327

  70,153

  43,238

  5,147

  1996

  215,546

  61,943

  91,221

  57,246

  5,136

  1997

  242,139

  58,747

  111,530

  66,058

  5,804

  1998

  255,502

  54,611

  121,923

  72,904

  6,064

  1999

  260,727

  50,061

  131,159

  73,467

  6,040

  1 Figures for unstaffed homes (group homes) were not collected before 1994. The figure for "other" accommodation only.

  2 Prior to 1 April 1993, local authorities did not fund nursing care placements.

  3 Not available

  Live Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 760W, concerning animal testing and medicines, for what reasons the Government will not introduce a statutory requirement that labels on medicines include a statement providing information enabling those who oppose the use of animals in medical and veterinary research to make an informed judgment as to whether they should use these products on themselves and their pets. [116735]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: All medicines for human and veterinary use must be tested in animals to provide information about their safety before they can be granted a licence. The labelling of medicinal products is governed by European law and there is no requirement for the inclusion in the labelling of information that a product was tested on animals.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the £2 billion announced for the NHS is from the Capital Modernisation Fund. [116679]

  Mr. Denham
  None of the £2 billion announced for the National Health Service for 2000–01 is from the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117415]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 385W.

  Single-sex Hospital Wards (west Sussex)
  Mr.Loughton
  To ask the Seccretary of state for health what estiamte he has made of the cost of
  510W
  have been provided by local authorities in each of the past seven years; and if he will make a statement. [117270]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table provides details of the number of local authority supported residents for the years requested.

  converting all hospital wards in West Sussex to single sex wards; what funds he will make available for such purposes; and whether the funds will be in addition to general health authority funding levels already announced. [117716]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: We have reiterated our commitment to meeting our target to eliminate mixed sex accommodation, and arrangements for increased performance management and more regular monitoring of progress in this area have been set in place.

  We have set three specific objectives for the National Health Service in order to achieve the elimination of mixed sex accommodation:
  Ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  Achieve fully the standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS;
  Provide safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  We aim to achieve these objectives fully in 95 per cent. of all health authorities by 2002.

  The results of a monitoring exercise published in August 1999, which are in the Library, showed that 93 per cent. of health authorities would achieve the objectives by 2002. Results of the most recent monitoring exercise will be published in spring 2000.

  In West Sussex there are a number of capital schemes under way through both private finance initiative and public sector finance which will mean that the health authority aims to meet our objective by 2002.

  From April 2000 we aim to invest a total of £2.6 billion in NHS buildings and equipment—part of which will be used to address on-going work to eliminate mixed sex accommodation.

  Beta-interferon
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue a circular on the prescribing of beta-interferon following last year's consultation. [118095]
  511W
  Mr. Denham
  In light of the representations received during the consultation on the draft Health Service Circular on beta-interferon, the Department has concluded that a further circular should not be issued until the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has reported on this matter.

  NHS (Information Technology)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes in working practices have been introduced by health authorities following Her Majesty's Government's consultation exercise on the application and use of information technology in the NHS. [116855]

  Ms Stuart
  Our consultation exercise on the application and use of Information technology in the National Health Service resulted in the national information strategy "Information for Health" (published September 1998). This strategy introduced programmes of work to achieve:Lifelong electronic health records for every person in the country.
  Round the clock on-line access to patient records and information about best clinical practice for all NHS clinicians.
  Seamless care for patients through general practitioners, hospitals and community services sharing information across the information highway.
  Fast and convenient public access to information and care through on-line information services and telemedicine.
  The effective use of NHS resources by providing health planners and managers with the information that they need.

  This work is being carried forward by the NHS Information Authority established in April 1999. The timescale for completion of the work described in "Information for Health" is by 2005.

  Current changes in working practice at grass roots level, driven by changing approaches to information management and technology, are growing day by day. Some recent examples given by NHS professionals are:
  Health visitors being able to access and use information from GP systems and as a result improving approaches to monitoring and taking action in cases of eg child protection, high dependence families, mental health and post natal depression
  GPs using a computer programme (PRODIGY) to share information about specific conditions and the best ways of treatment with patients and concluding the consultation by printing off a patient information leaflet.
  A health authority provides advice about a more beneficial drug. The hospital incorporates the advice into its clinical information system so that when the old drug is prescribed, information about the more beneficial treatment is displayed. The system enables the clinician to change to the new prescription very easily. Patients leave hospital on the new drug and as a result GPs also change their practice, resulting in better care and a significant cost saving. The rate of this change has been shown to be significantly accelerated by the use of the computer system.
  Introduction of best practice guidelines into systems supporting clinical decision making result in changes to practice with resource and patient benefits eg less pre-operative chest x-rays, more appropriate use of contrast media and endoscopes.
  Pointing out trends in the utilization of clinical resources by named healthcare professionals brought about a reduction in the variation in practice. (eg ordering laboratory tests—those ordering least tests ordered slightly more but those ordering most tests reduced significantly.)
  512W
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the Information Management Group in terms of advance guidance and direction in the application of information technology in the NHS. [116856]

  Ms Stuart
  The Information Management Group (IMG) was part of the National Health Service Executive responsible for the development and maintenance of our Information Management and Technology Strategy for the NHS. Its role was to maintain and develop the strategy in consultation with the NHS, professional groups and industry, and to manage national strategic projects.

  It was disbanded in April 1999 in line with the recommendations of "Information for Health" and was superseded by two bodies.

  One is the NHS Information Authority, which was formally established as a special health authority in April 1999. The role of the NHS Information Authority is to manage an agreed and focused work programme to develop those products and standards which can best be developed at national level, in order to support local implementation.

  The other is the Information Policy Unit, a small group within the NHS Executive with overall responsibility for delivery of the strategy. The role of the unit is to review and develop the strategy in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, and to contribute to the NHS Executive's wider policy development and management functions. Part of the IPU role is to support the National Information Partnership and the Information Policy Board, and to commission and monitor national work programmes and projects on information and IT in healthcare (in particular from the NHS Information Authority). The Policy Unit also provides advice and guidance to the NHS on strategic issues, for example guidance on local implementation strategies published as Health Service Circular 1999/200.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been introduced in the last three years by Her Majesty's Government to reduce(a) the level of bureaucratic duplication, (b) burdens on professional staff and (c) administrative difficulties in the application and use of information technology at a local level. [116857]

  Ms Stuart
  Our consultation on information management and technology in the National Health Service resulted in the publication of the national Information Strategy "Information for Health", which describes a number of national measures that are intended to reduce the administrative burden on NHS staff.

  "Information for Health" is a national strategy for local implementation. Each health community is responsible for developing its own Local Implementation Strategy (LIS). The purpose of the LIS is to describe how each local community will develop its own information systems to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of care, including reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative duplication.

  The national initiatives that are intended to support LISs and local health organisations are wide ranging and include:
  A reduction in the number of central communications and changing the style of communications to electronic format. Since February 2000 the Department has been issuing weekly chief

  513W
  executive bulletins by e-mail to NHS organisations and local authorities. The number of circulars is being greatly reduced and used only for urgent and high priority messages. The full circulars are published on the Department's website and the e-mailed bulletin provides an immediate notification and summary of what has been published with a link to the full document.
  "Project Connect" will provide 24 hour, 7 day a week, desktop access for general practitioners and primary care teams to an improved service covering e-mail, online information and knowledge, appointment booking, referrals, discharge summaries, radiology and laboratory test results. The costs of connecting primary care to NHSnet are being met centrally. After considerable work on this project over the last two years, a significant watershed is now being reached with critical mass of infrastructure and connection of GPs being achieved in many places.
  "NHS Direct" was launched two years ago. Researchers have found evidence to suggest that the introduction of "NHS Direct" has been associated with halting an upward trend in demand for out of hours services. The "NHS Direct" on-line website service launched last year provides the public with a direct gateway to the best of health information on the internet.
  A national procurement review has been undertaken to identify what can be done to ensure that local health organisations do not have to undergo unnecessarily burdensome bureaucratic processes when purchasing information systems. The aim is to ensure that work undertaken by local organisations will ensure the best possible solution for local healthcare delivery, keeping administrative overheads to a minimum. To achieve this communities are expected to implement nationally agreed standards, and make use of national call-off contracts and supporting documentation.
  The NHS Information Authority is in the process of developing, agreeing and implementing a range of national information and information technology standards that will then be implemented as part of LISs. The standards will facilitate a reduction in the number of times patient information is collected; improve the quality of communication between healthcare professionals and the quality/consistency of information available across the health service. Electronic access to this information throughout the NHS will multiply the benefits already experienced by more advanced sites locally and have a significant impact upon the administrative burden.
  "Information for Health" is underpinned by an education, training and development strategy "Working Together with Health Information". This strategy, published in December 1999, builds upon previous work to develop NHS-wide standards for information proficiency, and will make use of virtual technologies to provide local NHS staff with the access to learning resource that they need. The initiative will ensure that the lessons learned in one health organisation are available to other organisations and thereby allow more informed decision-making about the kinds of intervention required. At the same time the approach will help prevent duplication of effort where effective solutions have been identified.

  NHS Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) complaints proceeded to a hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and (b) such cases led to a removal from the register in the last five years. [117156]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of complaints which proceeded to a hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the United Kingdom Central Council 514W
  for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and which led to a removal from the register, in the last five years, is as follows:

  Year

  Cases considered by the PCC

  Number of removals ordered by the PCC

  1995–96

  127

  73

  1996–97

  118

  96

  1997–98

  109

  84

  1998–99

  144

  93

  1999–2000

  128

  91

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the last five years, the total number of complaints referred to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. [117157]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of complaints considered by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  871

  1996–97

  941

  1997–98

  997

  1998–99

  973

  1999–2000

  1,219

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to implement recommendations from the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments on Appointments to NHS Trusts and Health Authorities. [116406]

  Mr. Denham
  We have already announced consideration of fundamental changes to the National Health Service appointments process which would delegate to the chairs of health authorities the responsibility for around 2,000 appointments to NHS trusts and primary care trusts. Further consideration to the 28 recommendations from the Report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be given in due course.

  Adverse Clinical Incidents Report
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government response to the Sixth report of the Health Committee of Session 1998–99 on "Procedures Related to Adverse Clinical Incidents and Outcomes in Medical Care (HC 549)" will be published; and what factors underlie the delay in its issue. [117627]

  Ms Stuart
  We expect to publish our response to the Select Committee's report tomorrow. The report contains 35 recommendations, which address a broad range of issues, and we felt that it was important to address each of these with due seriousness in order to ensure that the
  515W
  response is properly considered and as positive as possible. The impact of the Shipman trial also needed to be taken into account and for these reasons the response has taken longer to prepare than would normally be the case.

  Health Authorities and Trusts (Liabilities)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the estimated liabilities of health authorities and NHS trusts in England on 31 March; and of those, how much is due for payment prior to 30 June. [116383]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1998–99 annual accounts combined balance sheets of health authority and National Health Service trusts show net current liabilities of £767 million, which represents 2.13 per cent. of overall NHS funding (£36 billion).

  Information on the timing of payment of individual NHS bodies liabilities is not collected centrally.

  Rank

  Number of individual officers against whom complaints have been made 1

  Substantiated 2

  Other completed complaints 3

  Pending

  Total

  1995

  Chief Superintendent

  2

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Superintendent

  7

  0

  18

  0

  18

  Chief Inspector

  4

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Inspector

  57

  3

  174

  0

  177

  Sergeant

  286

  11

  871

  2

  884

  Constable

  1,215

  50

  3,558

  7

  3,615

  FT Reserve Constable

  475

  16

  1,185

  0

  1,201

  PT Reserve Constable

  33

  0

  59

  0

  59

  Total

  2,079

  80

  5,874

  9

  5,963

  1996

  Chief Superintendent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Superintendent

  4

  0

  10

  0

  1

  Chief Inspector

  7

  1

  8

  0

  9

  Inspector

  62

  4

  145

  0

  149

  Sergeant

  282

  11

  853

  1

  865

  Constable

  1,223

  44

  3,459

  11

  3,514

  FT Reserve Constable

  413

  11

  1,099

  2

  1,112

  PT Reserve Constable

  32

  0

  70

  0

  70

  Total

  2,023

  71

  5,644

  14

  5,729

  1997

  Chief Superintendent

  2

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Superintendent

  7

  0

  20

  0

  20

  Chief Inspector

  6

  0

  7

  0

  7

  Inspector

  62

  0

  112

  2

  114

  Sergeant

  265

  6

  739

  8

  753

  Constable

  1,218

  36

  3,111

  31

  3,178

  FT Reserve Constable

  428

  13

  1,013

  15

  1,041

  PT Reserve Constable

  16

  0

  19

  0

  19

  Total

  2,004

  55

  5,025

  56

  5,136

  1998

  Chief Superintendent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Superintendent

  4

  0

  6

  0

  6

  Chief Inspector

  7

  0

  6

  2

  8

  Inspector

  55

  2

  105

  13

  120

  Sergeant

  268

  9

  597

  85

  691

  Constable

  1,137

  22

  2,340

  330

  2,692

  FT Reserve Constable

  404

  6

  770

  111

  887

  PT Reserve Constable

  16

  0

  40

  2

  42

  Total

  1,891

  39

  3,864

  543

  4,446

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Officers (Complaints)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers in each rank have had complaints made against them in each of the last five years and in the current year; for each rank, and year, how many complaints have been(a) dismissed and (b) upheld; and what action has been taken against complainants for (i) frivolous complaints and (ii) wasting police time. [115571]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of RUC officers by rank against which complaints have been made in the last five years and the number of substantiated and completed complaints. Figures for the current year are not yet available. No action has been taken against anyone making frivolous complaints or wasting police time doing so.
  517W

  Rank

  Number of individual officers against whom complaints have been made 1

  Substantiated 2

  Other completed complaints3

  Pending

  Total

  1999

  Chief Superintendent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Superintendent

  5

  0

  7

  2

  9

  Chief Inspector

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Inspector

  35

  0

  39

  21

  60

  Sergeant

  155

  0

  170

  128

  298

  Constable

  762

  3

  774

  635

  1,412

  FT Reserve Constable

  278

  1

  256

  251

  508

  PT Reserve Constable

  8

  0

  6

  5

  11

  Total

  1,244

  4

  1,253

  1,042

  2,299

  1 Where more than one officer is involved in a complaint, the complaint has been recorded against each individual officer.

  2 Substantiated figures refer to the year the complaint was registered.

  3 Only covers cases where an investigation has been carried out and officers identified. Excludes complaints that have been informally resolved or initially withdrawn.

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reducing the backlog of cases waiting to be heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal. [117353]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The number of Fair Employment cases waiting to be heard has remained broadly the same for a number of years. In order to improve the situation, the number of FET panel members was increased from 30 to 90 in 1999, three more tribunal rooms were made available at the end of 1999 and the number of cases listed for hearing was increased by 25 per cent. Work is in hand to appoint three additional part-time FE Tribunal Chairmen. It is hoped that the number of cases outstanding will soon begin to be reduced as a result of these changes.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure adequacy of funding and resources for the Fair Employment Tribunal. [117352]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The resource needs of the Fair Employment Tribunal are considered as part of the public expenditure survey process each year and the allocations made are in line with the Tribunals' needs.

  Civil Service (Roman Catholics)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to increase the representation of Roman Catholics in the Senior Civil Service. [117355]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Northern Ireland Civil Service has had a robust and proactive policy on equality of opportunity since 1984 and has consistently sought to tackle under-representation at all levels of the organisation through programmes of affirmative action. This has delivered significant improvement in the levels of representation of Roman Catholics throughout the workforce and both the extent of change and the measures taken have been reported in the public domain through the regular reports of the Service's Equal Opportunities Unit, copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  518W
  Under-representation of Roman Catholics among the most senior levels of the Service remains evident and is openly acknowledged. Past trends indicate that a significant contribution to changing the compositional profile among the Senior Civil Service (SCS) can be made by drawing upon the more representative pools of staff at the grade levels below the SCS.

  Affirmative action measures to tackle under-representation of Roman Catholics, have been developed in close consultation with the former Fair Employment Commission, and continue to be developed in concert with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Measures more specifically targeted at tackling under-representation among the SCS include setting goals and timetables in consultation with the former Fair Employment Commission which will be reviewed this year with the new Equality Commission, the dropping of seniority and grade level requirements as eligibility criterion in internal promotion competitions and more extensive use of open recruitment for SCS posts.

  Employment Equality
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to establish an Equality Unit within the Northern Ireland Office. [117356]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Office of the First and Deputy First Minister has an Equality Unit which continues to advise the Government on equality issues.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to utilise contract compliance and public procurement as a mechanism for promoting greater employment equality. [117354]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Public contracts already require that contractors comply with Northern Ireland and anti-discrimination law on religious and political opinion, sex, race and disability. There are additional provisions under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 whereby individual employers can be excluded from Government contracts if they have not adhered to specified requirements of fair employment legislation. There are no further plans at this time to extend these requirements.
  519W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reducing community differentials in unemployment; what targets he has set for reducing community differentials; and what initiatives are planned to remedy community differentials. [117351]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Government are committed to reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland and regard continuing differentials between Catholics and Protestants in unemployment as unacceptable. The most recent Labour Force Survey data for 1998 indicate that the ratio of the Catholic unemployment rate to the Protestant rate is 1.9 (2.3 for males and 1.4 for females). The Government are addressing unemployment and continuing differentials through:
  the New Deal;
  recent legislation changes to facilitate employers in recruiting the unemployed and to permit religion specific training; and
  the new Targeting Social Need policy.

  The Equality Commission will shortly consult on its plans to establish benchmarks and monitoring systems to measure future reductions in community differentials among the unemployed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to monitor the effectiveness of the New Deal programme in Northern Ireland in terms of religious affiliation. [117358]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Participation in New Deal is monitored in terms of community background/religious affiliation by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. Statistics on the numbers of Catholic and Protestant participants on the New Deals for Unemployed People, and their progress through the programme, have been published regularly by the Department. These statistics are also regularly reviewed by the Training and Employment Agency Board's Equality Sub-Group.

  Specific Equality and New Targeting Social Needs criteria, including consideration of the impact of New Deal on Protestants and Catholics, have also been built into the various projects covering the evaluation of New Deal which is currently under way. This will ensure that reliable conclusions can be drawn about the impact of the programme on both the Protestant and Catholic communities.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the breakdown is of the £837 million extra spending on schools in England announced in the Budget. [117512]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Of the £837 million for education in England in 2000–01, the allocation of £812 million has now been announced. This breaks down as follows:
  £286 million for special grants to schools.
  £20 million for catch-up classes in primary schools.
  £53 million for Education Maintenance Allowances and a campaign to encourage young people to stay on in education.
  520W
  £33 million to extend Excellence in Cities to more areas and
  £25 million for primary schools in Excellence in Cities areas.
  £70 million to fund training salaries for postgraduates entering teacher training.
  £250 million in grants through the New Deal for Schools and
  £60 million in capital support for City Academies and to transform failing schools through the Fresh Start programme.
  £15 million for capital projects benefiting 16-19 year olds.

  The allocation of the remaining £25 million will be announced in the coming weeks.

  Student Support
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to redress the remaining differences in student support for 2000–01 between the component parts of the UK following the Government's response to the Quigley report. [117626]

  Mr. Wicks
  The differences in student support between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom arise from the decisions of the devolved Scottish Parliament. In England and Wales, the student support arrangements are working well and there is no case for fundamental change.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Community Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 238-39W, on Title IV of the Treaty of the European Community, what (a) further measures have been brought forward and (b) decisions have been taken by the United Kingdom concerning opting into measures brought forward under Title IV since 26 November 1999. [117484]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following measures have been brought forward under Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community since 26 November 1999:Initiative of the Republic of Finland with a view to the adoption of a Council Regulation determining obligations as between the Member States for the readmission of Third-Country Nationals;
  Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the Right to Family Reunification;
  Presidency Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Voluntary Return;
  Initiative of the Republic of Finland for a Council Regulation relating to the updating of the Common Consular Instructions;
  Proposal by the Commission for a Council Regulation on the list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement;
  Proposal for a Council Decision creating a European Refugee Fund.

  The Presidency has suspended consideration of the first of these measures. The United Kingdom has not yet opted into any of the other measures.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the recommendations made to him by the Home Office
  521W
  Consultative Group on the setting up of an independent documentation centre for information on countries of origin of asylum seekers. [117069]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since the Consultative Group reported in December 1998, our priority has been to support the recovery of asylum decision output through the expansion and improvement of advice to caseworkers on country situations. This has included taking account of the Consultative Group's recommendations about the format and content of the published assessments. Once we are satisfied with the progress that has been made on these immediate priorities, we shall turn to considering other possible initiatives for developing country of origin assessments, including the idea of a documentation centre which was examined by the Consultative Group.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of (1) the number of jobs the dispersal process for asylum seekers will create in local authorities; [117065]

  (2) the total administrative cost to local government of the dispersal of asylum seekers; [117064]

  (3) the ratio of staff support to asylum seekers in local government; and if he will make a statement. [117066]

  Mrs. Roche
  None, either as regards the existing voluntary dispersal scheme or as regards the new centrally administered one.

  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of supporting asylum seekers. Local authorities may claim the costs incurred in supporting asylum seekers up to a limit of £140 a week for a single adult and of £240 a week for a family. However, how they allocate these resources, the number of staff they employ and the ratio of staff support to asylum seekers is a matter for the local authorities.

  Under the new national asylum support scheme, the Home Office will pay for accommodation and essential living needs.

  Police Jurisdiction
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which department has responsibility for bringing forward legislation to extend the jurisdiction of(a) the Ministry of Defence Police and (b) British Transport Police to give them constabulary powers; and if he will make a statement. [117670]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), keeps under review all matters concerning the role, powers and jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and the British Transport Police (BTP).

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill currently before Parliament proposes an amendment to the Police Act 1997 to enable the Chief Constable of the MDP and the Chief Constable of the BTP to authorise interference with property and wireless telegraphy within their force's existing jurisdiction under Part III of that Act. Part II of the Bill will also allow them, along with other chief constables, to authorise intrusive surveillance.
  522W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the then Minister of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 31 July 1998, Official Report, columns 637-638, the Government's intention to establish, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, an independent national police authority for the British Transport Police. Following consultation with the police service, the Home Office is also considering with the DETR an extension to the BTP's jurisdiction in specific circumstances. If accepted, this extension would be included in the legislation.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when her Department will publish statistics on the time it takes Ministers in each Government Department to answer hon. Members' letters; and if she will make a statement. [116390]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are committed to reducing the time taken to reply to correspondence from hon. Members.

  Clearly this is an important matter for Members on all sides of the House, and for their constituents, and we must continue to aim for higher standards.

  I intend to publish information on the time taken by individual Departments and agencies to reply to hon. Members very shortly, and before the Easter recess, which will be earlier than previous years.

  Regulations
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she has taken to reduce the number of regulations issued by Government Departments. [116391]

  Mr. Stringer
  Any regulatory proposal likely to have an impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector is subject to assessment. These assessments, which are placed in the Libraries of the House, are designed to test the need for every proposed regulation. In addition the Ministerial Panel, which the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend to establish last December, has now begun its programme of departmental reviews. In the first of these reviews, DTI and DETR agreed to a package of specific regulatory reforms.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate she has made of the total salary bill for special advisers in the financial year 2000–01. [116392]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is estimated that the total salary bill for Special Advisers in the year 2000–01 will be £4.3 million.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the Commissioner for Public Appointments to discuss the political balance of councillors being appointed to local health authorities and NHS trusts. [116393]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the Commissioner for Public Appointments to discuss her report entitled, "Public Appointments to NHS Trusts and Health Authorities". [116395]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the Commissioner for Public Appointments to discuss appointments to public bodies. [116407]

  Mr. Stringer
  I met the Commissioner for Public Appointments on 15 March 2000. My right hon. Friend and I meet the Commissioner from time to time.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has to amend the system of public appointments. [116397]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government have no immediate plans to alter the system of public appointments.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her policy is in respect of the appointment of local councillors to non-departmental public bodies. [116401]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government believe that appointments should be made on merit and we agree with the Commissioner for Public Appointments that political activity should not be a bar on taking up a public appointment.

  Disability Awareness
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to encourage disability awareness within the civil service. [116394]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  This is something we take extremely seriously: all managers in the Civil Service will be trained in diversity awareness (including disability issues) within two years; all managers will have diversity objectives in their personal plans; and we have recently produced a video for use in Departments to raise awareness.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the role of the social exclusion unit. [116396]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Social Exclusion Unit was established in December 1997. Since then it has produced five reports and action plans on subjects as diverse as rough sleeping and teenage pregnancy.
  524W
  The role of the unit is to help Government action to reduce social exclusion by producing joined-up solutions to joined-up problems.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the role of digital television in helping Government meet its targets for the electronic delivery of public services. [116400]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There is scope for digital television (DTV) to play an important role in delivering Government services electronically. The Central Information Technology Unit (CITU) published initial guidelines on DTV last December.

  Magistrates (Duchy of Lancaster)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what changes she proposes to make in the system for appointing magistrates in the Duchy of Lancaster area. [116402]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 28 January 2000,Official Report, column 163W.

  US International Trade Commission
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when her officials last met analysts from the United States International Trade Commission to discuss the current US Senate Finance Committee inquiry into possible UK membership of NAFTA; and if she will make a statement. [116404]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 285W.

  Modernising Government Programme
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her objectives are for the Civil Service in the modernising government programme. [116405]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government objective is to create a modern, diverse Civil Service, which has the skills and competences to meet the challenges it will face in the 21st century. Sir Richard Wilson published his report to the Prime Minister on Civil Service Reform in December last year.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of progress towards the Government targets for Internet access set out in the Modernising Government White Paper. [116409]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There was no specific internet access target in the Modernising Government White Paper. However, on 7 March, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would aim for universal access to
  525W
  the Internet by 2005. The e-Minister and e-Envoy will be reporting on progress towards this target in their first annual report in July.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with(a) trade union representatives and (b) others on the modernising government programme. [116410]

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with trade union representatives and (b) others on the modernising government programme. [116411]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Head of the Home Civil Service, the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, and I met the unions on 30 March for the official signing of the National Partnership Agreement. The Agreement sets out how the Cabinet Office and the unions will work together on matters that require corporate leadership. It outlines a shared commitment to strive for improvement and efficiency in the Civil Service.

  I have regular meetings with the unions at which developments in modernising government are discussed, among other topics.

  I have many other meetings and modernisation usually features positively.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures she is taking to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the civil service. [116408]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are committed to redressing under-representation and we are actively working to recruit and retain ethnic minorities at all levels in the civil service. Some key measures include the recent appointment of the Senior Adviser to help drive forward our efforts to tackle the under-representation of ethnic minorities particularly at senior levels of the civil service, and the recently launched new video of successful ethnic minority civil servants showing how fulfilling a career in the civil service can be to potential recruits.

  Government Services (Delivery)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her Department is doing to promote the delivery of Government services through information and other new communication technologies. [116413]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 360W.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on what dates special advisers from her Department have travelled abroad on official business since 8 June 1999; which countries were visited on each occasion; and what were the names of the special advisers who travelled on each occasion. [117062]
  526W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Between 8 June 1999 and 11 October 1999, my predecessor was accompanied by one of his Special Advisers on a visit to France which took place on 8 June.

  Between 11 October and 31 March 2000 I was accompanied by one of my Special Advisers on visits to Belgium, between 17 and 18 October 1999; Portugal, between 20 and 21 December 1999; and the USA on 13 March 2000.

  In addition, over the same period, the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator visited Austria and Turkey between 30 October and 7 November 1999; Belgium between 27 and 29 February 2000 and Austria between 13 and 14 March 2000. The Deputy UK anti-drugs co-ordinator visited Portugal twice on 16 July 1999 and between 20 and 21 January 2000.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 76W, concerning distribution of news releases by courier, whether her answer covered distribution of news releases by the Central Office of Information. [117224]

  Mr. Stringer
  Yes, but only the news releases distributed by the COI on behalf of my Department. For information on news releases distributed by the COI by courier for other Departments, I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 10 March 2000 by my right hon. and hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales,Official Report, column 825W, the President of the Council, Official Report, column 826W, the Secretary of State for Defence, Official Report, column 827W, Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Official Report, columns 832-33W, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, Official Report, column 836W, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Official Report, column 838W, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Official Report, column 840W, the Secretary of State for Social Security, Official Report, column 846W, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Official Report, column 862W, the Secretary of State for Health, Official Report, column 866W, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Official Report, column 873W; on 13 March 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Official Report, column 3W; and on 15 March 2000 by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Official Report, columns 189-90W, and the Secretary of State for International Development, Official Report, column 200W; on 17 March 2000 from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Official Report, column 350W, and on 20 March 2000 from my right hon. Friends the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Official Report, column 385W, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, Official Report, column 403W.

  Better Government for Older People
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 76W, if he will list the issues discussed at the meeting of the Inter-ministerial Group for Older People and the Advisory Group of the Better Government for Older People Programme on 27 March, indicating what further meetings are planned. [117702]

  Mr. Stringer
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 March 2000, c. 76W]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security, who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People planned to meet representatives of the Programme's Older People's Advisory Group on 27 March 2000. This meeting did not take place. A meeting has been arranged for 11 April 2000.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the progress of the Better Regulation Task Force in reducing the regulatory burden on businesses. [116399]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Better Regulation Task Force advises the Government on action to improve the effectiveness and credibility of regulation, particularly regulation which affects businesses.

  Earlier this month the Task Force published a review of payroll regulations, and in the next three months they will produce further reviews on topics including the hotel and restaurant industry, methods of helping small firms cope with regulations, and alternatives to state regulation.

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.

Channel Islands: Tax Competition
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make the Channel Islands modify or dismantle their tax arrangements to comply with the demands of the European Union's Code of Conduct Group on "unfair tax competition" and, if so, how.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the United Kingdom is committed to encouraging its dependencies to accept the principles of tackling unfair tax competition. The code of conduct is, however, a voluntary, non-legally binding agreement. We expect to start discussions with the Channel Islands on the code group's report. Channel Islands legislation has always taken the form of laws enacted by the islands' legislatures and it would be unprecedented for the United Kingdom to legislate for the islands on tax.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his emollient reply but I suggest that it does not quite fit the facts. Does not the final report of the European Union Code of Conduct Group on business transactions reveal that Ms Primarolo committed the United Kingdom Government to eliminating a whole raft of tax measures in the Channel Islands on which the financial services industries of the islands depend? Is that not quite extraordinary and quite unacceptable when the Channel Islands are not a part of the European Union and the European Union has no right to interfere in the business of the Channel Islands; when the Channel Islands are not even covered by the—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, this is a question, and an important one too. As I said, the European Union has no right to interfere in the business of the Channel Islands when the Channel Islands are not even covered by paragraph m of the code, which refers to dependencies of the United Kingdom—which the Channel Islands are not—and when Britain has never exercised jurisdiction in tax matters in the Channel Islands.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, of course the United Kingdom supports international measures to counteract harmful tax competition. The Government fully support the work of the Code of Conduct Group chaired by Dawn Primarolo. However, the tax code of
1296
conduct on business taxation commits member states to promoting its principles in their dependent territories, but only,
"within the framework of their constitutional arrangements".
I believe that that explains the relationship perfectly. All we shall seek to do in this instance is to work closely with our colleagues in the Channel Islands and in the Isle of Man to attempt to achieve our objectives through the usual methods of discussion and negotiation.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is not the most important feature of the report of the Code of Conduct Group that, while it is likely to lead to the elimination of certain forms of harmful practices of tax competition, which can be harmful to this country as much as to other European countries, contrary to the usual prophecies of doom and gloom of Europhobes in the Conservative Party, it has left the UK system of taxation unscathed? There is no criticism of our support for the film industry, enterprise zones or special help for scientific research. Is not the overall effect of the report likely to be extremely helpful to this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valuable contribution to the discussion. We have emerged with a clean bill of health. Our financial institutions have a good reputation across the world, which is in the interests of, and benefits, our economy. That ought to be welcomed by all.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is tax competition in the Government's eyes always harmful? If it is sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial, when is it harmful and when is it beneficial?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is unfair tax competition that is harmful. It is worth reminding the noble Lord of a communiqué issued by the G7 countries at the 1996 Lyons summit, which states,
"Tax schemes aimed at attracting financial and other geographically mobile activities can create harmful tax competition between states carrying risks of distorting trade and investment and could lead to the erosion of national tax bases".
That statement was signed by the previous Prime Minister, John Major.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said about the code of conduct. Clearly it cannot apply to the Channel Islands given their protocol and given the constitutional arrangements which have always obtained. However, I put the following question to him. What response has the Government received so far to their efforts to encourage the Channel Islands to abandon their present practices? Can I be assured that, having done her best to encourage the Channel Islands, my honourable friend in the other place will not in any way resort to efforts to pressurise the Channel Islands to accept the measure?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in my initial response, we expect to start discussions on the code group's report with the Channel Islands in the near future. The success of the constitutional relationship between the UK Government and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man has been such that we have always managed to proceed through discussion and negotiation. I am bound to say that that has been a successful process. The Edwards report, which considered the regulation of financial institutions, proves that point. That is the best way for us to continue to conduct ourselves.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, although the noble Lord said to my noble friend Lord Waddington that it would be "unprecedented" for the United Kingdom to insist on changing tax arrangements in the Channel Islands, will he confirm that the Kilbrandon report of 1973, paragraphs 1533 to 1535, is at least ambiguous on this point? First, will the Minister therefore give a clearer answer to your Lordships' House? Secondly, will he admit that hundreds of billions of pounds come to this country through the Channel Islands and other dependencies, and that to do anything to upset that flow of business would be suicidal, even by the standards of our collaboration with the European Union?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Kilbrandon report of 1973 has served us well for approaching 30 years. From my studying of paragraph 1499, if there is ambiguity in the report, it is extremely helpful ambiguity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Kilbrandon report left the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom extremely unclear, although it does refer back to a charter of 1204 which makes the relationship rather clearer? Is it perhaps time for the Home Office to revisit the question of the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands—and perhaps between the Channel Islands and the EU—since many Bills which come before this House have additional clauses on whether the Channel Islands are opting in or opting out of different parts of EU-related legislation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I described it as helpful ambiguity; that is perhaps how we should leave it. We have no plans to interfere with the current constitutional arrangements, which, as I have described, have worked very well. The only occasion I can find when the UK government in any way tried to interfere in matters affecting any of the islands was in relation to the Isle of Man under the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. As I understand it, that Act was designed to deal with Radio Caroline.

Shepherds' Crooks and Walking Sticks
2.44 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to safeguard the livelihoods of makers of shepherds' crooks and walking sticks in the light of draft European Union Commission Document XXIV/2905/99 which would designate sheep horns as specified risk material.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords. I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that among the many implications which these draft proposals raise for the UK livestock industry the interests of makers of shepherds' crooks and walking sticks have not been overlooked by Her Majesty's Government. If the heads of sheep were to be classified as specified risk material under EU legislation, then an exemption for horns such as currently exists under our national SRM controls would be required. The Government have already raised this point with the European Commission as part of the wider discussions currently taking place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging Answer. Is she aware that the Commission document does not say anything about horns not being covered? It states that sheep's heads are designated as specific risk material. Curiously enough, it excludes the tongues but includes the horns. Who has ever eaten a horn, for goodness sake? This is based on the altar of protection against BSE from which sheep do not suffer. Is the noble Baroness further aware that stick dressers boil the horns for four hours before they make them into a shepherd's crook, or whatever it may be, by which time any possible bug must have vaporised?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am delighted to say that I am totally at one with the noble Earl on this issue. Like him, I have never eaten a sheep's horn. Thanks to his Question, I now know more about the practices of border stick dressers than in the past. The point the noble Earl has raised was taken into account when the provisions in regard to the classification of sheep heads as SRM in the United Kingdom were brought in. There have been on-going discussions with the industry about them. We recognised that the initial European proposals did not address this particular problem. As I said, we have raised this specific issue, although the proposals need changing in wider respects than simply this one.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is not the Minister being rather complacent? This is an unusual building and a number of walking sticks—and possibly shepherds' crooks—are deposited in various parts of it. Given the information they have at their disposal, it is reasonable to ask the Government what guarantees they can give that such items are not a danger to the public.

1299
Do Black Rod and his staff receive any assistance or advice on how to cope with them? How does one identify them? Finally, is the Minister sure they are not breeding?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not wish to give the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, any assurances of which I am rot completely certain. Voluminous though my folder is, he has raised issues which are not covered within it. If there are issues upon which Black Rod needs advice, I am sure he will make this clear to the Government. If the noble Lord's question raises issues to which I should respond, I shall do so.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, mindful that it is not unknown for right reverend Prelates in this House to carry around implements of office and mindful that some of those implements of office resemble more closely real shepherds' crooks than the more symbolic kind, would the Minister care to give an undertaking to provide guidance on how such crooks of office may be made in the future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government's record in terms of protecting the availability of the material necessary has been impeccable so far in terms of national SRM controls. We intend to continue to ensure that such material is available, both for religious purposes—recognising that what we are discussing is not unique to one religion—and for the manufacturers of walking sticks and shepherds' crooks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when she was in another place the late Lord Mellish used to keep in the Whips' Office a shepherd's crook with which to correct his flock? I am glad to say that as a former Whip, I was never forced to ask the Chief Whip to use it on her. On a more serious note, my noble friend confirm that this matter will be decided by a qualified majority vote? If her colleagues will not go along with that, are we prepared to defy the European Union on this very important matter?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am glad to say that the former Chief Whip in another place never showed me his shepherd's crook. As for the proposals currently before the EU, although there has been a certain amount of levity about them, the matter goes far wider than the issue of horns. The proposals are not satisfactory to industry in this country and at the moment we do not think they are proportionate to the risks. Eventually, this could be decided at the Agriculture Council. We hope that the evidence we have put to the scientific veterinary committee and the scientific steering committee will allow a proportionate approach to be taken and that a sensible solution, providing protection across Europe on the issue of specified risk material, will be able to go forward.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister realise that another threat to the shepherd's crook arises from changes by the Forestry Commission to the woodland grant scheme which mean that small woodland grants may be reduced this year and that deciduous trees, which are those used for crooks and walking sticks, will be fewer in number than conifers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have not received representations from the manufacturers of walking sticks on that specific aspect. If I do, the Government will certainly look at them with the same care as we have done regarding the availability of sheep horns.

Identity Cards
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharplesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the introduction of a national identity card.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we would consider introducing a national identity card only if we were satisfied that the potential benefits outweighed the drawbacks. Although we are continuing to look at the issues involved, we are not convinced by the arguments in favour of a compulsory national identity card.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I have spoken to the police; they approve in principle of a national identity card. With the rapid advances in technology, why can we not consult our European partners and produce a smartcard, which would prove identity not by a photograph but by a thumb print and would contain a great deal of information, such as the holder's blood group, details regarding organ donation, and so on?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the issue of smartcards was looked at closely in the Modernising Government White Paper and we continue to give careful consideration to it. It may well be that smartcards are the way forward in the future. We are keeping that issue under review and shall consider it further.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, why does the Home Office dither so much on this question? Is my noble friend aware that in every national poll that has been taken on this the majority favour an ID card system? The Police Federation favours one. Indeed, the majority of letters that go to the Home Office are also in favour. The Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place has also recommended it. So why does not the Home Office recognise that the majority of the nation are in favour of an ID card system? Would it

1301
not help to cut crime? Would it not help to deal with the illegal immigrant problem? Why, therefore, does not the Home Office act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the question of identity cards has been looked at by both parties in government. Indeed, members of the Opposition will recall that during their time in government they issued a Green Paper on the issue in 1995. They took the view that a voluntary ID card would be preferable and, as I understand it, that was the view of the Home Affairs Select Committee. There are some drawbacks. Civil liberties and the potential costs are very important considerations. I am sure that those issues are very much in your Lordships' minds. My noble friend referred to the police. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is particularly concerned about national identity cards, first, because the police might end up with part of the responsibility for enforcing their use and, secondly, the association felt that it might well lead to a deterioration or perhaps a breakdown in trust and confidence between the public and the police service.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is issuing photo licences, the DSS is thinking about issuing photo cards and the Passport Office is proposing to issue photo identity cards, is there any chance of the Government being "joined up" in this respect?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful contribution—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord does make a very useful contribution. He always does. I have always enjoyed his contributions. If I may develop the point, "joined up", yes, but there are some practical considerations about which Members of the House may wish to think. If we were to have a passport card which also had on it a driving licence and perhaps details about social security, the card might have to be given out but also withdrawn fairly frequently. What would happen if someone was disqualified from driving but required that same card for passport purposes? Those are technical issues—and difficult ones to resolve. Those are precisely the kinds of issues about which the Government are concerned.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, modern smartcards can contain a tremendous amount of information. The police would find them extremely helpful, provided that they were not made compulsory to the extent that it would be an offence not to carry one. That would be a problem for the police in terms of community relations. However, because of the wealth of information that such a card could carry, would it not also help to identify at least who can play rugby for Wales?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is the killer one. But, generally,
1302
smartcards are to be welcomed. They will begin to develop. As I said earlier, in the 1999 White Paper Modernising Government, we recognised their value, particularly as new technology continues to develop in this field.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the driving licence, which is already a voluntary identity card, in effect, for most Members of the House, has in the corner the flag of the European Union. Can the Minister assure us—or assure certain Members of the House—that this is not an attempt by the Government to smuggle us without knowing it into carrying the identity card of a European superstate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have no plans in that direction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me what is the difference between wartime, when we all had identity cards, and now? What are the practical difficulties about which he spoke?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I may not be the brightest historian but I think that we were at war during wartime.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when can we expect to be able to get the voluntary identity card to which the Minister referred?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have to confess that I cannot advise the House of when we might get a voluntary ID card. But it is something we are keeping under review.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although the Minister is perfectly correct in saying that if one has too many things on a card the card will perpetually be being sent in to be updated for one reason or another, that does not mean to say that an identity card itself is not a valid thing to have. Can the noble Lord say why we should not have identity cards when our identities are already known in so many different ways, as has been explained by other noble Lords?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I did not say that we should not have identity cards. I tried to indicate that the Government, as with the previous government, have a very open mind on the issue. The previous government consulted in 1995. They had not made up their mind by the time they left office. The noble Earl should know that better than most because he was a Minister in that government. We are giving the matter careful consideration. Certainly, a voluntary national identity card may have benefits. We have discussed this afternoon the value of smartcards. I have no doubt that when we finally conclude on this issue we shall, of course, come up with the right answer.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, would it not be useful to tie this in with a digital identity so that people can be identified for transactions on the Internet, where there is growing e-commerce?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is one of the considerations we shall actively pursue.

Kosovo
2.59 p.m.
The Earl of Caithnessasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that NATO's plans in Kosovo are neither leaked nor placed on the Internet.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, responsibility within NATO for ensuring that Alliance plans for Kosovo operations are neither leaked nor disseminated inappropriately rests with the NATO Office of Security. That organisation oversees comprehensive security measures at NATO headquarters in Brussels and elsewhere. The text which appeared on the Internet recently was caused by a benign virus; it was not a deliberate leak. The material, which is now unclassified, had already been shared with some other nations, including Russia, as well as civilian personnel in Kosovo.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our bombing plans were leaked to the Serbs, and now we have the leak of a nine-page document on the rules of engagement for land operations—material which I understand was restricted and which the Minister says is now declassified. Does not that give the Government great cause for concern that our soldiers operating in Kosovo are being put in added danger? What action are the Government taking against the NATO Office of Security in regard to this matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to distinguish between the two sets of incidents to which the noble Earl refers. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that there was no deliberate leak of NATO information. The appearance of the text of the rules of engagement in Kosovo was, as I indicated, the result of a virus. The security classification, which was "NATO/KFOR confidential", appeared at the top of that text as the extract formed part of a larger document, but the creation was a genuine accident. The originator has been identified and appropriate disciplinary action has been taken.
The noble Earl then asked about other incidents where there have been allegations of spying. It is a matter for NATO; however, a NATO spokesman has indicated that there was no evidence of any leaks. Had there been such deliberate leaking in the way implied by the noble Earl, it is surprising that the Serbs did not
1304
make better use of that kind of information. Any compromising of security whatever is a matter of great concern. Where an individual has been identified, even though it was an accident, appropriate action has been taken.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not essential that NATO's plans for such flashpoints as Mitrovica and the frontiers of southern Serbia should be kept absolutely secret? On the other hand, is it not important that NATO's determination to protect democracy and maintain the status quo in Montenegro should be made absolutely clear and public?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course it is enormously important that any NATO plans for the future handling of the situation in Kosovo—which, although immensely improved compared to the situation previously, is very volatile—have proper security, not least because there are many allied troops whose safety would otherwise be compromised. I assure the noble Lord that we are keeping a close eye on the situation in Montenegro. Mr Milosevic should be in no doubt whatever about that. He has caused enough trouble in the region already. We want Montenegro to have the right to choose its relationship with Serbia and we keep in very close touch with President Djukanovic and his government. I hope the noble Lord is reassured. There is enormous vigilance. He is quite right: NATO should remain secure.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that no one in the world has any power to stop the placing of material on the Internet? Does she further agree that when the courts purport to do so, as in the recent case of Demon Internet Limited, the effect is probably that the user takes the custom to foreign service providers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are of course the issues raised by the noble Lord in relation to the Internet. What matters in the first place is the security of documents at their place of origin. That is why it is important that documents that are kept on computers are kept in such a way as not to compromise their security. In this country, the MoD continually reviews and seeks to improve our procedural and electronic security systems. We make sure that all MoD staff are required to read, agree and comply with the security operating system that is used in this country. In addition, we have laws that protect such information, as do our allies, including the United States, to ensure that this kind of information is not compromised by such things as freedom of information.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that information which is rightly classified in this country is not freely available on the Internet in the United States due to the iniquitous freedom of information legislation in the US?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I indicated that the United States has clear laws on this matter, as we do. The United States freedom of information Act contains an exemption for information which is,
"properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy".
I believe that that includes the kind of information with which we are dealing here. It would be an offence in the United States, as it would be here, to compromise the security of that kind of information.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Roadworks
3.6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilrose to call attention to the number of statutory undertakers and others with powers to dig holes in the road; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by expressing a hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will carefully read, mark and learn the well-informed and extremely well-timed article that appears in today's Evening Standard. I hope also, in view of the excellent advice that I have received from the RAC, that Ministers might lend their ears—that is, if their ears are still working—to the RAC.
Digging holes in roads may seem a rather odd subject with which to detain your Lordships. I should not dream of doing so were it not for the fact that the frequency of the occurrence and the numbers of people who have now made it their favourite recreation have multiplied—with the result that it has now become and serious and costly nuisance.
It may be useful to go over a little of the background to this debate. Noble Lords might recall, through the mists of time, July 1998, when the Government introduced what used to be called a White Paper. It is still called a White Paper, but somehow or other it has become rather coloured and elaborate, even though its contents are just as flat and dull as they always used to be. The White Paper to which I refer was honoured with a foreword by no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister. Although it is not exactly a storehouse of gems, there are some semi-precious stones which deserve to be remembered.
Astonishingly, the Deputy Prime Minister said,
"We also want a better deal for the motorist".
1306
We still do. It has been a long time coming. He went on to say that the Government want better management of the roads network. That, too, is still awaited. Then there was a particular gem. He said:
"We have devised new and imaginative ways of obtaining money from transport for better transport".
No one would then have guessed that what the Deputy Prime Minister had in mind was not a new imposition but the familiar and rather old tax on petrol, which has been constantly revisited by the Chancellor ever since.
Some of us still cherish the hope that the Government will proceed to do something about the nuisance caused by holes which so many are free to dig in our roads. I understand that the writer of the article in the Evening Standard, to which I have already referred, contacted the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (as it is now called) and was told that the Government were still urgently considering the problem. The department went on to say that it would probably be wrong to expect action before Christmas. One is tempted to ask: which Christmas?
Patience can be overdone. I know of no greater exemplars of patience than the English people. I believe that they would be well advised to remember the old adage that the axle that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease. Perhaps the time has arrived when this very tiresome nuisance is raised, not just in the hope that somehow, at some time, the Government might do something about it, but with insistence and, if necessary, a degree of anger. I should like to give the Government some of my thoughts on what they could, and should, do now as a token of their new enlightenment. (Whenever I can, I try to introduce the word "new" to bring home the point.)
Perhaps the Government will adopt the suggestion made by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Fraser. In a Bill introduced at the beginning of last year he proposed that the Government should make use of their existing powers to impose fines upon utilities that did not fulfil the details of their plans and, in particular, did not finish on time.
The Government might also consider with sympathy—that is something which central government rarely do—the plight, tasks and responsibilities of highway authorities. Their task is a formidable one. I am advised that the average highway authority can expect to receive some 20,000 applications a year from people seeking to dig up its roads. If the noble Lord wants to interrupt me to say that I am wrong, I shall be delighted. For a moment, I was concerned that my statement had caused the noble Lord some unease. I am glad that that is not so. Highway authorities are the only bodies in this country that are capable of dealing with the problem, but they have neither the muscle nor the resources to do it. I believe that there should be legislation to give them the authority of law to plan, implement and charge for this work and, if necessary, penalise those who do not meet their obligations under plans to which they have agreed.
The Government sometimes behave as if they are reluctant to legislate. There has never been such an enthusiastic legislator as this Government. We see

1307
appalling messes all over the statute book; some illegible, some meaningless, and all of them requiring a tremendous number of amendments before they even start. The Government should put on the statute book a simple measure to deal with this matter. When the Transport Bill comes before your Lordships' House, it will offer the Government a wonderful opportunity. I am only too anxious to help the Government in that task. That measure should give highway authorities the power that they need. It should provide that those who use the highway for the purposes of their business should pay for the privilege, just as other users of the highway are obliged to pay by means of taxes every day of their lives. I see no reason why those who impose confusion, congestion and delay on others should not be invited to contribute to the roads, along with their victims.
Others have a role to play. The Highways Agency has attracted my attention. That agency, which is really the alter ego of the DETR, is helpful to Ministers because it provides them with a ready-made alibi. They can wash their hands of something and say that people must complain to the Highways Agency. I am not sure how useful is the Highways Agency at a time when the Government have suspended the road-building programme. Nevertheless, I hope that that agency will play a helpful rile. Perhaps it will begin by ensuring that those operations which it still conducts are carried out in a way which has regard to the convenience and interests of the road-using public.
Having dealt with the need to provide highway authorities with additional powers, I turn briefly to the licensees or utilites—all 138 of them. I almost called them "trespassers". I wonder whether they even begin to be aware o the hostility with which they are increasingly viewed by people who are not interested in the rather shallow defence that this work is absolutely necessary. No one disputes that. What is challenged is the way in which the work is carried out—with lack of consideration and efficiency and no concern whatever for the general convenience and interest of other road users.
Some of the names are well known: Transco, Thames Water and British Telecom. British Telecom incurred a good deal of dislike for having dug up one street nine times in 12 months. Such conduct is careless, sloppy and, in the view of the public, unpardonable. In that context, I cannot forbear to mention the television cable companies which have now made their appearance. The only name that I can recall at the moment is McNicholas. They put their green pipes all over the place without any explanation of where they have come from—one can make a guess about that—what they are doing or how long they will take, appearing to be utterly careless of the massive inconvenience caused. Those licensees might do well to adopt a more constructive approach. Instead of opposing every move forward, they might seek from the Government some suggestions of how they might help rather than obstruct.
Finally, I have this suggestion. Those who really want to spend time digging the roads and irritating profoundly the rest of us should be required, as a
1308
minimum, to put up notices on the site telling anyone who is interested who they are, what they are doing, why they are doing it and how long it will take. To that notice they might also append the name and address of some responsible representative. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing this topical subject and for his admirable speech. I obtained my first driving licence in 1965. That was one year after the noble Lord had ceased to be Minister of Transport. However, I am told by those who were around when the noble Lord was Minister of Transport that there was ample parking outside every shop, traffic lights were permanently set to green—and holes in the road were known of only by the stories of whey-faced travellers from countries outside this land. Alas, times have changed for the worst.
When I worked for the Sunday Times in the 1980s the then editor, Harold Evans, was in the middle of a great campaign against cones. Every week Fleet Street's finest were sent off to scour the land in search of more cones which were holding up traffic and articles appeared in the Sunday Times attacking them. His executives, who felt that readers were becoming bored with cones, implored him to call off the campaign and move on to other issues. Harold Evans, who was a wise and experienced hand, said, "No, we must continue this campaign. It is only when they start to get bored that you're getting anywhere". So he continued to campaign. And who can say that it did not work? Ten years later John Major introduced the cones hotline.
As a result of his persistence, the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, deserves to go down in history with the campaign of Harold Evans. We have had representations from the noble Lord when we were unable to reach this House because on 7th February Parliament Square had been dug up; we have had his call for signs by roadworks telling us who perpetrates them; and we have the debate today. So we are deeply indebted to him for raising the problem.
However, I have some problems with the solutions proposed. I have learned a good deal about your Lordships' House in the short time that I have been attending. But I have not hitherto perceived it as a hotbed of traditional socialism. Yet the remedies put forward nearly all seem to belong in the Soviet Union of the 1930s: let us put names to perpetrators of the holes in the road; let us name and shame them; we shall have better co-ordination of holes in the roads; there will be greater powers for highways authorities to curb holes in the roads. Fairly shortly I expect the proposal that the heads of British Telecom—it is such a dire offender in this regard—and some of the other companies be sent for show trial and then exiled to the Outer Hebrides, there to dig and fill in holes without end for the rest of their days—and that would be no more than justice, I agree!

1309
However, I do not think that that would resolve the problems of holes in the roads. Over the years, we have found that administrative solutions to such issues do not work. We would know by now if they did because there have been many attempts.
The noble Lord referred to New Labour. I am New Labour in the sense of believing in the market approach to these questions. I think that the way forward is relatively simple. It is to charge the utilities responsible for digging holes in the road for the value of the time wasted by drivers as a consequence. It is a transport relative of a theory with which we are all familiar and to which we nearly all now adhere: the polluter pays—the blocker pays. It is not a new principle even in transport. When new roads are to be built, they are evaluated by the DETR. A value is put on the time that will be saved by the building of those roads. I checked the figure. It is £3.98 an hour for leisure time, and £16.28 for work time. That may say something about the relative values society gives to work and leisure. The delays caused by building those roads are also costed at exactly the same rates and set in the accounts against the value of the roads. That principle seems applicable in logic to holes in the ground. The delay should be charged to and paid for by the contractor.
I can think of three possible objections, some of which we have seen reflected in the newspapers. First, it would stop certain kinds of development. We would not have cables put into our factories and so on. But a simple principle of economics is this. If the cost of doing something outweighs the benefit, you do not do it. In most cases I do not think that that would be the result. For instance, the benefits of cabling are enormous to society and would outweigh the cost. But in cases where the costs outweigh the benefits, the work should not take place.
There is a variant on that argument: that it would put up prices; that if the gas company had to pay to dig holes in the road the price of gas would go up and that would be inflationary. That is a second and equally crass economic fallacy. It is a fallacy mainly because a change in the relative price level cannot in principle affect the absolute price level in society. That is determined by macroeconomic factors. For example, if the money went to the Government, they might choose to reduce the rate of VAT. The price level would be unchanged but it would shift from a general burden on all consumers to one on the consumers of the gas whose production had caused the delays in the first place.
Finally, that is not what will happen. If one increases the cost of digging the holes, prices will not increase. Companies would start to dig those holes at weekends when there was not much traffic. In the country they would dig them at night when there was no traffic to be delayed. And new techniques would be invented because the old techniques would prove too expensive. Instead of having to dig a hole before companies put in a fibre optic cable, they would soon invent ways of leading fibre optic cables underground which avoided having to pay those charges. That is
1310
how the market works. It took a long time for some of us in the Labour Party to understand the magic of the market, but it is rather good at solving this kind of problem.
The previous government dipped a half toe in the water. Under Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, they can charge for works which continue beyond their allotted time. This Government have gone a little further. Their consultation document in 1999, entitled Reducing disruption for utilities' street works, proposes that there should be a charge not only for those who take too long to dig their holes and fill them in again but also from day one when the work is started. But that is still not a charge related to the degree of disruption caused. It does not matter if it takes a little longer to dig up a minor byway in the country, but it matters tremendously if, as at present, there are dug up in swift order Parliament Square, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly. Therefore the charges there would be much greater.
The Government have at last started to consult along the' right lines, but they have not yet gone far enough. Not many long-lasting problems—it is a lesson of life—lend themselves to relatively easy solutions. I think that this solution is a rare exception. I commend it to the House and the Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may gently remind all noble Lords that the time is extremely tight and that if they overrun they will make a huge hole in the Minister's time to reply to their concerns.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I believe that the previous speaker spoke for less than his allotted time.
The irritation which the problem has caused has led to Questions being asked in the House, but this is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate the issue at length. We are therefore most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
The subject appears to be a music hall joke. We do not want that; we want it to become the serious issue that it is. Holes in the road not only cause great anger; they cost us a great deal of money. Anger is also aroused by the lack of government action in respect of the digging of the holes. I hope that the Minister will offer some solutions.
I want to refer to some of the arguments we constantly hear. Some repairs are undertaken in areas where there are private residences. It is most irritating to discover that no one is working at, say, half past four. I am sure that contractors could be told to work until seven or eight o'clock in the evening and that if that costs more they should have to deal with it. We cannot have holes just left in the middle of the road.
The frequency of digging up the same stretch of road has been mentioned. The Strand is a great example: it was dug up continuously over a period of two years. There appears to be no contact between the different contractors involved.

1311
Another frequent complaint relates to announcements that work will be completed by a certain date. What happens if it is not? Can the utility or contractor be fined, or fined enough? Recently, the road between St James's Street and Albemarle Street was dug up and a notice indicated that the work would be finished by a certain date. It went on for at least another week. But there was no notice of explanation, or of an apology, or of a fine. Can the Minister say whether fines can be levied and, if so, whether they are sufficiently high? Contractors do not seem to realise the cost to the country of longer journeys. They should be involved in some of that cost.
Finally, can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that legislation will soon be brought forward in order to overcome an increasingly irritating problem?
3.34 p.m.
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had initiated today's debate on an issue with which we are all confronted on an all too regular basis, whether we like it or not.
Last year, during my term of office as Lord Mayor of the City of London, the topic caused increasing concern and led us to address the issue in the City in a manner which I believe should commend itself to wider usage.
I was very much aware of the proposed Streetworks Bill, which was under discussion in another place, but recognised the difficulties which such legislation might and did produce. My concern with the Bill was that in so far as it imposed costs on the utilities—that has been further suggested today—I did not believe that that would have any impact on reducing the problem, other than that the costs involved would be passed on to the consumers.
Furthermore, motorists or other passengers in transit, stuck in inevitable jams caused by such roadworks, would certainly find very little comfort in learning that the contractor was having to pay for the privilege of holding them up. They would far rather not be held up at all, or at least, far less frequently.
In the City, our intention was to try to address the problem with the co-operation of the various utilities involved, with a view to reducing significantly the incidence of disruption, but on a voluntary basis. I was very interested, but not entirely surprised, to learn last year that the Square Mile represents 20 per cent of the entire UK market for the telecommunications services by value. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the incidence of digging in the streets to lay new cables can, at times, become overwhelming.
Having done a certain amount of investigation into the subject, it became clear that the vast bulk of the cost relating to streetworks was involved in digging up the road and then filling it in again and resurfacing it, rather than in the cables and pipes in the holes. Many noble Lords will have seen all too often the ludicrous
1312
situation of a stretch of road being dug up, subsequently filled in and then dug up again almost immediately by a different utility.
My aim was, through voluntary consultation, to persuade the utilities to co-operate with each other and with the local authority so that a busy stretch of highway would be dug up only once during a period of, say, a year or two, but that during the time the trench was open all the utilities would use the facility to lay or re-lay their own services. That has the enormous advantage to the utilities that they would save a huge amount of money.
I wrote to the chairmen of all the utilities which operate in the City of London and held a meeting with them to discuss the matter. It was recognised that emergencies occur which cannot be pre-planned and that some requirements, particularly in telecommunications, are necessary at relatively short notice. None the less, we succeeded in the City of London in a number of areas.
First, we published a voluntary code of practice for the co-ordination of streetworks in the City of London. All the 20 statutory undertakings which work in the City have agreed to it and adopted it. We have listed the 56 main streets in the City which are included in the voluntary code of practice. In addition, we have given the statutory undertakings our plans up to the year 2020, indicating which works will be undertaken in which streets, on which dates and, in particular, where the local authority—in this case, the City—has to resurface the streets in question. That has an even bigger advantage to the utilities. We dig the hole and provide the trench; they fill it in with pipes; and then we resurface it. They pay nothing and it is work which the City would have to undertake in any event.
In addition, the utilities have agreed to submit their own proposals to the Corporation for co-ordination and that, following the completion of the works in question, a 12-month moratorium on the particular street being broken up will be firmly enforced.
The voluntary code of practice has been in operation in the City since the beginning of the year and there is every indication that it is working well. Indeed, I am told that the practice of sharing holes or trenches is a great success in the City.
The scheme is not perfect—no scheme of this type ever can be—but it has the considerable merit of costing nothing, requiring no legislation, saving costs to the utilities and therefore their customers, and reducing the number and frequency of the holes, which we all loathe.
I know that neighbouring local authorities in London are considering similar schemes. I would commend to the Government an early consideration of the scheme with a view to expanding its operation much more widely throughout the country.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Levene, promises the most hopeful solution that I, for one, have heard on this subject for a very long time. I, too,

1313
am pleased that my noble friend Lord Peyton has raised the question of people who are authorised to dig holes in the road. As I drive around the Weald of Kent, where I live, it sometimes seems that there is more hole than road. My noble friend Lord Peyton concentrated on the concerns of road users. In a moment or two, I should like to concentrate on the concerns of business people—shopkeepers and the like—whose interests are gravely damaged by the current practice (or malpractice) of digging up the roads.
There appears to be no concern among those who have the statutory power to authorise a hole to be dug in the road for the effect that it will have on businesses. There appears to be no provision for the service of reasonable and sensible notice on those who will be affected. There appears to be no requirement to give an estimate of the length of time that the road will be dug up and, sometimes, closed. There appears to be no provision for monitoring by, in one instance, the DTI. I have given notice to the Minister of a horror story that I wish to raise in which the DTI was the authorising body. There is no provision for monitoring progress and no provision for a penalty to be imposed in the event of an overrun of the estimate. Finally, there is no provision for compensation. Those are major shortcomings in a field where one, of course, recognises that electronic advance will lead to trenches being dug for cables to be laid for whatever reason.
I want to regale the House, if I may, with a horror story that arises in the villages of Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden near where I live. As I said, I have given the noble Lord an account of what took place there in February and March this year. I am sure that not many noble Lords will be aware of those villages, but a road connects them. On a Saturday afternoon in February a letter arrived at the village shop, kept by Mr Michael Keyhoe, which said that on the following Monday morning the road between Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden was to be not only dug up but closed. There were to be no traffic lights; the road was to be closed. Of course, there was no estimate of how long the work was to take. Naturally, there was no compensation of any kind. There was no consultation; nothing. It was simply going to happen. And so it duly did.
The road was closed for four weeks. Who was responsible? I understand that it was a business called Level 3 acting through sub-contractors called Fujitsu. They did not have the courtesy to explain how long they were going to take. However, apparently they explained that it was necessary to close the road because they were digging a trench to enable a fibre-optic cable to connect the City of London with Frankfurt via Folkestone. Not too many people in Horsmonden wish to make contact with Frankfurt other than by means of the ordinary telephone. At least, they did not when I represented them for 23 years as their Member of Parliament. Therefore, it was an added soreness that this major disruption would bring no benefit whatever to the people who suffered in terms of their business.
1314
Having regard to his family background, I know that I do not need to instruct the Minister about the harm that is done to a village grocery, for example, or to a village bakery, a butcher's shop, or any other retail shop, when this kind of thing occurs. For four weeks the road was closed. I am not saying that those villages were cut off; of course, they were not. However, it was much more difficult, for example, for someone to reach the village butcher. In consequence, the butcher's trade suffered a considerable falling-off. I believe that that is true of all the four retail businesses located there, not to mention the pub, and the difficulties sustained by the primary school.
How did this come about in such an unjust way? I believe that it was entirely because those businesses—I refer to Level 3 and Fujitsu—behaved as people always do when they are granted power over other people with no accountability whatever. Considerable damage has been done and, even now, the event is not complete. Although the road is open, the workers will come back and continue with more digging.
Therefore, if there is no statutory provision for reasonable notice—Saturday afternoon until Monday morning in this instance—I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain why there is no provision for notice, for monitoring, for an estimate for the duration of the works, for a penalty clause, or for compensation? As I understand it, none of those things is provided for; at least none has been accorded to those unfortunate people. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord only short notice, I hope very much that he can tell me why that was the case in the example I have given. If he cannot tell me today, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me and publish his letter.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I draw attention to the fact that so far the debate has revolved significantly around road traffic expressed in terms of vehicles. Perhaps I may point out that the greatest danger of inadequate resurfacing of roads—that is, inattention to detail in making sure that the job is done properly—is to two-wheeled traffic. Motor cyclists and cyclists have constant problems with uneven roads. Perhaps I may add that pedestrians also come into the picture. It is certainly the case that the cabling companies disrupted the pavements of almost every town in the country, causing enormous difficulties to people who have to push prams and pushchairs around their districts. Such people have no sanction at all against companies which have an absolute right to dig trenches outside their homes.
Some people may believe that the worst is behind us because the particular cabling associated with television cable companies is over. However, of course, as has already been hinted at in the debate, a fresh wave is about to descend on the country. It has already been experienced in Kent in terms of the development of the new telecommunications digital frameworks,

1315
which also require an enormous number of trenches to be dug across many parts of our country. Therefore, the problem will be significant and lasting. That is why we can understand the great public anxiety about those issues, which is reflected by a number of significant columnists. Simon Jenkins of the Evening Standard, for one, drew attention to the depredations upon landowners. He reflected that, just as the Visigoths attempted to make Rome uninhabitable after their visitation, the same experience is besetting Londoners at present by the extent to which their roads are in havoc.
I greatly applaud the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who indicated the way in which the City of London was approaching this issue. However, he will recognise that the City of London carries a particular punch when it comes to bringing together those great utilities which often, of course, want to draw upon the facilities of the City of London in other terms as well.
There is at least one other authority in Britain which is significantly successful in that way. I received a letter from Councillor Mike Olley of the City of Birmingham in which he says that we operate what we call a "FOG"—"fear of God"—scheme with regard to contractors and the people who commission them. We regularly monitor and follow through the monitoring, and we continually harry those who fail to meet their obligations. However, just as the City of London has particular power in terms of its financial dimension, the City of Birmingham is the second biggest authority in the country. I am not at all amazed that the City of Birmingham is able to wield such clout. However, the position for far too many of our local highways authorities is quite clear: they are denuded of resources and have limited ability to insist upon the consultation that is meant to take place before their roads are dug up. They know that there are more kicks than halfpence in chasing up those institutions. To be involved with the issue brings opprobrium upon the local authorities' heads when they have very little power to do an) thing about it.
That is why we should look at the way in which we can increase regulation. I agree entirely with the contribution by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Action is necessary in this area. Of course, it is possible to make the obstructer pay but that will require regulation and Acts of this Parliament in order to ensure that that is in force. That is what we are asking from the Minister today. From the process of consultation which has been going on and the responses that he has received, does he not have a case for early implementation of legislation which will empower our local authorities to safeguard their environment?
At present, enormous frustrations build up because of the blockage of roads. Britain's roads are congested to an extraordinary degree under normal circumstances. But this blight of a greatly extended number of roadworks by a whole plethora of authorities and utilities surely means that we must look at the way in which we can insist that those utilities fit into a common scheme of consultation; of
1316
payment where their contractors fail to meet their obligations; and perhaps we might even consider the representations which I know that the City of Birmingham has made to Ofwat. It was suggested that as part of the statutory performance indicators that Ofwat imposes on the water companies, there should be a requirement to keep their contractors under some kind of order with regard to that issue.
I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has done a public service in introducing this debate. It greatly concerns the nation at the present time. It behoves the Minister to make a positive and constructive response on the way ahead.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence in this debate since I can claim no great expertise in the matter of digging holes in roads; but perhaps that is not necessary. My viewpoint—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will be pleased to hear this—is that of the innocent passer-by. I am a pedestrian to my last toe. Therefore, I am well aware of the difficulties experienced in crossing roads; in smelling the fumes caused by the semi-stationary traffic; and, indeed, in my capacity as a local taxpayer, in terms of the cost caused by that seemingly extremely inefficient system.
I may also be considered to be the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus because I use public transport whenever I cannot walk to my destination. The stress and strain on the drivers of public transport—buses and taxis—is considerable. But I am also a local resident and I have to drive my car from time to time and pay for residents' parking, which also may be disrupted as a result of those works. Therefore, as a pedestrian, public transport user, car driver and local resident and taxpayer, I must say that the current scene in London is just too much.
It is not so much the principle of the work as the extent of the digging up. Travelling along Piccadilly has become torture. Whitehall and Parliament Square have been a mess for as long as I can remember. That picture is replicated throughout the City and the various boroughs of London.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Levene, said on this matter and I look forward with interest to hearing the results of the application of the voluntary code. But nobody so far has mentioned the reason why, at this time of year, there always seems to be a considerable amount of digging up. That is something to do with the funding of local authorities and the fact that local authorities realise that the yearend is close and they must spend all their money or give it back. It may be also that the elections for the mayor of London are a spur to the boroughs to do things before a new mayor comes in and attempts to do something else.
So clearly, it seems to me that there is a need for coordination or, at all events, more co-ordination among undertakers. That is not just between the public utilities and themselves or between themselves and the

1317
local authorities; there is also a need for more co-ordination between neighbouring local authorities and boroughs.
I know that there has been legislation in the past but the exceptions or exemptions for emergencies which are used as an excuse for avoiding the requirements of legislation do not help at all. I should be interested to know what sort of monitoring is carried out to see to what extent the existing rules and regulations are being observed.
There is also a clear need for better signs and explanations, times and dates of when work is taking place. My noble friend Lord Peyton said that clearly in his final remarks. But only at lunch time today, I heard a story from somebody who lives in a small village where all the roads were suddenly dug up but because there was a large sign saying that that was all in aid of a better water supply for the village, people relaxed and realised that they would have to put up with it and that it was worth the "aggro".
There is also the question of cost. I believe that my noble friend Lord Peyton gave an example of one street being dug up nine times in one year. The cost of that would be quite ridiculous. Oceans of money are poured out on painting red lines on roads to make red routes and as soon as that has been done, the roads are dug up. What a waste of time and money.
There is also the issue of residents' parking to which I referred briefly; and there is the cost in personal terms of stress and strain on bus and taxi drivers and everybody else.
Last year, my honourable friend Christopher Fraser introduced his Streetworks Bill as a Private Member's Bill in the other place. That was the Bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, in his comments. It proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, they would be required to take measures at their own expense to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow; to put up signs giving information on the name and contact number of the undertaker, and the purpose and date of completion of the work.
Undertakers who fail to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highways authority. The Bill also proposed the introduction, within six months of its enactment, of regulations provided in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which allows charges to be levied for occupation of the highway when works are unreasonably prolonged.
The Bill also provided for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on the calculation of the charges payable, depending on the length of time involved and the degree of obstruction and inconvenience. The Government blocked the Bill. Why did they do that?
To sum up, we have had legislation and proposed legislation and it has not worked or it has been blocked. What does the Minister suggest can be done to make effective any future legislation? We clearly need a financial incentive. What form do the Government suggest such an incentive should take,
1318
given the variety of proposals which have been aired this afternoon? Furthermore, how would that be monitored? Finally, how can the Minister ensure that there is joined-up thinking and planning in relation to digging holes in the roads?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like to add my support and gratitude to that expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for raising the subject this afternoon and for enabling us to have this debate.
I was particularly interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Levene, who has been in a position where he could do something about the problem and did so effectively. I hope that his example may be repeated and copied elsewhere. I should like to draw attention to two aspects of the nuisance to which these Keynesian holes in the road give rise. First, a case in London recently came to my notice where a hole in the road was made, the work which had to be done appeared to be carried out extremely quickly within the day, but the contractors' impedimenta remained on the pavement for many days thereafter: the barriers which they had put around the hole in the road and the little pile of spoil for which there did not appear to be room in the hole when they had finished. Those impedimenta clogged up the pavement and were a nuisance to those using the pavement for many days. I suggest that if there are to be financial penalties for lack of proper performance, that is one of the aspects which should be considered.
Secondly, I invite the Minister to comment on the need for some advance notice when there are roadworks caused by statutory undertakers—or indeed, anyone else—on trunk roads where there is only a single carriageway. I have certainly experienced during recent weeks a delay of up to one hour on a track of single carriageway trunk road in Wiltshire where some work was being carried out. It was not clear who was carrying it out as there was no notice, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has suggested there should be. It did not appear to be work on the road itself, but there was a lot of quite heavy machinery which had to be cordoned off. There was single way working. Lines of traffic in both directions were held up for the best part of an hour.
That situation could have been avoided at least in part if notices had been put up well clear of the actual obstruction before the junctions either side of it so that drivers who wished to do so could take diversionary action and divert down other roads to avoid the obstruction. That would have reduced the amount of traffic held up in the traffic jams, reduced the frustration, reduced the cost of petrol being needlessly burned as engines were kept ticking over and would have enabled people to reach their destinations more quickly. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his reply.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and to the noble Lord, Lord Levene. He made a number of good points on the feasibility of the way in which we must approach the matter. I shall direct my remarks to central London only.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that there were some 20,000 applications for roadworks throughout the country at a given time. I submit that all 20,000 are in central London at the moment. My main concern is not that holes are being dug. Let us face it: our roads are old, traffic is increasing and the need to dig up the roads, quite apart from maintenance, is increasing all the time. That is understandable and I have a good deal of sympathy with those involved. But I have no sympathy with tie fact that there is no co-ordination whatever about the roadworks in any local authority or any highway authority. We are not talking about little holes; large areas are cordoned off. You come to one and then just around the corner there is another one: and just around that corner there is another, so there is a triple whammy of traffic congestion because obviously no thought of co-ordination has taken place with regard to setting up the roadworks.
Furthermore, as I am sure that many noble Lords will have observed, there is no one working on a great many of the cordoned-off roadworks. I have passed them several times because of the debate and have taken careful note of areas where for periods of 24 and 36 hours there has been no work whatever. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, that it may be easier to control the City of London because a great deal of work in the City of London could be carried out at night. That is not always practical in the rest of London, but I certainly support the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, Steven Norris, who proposes that, wherever practical, roadworks should take place at night. I fully understand that many considerations and practicalities are involved, but where it is possible and feasible I do not see why that should not happen.
The other point which one has to consider with such horrifying crisis diversions in London is the amount of environmental damage done by the unnecessary pollution. As has been mentioned previously, the position of pedestrians is also affected. They often have to climb over mounds of earth which have spilled over from the roadworks at pedestrian crossings. They have to make their way around barriers where there is no proper crossing and often where motorists cannot see them.
We know that the Government hold the motorist in contempt. I believe that we have the most expensive petrol in the world. We certainly pay the highest parking fees in central London. I am not sure about car tax; but it must be high in the world league. We are given no consideration whatever by local authorities, the highways authorities and by everyone who already has it in his power to co-ordinate roadworks. I beg the Minister, when he comes to wind up, to give us at least an indication that the Government take the matter
1320
seriously and are determined to take matters in hand to see what can be done for what I describe again as a crisis situation.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for bringing this important debate before us. The quality of the speeches and the concerns expressed clearly demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government need to take the issues that he raised. I thank him also because, as has been indicated, he has given us a rare opportunity in this House. Normally debates in this House are—shall I say?—low-key, a little learned, detailed and reflective. If sonorous, they do not have the knockabout rowdiness of the other place but perhaps a sonority reflecting the worldly-wise experience of noble Lords. There have been few opportunities during the two years that I have been in this House for anyone to have a political rant, but the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has given us the opportunity today.
Like the previous speaker, I should like as a Londoner to concentrate my remarks on what has been happening in London over the past few years and what is happening today. If any noble Lord is not aware of the problem, I suggest that tomorrow he brings in his car, parks it in the car park outside and begins by attempting to go down Whitehall at any hour of the day. He probably will not be able to go down Whitehall, because he will find it significantly blocked at the Trafalgar Square end and he will probably have to go around Horse Guards. Having made it around Horse Guards and into Trafalgar Square, he will find that he is stuck also in Trafalgar Square because it is being dug up. If he negotiates that and then moves along Pall Mall, he will then find an enormous tailback of traffic coming from the blockage at the top of St James's Street in Piccadilly outside the Ritz hotel. Indeed, one might say that the blockage outside the Ritz hotel gives a new meaning to the expression, "The Ritz is open to everyone". One might think that there would be some respite, but I am told that the blockage at the top of Piccadilly will not be cleared until November this year, so we shall have intolerable delay in that area until then.
If tomorrow noble Lords try to drive past Victoria Station, they will find that that route is no better because Buckingham Palace Road is being dug up and that road will not be free of roadworks until early in 2001. I believe that Westminster Cable Television Company is responsible for that digging.
I agree with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. One solution to the problem could be for the work to be carried out after five o'clock. In the course of the normal working day, one can often see holes where no one is working at all. I believe that a prize should be given to any noble Lord who catches someone working in the holes, certainly around Trafalgar Square, which I travel past three or four times a day.

1321
Several years ago the question used to be, why is the Embankment being dug up at the same time as the Strand? In order for there to be an escape route, why is not the Strand finished before the Embankment is dug up and vice versa? That question is now irrelevant. The whole of London is being dug up simultaneously.
How has that happened? Many people believe that the fault originated with privatisation. Under the privatisation Acts and regulations, British Telecom, Thames Water and the cable companies have the right to dig up any road after merely informing the relevant local authority. Leaving aside the matter of the gas and electricity companies, I understand that currently 86 telecommunications companies have the right to dig up roads without permission.
London poses a particular problem because after 1991 those with the power to dig up roads without permission had no obligation to inform the local council. Since 1991 the obligation has been to inform central government because there was a suggestion that between the privatisation measures being enacted and 1991, local councils were delaying, attempting to co-ordinate and slowing up the process. Central government now controls by fax. I believe that all noble Lords would agree that if there is co-ordination we cannot see it, and if it being done by fax, the fax machine was long ago taken off the hook.
No government, whether Tory or Labour, have anything to be proud of in this regard. Of course, the Tories introduced the privatisation legislation that set in train those matters. John Gummer, when Minister for London, once boasted that there was no need for accountable separate government in London because he knew what was best. After three years, are the present Government any better? With bated breath we waited for the recommendations and the new policy that John Prescott was to unveil. A month or so ago he came up with a marvellous solution: contractors may no longer fax their intention to dig up London, but they must do so by e-mail.
As Simon Jenkins said a month ago in an article in the Evening Standard,
"Thus do fools fiddle while London burns".
For many years London has had an inferiority complex. We recognise that although Londoners account for 20 per cent of the population, they take a disproportionate amount of the country's resources. We recognise that we have a London-centric press that bores the rest of the country with stories emanating from London only. On that basis we have accepted hospitals bursting at the seams and even tube stations closing daily.
As regards holes in the roads, I believe that the people of London have now had enough. Can the Minister, who is not from the DETR—I am not sure why he is being used as the fall guy in this debate—tell us, to use a phrase of Simon Jenkins, when the scorched earth policy of the DETR on London will stop? If the Government are not prepared to do anything about it, will they give the relevant powers to the new mayor of London? I doubt it. There is an old
1322
saying, "When you are in a hole, stop digging". Now is the time for the Minister to stop digging and tell us what he proposes to do about the problem.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a timely debate as anybody who steps outside this House will see within a few yards of the door.
I come to this debate with a longstanding interest in these matters. I was the Minister of State in the Department of Transport who introduced the New Roads and Street Works Bill in this House in 1990. That became the 1991 Act which reformed the law on utilities' streetworks. It implemented the recommendations of the Horne report on the review of the wholly unsatisfactory system put in place by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. In doing so, the Act replaced an exceptionally out-of-date statute with a flexible, modern one.
To the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I say that the old gas companies, the old water boards and the old Post Office were allowed to dig up the roads long before privatisation. Privatisation has made no difference to that whatever.
The Act introduced new standards for the reinstatement of the road surface, with utility companies being fully responsible for reinstatement following their streetworks. That ended the previously confused divisions of responsibility between authorities and utilities. I believe that that part of the Act has been at least a moderate success. The Act also provided better control over the timing and coordination of streetworks.
Most importantly to this debate, Section 74 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring an undertaker who executes works to pay a charge to the highway authority if the work is not completed within a reasonable period of time, and it is that part, to which other noble Lords have referred, that has never been brought into force.
The problems caused by utility companies digging holes in the roads are a longstanding annoyance to road users, especially in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained to this House last month, there are now many companies that are entitled to dig holes in the roads in London alone. That explains the difficulties incurred around Piccadilly, to which many noble Lords have referred. Recently, the Evening Standard reported three major sets of roadworks managing to,
"effectively cut off one side of the capital from the other".
However, those difficulties are all too familiar. Cabling work has disrupted the roads around Parliament Square for some time.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is present during this debate. On this side of the House we regard this as a transport matter rather than one relating to the DTI.

1323
The Government have stated that it is,
"certainly the case that pressure has increased both from numbers of street works and from levels of traffic. And there is continuing concern among road users and others affected by these works".
I certainly endorse those words.
It is the case that the sheer quantity of companies who need to dig holes in the road has led to a proliferation of lie problem. Gas, electric, water and telecommunications companies all need, at some stage, to lay new pipes and repair old or damaged ones. That means that they all need to dig holes in the road. In addition, the inset of cable television has created a new need for companies to dig holes.
Although the Conservative Party welcomes the new innovations in all these technologies and the competition that they bring, it believes that disruption should be kept to a minimum and that roads should be left in a good state of repair. To those ends, the local authorities should use more foresight at the onset of major roadworks, in regard to both the works of utilities and their own works. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hooper that some of these problems are not caused by the utilities, but by local authorities.
Simple procedures, such as banning right turns when a carriageway is reduced to one lane, and slight adjustments to the timing of signals, can make a great difference to the length of delays. I came across an example only two or three days ago. The inside lane of a busy two-lane road crossing the South Circular road was blocked with roadworks. Consequently, all the traffic was in the outside lane and one car wanting to turn right could bring all the traffic to a complete halt. The resolution should have been simple. Right-hand turns should have been banned while those roadworks were in place. But, of course, nothing was done. Little adjustments of that kind can make an immense difference and resolve some of these problems.
The Government conducted a consultation exercise on this issue, which ended in January. In the course of that they cited Section 74 of the 1991 Act as a power that is already available. The consultation paper stated that,
"the Government believes that such a scheme could make a difference".
A second option put forward for discussion was the charging of rent for the stretch of road being dug up. Among other things, this could include a daily rate from the first day on site, with possibly higher charges imposed for London and traffic-sensitive streets. The introduction by the previous government of lane rental on motorways and trunk roads, where the contractor is effectively fined if he takes too long and rewarded if he completes the work early, has, I believe, been a major success story. Measures of that kind could be tried in this area as well. Other measures that could be considered include compulsory night-time or even 24-hour working in non-residential areas; and longer hours of work elsewhere. Even in residential areas, we should insist on a minimum of 12-hour working.
Above all, I put to the House a point that has not been mentioned so far in the debate but which was mentioned on several occasions by my late noble
1324
friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when we were dealing with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. I refer to the use of trenchless technology. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in this area? For those who are unaware of the technology, it requires the use of mechanical moles.
Press speculation has suggested that the Government are planning to take action to introduce a daily charge on utility companies for digging holes in the street and to impose heavy fines if they delay the completion of roadworks beyond the stated deadline. To those ends, the 1991 Act is vital.
The Government announcement, if it is to be believed—although I see no reason not to believe it because we find out about so many policies through the media these days— strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. That is because a little over a year ago the Government blocked a sensible Private Member's Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Fraser in another place. A number of noble Lords have already referred to that measure. The Bill proposed to allow charges to be levied on undertakers of roadworks. If such roadworks were unreasonably prolonged, it suggested the enactment of Section 74 of the 1991 Act.
The Bill also proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, it required them to take measures to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow at their own expense and to put up signs giving information about the name and contact number of the undertaker, as well as the purpose and completion date of the works. Undertakers who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highway authority. Indeed, some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, could have been discussed if the Government had allowed the Bill to have a Committee stage rather than blocking it at Second Reading.
At the time, the British Road Federation described the Bill as a,
"major boost to reducing congestion".
Furthermore, the Evening Standard encouraged constituents,
"to write to their London MPs to ensure that each and every one of them backs Mr Fraser's Bill".
However, I have good news because I hope that my noble friend Lord Geddes—who, sadly, is not able to attend the debate today—will shortly introduce such a Bill into this House.
It is not only the road user who is affected by such works. Pedestrians also face a hazardous journey to and from work or leisure in the capital and elsewhere. Pavements are dug up, then patched haphazardly, providing dangerously uneven walking conditions. Cycle paths that get in the way of the utilities are also left damaged by the patchwork of repair. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to the problems facing both pedestrians and cyclists.

1325
If the Government are to be believed when they state that they want to reduce the number of people who travel by car, pavements and cycle paths must be improved and the onus to clear them up must be put on the utility companies which create the problems.
In the July 1999 policy document, A Fair Deal for the Motorist, the Conservative Party made three pledges to improve the state of our roads and to reduce the impact of roadworks on Britain's motorists. First, we said that we shall improve road maintenance, and the visual and noise impact of roads on the environment. Secondly, we shall publish league tables of local authority performance on road maintenance so that councils which neglect roads are exposed. Thirdly, we shall penalise water, electricity, gas and telephone companies for excessive delays caused by their roadworks and use the money for local authority road maintenance. We shall place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks so that, at their own expense, they take measures to alleviate obstruction or improve traffic flow. Undertakers which fail to comply with their responsibilities will be liable for charges payable to the highway authority.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Is the speculation in the press correct; namely, that the Government are going to act on this matter? If so, can the Minister be more specific as regards the arrangements for charging rent and charging for work that runs over a specified programme? What was the reasoning behind blocking the proposed Bill in the other place last year? Will the Government now support such a Bill if it is introduced in this House, or would they support, for example, measures introduced into the Transport Bill when that comes before this House?
In conclusion, I should like once again to thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for introducing the debate. I hope that the Government have listened to some of the useful and practical points that have been made by other noble Lords this afternoon.
4.26 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the DTI, the government department responsible for granting statutory powers to dig in the public highway to the electricity, gas and telecommunications utilities. Perhaps I may say at the start of my remarks that we accept that this is an extremely serious situation. Furthermore, in answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, our ears are open and we are concerned about the issue.
In my response to the debate, I should like to focus mainly on the activities of the telecommunications operators. In recent years it has been the increase in their activities that has, indeed, changed the situation. The volume of construction activity by these companies has generated a high proportion of the
1326
recent comments and publicity about streetworks. New competition in gas and electricity markets does not generate the same level of streetwork activity since the vast bulk of new competition has been provided through supply companies using the existing Transco and regional electricity companies' networks.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, local authorities do now receive three-year funding so that there is no need to rush through expenditure in March—or at least, only once in every three years. There has been considerable improvement in that respect.
Repeated and prolonged streetworks by telecoms operators have, I know, caused extensive disruption in certain parts of the country. In London, the disruption has been particularly severe as a number of operators install fibre optic networks to meet the growing demand from business for high-speed, broadband communication services. The south-west and Kent have also faced their share of problems from the construction of communications links up to London from cable landing sites on the Cornish and Kent coasts.
The Government are conscious of the disruption that the installation of telecoms cabling can cause and want to ensure that it is kept to a minimum. Before addressing what is being done to achieve this, it may be helpful if I explain what has led to the increase in the number of telecommunications operators and why they have been granted special rights as statutory undertakers.
The previous government set in train the process of introducing competition in the telecommunications market, in infrastructure as well as in services. This Government are strengthening and extending that competition. The results have been remarkable. The liberalisation has stimulated investment in a world-class communications infrastructure, to the benefit of business and residential consumers alike. Prices have fallen as services have been both improved and widened. The cable TV industry alone has invested some £12 billion in constructing new networks over the past decade. We have seen ever-increasing numbers of new companies entering the UK market. Levels of competition in the UK are as great as anywhere in the world with around 400 licences having been granted to a wide range of telecommunications operators.
Prices for international calls have fallen by 50 per cent in the past five years and we can now call the US for as little as 3p a minute. Competition is bringing UK Internet access prices down. UK Internet users have a wide choice of providers and an increasing choice of pricing packages. The UK was the first market to see subscription-free services develop and take off; and now we are the first in Europe to see services which eliminate call charges too.
The Government welcome continued investment in the UK's telecommunications infrastructure. The modern broadband networks now under construction are vital to meeting the Government's target of making the UK the best place in the world to do business electronically by 2002 and to ensuring the

1327
competitiveness of the economy as a whole. For the interactive multimedia service of the future, a modern broadband infra structure is vital. Services like fast, always-on Internet access and video-on-demand require high bandwidth links. A competition-based approach is the right way to deliver this.
Some of the new entrants in the UK telecoms market are granted special powers to assist in the installation of their systems. Those powers, known as Code powers, enable companies to lay cable in public streets without the need for separate licences from local highway authorities and give them access to accelerated planning procedures. With those rights come obligations. Telecoms operators, in common with all utilities, are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act and its associated regulations. Operators' licences also contain a number of conditions designed to reduce the disruption resulting from streetworks activity. Those conditions are intended to reconcile concerns about protection of the environment will the overall benefit to consumers from increased competition and choice in telecommunications services. For example, their licence requires them to explore duct-sharing in order to reduce unnecessary digging; to install sufficient ducting for future growth in demand and so reduce the need for further streetworks; and to install ducting in footpaths rather than the road to minimise traffic disruption unless directed to do otherwise by highways authorities.
Many operators also pursue trench-sharing arrangements as a matter of course. It is in their interest to do so, not only to reduce the local impact of new construction, but also because of the cost benefits that duct trench-sharing affords. In Kent, for example, we understand that Level 3 Communications is sharing trench with at least one other operator on approximately 295 out of the 340 kilometres of duct being laid. In Parliament Square, as many noble Lords will testify, a number of operators have shared trenching.
Clearly, not ill licensees can dig up the public highway. Code powers are granted to those installing extensive infrastructure, in recognition of the importance of the services their networks can deliver. More than 80 telecoms operators have been granted those rights and use their powers differently depending upon the markets they serve. The principal categories of operator are mobile and radio fixed-access operators; cable companies; other fixed network operators; and international facilities operators. Mobile operators and radio fixed-access operators use their Code powers primarily to install masts.
The cable companies' Code powers are used to meet obligations to install local access networks to television and telephony. Their networks now pass 12.3 million homes, or 51 per cent of the population. It is estimated that total franchise coverage will be in the region of 70 per cent of total homes.
It is the last two categories—fixed network services for business and international communications—where we have seen the biggest rise in demand and
1328
increase in the number of operators. In fixed network services, at least half a dozen companies have built modern, national digital networks capable of carrying vast amounts of traffic. Several have built, are building, or are planning urban networks in London and other major cities. That has resulted in an intensely competitive market for transporting large volumes of traffic.
The volume of telecoms activity tends to be greatest where demand for high-speed, broadband service is highest. At the moment London is out in front in the use of digital technologies—65 per cent of business have dedicated websites and 83 per cent use external email. As demand for digital technologies increases throughout the country, so too will the need for new networks to meet that demand. This will not necessarily mean additional cabling activity; there will be the option in future for services to be delivered by radio. The Government intend to make available licences for radio spectrum later this year to provide broadband services.
In international communications traffic, the volume of streetworks is again a reflection of the UK's success. We were one of the first countries in the world to promote competition in telecoms infrastructure and we are the leading country in Europe in terms of ICT ownership and Internet use. The size of our telecoms market, and the telecoms expertise that is available here, has led many operators to choose London as the hub for their pan-European networks.
In a competitive world, pressures for more construction are inevitable. But the Government believe that we must take all the action we can to reduce the impact on people using our highways. The key to avoiding or minimising disruption from streetworks lies in a combination of measures, improving the existing controls and introducing new ones if there is a reasonable prospect of their being effective.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, in most cases undertakers must notify street authorities of proposed works. It is not correct to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, that there is no requirement to notify local authorities about streetworks post-1991. That is not accurate. The statutory undertakers have to notify highways authorities about impending works. The notice period varies according to the works and is longer when streets are traffic-sensitive. Authorities must keep a register of their own and the undertaker's works. This records notices, completed reinstatements and certain other information, and is increasingly reliant on electronic transmission via an Internet-based protocol.
Undertakers must reinstate the road to prescribed standards. Additionally, the authority carries out inspections of works, a proportion of them at the undertaker's expense. Where defects are found, further so-called "defect inspections" take place and are charged to the undertaker.

1329
Undertakers must sign, guard and light their works in accordance with a statutory code of practice—the "safety code". In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, it is already a requirement on statutory undertakers to say who they are and to give a telephone number. We are consulting on what further information should be given. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, statutory undertakers are required to remove signing, guarding and lighting equipment no longer in use. If it is still there after the work is completed, it can be regarded as an obstruction of the highway and proceedings taken against the operator by the local authority.
Street authorities must co-ordinate works in their streets—their own, as well as those of the undertakers. Undertakers must co-operate with the authorities and with each other. Co-ordination and co-operation are general sorts of duty, but they are a starting point. They were an innovation of the 1991 Act and put on a statutory basis the principle of both sides getting together at a minimum of quarterly intervals to discuss planned works, bringing in other interested parties, including other utilities, the police and local businesses and residents, as necessary.
There are already specific constraints on traffic disruption available in the Act. Street authorities may lay down the timing of particular streetworks and they can intervene to restrain an undertaker from overstaying in the road.
The detailed requirements are in some cases undergoing revision in the light of experience and consultation. DETR colleagues are finalising a new edition of the safety code; consulting on a revised inspection scheme; and considering consultation responses on proposals for a new edition of the reinstatement specification.
The 1998 Transport White Paper, A New Deal for Transport—Better for Everyone, committed the Government to
"consult on options for an incentive system, with penalties, to minimise disruption to all road users, and to encourage improved co-ordination of streetworks".
The consultation of October 1999 covered England only. In Scotland and Wales decisions about whether to consult on the introduction of parallel measures would be for the devolved administrations and, in Northern Ireland, for the Department for Regional Development.
The reason the Bill was blocked in the other place was that it occurred at the time of the consultation. As Government, we believe that if we are consulting people then we owe it to them to listen to their views before taking action.
The consultation document outlined two options which involve an element of charging as an incentive to efficient working, while not excluding other possibilities. These are, first, to activate unused powers in Section 74 of the 1991 Act to charge utilities for occupying the road for longer than an agreed period, and, secondly, to charge from the start of works. New legislation would be required to implement the latter
1330
option. It is proposed that highway authorities would be able to offset the costs of operating a system against the monies raised from levying these charges.
Analysis of the responses to the consultation has shown support for the Section 74 option to charge utilities for overstaying. The Government now intend to implement Section 74 and will work with the highway authorities and utilities to develop such a scheme.
I believe that this deals with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg. It is important to remember that the highway authorities have powers to direct companies as to their hours of work. It should be said, however, that there are often environmental and safety reasons—for example, reducing noise in residential areas—why local authorities do not want the work to continue in the evening.
The responses to the consultation also showed a widespread recognition that highway authorities' own works were part of the wider problem of disruption to traffic. We want to ensure that they operate to the same high standards that we expect of utilities and we will be working with them to achieve that.
There was also a widespread feeling that existing arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act could and should be made to work better. We know that there are initiatives in train to that end. The City of London code of practice, which my noble friend, Lord Levene, mentioned, and the Central London Partnership's proposals are examples of this. The aim of the Central London Partnership is to ensure that in central London, where principal routes are the subject of major roadworks, alternative routes will be kept clear of such works. This will require a considerable degree of co-ordination between London boroughs and between highway authorities and utilities. The schemes will begin in May, with the participation of a number of London boroughs. If these schemes are successful, the Government would very much like to see them extended.
We want to build on ideas like that and the Government intend to work with utilities and authorities to develop best practice in the coordination of streetworks activity and in the quality of work—making sure that it is done efficiently and properly first time—so that the standards of all are raised to those of the best.
Taken together, these initiatives should allow us to make real progress in reducing the disruption that streetworks cause, also seeking to reduce accidents—the very important point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to what the noble Lord has said. In the last six months in Westminster alone, once just outside Smith Square, Lloyds Bank dug a hole in the pavement which was there for a month; on another occasion, on the corner of Horseferry Road and Marsham Street, outside the new Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions building, there was a hole for three weeks.

1331
I telephoned Westminster council on each occasion. On each occasion it said that it found it very difficult to get contractors to come back to rectify the work that they had left.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I appreciate that there are always incidents and cases to which one can point. In those cases it is for the local authority to take the appropriate action, and they do have the powers to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey raised the question of a lane rental system. The consultation carried out by DETR included an option for lane rental. There was some support for this but not as much as for the Section 74 options that we are now intending to pursue. For the present we intend to concentrate on using the existing powers in Section 74, as well as working with utilities and highway authorities to develop best practice in streetwork operations.
Telecoms operators do already pay business rates on the infrastructure they install. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the question of trenchless technology. There are research projects in this area, but these need further development before they can be widely used.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave me notice of the point he raised about the road between Matfield and Horsmonden in the Weald of Kent which was closed for four weeks. There are a number of quite special features about this particular situation. Level 3, the company involved, applied for a road closure zs this would allow the company to complete the work within a shorter space of time than would otherwise have been the case. In the case of Horsmonden there is 900 metres of road, work on which will take a month—partly because there is a bylaw which says that, for safety reasons, two gangs cannot work within two kilometres of each other; otherwise the time taken would be less.
There is a requirement under the notification procedures to discuss with the local authority and other interested parties, for example, people who have fronts on the road. They must also give notice of the expected duration of works to local authorities. Information must be placed on the register of streetworks, which is available for public inspection.
The point about the penalty for over-running will be dealt with by the application of Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act.
Turning to the question of loss of trade during streetworks, which the noble Lord rightly pointed out is, from experience, a subject dear to my heart, there is no right in law to a given level of passing trade and no general liability to compensate for loss of trade resulting from fewer passers-by, except when something is done improperly. Sometimes businesses suffer temporary loss of trade owing to traffic flow disruption, along with other commercial uncertainties. The assessment is always difficult. What is a loss to one company is often of benefit to the other. The main
1332
difficulty in those circumstances, however, is to assess exactly what is the level of loss of trade which results from these works.
The Government are committed to ensuring the widespread availability of speedy access infrastructure at an affordable price. It is vital to the growth of e-commerce and the success of the British economy over the coming decade. This infrastructure inevitably involves new construction.
Real consumer benefits are accruing now and will continue long into the future, but the Government fully acknowledge the real concerns raised in this House today and more widely about the localised but often significant disruption that this construction can cause. The Government are committed to minimising this disruption by improving co-ordination of streetworks; by strengthening reinstatement requirements; by improving existing controls; and by looking at how the penalties can be imposed where the work takes longer than expected.
As I have made clear, we are very willing to consider new ideas about what more might be done, both in the context of the consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the New Roads and Street Works Act, and in the context of the future reform of communication legislation, on which the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are now starting work.
This is an important subject. As I hope my remarks have made clear, the Government are seeking to reduce disruptions while not delaying the immense benefits that will come from the widespread deployment of new communications technology.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a question to ask. The noble Lord kindly referred to the case about which I gave him notice, but he did not say whether he is content with the present situation; namely, that a business is apparently entitled to no notice whatever from the contractor—the "authorised contractor", under the legislation of the noble Lord's department—as to when the works will take place or how long they vv ill take. Indeed, there is no estimate whatever. Is the Minister content that that situation should continue?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that contractors are required to give notification and that they must notify the local authority as to the expected duration of the works. In this case, I believe that Level 3 Communications followed the procedure of handing out leaflets to residents. However, I have only just received this information. I shall look into the matter in more detail and if there are any further points that require action I shall most certainly write to the noble and learned Lord.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in an earlier intervention by the noble Baroness who I believe is one

1333
of the Government Whips it was suggested that someone was overspending his time in the debate. But the speaker was not doing so at all; indeed, I have been wondering why the situation has not been explained since then. However, be that as it may, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words.
We regarded this debate—at least I did—as a transport debate. However, although we acknowledge his ability, his eloquence and his mastery of his subject, the Minister replied in a way that did not cover the subject about which we were talking. I happily acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the Minister with responsibility for transport. It is awfully tiresome for a busy Minister who has no role to play in the debate to come here to listen to the debate. Therefore, I should like to salute and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his courtesy in being here and listening to what was said. Perhaps I may rub that point in a little by saying that I hope he will really reflect upon our debate from a transport point of view and that he will in due course take an opportunity to give us his views on the points raised today.
In the legislative cascade from which we suffer at present, I believe that we will be faced with a transport Bill before very long. I hope that the Government will be sufficiently in possession of their senses at that time to ensure that a transport Minister handles the Bill. I can promise the noble Lord that I shall be only too willing to help with all kinds of suggestions by way of amendments to the Bill which will give some effect to the points that we have raised today.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, replied to the debate with the utmost courtesy. The first half of his speech was quite clearly written well before the debate. That part of the speech expressed the reasonable point of view held by those who work in and advise the DTI; but that was not what we were discussing. The noble Lord came round in the end to touching on the main debate. In so far as he did so, his reply, as I understood it, was to say that he was content with the present situation; that Section 74 was all right; and that the additional powers suggested by my honourable friend at the beginning of 1999—that is, powers to fine those who default on time—were not needed. I believe that the latter was an extremely reasonable suggestion. But, with respect, the reply that we have received from the Minister did not address the question as to why the Bill was blocked. We have not received a clear answer to that question. That legislation would have given the Government the possibility of taking useful action.
Had the problem been eased since my honourable friend made that gallant attempt, there would have been no serious grounds for complaint today. However, the problem has not eased; indeed, it has multiplied and become much worse and much more acute. The Minister then went on to say something that astonished me. I believe that I am the only other speaker in the debate to mention the White Paper.
1334
I was astonished to hear a government spokesman refer to it as though it contained even a shred of an argument to back his inaction—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may make it clear that I made a significant point with regard to the blocking of that Bill; namely, that it took place during the consultation process on the question of Section 74, which deals with the option to charge utilities. If I did not make myself clear, perhaps I may repeat what I said. The Government now intend to implement Section 74 and will work with highway authorities and utilities to develop a scheme that will charge for overstaying. I thought that I had made that clear. It seems to me that that is a significant response to the debate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, to be fair, I did understand what the noble Lord said about the current consultation being the reason for blocking my honourable friend's Bill. However, I am afraid that I did not quite understand—though I do now—what followed. I understand the Minister to be saying that now the consultation is over the powers under Section 74 of the 1991 Act will be exercised—
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That is correct.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am pleased to hear that, my Lords. In that case, we are at least taking a slight step forward. However, I hope that there will be other steps forward. One of the issues about which I am particularly concerned relates to local authorities. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who work on local authorities. Their powers have been filleted and their resources diminished, but at the same time their tasks and their responsibilities have been greatly multiplied. I was seeking a simple answer to the question: what are the Government going to do to fortify local authorities in order to enable them to perform their complicated and difficult tasks? They need both muscle and resources. But, as far as I can see, they are not going to get them.
In view of the time, all I can do now is to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. However, I hope that I may register my sharp disappointment that the debate took on a DTI colour when what we were concerned with, both first and last, were transport problems. As I have no desire whatever to receive any Papers currently, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourism and the Rural Economy
4.50 p.m.
Earl Peelrose to call attention to the place of tourism in the future development of the rural economy; and to move for Papers.

1335
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move the Motion this afternoon and I should like to say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have agreed to take part in this debate. Perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest in that I am a shareholder in a company registered in Wales which provides quality control services for the tourist industry in both the private sector and in various government departments around the world—but not in England.
To get tourism into some degree of context, I can tell the House that the industry is worth £61 billion per year to the United Kingdom economy, which represents 4 per cent of gross domestic product. The overseas contribution—these are 1988 figures—was £12.7 billion, which was generated from 25.7 million visitors. Tourism in the United Kingdom employs 1.7 million people, which is 6 per cent of the UK workforce.
Another statistic which, I have to say, I find particularly interesting is that the British Tourist Authority, whose role it is to promote Britain abroad, does so on an annual budget of £37 million, which, incidentally, is less than that received by English Nature or the Countryside Agency. I was interested to note that it managed to generate £27 of expenditure in the United Kingdom for every £1 spent. I call that pretty good value for money. I used to have considerable dealings with the BTA both in the USA and Scandinavia in the days when I was more closely involved with the tourist industry. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to it. Not only was it always an extremely good body to deal with, but it was also extremely efficient. It represents us extremely well.
I also welcome the recently launched consultation document on rural tourism, Working for the Countryside. It is produced jointly by the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency. This is a significant partnership for it shows that the English Tourism Council acknowledges just how important rural Britain is to tourism, and the Countryside Agency acknowledges the importance of tourism to rural Britain. Whereas rural tourism may be responsible for only 20 per cent of the total value of the industry, in Cornwall, for example—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Arran will refer to this matter as, I believe, one of our two west country speakers in the debate—it represents 20 per cent of the GDP of the county. In many other rural areas, it will also have a disproportionate significance.
As we are all only too well aware, the farming crisis has concentrated every rural mind on opportunities to diversify. Many new enterprises have evolved, quite a number of which cater for tourism. However, we need to recognise that "farmer tourism", if I may call it that, represents only a small part of total rural tourism. It is important that we do not get too carried away into believing that tourism is the panacea for the crisis facing agriculture. Tourism is not an easy option that can simply be seized upon to meet a perceived demand but must respond to a better informed and more sophisticated customer. This means quality, professionalism, and, of course, value for money. That
1336
final element is difficult to achieve at the moment because of the strength of the pound, both in terms of expensive imports—if I may put it that way—and cheaper exports.
Everyone involved in tourism needs to remember that they are competing in a global market. Even a farmer's wife offering bed and breakfast in a farmhouse in Northumberland, an equestrian centre on Dartmoor or a Center Parc in Cumbria should not lose sight of that fact. I know several people on relatively low incomes who have recently travelled to Florida and regard it as extremely good value for money. We must not forget, of course, that Florida has sun, something which in this country is occasionally in short supply. Therefore, we have to make up for that in other ways. When I was involved in the tourist industry I was always told, as a rule of thumb, that holiday accommodation must always be as good, or preferably better, than what the customer experiences at home. The tourist boards can, and do, play an essential part in getting this message across by setting standards through quality control initiatives.
To illustrate that tourism is not an easy option it is perhaps worth noting that the average term of ownership of a bed-and-breakfast establishment in Scotland is only two years. So it is clear that there needs to be a proper appreciation and understanding of the business which will often require assistance for training, marketing and investment strategy. Whereas I welcome the recent announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of new resources to help rural businesses under the rural development regulation—I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will tell us what other opportunities exist—given the plethora of agencies, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would tell the House which one is specifically responsible for co-ordinating the strategy for helping new tourism businesses to develop in rural areas, and giving the necessary advice and support. Furthermore, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could also tell the House what steps the Government are taking to make planning policies more flexible to allow the conversion of existing rural businesses, which, I suspect, in most cases will be farm businesses, to those suitable for tourist activities.
When I used to visit BTA offices abroad I was always struck by the recurring themes that they used to promote the United Kingdom. There were always photographs of the Changing of the Guard, London buses, historical features, famous houses and, of course, the British countryside. But the point was that the "Britishness" and the traditions were always promoted. Sometimes I used to challenge that, but I was always told that that was what visitors from abroad want to see when they visit the UK. This was illustrated only too well recently when British Airways replaced the Union Jack tailfin with that ghastly psychedelic mess. I am glad to say that that situation has now been partially reversed, but, I think, only partially.
I am also convinced that if rural Britain is to continue to attract visitors, it must offer a working countryside with strong regional identities and must

1337
not at any cost slip into being some large, nebulous theme park. I believe that that point is well made in the consultation document. I regard my next quotation as an important statement. The consultation paper states:
"Tourism management should seek a balance between the needs of the visitor, the tourism industry, the host community and the environment".
The expression "host community" is a ghastly term, but I think that we all know what is meant by that. That point is well made, for I believe that it is imperative to avoid conflicts of interest. There is a real danger that the forthcoming right to roam may cause that kind of conflict unless the Government show more sensitivity on that matter than they appear to be doing at the moment in another place.
Clearly, increased tourism will help to maintain local services, but, equally, local services need to aspire to the needs of the visitor. There are also local produce marketing opportunities. Visitors who have had a good experience in an area may well buy the produce of that area if they see it on a shop or supermarket shelf. But, again, that will require specialist marketing—something that we in this country are not particularly good at and something which we must improve enormously. There are great opportunities there.
I also welcome the special commitment in the consultation document to market towns. For too long they have lost their status. They deserve to be restored as the thriving centres of rural communities. However, I believe that this revival must revolve around a combination of all that is best from the past—history, tradition and a sense of identity—and all the best that modern technology can provide. I am delighted to note that my local newspaper, the Darlington and Stockton Times, is running an effective market town revival campaign which has caught the attention of, and some useful promises of help from, two of the north-east's rural development agencies. I hope that those promises are converted into real help.
The downside of tourism is, of course, over-exploitation. We are undoubtedly witnessing areas such as the Lake District "being loved to death", as I believe David Bellamy said. I suspect that bold moves will be required to resolve this conflict. Great care will be necessary in the future to ensure that proper assessment procedures are in place to ensure that sustainability in all its guises—environment, infrastructure, transport, water, and sewerage—is thoroughly scrutinised. In other words, we must not destroy or irreparably damage the goose that has so steadfastly provided us with so many golden eggs.
There is a need to monitor the cost of tourism as well as the gains. I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware of the need to consider both sides of the balance sheet. This will require a clear lead from government in co-ordinating the aspirations of the various government departments and agencies involved. There are so many that I shall not name them, but they are all competing in their own way. That will not be an easy task but I believe that it is absolutely essential.
1338
I draw your Lordships' attention to one aspect of tourism which I believe is conspicuous by its absence, not just from the rural consultation paper but also from other government publications. I am talking about an activity that generated direct expenditure in 1996 of £3.8 billion and a further £2.4 billion in indirect expenditure; an activity that in the same year contributed £655 million to the Government in taxes and licences, and which provides directly over 60,000 full-time jobs, and indirectly just short of 31,000 jobs. I am, of course, referring to field sports, which, apart from one small reference to fishing, failed to get a mention in the consultation document on rural tourism.
Many of our remote rural areas generate substantial amounts of money from the letting of sporting activities, very often to visitors from abroad. This maintains employment in otherwise difficult circumstances and provides hotels with vital income, often in the difficult winter months. Indeed, many would not survive without this support. Furthermore, the knock-on effects to the local economy are obvious.
Much play—quite rightly—is made of the importance to rural tourism of maintaining high quality landscapes and the wildlife that is associated with their habitats. There is no better example of any other activity in the British countryside that has achieved this, maintaining and managing whole swathes of landscape that might otherwise have been damaged. What is more, this has been done, by and large, at no cost to the taxpayer, entirely through the incentives of those committed to their sport. This has often been achieved against a remorseless and ill-directed tide of money which has, in too many cases, supported an environmentally unsympathetic agriculture through the common agricultural policy. What is more, field sports have managed to keep the heavily subsidised forestry industry at bay in large areas of the hills which would otherwise have been converted into millions of ranks of sterile conifers.
From the purple heather hills to the woodlands and the copses of lowland Britain, to the rivers and wetlands that lie between, habitat and wildlife have been managed not simply for game but for a whole range of other species besides. Indeed, many of the SSSIs that we all appreciate today—some of which are now of international importance—would never have been designated but for the long traditions of field sports that have served this country so well for so long. It is about time that this Government recognised and acknowledged this hugely significant contribution to rural Britain, both in terms of employment, landscape, biodiversity and, of course, tourism.
One last point, which I think is extremely significant, is that it is important for the Treasury to recognise that in the absence of this enormous contribution of funds either the countryside would suffer or the gap would need to be filled from the public purse. I hope therefore that in the coming White Paper the Government will recognise the contribution of field sports as a positive contribution to the countryside as a whole

1339
In conclusion, tourism continues to offer hope to rural Britain and vice versa; but clearly great care will be needed to maintain standards and to ensure that a balance is achieved between what is positive and what could be negative. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, tourism is a serious business which we politicians do not take seriously. Mention holidays to us and we are thinking how quickly we can pack our bags and get away from Westminster, and not of how we can help an industry which provides 350,000 jobs and, astonishingly, an £11,500 million spend in Britain's countryside each year. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for giving us the opportunity to debate the new English. Tourism Council and Countryside Agency document, Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside, and to the Government for their active engagement with the vital tourism and hospitality industry. After all, leisure and pleasure provide a higher percentage share of jobs and prosperity proportionately in our rural areas than in our towns and cities. Those who cheerfully work in the tourism and hospitality trade should be regarded as the heroes and heroines of British industry.
Of course, tourism's fortunes provide a sharp contrast with agriculture, fisheries and forestry, which are industries in decline and now represent only 4 per cent of economic activity in Britain's countryside. It must be right to prompt and promote this healthy adolescent of tourism while farming convalesces from its current woes.
We should not, of course, overstate tourism's restorative powers. The loss of the Synchatron project at Daresbury in Cheshire will not be compensated for by the fact that Daresbury is the home and birthplace of Lewis Carroll, himself a potent visitor attraction. We need more than that to bring a feline grin to our faces in Cheshire; but every tourism-related job helps.
In placing our faith in tourism and in diversification in the farming industry, we must advocate sensible policies to help such diversification to work. The fact that the average term of ownership of a bed-and-breakfast hotel in the Highlands of Scotland is a mere two years should give us pause for thought. Such enterprises desperately need support services, such as good SME business advice, marketing and networking, to make them truly sustainable.
With that caveat, let me nevertheless voice my optimism about tourism and give your Lordships' House some examples from Britain's finest county, Cheshire, of how constructive tourist policies can revive flagging businesses in the countryside and bring new ones to fruition. The Cheshire Fine Food Trail, for instance, acknowledges that British farming and food production is changing in nature, and does something about it. The previous emphasis on quantity food production is replaced by highlighting quality and specialist foods. Thus The Cheshire Fine Food Trail, a free map which entwines tourism and economic development, gives information on some of Cheshire's
1340
finest food, including cheese, ice-cream and venison, and mixes information on visits to producers with knowledge of where to find a local pub on the country trail out of Cheshire's market towns—a win-win result for producer, publican and public. It is one which I know will be appreciated by my colleague from Cheshire, the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton.
The use of modern technology is crucial to another Cheshire initiative, which will have in addition beneficial environmental results. The proposed launch of A Walker's Cheshire will attract visitors to the remoter parts of the county by providing a dedicated walker's website for the dedicated walker, thereby refreshing those parts of the county that other tourist trails do not reach. In this, of course, the trail is a paradigm of tourism itself. Tourism is quintessentially an industry which successfully penetrates the nooks and crannies of rural Britain where other industries fear to tread. Strengthening the countryside for the tourist has the happy consequential effect of strengthening its supporting infrastructure—pubs, post offices, banks, shops and transport—to the distinct advantage of those living and working in the countryside.
But more can be done. The Working for the Countryside document asks whether the British Tourist Authority should have a role in promoting Britain's countryside in its overseas literature. The answer is a resounding "yes". Here is how and why. Last week, returning to Cheshire on the train, I came across four American tourists in my carriage. As we passed Peckforton and Beeston castles—local landmarks eight miles out of Chester—our visitors wondered what castles they were and what incidents of English history they concealed. It occurred to me there and then how the railway carriage might itself have contained an explanation in written or televisual form of the historical panorama that was passing before our eyes out of the carriage window, and that such an explanation might, in turn, have prolonged their stay in my home town by encouraging them to explore Chester's fascinating hinterland of historic castles and comely countryside.
One other thought occurs to me. It is the fact that in two years' time, those American visitors will be jangling euro coins and notes in their pockets. Are Britain's village shops and guesthouses literally ready for change and to change money? They, and we, will need to be, to maintain a competitive advantage over other EU countries which will have the advantage of a single currency available in town and country. It is not just Britain's farmers who will profit from the euro. All the countryside stands to gain.
Mention of Europe brings me to a deficiency of the Working for the Countryside document, whose first key issue underscores the need to,
"ensure co-ordination between national, regional and local initiatives",
entirely omitting mention of vital European links. In an earlier passage, allusion is made to European tourism policy. In my view, it is vital to maximise use of funds and policy initiatives concerning Europe's rural areas which can so perceptibly benefit Britain's

1341
countryside. It is one reason why I believe that Britain should be foremost in encouraging tourism to be accepted as an EU competency at this year's intergovernmental conference.
I have one word of caution, however. While warmly welcoming EU rural initiatives like the LEADER + programme and the Objective I moneys, which will bring employment to west Wales, Cornwall and Yorkshire, I hope that the Government are rigorous in vetting those moneys applied under the rubric of tourism. Such moneys should be spent in the most sustainable way possible. Tourism should not be enlisted as a catch-all for second-rate schemes which cannot be pigeon-holed elsewhere in development programmes, as has sometimes happened in the past.
I have two further points. First, there is much anxiety about housing development in Britain's rural areas. I share those concerns but recognise the need for adequate social housing. But why should such developments not be of the highest quality in design and materials? Would it not be a tourist attraction to build some new villages in the countryside which have, say, the architectural merit of the Italianate village of Portmeirion in north Wales? I am sure that we have the talent in this country to construct new-build that satisfies common objectives of much needed housing and distinctive architecture. I should also love to see the siting of a new-build art gallery in Britain's countryside, as an outrigger of Tate Britain perhaps, similar to the Kroller-Muller museum at Otterloo in the heart of Holland's countryside, putting art at the heart of Britain's countryside.
Finally, I return to Cheshire for my final suggestion which relates to fox-hunting and drag-hunting. Some of your Lordships, I know, fear job losses in our rural areas should fox-hunting be abolished. I share Sir Paul McCartney's belief that drag-hunting as a substitute will not only preserve jobs but could increase them. After all, there are many in the equestrian community who abhor fox-hunting but who love riding. If hunting were rid of its most unacceptable feature—the killing of the fox—more of those attracted to the pageantry, colour and display associated with hunting would be drawn in as visitors; indeed, as tourists. In addition, would it be too fanciful to suggest that a museum could be inaugurated in a hunting county like Cheshire to explain the development of hunting in Britain and its transformation into the safer and more inclusive sport of drag-hunting? Perhaps the urban fox whose trail runs through Downing Street might pass that suggestion on to the Prime Minister, whose supreme interest is to help Britain to transform itself into a modern, tolerant and outward-looking country, fit for heroes to live in and for tourists to visit.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for initiating this debate and for so ably calling our attention to the place of tourism in the future development of rural policy. We have had many debates on rural issues in recent months. This is yet another aspect of rural development. As we heard
1342
from my noble friend, tourism creates jobs and, bringing £11.5 billion to the economy of rural areas, it creates incomes for many local people, shops, post offices, banks, pubs and others. However, as he so rightly said, it is no panacea in the farming crisis which we face at the moment.
In many cases, tourism has created indirect support to local people who can enjoy more varied services, since none of those services could survive on local business alone. But it is an irony that the viability of local business is strengthened by the tourist pound, while the strength of the pound in the United Kingdom and government's failure to redress the balance through the agrimonetary system over recent months have already driven many people from the land, and young people are losing faith in any prospects in farming or work in the countryside.
It has been recognised in many debates in this House that the negative effect on rural economies through a strategically weakened agriculture is likely to outweigh the benefit provided by support for non-farming interests. It is equally recognised that neglected hills and upland, or unfarmed lowlands, is not an option if we are to encourage tourists to visit those attractive areas which we ourselves enjoy, bearing in mind that growth in the tourism industry can lead to a major source of employment. In the context of tourism, protecting the environment and contributing to the rural economy, social fabric and maintaining an attractive, habitable and viable landscape for the enjoyment of others are vital since few people wish to visit a barren waste. At the same time, there are negative effects of traffic congestion, dealing with large crowds and clearing litter. It is not surprising that environmental policy has been, and still is, seen as contradicting the objectives of development policy. Therefore, the core of our consideration should be focused on finding the right balance rather than on making a choice between "enhancing the tourism industry" and "considering environmental consequences" out of context.
Any attempt to achieve such balance ought to include the extent to which tourism may prove a major cause of environmental harm against the prospects of long-term economic sustainability. In finding that balance, the emphasis should be on finding suitable and justifiable grounds for interaction rather than shifting ingredients at random, from the one bowl into the other.
The first task is to decide on assessment criteria focused on impact and control, bearing in mind that tourism includes a variable determined by seasonality, and therefore an important factor in calculation procedures. Seasonality is not necessarily a detrimental factor if the right formula can be applied—in other words, based on the spread of income and expenditure. Assessment criteria should also include each and every option to maximise the benefits of tourism such as improvement of public transport and roads, which will be of benefit to schools and other organisations all year round. Assessment criteria should not ignore issues such as space available on trains. For example, if people want to take their bikes on the train, they have to book in advance and

1343
space is always limited. Compare that with the position in Denmark, where trains are crammed full of cyclists and their bikes.
With reference to the way in which the Government decide on assessment criteria and the subsequent recommendations, I hope that in his reply the Minister will comment on press speculation regarding the imposition of tourist taxes and congestion tolls on popular beauty spots under a blueprint for a reform of the countryside. What form would such schemes take? A Cabinet Office report suggests that they could be useful in rationing access to overcrowded areas and generating revenue to invest in improving local infrastructure. The authors of the inquiry said that the package could form the basis for the most radical transformation of rural policy for 50 years. It certainly would be. In setting out to modernise one of the last untouched aspects of the post-war settlement, the report also calls for an overhaul of the planning system to give more support to enterprise.
Rural tourism requires good transport links, and the Government appear to be proud of their achievements. Perhaps I may quote briefly from a report to the Tourist Summit. It stated:
"We are developing a modern, safe and efficient transport system for the 21st century that will rival the best in Europe. We have made great progress since the 1998 White Paper".
That was written before we heard the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Peyton on holes in the roads and the experience of those who have attempted to get from Euston to this House in reasonable time. As my noble friend rightly said, the matter requires a transport debate. A debate on tourism is equally important.
The report cites successes: for example, £1.8 billion to improve local and public transport and road maintenance over the next three years; £700 million to implement transport plans produced by local authorities; and £3.3 billion of private sector investment for t £6 billion Channel Tunnel rail link. Those figures are impressive. However, will the Minister explain how the Government intend to put that money into rural transport and how the sum can be positively interpreted against the huge amount taken out of rural areas: for example, by stealth taxes on the motorist?
I repeat: rural tourism will prosper only if the countryside is managed correctly. Unfortunately, the Government's Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is a missed opportunity to address the real problems of the countryside such as over-development, badly sited mobile phone masts, loss of rural services and the crisis in agriculture. So the challenges facing rural areas are often thwarted by increased legislation and unnecessary regulations leading to increased costs and, therefore, the demise of smaller rural businesses, with negative influences on entire communities.
Educating urban people about rural issues brings its own conflict. Such education is essential to meet the objectives of improving tourism, recreation and field sports, which are important in the countryside, and to meet the needs of those who derive their living from the
1344
land and those who are concerned with wildlife and habitats. Comprehensive consultation is required, based on well-balanced socio-demographic variables. The outcome of any analysis of views needs to be incorporated into an overall policy.
I declare an interest. I have the privilege of being president of the Cotswolds AONB. The area is known internationally as the quintessential English landscape, together with Cheshire. I am reminded that I have Cheshire blood in my veins. The value of such areas of "outstanding natural beauty" is less well known than it should be. The view from the hotel, bed-and-breakfast, holiday cottage, caravan or tent business, needs managing and requires investment.
The Cotswolds are criss-crossed by 17 local authorities, three Government Offices, three RDAs, and three different tourist boards. As we speak, my AONB is meeting with a variety of accommodation providers to explore the potential for visitors to add a nominal sum to their bill to reinvest in the countryside. We need to exploit those natural resources in a way in which provision for tourism also provides for and assists local communities and services, not limited to improving provision of rural transport but also tourist information points within pubs and post offices, as well as realistic opportunities to promote local produce and local food, which is extremely important.
The need to remove barriers to rural tourism should be given full consideration and requires a review of the assessment criteria. It should take into account the benefits of dialogue with such bodies as AONBs and the need to brief tourist information centre staff on opportunities for tourism and recreation.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for introducing the debate. Perhaps I may comment from a broad standpoint. Effective tourism is in some respects intrinsically at odds with too great an intervention on the part of government. What people look for most when they travel—whether they are Britons travelling within Britain or people from abroad coming to this country—is difference, flavour, idiosyncrasy, variety and diversity.
Two days ago, I spoke with the chief executive of the East of England Tourist Board, Tess Wright. She wrote to me, making the interesting point that,
"One of the key motivations behind travel is the opportunity to experience somewhere different. Yet widespread travel and the harmonisation of cultures is making the world increasingly homogenous".
How true that is; and how true and universal it is of travel abroad. I suspect that our concern for the natural ecology will one day be seen as rather bizarre against our almost total lack of concern for the human ecology and the variety within it.
I put it to the House that, in spite of their good intentions, many of the initiatives put forward by previous governments as well as this one have, if anything, a suffocating effect rather than a liberating one. Some noble Lords may have obtained from the

1345
Printed Paper Office the Draft Regional Planning Guidance for—in this case, my native part of the world—East Anglia. I have in front of me one of two volumes. If one looks at the section devoted to tourism, sport recreation and the arts—which seem to go together these days—one will be fairly surprised to realise that there is now in existence a so-called Cultural Consortium for the East of England (CCEE).
It goes alongside the Development Agency which will no doubt have been established last year for your Lordships' regions as well as for mine. In East Anglia we are lucky enough to have the Government Office of East Anglia, the East of England Local Government Conference, the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities (SCEALA) and the East of England Regional Assembly, to name but a few.
We need to face up to the fact that a great deal of the work of these worthy bodies is completely ineffectual. I do not for a minute want to disparage those who produce such reports, but this is a massive, two-volume consultation document, and respondents had to reply to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions within two months. Anyone who is familiar with the speed with which local organisations work, the cycle of their meetings and the need to consult wider groups than merely committees, councils or whatever other bodies one is talking about knows it is nonsensical to pretend that consultation on a massive document of this kind, which covers huge areas—tourism, sport, recreation, the arts and a great deal else and their overall planning—is an effective exercise.
My second point is related to the first. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware of the fantastic "killer" document Rural Economies produced at Christmas by the Cabinet Office. There is some very good stuff in it. However, such documents have a dirigiste quality about them. For example, at one point Rural Economies talks about new commitments to rural communities and a specific commitment to market towns, which was also touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. But the document goes on to say:
"The Government should consider introducing a new commitment to market towns, recognising the key role these settlements play in rural economies and rural communities. This commitment could be realised in part by more effective integration of the wide range of existing initiatives and in part by the introduction of new initiatives".
We are inundated and drowned by task forces and initiatives. I fear that the citizens of this country are nowhere near many of them, if any. En masse, these task forces and initiatives have a psychologically disabling, rather than enabling, effect. I call to mind my home town of Sudbury and its council. I doubt whether many of those excellent councillors have any apprehension of just what is being done in their name.
It is about time that we looked at one root cause: the lack of vigour in some of the activities connected with tourism within the rural economy. Over the past decade the number of overnight stays by tourists in rural areas has remained static, while tourism in general and affluence have much increased.
1346
I believe that one of the keys to a healthy, organic and diverse tourist economy is the restoration of local government powers. Some noble Lords may regard that as a rather big idea to introduce into a specific debate; I do not. I believe that we must restore local autonomy so that, in turn, we can restore local diversity, variety and organic growth, not pursue initiatives that are showered down, however beneficently, from Downing Street, Whitehall, the regions or any of the new bodies, for example the Cultural Consortium for the East of England.
The key factor which underpins the long-term health of tourism is quality of life. Tourists seek a different and identifiable quality of life, and it is that which underpins the economic health of rural areas. It is interesting to note that 90 per cent of businesses in rural areas employ fewer than 10 people, which is a much higher proportion than in the country as a whole. Two-thirds of those small businesses are created by incomers who say that, overwhelmingly, the reason for siting them in rural areas is precisely the quality of life. I believe that the quality of life can be preserved, enhanced and diversified most effectively in rural areas if we look at, and act upon, local government powers. I say no more than that in view of the time that is available to me.
We all have our wish lists of particular improvements that we should like to see take place. For example, can we do something about the proliferation of road signs? Although this is a small point, it is at least as important as holes in the road. Road signs are a severe scar on many, if not most, rural areas.
Can we not do much more to promote the parish churches of this country? Rural areas are thick with parish churches. Many people, including myself, regard these churches as Britain's greatest single asset both internally and in terms of incoming tourist. Those churches are vastly under-appreciated and under-used. I commend the activities of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, who has initiated a scheme in Suffolk of assured church openings, with guidance to people on arrival to encourage them to sample, as they rarely do, the glories on their doorstep.
I refer also to local pubs and post offices. In East Anglia pubs close at the rate of six a month. Like post offices, pubs are crucial to both tourism and the health of local communities.
I refer next to local arts. I am a trustee of Gainsborough's house in Sudbury, which is a marvellous local and regional arts resource. However, the ability of that resource, and many other arts centres, theatres and so on to improve what they do and the facilities that they provide depends to a significant degree upon secure long-term funding. All arts organisations say that they do not have that.
We all wish for many things in this debate, but I hope that what I have said is of use to the outcome of it.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for introducing this debate and

1347
covering all the major points so splendidly. It was also a great pleasure to hear the noble Lord opposite extolling the virtues of Cheshire cheese. That is the first time that I have heard it from the Benches opposite. Let us hope that more noble Lords on the Benches opposite will extol the virtues of Cheshire cheese.
By chance, it was 10 years ago this month that I had the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. During that period I have taken part in innumerable debates upon the rural economy and the state of British agriculture under both governments. Both governments have expressed a good deal of sympathy with, and talked much about, the need to restructure land use, agriculture and the rural economy. However, neither government appears to face up to those issues which make it possible to carry out that restructuring. It is on that aspect that I should like to concentrate and put to the Minister a number of questions.
I declare an interest as chairman of an organisation called Enterprise Business Solutions which gives advice to farmers and others involved in country activities who wish to diversify. As other noble Lords have said, clearly this is not everybody's cup of tea. One requires special skills, facilities, finance and opportunity to diversify from a traditional agricultural holding to an organisation involved in tourism or any other economic activity. Once one has the necessary skill, the desire to change and the ability to work very hard to make other ideas work in a rural setting, one requires the finance and, above all, the necessary planning permission. I emphasise the need for planning permission, to which all noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred.
Successive governments have said time and again that if we want to restructure something the planning system has to be sympathetic, and take away the unnecessary legislation and controls which make restructuring virtually impossible. The question of how we encourage more interesting tourism in rural areas needs to be addressed seriously.
In his reply, I should like the Minister to tell me why the Government—they have been positive about support for economic development and the need to create jobs and foster new businesses—have made it a statutory responsibility on a planning authority to consider the environmental but not the economic issues of its decisions. If we wish to look at alternative ways of creating economic activities in the rural areas, and in areas of declining agricultural support, that issue has to be addressed.
I made the same points to the previous government. They took no notice. It does not look as though this Government will take much notice. However, the Minister who sits there smiling at me may change all that and generate some enthusiasm which we have not seen to date. I did not hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the previous debate. However, he generally comments on the fact that government ears are generally for decorative purposes only. On this issue, that has certainly been the case.
1348
Although we are debating tourism in rural areas, one cannot isolate it from the importance of tourism in urban areas. People often stay in hotels in an urban area—the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, nods at me. People can stay in the Grosvenor Hotel in Chester and yet wander out to the rural areas of North Wales, Cheshire and Lancashire. That relationship is important. One cannot isolate what happens in towns from what occurs in rural areas. Those who stay in towns bringing wealth and activity to those areas then move out into the rural community because they want the quality of the rural community. My noble friend Lord Plumb made the point strongly. People do not want to see dereliction. And if we do not assist other wealth-creating activities in rural areas we shall have continuing dereliction within our rural communities as farmers are more and more unable to provide the resources to maintain their buildings, hedges and land. It is important to recognise that the two factors are closely connected.
My noble friend Lord Peel referred to country sports and country pursuits. In many areas of rural economy they have been the key to maintaining activities. I do not speak of Cheshire or Lancashire but of parts of Wales and the more marginal areas where those are the only commercial activities which are attracting outside wealth. Many of us know Americans or people from Europe who come to Great Britain for country sports and country pursuits. They spend a lot of money, and they do not take much away with them. If they take a couple of pheasants they are lucky. The benefit that those people bring to our countryside must be appreciated. Without them, we have seriously to address the economic viability of those areas.
It is an important debate. I hope that the Minister will address the planning aspect which is key to the issue. I congratulate those who have taken part in the debate, and my noble friend who introduced it.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for so eloquently introducing this important topic. I have several interests to declare. First, I am legally obliged (which, I hasten to add. I much enjoy) to open my home and garden to the public. I try to farm and as such am custodian to 1,500 acres of beautiful rural Berwickshire countryside; and I should state that I am a life member of the Countryside Alliance.
As the Prime Minister finally admitted last Thursday, farming is in real crisis. He has urged those of us involved in agriculture to diversify. But in remote rural areas this is not possible. There is no alternative to farming on a barren Glenshee mountain face. However, with farming incomes being at an all-time low, tourism can and should provide a vital element of countryside income. I have to say, I find it deeply distressing to see how few Members of the Government are taking part in, or, indeed, for that matter even listening to this important debate.

1349
Well-managed quality tourism in rural areas provides employment and economic benefits in these economically fragile areas. Tourism also assists in sustaining local businesses, such as shops, pubs and hotels, through expenditure by visitors providing additional income which in turn enables such businesses to remain viable. In this way, local services for local people have a better chance of being maintained, which in turn helps to maintain a good quality of life for people in rural areas. In this way, tourism increasingly must play a key role in sustainable development in rural areas. A prosperous rural environment is vital to the British countryside. This is what tourists from both within and without the United Kingdom want to visit and, most importantly, to enjoy.
Tourism in rural Scotland has declined, while tourism to the cities has improved. In the light of that it is necessary to look at opportunities to encourage tourism opportunities in rural areas.
Traditional sporting activities, for example, provide a quality tourism experience and help to sustain local jobs. Those activities often take place in the "quieter" months from a tourism perspective and, properly promoted, would assist in extending the season which is seen to be so vitally important to Scottish tourism.
As regards informal countryside recreation—walking, cycling and horse-riding—legislation is proposed in Scotland and in England and Wales to increase opportunities for the public to enjoy the countryside. Such activities provide low impact, sustainable tourism opportunities, and along with traditional sporting activities can possibly extend the season.
Unfortunately the Scottish tourism strategy illustrates a lack of joined-up thinking, with these activities not being seen as a niche market. Specifically identified, they can improve tourism in rural areas. That is despite the fact that study after study shows that people visit Scotland for the countryside and landscape.
Prices for admission to tourist attractions are ridiculously low in relationship, for example, to sporting events. To give one small example, we at home this year are charging £6 per adult which entitles a visitor to three hours of enjoyment. Had the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, visited Murrayfield on Sunday he would have paid £35 to gain entry for 90 minutes of enjoyment. Twenty years ago we used regularly to get 14,000 visitors a year. What with the strong pound and the high cost of petrol in rural areas, we are now lucky to get 8,000 visitors as more and more UK residents take advantage of cheap package holidays abroad.
If, for example, we look at one aspect of rural tourism, in Scotland shooting, for example, accounts for 2,171 full-time jobs. A further 7,212 full-time jobs are directly or indirectly reliant on shooting. Fifty per cent of our tourism income at home this year will be field sports based. Direct or indirect expenditure on shooting in Scotland has steadily grown over the years
1350
and now exceeds £100 million. Thus shooting is vital to help maintain Scotland's rural population at around 20 per cent.
Outside rural areas the conservation benefits of shooting often go unrecognised. Conservation and shooting go hand in hand. Gamekeepers, for example, in Scotland have a management interest in 3½ million hectares. Forty-eight per cent of Scottish gamekeepers manage land that is in an SSSI; 15 per cent of them manage land that is in an ESA; and 13 per cent in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Over 150,000 people participate in shooting in Scotland. To put this into perspective, that is more than those who participate in nine other sports, including rugby and hockey.
I do not think that anyone realises the real dangers of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and, although a devolved matter, pressure must be put on him to withdraw it. The First Minister must persuade him, but if necessary this pressure must come from the Prime Minister himself. The horrific consequences of this Bill will be shattering for the rural economy, an important element of rural tourism for Scotland.
As sure as night follows day these same consequences will happen in due course in England and Wales, which will result in anarchy in the countryside. The real irony is that if such a Bill became law it still would not save the life of one single wild animal. It would also be extremely expensive to police. The mind boggles at the idea of helicopters patrolling the Lammermuir Hills twice weekly. And I cannot believe that there is a single Chief Constable in the country who would wish to spend his limited resources implementing this Bill.
The noble Lord's right honourable friend the First Minister was recently overheard to have said something along the following lines: "I do wish this hunting thing would go away—it is the civil liberty aspect which scares me". Surely there are far more pressing problems to be tackled by the Scottish Executive and Parliament. It must not be forgotten that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has admitted publicly he is only bringing forward this Bill to test the system. And it stinks.
One of the real pleasures of field sports is the people you meet. All classes and creeds are united in a shared love of the sport, a delight of wild places and the duty of care of our natural heritage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I urge Her Majesty's Government to be more imaginative with rural planning laws and to give rural tourism a higher priority.
The Prime Minister has often been quoted as saying, "This Government will govern for all the people". For those of us involved in rural tourism we have not so far seen much evidence of that. I urge Her Majesty's Government to put measures in place at once in order that we can all have a viable and beautiful countryside so that we can pass it on to future generations of this country to enjoy with pride.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate tourism and the rural economy. I agreed with all that he said, as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, particularly about the legislation before the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that many noble Lords in this House realise how vindictive it is and the dangerous repercussions which will occur in Scotland if it is passed unamended.
The countryside, the landscape and the rural economy must be in a healthy state if tourism is to prosper. At the present time it is not so. I am a farmer and I know that the farming element is at an all-time low. What are the Government doing about it? I am disappointed that there is no agriculture Minister on the Front Bench today.
For two years the industry has made it plain to the Government what a serious crisis surrounds it. Last week the Prime Minister called a summit, but at the end of the day all farmers believe that although £200 million is valuable, when spread over all the farmers in the United Kingdom it is a drop in the ocean. I hope that the Prime Minister made an impact on those representing the food chain who have a great deal to do with the prices that farmers must now accept.
It is important that the Minister brings home to his colleagues in MAFF and the rest of the Government just how serious the situation is. We must do something about the exchange rate, despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and we must urgently tackle the numerous rules and regulations which are thrust on farmers almost weekly. Without profitable farming as was rightly said by my noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Plumb, the countryside cannot prosper.
In the main, farming made the countryside: the woodlands, the hedges, the well-cultivated fields and the heather moorland, which takes a lot of managing. All that is due to good husbandry by the farming community. Yet they are receiving little thankful support from the Government. Farming supports the rural economy—the blacksmiths, the machinery operators and the feeding stuff mills—but banks and post offices are rapidly becoming non-existent.
I have seen the reverse. I was in northern New York State last fall driving in an area where farming has failed. There was nothing but derelict farm houses, broken fences, uncultivated fields and woodlands cut down without any sense of replanting. No one wants to see that. What tourist would want to see such dereliction of the countryside? As my noble friend Lord Wade rightly said, that will happen here if steps are not taken to make agriculture profitable.
We must also re-examine our national parks. We face overcrowding, litter and erosion of the hillside, which I can see through binoculars from my home in the south of Scotland looking into the Lake District. We know of the traffic jams, too. Sometimes they
1352
overwhelm the tourists and they will not return. I am certain that neither the New Forest nor the South Downs will benefit from becoming national parks.
It is all very well to say that farming must change, certainly within the CAP, but, as my noble friend Lord Wade rightly pointed out, that is not easy. Diversification, the conversion of farm buildings and everything else requires a cash flow and capital. Most farmers have neither. There may be grants from regions and enterprise in Scotland, but if one undertakes a major conversion of a farm building into, say, a tea-room, one ends up paying additional council tax. At the present time, it is not easy to develop alternative forms of income in the countryside.
Furthermore, if one wants to develop, it is essential to be in a strategically satisfactory position. It is no use developing around the corner, out of sight of the main road, because the majority of tourists will not leave the main road. Again, that reduces substantially the number of farms that can diversify.
The Government will—as, I have no doubt, will the Minister when he replies—take great credit for their rural transport plan. However, that does not affect tourists because they arrive in package tour buses and the rest come by motor car. Those with a motor car say, "Heavens above. I am paying nearly £4 a gallon". How on earth does that encourage anyone to visit the West Highlands of Scotland, where fuel costs even more than £4 a gallon, to see the great tourist attractions that we have there? I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite taken on boa rd the serious situation of rural transport relative to the cost of fuel, both petrol and diesel.
How right my noble friend Lord Wade was to raise the matter of the importance of planning. Anyone who is currently trying to get anything through any planning authority knows that it is a nightmare. The procedure goes on and on: as councils feel that they must try to be transparent, a month goes by as matters are passed to sub-committees and they come back again another month later, often ending up in an appeal to various Secretaries of State. It is very difficult to get through the planning procedure. We must try to find a more speedy and flexible way of obtaining decisions. Even if the answer is "no", that is something! When one is trying to improve the countryside, it is very dispiriting simply to sit on the fence waiting for it to crumble while nothing happens.
In the same way, I feel depressed at the attitude of the last and perhaps the present Government to objects in the countryside such as telephone masts, wind farms and pylons. I raised that matter in a debate in another place in October 1996, highlighting the exact damage that telephone masts caused in the rural countryside. Yet, even now, nothing has happened. Planning authorities have very little control over the erection of telephone masts. Almost every hill between my home and Glasgow or Edinburgh has a wireless mast stuck on the top. I believe that it is high time that we took a tougher stance and stopped it happening.
I finish by broadening a point which was rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, concerning country sport. Sport

1353
forms an extremely important part of the countryside, particularly for tourists. In particular, I want to highlight the lack of action in relation to fishing. A tremendous amount of money comes into the Borders—as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will know—from people who wish to fish on the Tweed and further north on the Spey, the Dee and the Don, and so on; yet all those rivers are being affected dramatically by the continuation of drift netting off the north-east coast of England. Therefore, it is an English responsibility.
The English have objected every time the Scottish Office has tried to resolve the matter; so, too, have the Environment Agency and its predecessors. Some licences have been reduced but last year the catch of salmon was up substantially. Every salmon that is caught in the North Sea will not reach the rivers of Scotland to spawn and develop fishing which is such an important tourist attraction to the country towns of Scotland and, indeed, to the North of England.
The Labour Party, which referred in its manifesto to an "anglers' charter", was going to do everything possible—move Heaven and earth—to help the fishermen. However, it has done nothing except to set up a commission which I believe is to report some time. However, when will we see action to ensure that the wild salmon of the sea reach the rivers of Scotland and the North of England? Scotland banned drift netting years ago. It is an absolute disgrace that England has not done so thus far.
All in all, I agree entirely with everything that has been said on this side of the House and, indeed, with much of what was said about Cheshire, except for drag hunting, which I do not want to go into now. I believe that the Government must look seriously at the way that they treat the countryside. They talk a great deal about it but do nothing.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is to be hoped that by his judicious and timely choice of this debate, my noble friend Lord Peel will succeed in obtaining from the Minister, when he comes to reply, at least a statement about when we shall see the rural White Paper. It has been hanging about for over a year and I believe that the time has come when we should know what progress has been made.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—a somewhat lonely figure on those Benches—that a national hunting museum is being established, quite correctly, at Melton Mowbray. However, I can give him some comfort that the historian of the Tarporley Hunt is on our advisory committee and is being extremely helpful. Departmental liaison Peers are now being appointed by the mass of special advisers that the leaders in the Lords now have. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is not at least supported by the appropriate departmental liaison Peer.
This debate takes place at a time when, as has already been said, the pressure on the agricultural budget is downwards and downwards. To counteract
1354
that, the new buzzword seems to be "diversification". Alternative activities hold out some future. I suspect that when the noble Lord comes to reply, he will make some play of the powers of the rural development agencies and the help that they may be able to give. The awful truth is that the rural development agencies have been stripped of the one power that would really help; namely, the ability to give grants for converting farm buildings and farm machinery. That was taken away from them and given to the urban development agencies. Therefore, those grants are no longer available. In fact, the rural development agencies represent, purely and simply, a way of trying to encourage people in the countryside to think in terms of European regions.
As has already been said, country life is now at a cross-roads between the mirages of city life, with its claims to social, economic and cultural advantages, and the growing demand for a better quality of life, far from pollution and other worries. Today, in the age of the Internet and telecommunications, rural dwellers have many strengths. Each year the statistics show the terrific desire and need of people to return to their roots. Let us look at the demand for countryside holidays, and the opening and visiting of stately homes, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who has already dealt with that point. At present, rural tourism, sport and accommodation to suit all budgets are a lifeline in the countryside, as are farm trails and, above all, the contribution made by country sports: hunting, shooting and fishing.
As my noble friend Lord Peel has already said, the total budget of the three country sports amounts to £3.8 billion a year, as researched by the Cobham Research Institute in 1997. I say to my noble friend Lord Wade that it is not just "a brace of pheasants"; the actual worth of game sold from the countryside today is some £18 million. That is a good many braces of pheasants. Even with the poor fishing, fishing is worth £0.65 million. Today, an income of over £9 million from venison comes into the countryside.
What have the Government done to help the 3.3 million people who go to rural areas to fish? If one talks to any fisherman today, what will he tell you? The biggest plague for fishermen is cormorants, which come in and decimate inland fisheries. One constructive thing that the Government could do would be to say that we shall have a "no fly zone" for cormorants beyond the high-tide area. They are a sea-nesting, sea-feeding bird and are not part of the English countryside.
What are the Government going to do about the grey seal population? When the fishing was good, the grey seal population was limited to 25,000. It is now 109,000 and growing at 8 per cent per year.
What will the Government do to help the fishermen regarding the fact that the Danes are now removing all the sand eels in order to fire their power stations despite the fact that there has been a report which says that sand eel fishing should cease? What about sea lice? I refer also not only to legal sea netting, but also to

1355
illegal sea netting. Those matters work against the 3.3 million people who come to fish in our countryside.
What will the Government do to help the 0.75 million shooters who come as tourists to rural areas? We were told that no action was to be taken against the shooting community; and yet the Home Affairs Select Committee is inquiring into the ownership of airguns, shotguns and firearms. It is to propose further regulations. Nobody seems to realise that if only the rules and law relating to airguns were properly enforced, there would be no more problems in that sphere.
What have the Government done to make it easier for more people to shoot and enjoy the countryside? They have banned lead shot over a wide area, far beyond the necessary wetland areas and have spread that ban to the inclusion of snipe and golden plover, adding to a quarry list. They are forcing people out of shooting simply because the price of non-lead cartridges is £16 for 25. That makes it a very expensive hobby.
There has been a complete failure to meet the demands of the Game Conservancy Trust that we should do something about avian predation and the densities, and have some experiments, licensed by the EU, on translocation of avian predators.
Finally, what are the Government doing to help the quarter of a million people who come into the rural countryside as visitors and residents to follow hounds, directly employing some 16,000 people and indirectly creating some 60,000 full-time jobs? It is not appropriate today to discuss the question of a ban on hunting with hounds. We all await the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is significant that The Times today states categorically that the Home Secretary will take no action until he has had time to consider the recommendations of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
In my county of Leicestershire, the money spent on hunting (and brought into one county) is £9.2 million, and some 240 direct jobs are involved. That is only one county's expenditure from a total annual expenditure of £243 million by the hunts of England.
In conclusion, I draw attention to something which I believe helps the countryside enormously and helps our tourist industry; that is, the marvellous part played by the quality of our sporting press—The Field, Country Life, Horse and Hound, and the Shooting Times. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willoughby on adding a fifth title and a fifth quality magazine to that list. Every single one of those magazines is read by four people. Whatever the circulation figures are, they should be multiplied by four. Their articles and their presentation of countryside matters whet the appetite of people for rural visits and sportsmanship. They make a notable contribution to our rural economy.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may make the point that what I sought to explain was that a visitor from
1356
Germany may spend, perhaps, £10,000 on a week's visit and all he takes home with him is a brace of pheasants.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, we should prefer him to spend dollars rather than euros.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to know that there is a Welsh dimension to the subject of this debate. I add my compliments to those already received by my noble friend Lord Peel on initiating this debate.
First, the Welsh farming unions and the Country Landowners' Association in Wales welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement last week of extra funding for dairy, beef and sheep farmers. But, of course, they regarded it as a kiss of life for a patient in need of major surgery; and farming in Wales is, indeed, critically ill and in need of intensive care if it is to survive on a sustainable scale. It needs long-term nursing and care to prosper. There is not much sign of that from this Government. Indeed, the Government seem to be totally at a loss as to what to do. Of course, we are extremely worried about that.
The crux of our problem in Wales is that so much depends on rural prosperity. After all, we are a country where the farming units are very small for the most part and, therefore, fragile in adverse economic circumstances. I am told that the average farm income is now below £5,000 per year. The dire effects of that are beginning to become visible in the countryside.
It is not simply the ancillary businesses in villages and market towns which are dependent on a successful, agricultural community. Whole swathes of life and the language and culture that go with the community are dependent on it. We draw our teachers, nurses and many of our professional people—doctors, lawyers and so on—from that community. If it is weak and its future unpromising, the whole fabric will disintegrate. That could happen sooner than many think, as some of your Lordships have already implied.
If I were limited to one example of the extent of dependence on the land and farming families, I should refer to my personal experience of attending a major North Wales hospital last year. I was really struck by the fact that a high proportion of the nurses came from farming families in the hinterland of the Clwydian hills.
Perhaps I should not have been so surprised as I was, but my stay at the hospital brought home to me very forcibly the extent of our dependence on a thriving, hard-working, conscientious agricultural and rural community and the human resources which that community provides.
We have heard already that people who live in rural areas have undoubtedly been hit very hard in recent years. There are not only the well-known difficulties— the farmers whose incomes have fallen so drastically in the wake of the strong pound and other problems—but there are also those relentlessly rising fuel costs of

1357
transport, heating and power and the constant erosion of essential services such as those provided by sub-post offices, the police and now the banks.
It seems to me, as a country dweller, that everything must be fetched and carried over ever-increasing distances these days. And it is not surprising that the talk among the young is of depopulation and even emigration. I only hope that the long-awaited rural White Paper referred to by a number of your Lordships provides an antidote to the Government's current complacency, for that is how it seems to the farming and rural community.
The other major recruiting ground for that hospital, the Glan Clwyd Hospital which I mentioned earlier, were the coastal resorts of Rhyl and Colwyn Bay, with their dozens of small family businesses engaged in various aspects of the tourist trade. And tourism too is a very significant employer in the Welsh economy. It employs some 100,000 people. One in 10 of the working population are engaged in it.
Its importance has been recognised by successive governments. The Wales Tourist Board was the first quango established in Wales. That was done by a Labour government in 1969. The board has achieved a great deal over the years, including the promotion of on-farm and rural tourism, often against the wishes of the traditional coastal resorts which saw their livelihood being sapped and taken away from them by rural enterprises.
I am sorry to say that the board now appears to have lost favour with the Labour Government, who hold somewhat giddy sway at the National Assembly in Cardiff. Its budget has been frozen for three years. That has occasioned a quiverful of parthian shots from the retiring chairman, Mr Tony Lewis, perhaps better known to your Lordships as a former captain of the English Test cricket team in the early 1970s—so he has served both countries well.
He has compared his standstill budget of £14.9 million with the Scottish Tourist Board's increased budget of £25 million this year and his marketing budget of £5 million with the Irish Republic's £30 million. I have a great deal of sympathy with the retiring chairman's somewhat plaintive tone at a time when Wales is yet again turning to the tourist industry to make up for jobs lost in the countryside. There is much to be said in support of his national action plan for the development of tourism as a counter to the diffusion and duplication and, indeed, dissipation of effort that one sometimes finds at local level.
The trouble with tourism as a remedy for the ills of agriculture is that many farming families have already diversified into tourism projects of all kinds. A well-known tourism figure in west Wales, Mr Ashford Price, described only last week how he was being approached by farmers for advice as to how they might further diversify. He said that 10 years ago he would have encouraged them, but now the market is saturated. I for one hope that he is wrong. There is a lot of potential and scope for the development of projects, particularly in field sports.
1358
A strong pound adversely affects the domestic tourist trade, as it does agriculture, but there is no monetary compensation to be claimed on behalf of the tourist industry. I might tell the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that the fact that the Valleys and West Wales have been declared an objective 1 area is not likely to be particularly helpful in relation to tourism. I understand that tourism-related projects are to be given a comparatively low priority and will be in competition with other service and manufacturing applications for funds. Of the total £1.2 billion to be made available over a period of years, it is estimated that the tourist industry will receive only 2 per cent—about £3 million—although it accounts for 8 per cent of Welsh gross domestic product.
I hope that the National Assembly, which apparently does not place tourism development high on its agenda, will give further consideration to the issue for the simple reason that tourism is likely to continue to be one of themainstays of the Welsh rural economy. I hope that the Assembly will have regard to the UK Government's guidance to the regional development agencies in England which have been strongly encouraged to co-operate in tourism development. I hope also that the Assembly will give urgent consideration to the suggestions put forward by the Welsh Rural Forum in its report Rural Wales 2000, published yesterday. There are some excellent ideas in the report.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are facing an extremely serious situation in the rural areas. I fear that it may all get worse before it gets better. My only hope at present is that the Minister will have some positive things to say when he comes to end the debate.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as president of the Southern Tourist Board and also as the owner of Beaulieu, one of the largest tourist attractions in rural England. As we enter the third millennium, it cannot be repeated enough that for some years tourism is and will be absolutely vital to the rural economy. It was not ever thus, as, from 1939, all efforts in agriculture were focused on growing more. Tourist related activities were thought to be invasive and were routinely discouraged. We now live in a different world. Agriculture is once again in crisis, and as a motoring historian I am reminded of the early part of the last century when the rural economy was entirely based on providing for the horse; be it hay, straw, blacksmiths, horse-drawn vehicles, vets, saddles and all the ramifications of hunting. Then came the car; prompting another crisis which not only revolutionised the agricultural economy, in particular altering agricultural practices, but also the look of the countryside.
As townsmen began increasingly to explore the countryside, so new facilities were required and so they have developed over the years in a peripheral way to the main business of farming; a nice icing on the cake for the more enterprising farmer. Now we have a new agricultural revolution. Farmers are urged to grow

1359
less, set aside productive land, plant trees and diversify. For many farmers, the crops of today are people, not fodder for horses. They need to be well planted in attractive places, tended with care and well managed so that they do not damage the environment. That is, of course, a problem facing the whole country, not only rural areas.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wade, who mentioned places such as Bournemouth or Blackpool, where, if one is staying, one is bound to enjoy the New Forest or the Lake District. They are like reservoirs for additional tourists. It is rather unfortunate, however, that some resorts selfishly want to keep their visitors to themselves and they deliberately try not to publicise the surrounding areas, which are sometimes of equal or even greater interest than those seaside resorts. However, I should like to compliment Bournemouth, which has long recognised that its attraction includes its surroundings and has marketed itself accordingly with great success.
Tourism affects the countryside in an all-pervasive way, not only through the obvious means such as coaches and caravan sites, but also through walkers, climbers, caravanners, fishermen, hunters and shooters, weekend sailors who go to rural coastal areas; in fact, everybody who wishes to leave the town for the country. The bulk of businesses that make up the rural economy and contribute to it are almost always small businesses, but by themselves they derive little benefit from the larger-scale campaigns of the national and regional tourist boards.
The regional tourist boards must concentrate their efforts a great deal more on promoting the benefits and management of tourism on a much smaller scale, indeed right down to parish council level. Unfortunately, such councils are too often composed of persons with rather NIMBY attitudes, who inevitably oppose even small and sensible tourist developments and then wonder why their area and many market towns face a crisis with high street pubs, shops, post offices, garages, local bus services and even banks closing. Those losses to the rural community are often compounded by the competition from large out-of-town shopping complexes with Sunday shopping, which is a great problem for historic houses at the moment, and 24-hour opening times.
There has been a great increase in farm diversification with such activities as "pick-yourown"—who would have thought before the war that one would be picking one's own sweetcorn? However, there is a danger of new farm-based attractions of small scale and poor quality damaging the existing market. There is much more scope to provide high quality B&Bs and self-catering accommodation, although planning restrictions, not forgetting the ever-increasing number of regulations coming from central government, can be a great obstacle.
It is important to stress that the viability of most small businesses in rural areas depends greatly on the contribution of tourism, particularly in the area of employment. At Beaulieu 200 people are employed which shows what can be achieved.
1360
Many commercial premises are seasonal and are profitable only if they close in the winter. More permanent retail establishments, such as a chemist's shop, would only just about break even if it were not for the summer trade. The selling and processing of films, the selling of first aid items, sun lotions and so forth, can increase turnover by 30 per cent which will make a shop viable.
I am convinced that tourist boards should follow the key theme of creating and marketing local distinctions of special and unique character, such as local customs, food, crafts and dialects, if only to counter the creeping sameness of so many of our high streets that are packed with McDonalds and Travelodges. Soon, when everywhere looks the same, there will be no reason to travel.
Destination marketing on a small scale is difficult, but the enormous expansion of IT and, in particular, the Internet, provides great opportunities for targeting promotion more accurately. I am told that when the Orkney Islands recently advertised its B&Bs on the Internet, the accommodation was sold out within a few weeks.
As MAFF is largely responsible for future rural economy and is now confronted with a bleak future for agriculture, I want to make a bold and rather radical suggestion. I believe that MAFF should seriously consider providing financial assistance and marketing advice to farms and other rural industries for tourist-related projects and developments. Surely, a farmer would find that advice more welcome than advice on how to grow more pigs.
I look forward to the forthcoming rural White Paper. We shall have to wait and see, and hope that it is not too late.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, early in the morning of 1st April 2000, Radio 4 quoted the world tourist organisation that predicts that this year the United Kingdom will receive 28 million tourists and that by the year 2020 the number will have increased to 54 million. That is a huge number.
In this well-timed debate, for which I thank my noble friend Lord Peel, we have heard what tourism is; what this country already has to offer to those who venture beyond London into our rural areas; and how the industry may be developed in the future.
I declare my family interest in farming and membership of the Country Landowners' Association, the NFU and the Countryside Alliance.
I want to talk briefly about the need to "manage" tourism, by which I do not mean loads of bureaucracy, the plethora of which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has referred to already. We have recognised systems of grading various levels of service; we have a national system of route signing; we have easy access to accurate maps at reasonable prices, and we have a network of information centres whose staff—as I can testify from a recent experience with the English Tourist Board—are helpful, well informed and swift to respond to requests for information.

1361
In that regard, I welcome the consultation document Working in the Countryside which will look, in the widest possible terms, at how tourism can be managed in the countryside. A balanced approach is absolutely crucial to any future policy. We must encourage tourism, but at the same time we must protect wildlife and their habitats.
The popularity of tourism brings new challenges and new opportunities, but it also brings pressures, especially on some of our most visited rural beauty spots. Growing numbers of tourists and day trippers travel everywhere by car because it is cheaper than paying rail fares for two, three or four adults and it is the only way to reach some areas. When they reach their destination, the vehicle is often unnecessary to the rest of the visit and a nuisance both to them and to the residents of whichever town or village they visit.
Many organisations, such as the Country Landowners' Association, the Local Government Association, the National Farmers Union, have warned of the difficulties of high levels of seasonal demand for water, for entry to historic buildings and for access to parkland and famous beauty spots. If such things have to be rationed in some way, they will lose their attraction and people will simply go elsewhere.
I have quoted the figures of 28 million tourists this year and 54 million in 2020. For that same period, the increase of visitors to Europe will be even greater. It is not only in agriculture that we are likely to lose out to our continental neighbours. If we do not look to our laurels we shall see a continuation of the trend whereby more Britons abandon their own country to travel abroad and more overseas visitors confine their attention to London and the main attractions of the Lake District, Stratford-on-Avon, Scotland, and Snowdonia.
Such a trend will not benefit the majority of our rural areas. The efforts of so many farmers and their wives in developing bed-and-breakfast facilities, to which other noble Lords have referred, in offering farm visits and holidays, and in housing craft centres will count for less. The need to encourage visitors to try the less well known areas is crucial. Transport is a key to that. Planning, mentioned by other noble Lords, needs to be dealt with in an imaginative and sympathetic way.
Britain offers many contrasts in a small area: not for us the vast distances of America, Australia or parts of the Continent; not for us the seemingly unending vistas of prairie or mountain. Tourists, whether home-grown or from overseas, can opt for the height of luxury or for the backpack and the youth hostel. They can choose culture in the form of the world's finest theatres, art galleries and concert halls or they can climb, canoe, skydive or simply walk. They can relax for a week, two weeks or a long weekend. They can join activities as varied as painting, music making, snorkelling or sailing, to name but a few. We should be proud of the variety that this nation can afford.
1362
Our rural economy must take full advantage of the range of activities that tourists of all ages and backgrounds enjoy and for which they are prepared to pay. Walking, cycling and horse riding are as popular now as ever. Farmers and landowners can benefit by offering traffic-free access to beautiful landscapes and perhaps challenging terrain.
Coming from Leicestershire, I can attest to the range of tourist attractions within the county. I shall mention a few because they highlight the problems and challenges that we face. On the sport side, there is motoring racing at Mallory Park and Donington Park; the canals give pleasure to walkers and boat enthusiasts; beautiful Bradgate Park and the Beacon Hill are free to walkers and soon, in some areas, to cyclists. The noble Earl is not in his seat today, but there is the Ferrers Centre for Arts and Crafts, which is a real tourist attraction. At the smaller end, there is the Stonehurst Family Farm and museum which was awarded the Leicester Mercury award for tourism only a year ago. There is also Twycross Zoo, the Birdland Centre with tropical birds, and fishing in our reservoirs.
In addition, Leicestershire, as my noble friend Lord Kimball has said, is the home of five of the best known fox hound packs as well as the Oakley Beagles and the Westerby Bassets. Those seven hunts make a great contribution to the economic activity within and around the county through direct and indirect employment and in the purchase of goods and services. They attract people from all over the UK and visitors from abroad, which is very important. My noble friend gave the House the figures.
Others enjoy riding for pleasure, as compared with for competing or hunting. Riders bring our farmers the opportunity to convert barns into stabling for riding centres, as some of my neighbouring farmers have done. Fishing and shooting, enjoyed by local and overseas visitors, play an important part in a county like Leicestershire.
Shortly we shall debate the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill in this House. It will place extra burdens on our land managers, and if some of the more practical requirements that are proposed in the Bill are not understood, appreciated and met, it may well cause a reduction in landowners' ability to attract tourists to their land. I hope that the Minister will pass that comment on to his colleagues.
Like other speakers in the debate, I have mentioned only a few of the many tourist attractions. Rural tourism depends on a thriving farming industry, a point made by several noble Lords. I refer to it every time I speak in the House. Farming is still in crisis across the whole range of food production. As others have said, the situation is not being helped by increased regulation, the early introduction of EU legislation, or the continuing pressure on our small abattoirs. All these factors are adding to the demise of agriculture.
Fortunately, tourists who come to visit the countryside seem to be permanently hungry. They are happy to enjoy the home-made fare on offer in our

1363
shops, tea shops, farm centres and pubs. Our locally grown and regionally known hams, cheeses, preservatives and sweets are enjoyed by everyone. This is a business activity which attracts young people. I was happy to note that recently two such young Nottinghamshire farmers who have branched out have won awards: one for a wholesale and retail ice cream business set up at her home; the other for turning his farm into a visitor centre using everyday animals, but also including some exotic species.
I was also pleased to learn of a campaign to tempt culinary tourists on a rural ride. Some £50,000 has been given to the Heart of England Tourist Board to pilot such holidays. The initiative brings together farmers, food producers and the tourist industry to produce a top quality package based on farms as well as hotels and restaurants.
Farmers are willing to adapt, to accept new challenges and to look at ways of encouraging tourism. However, I should reflect the views of other noble Lords and say that a saturation point can be reached beyond which it is not possible to keep on diversifying. I welcome the announcement made on 31st March that the Government will apply a zero business rate for horse projects on farms. Perhaps some relaxation of rules or pump priming for other types of farm projects might be considered. That would provide the stimulus that will persuade the agricultural community to diversify even further. In doing so, they will not only sustain agriculture and the production of food, they will also attract more tourism to rural areas.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Lord Peel for introducing this timely debate and I congratulate him on his excellent speech However, I should like to mention one minor peccadillo: my noble friend mentioned the strength of the pound, but no doubt that must have been a slip of the tongue. We are talking about the weakness of the euro here.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The last time I spoke on this issue, I did refer to the weakness of the euro.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. He was absolutely right to point out the extraordinary blindspot in nearly all official and quasi-official publications—many of them have been mentioned in the course of the debate—on rural tourism and the rural economy. Perhaps—as a result of the intervention and kind words from my noble friend Lord Kimball—I should declare my interests at this point. I am chairman of St Martin's Magazines, the publishers of Country Illustrated. I am also president of the Heart of England Tourist Board.
The blindspot identified so clearly by my noble friend Lord Peel is the significant contribution made to the rural economy by what I shall call "sporting tourists". I do not understand this pervading reluctance to admit to the blindingly obvious. In a
1364
sense I recognise the reaction as akin to that of the Victorians. Apparently, they were nervous of the sight of the female form, in particular legs, which were covered at all times by long skirts. As I understand it, they even went to the lengths of putting lace around piano legs so that no offence could be caused. Nevertheless, the legs were still there, only out of sight and out of mind. That appears to be the case today as regards field sports.
I have one or two of those official documents with me. They have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We can search in vain for even a fleeting mention of hunting, shooting, fishing or riding. The first, referred to also by my noble friend Lord Peel, is entitled Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside, while the second is entitled Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, and is a rather weighty document. It is full of marvellously flatulent jargon such as "sustainable development", "market segmentation", "inclusion", "exclusion", "integration", "the enterprise environment" and I believe, for my bonus point, that I found one reference to the word "overarching". It is full of little goodies such as a paragraph explaining that 29 per cent of men living in rural areas have been observed to drink more than 21 units of alcohol per week. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, might be interested to know that that probably includes even areas such as Cheshire.
Another document reports a survey conducted to see whether rural people are friendly. According to its findings, 40 per cent are very friendly and 40 per cent are fairly friendly; in urban areas, 60 per cent are fairly friendly. I do not understand the survey. Is it suggesting that there are many "fairly friendly" in urban areas but rather fewer in rural areas?
However, the documents do not mention field sports or riding, which I find rather odd. It seems a little careless, in particular after hearing the impressive figures given by my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Kimball which reflect the serious financial contribution made by field sports to the rural economy. Of course, sporting tourists have been with us for many years. Some noble Lords may be familiar with the works of Robert Surtees, in particular his novel, Mr Sponge's Sporting Tour. Mr Sponge was reputed to live on,
"nothing a year, paid quarterly".
As many noble Lords have pointed out, sporting tourists contribute a huge amount to the rural economy, whether they shoot, hunt, fish or ride. However, they will come only if appropriate services are available in an area which offers them the opportunity to pursue their interests.
I should like to move from the general to the particular, because it might be of interest to noble Lords to learn how in real life one such enterprise works. Close to me on the borders of Warwickshire and Gloucestershire there is an enterprise that offers hunting, pony trekking and riding lessons. It has 55 horses in work and 40 young horses coming on—95 horses in all. It sends out around 15 to 20 horses each hunting day during the season, which over the

1365
entire season amounts to around 300 horses. It takes more than 2,500 visitors on pony treks or rides and more than 2,000 people attend its riding school each year. The business has a turnover well into six figures and attracts visitors from America, France, Holland, Italy, Germany and Japan. However, those are only the foreign tourists; a great number of British tourists visit for a few days' hunting or a week's riding course or pony trekking in the Cotswolds.
The business is thriving because of the hard graft of its owners. Their success has absolutely nothing at all to do with Euro-dosh such as Objective 1 or 2, the Leader schemes, or one or other of the multifarious little Euro-enterprises which only give us our own money back again once it has been administered by Eurocrats. The owners' success is due to their own enterprise and hard work. Furthermore, their success generates other successes in the rural economy. Their stables employ six people full time and 11 part time. In particular, some of those part-timers are farmers' wives, whose income gives them an opportunity to contribute to their farm economies and to help towards the survival of their own farm businesses in the current harsh times for agriculture. If that is not contributing to the rural local economy, I do not know what is.
The organisation uses two professional saddlers to maintain riding equipment and three independent saddlery stores. Its general supplies—there are a lot of those, as can be imagined with keeping 90 horses—are bought from a local farmers' co-operative. It uses four local veterinary practices and gives regular work to three blacksmiths. Its vehicles are maintained by the local garage and fuelled at the local petrol stations. Let us not forget the feed requirements. With 90 horses, the business needs hay, straw and oats, which are all bought from local farmers and, I am told with a catch in the voice, at premium prices.
So we have this picture emerging of a successful hub of energy with spokes radiating out all over the rural economy. But the picture is not nearly complete. There is the pub; there are the local B&Bs; the builders; the repairmen; the plumbers; and all the people who are needed to keep such a large complex going and who have to be virtually on-call all the time.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball that this is not the time to have a debate on hunting, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, brought it into the equation. But it is worth saying that hunting plays an important part in the success of that business. That is a fact; it is not making any specific point. A lot of its other activities are seasonal: the riding school and lessons are seasonal. Hunting takes place during the five months of the year when there is not nearly so much activity on the riding and trekking side.
So the business is dependent on the continuation of hunting, as are the local pubs and the bed-and-breakfast suppliers. I have personal experience of that when taking my 19 units a week. They all say that they would find it difficult to keep going without the clientele they get from that business; in this area not so much from hunting, but from that business. To keep
1366
costs down, they need a large turnover, and profits on all enterprises are at the margins. So they need a year-round turnover before they make a profit.
That is just one example, but it is an important example in my part of the country and I am sure that there are scores of such examples throughout the whole of the United Kingdom that contribute that sort of measure of success to the local economy. I find it a little depressing, as I am sure do the owners of that business and those who run similar businesses, that they are not mentioned; that they are wiped out of the national consciousness when it comes to talking about the local economy. We hear all sorts of other comments, but nothing about the people who offer sporting holidays, even if it includes shooting, hunting and fishing. They are simply not mentioned.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in this debate to put the record straight. I am not attacking the Government. These are not government documents. But it would be nice to hear somebody say, "Yes, we recognise that field sports—riding, hunting, fishing and shooting—have a part to play in the rural economy", and perhaps the Minister might say that at the end of this debate.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord a question? What is wrong with drag hunting? Do we not get the best of all worlds with that?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as I said, this is not the time to go into a debate about hunting. If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would like to join me for a drink afterwards, I will explain to him the difference between drag hunting and fox hunting.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I too join the ever-increasing band of noble Lords congratulating my noble friend Lord Peel on bringing forward this extraordinarily important debate. As we have heard from so many noble Lords, the importance of tourism to the rural economy is enormous. It is all the more important at the present time when rural Britain is in a state of agricultural crisis and transition.
But I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in saying how distressing and worrying it is that there are so few noble Lords on the Government Benches this evening for such an important debate. I hope that the Government Benches will be fuller when we consider the countryside Bill in this Chamber. On the other hand, it may be a good thing if they are not and we can get our amendments through without too much hassle or worry.
As we all know, the Prime Minister has urged farmers to diversify, and many are endeavouring to do so. But the Prime Minister is saying nothing new. Many rural activities form an historic part of the rural way of life. They are a source of what one might term domestic tourism as well as international tourism. The debate this evening enables us to look at tourism in its widest context and face up to some facts that many people and public bodies seem reluctant to publicise.

1367
I should like to confine my remarks to the area I know best; that is, the West Country, where I live. It is one of the most beautiful, varied and most frequently visited parts of Britain. Our landscape, our villages, our houses and gardens, particularly those in Devon and Cornwall, are spectacular. Indeed, they are almost certainly the best in Europe at this particular time of year, the spring. And the tourism they generate is essential to the many rural communities that exist there.
In addition, we have high quality capital projects on the way; for example, the Eden Project. That is one of the flagship millennium projects and is attracting huge interest from around the world. Through the use of one-and-a-half kilometres of plastic domes 135 feet high, it will show how plants shape our everyday life. That is extraordinary. Indeed, the project is expected to attract 750,000 visitors each year.
The West Country is an area rich in heritage and tradition. Visitors are able to partake of an astonishing array of activities. But it is also an area of high economic sensitivity. Many of the more remote villages are what might be termed marginal in economic terms, and in maintaining that economic balance in favour of the local community tourism plays a vital part. As such, we must do all we can to encourage tourism while being sensitive to the countryside, its needs and its people.
Tourism increasingly demands quality. More and more people expect and can afford quality. Yes, they expect it; and, yes, they respect it. I refer to quality of accommodation; quality of service and food at competitive prices. But quality needs not only the resources to fund it, but also an attitude of mind and an understanding of what people want. A pride and satisfaction goes with the delivery of a high quality service, and ultimately the gain from it—the profit.
But many public bodies, even those charged with promoting and planning the future of rural Britain, fail to acknowledge the crucial role played by country activities such as hunting, shooting and fishing. One cannot help but suspect that that reticence is dictated by political correctness and not by a genuine understanding of the economic, cultural and management realities of local communities such as those of the West Country. If that is the case, then those responsible are doing a gross disservice to those communities and undermining the very work that they were set up to achieve. In doing so, they are playing recklessly with people's lives and future, and indeed the future of the countryside which we all cherish and value so highly.
In the West Country in particular, country sports are as important as any other rural activity and contribute hugely to the rural economy. Those activities attract large numbers of visitors from within Britain and overseas. What must be understood, as many noble Lords have said, is that for many communities they make the difference between survival and extinction. For instance, shooting attracts a considerable number of international clients who
1368
contribute substantially not only to local employment during the winter months but also to spending in the local economy.
Noble Lords may think I exaggerate the case for country sports, but some facts should serve to illustrate my point. The Rural Economy Working Group of the West Somerset District Council commissioned a report from the Centre for Rural Studies at Cirencester. It produced some very revealing figures. In looking at hunting, the study discovered that hunting brings in £5.5 million to the rural economy in the West Country, while the estimated value of sold shooting on Exmoor alone is £7.25 million. Add on feedstuffs and, in total, Endangered Exmoor has shown that country sports directly contribute £13½ million per annum to the rural economy and, even more important, against a background of a 70 per cent drop in farming incomes in the last two years. Let us not forget also the very considerable employment that field sports give on Exmoor.
One cannot but feel that if some other authorities and public bodies were to take their heads out of the proverbial sand, then the real importance of country sports to large parts of rural Britain might be realised. This should be an area of objective fact, not sentiment.
In addition to country sports, however, there is for instance the very exciting South-West Forest Project between Dartmoor, Exmoor and Bodmin Moor, which will create an area for the enjoyment of all and enable numerous country pursuits from walking to rally driving to be enjoyed, thereby providing valuable business opportunities and jobs in some of the most sparsely populated and vulnerable areas of the country.
Equally important is investment and government support for the hotel sector in rural areas. We have in the West Country an ageing hotel sector, which in many areas is struggling to remain in business. The stock is old; it is dated and tired; major investment is needed to upgrade some of the stock.
I realise that many of your Lordships may he thinking, "Why should government money be invested in tourism, let alone tourism in rural England?". My Lords, you may be interested to learn that tourism in the South West generates about £1,200 per head of population and in some parts it accounts for over one-third of GDP; but the central government support for tourism is about 20p per head of population—yes, 20p. That 20p per head of population in England compares with £6.49 in Wales and £5.07 in Scotland. If England were to have the same funding for tourism as Scotland and Wales, major product improvement could be made and new products developed and marketed. That would help this vital industry to help the rural economy to flourish once more. All the research shows that there is considerable potential to grow this sector. What is needed is public sector pump-priming funding.
Finally, my Lords, if any of us is in any doubt, let us remember that tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the world. Within the next few years it will

1369
be the largest industry in the world. It already constitutes the world's largest employment sector and one in six of all new jobs in the country is in tourism. We need to give our tourism industry the support it deserves, which will deliver the revenue, the business opportunities and the jobs so badly needed in rural England, particularly in the West Country.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject this evening. It is a particularly interesting subject because it links the tourism industry, which is an enormous and growing industry and one of our country's great success stories, with the rural economy, whose main and oldest industry, agriculture, is probably in the worst state it has ever been in, certainly in my lifetime.
In his recent day-trip to the countryside to persuade farmers that this Government have any interest at all in their problems, the Prime Minister, as one of his solutions to the terrifying collapse in farm incomes, gave advice that farmers should diversify into businesses apart from farming. It is perfectly clear from this debate that one of the options open to them is to diversify into tourism. It is equally clear that, while it may be an option for some, it is not an option for all and it is by no means an easy option.
King Charles II once said that a man could usefully be employed outdoors on more days of the year in England than in any other country—although quite what Charles II knew about outdoor employment, I am not entirely sure. Ignoring the fact that the weather this week has not been quite as spring-like as we might wish, I suspect that I might achieve some degree of consensus in your Lordships' House this evening if I were to suggest that many overseas visitors do not come to Britain for their holidays in order to sunbathe or to swim off our coasts; though I do accept that many of our natives bravely flock to our coasts each summer.
One of the main attractions of Britain for our American, Japanese and European guests is what has come to be called our heritage. Although it is clear that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland thinks very little of military ceremonies, the tens of thousands of tourists who flock to see the changing of the Guard, the Trooping of the Colour and the Edinburgh Tattoo would seem not to agree with him.
Furthermore, although this Government have shown scant regard for the past and its traditions and values, it is the past glories of this country, conserved here as nowhere else in the world, that form one of the main attractions for the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of visitors who come here each year. The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Eton—how New Labour must hate that!—Oxford, Stratford and Bath are among the favourite attractions; but they are not the only ones. The stately homes of England, from Chatsworth to Blenheim and from Berkeley Castle to
1370
Blair Atholl, teem with visitors in the summer, marvelling at their beauty, at their contents, and at the wonderful countryside in which they are set.
It is not just the great houses and estates that attract people, however; it is the British countryside that is the wonder of so many visitors to these shores, and the villages and farms that are scattered across it. Part of that attraction comes from the natural landscape; but no less of the magic comes from the fact that it is a living countryside, worked and cared for by those who farm and manage it. It is also important to remember that many of those areas which attract the most visitors are those which have been hardest hit by the current agricultural depression: Exmoor and Dartmoor, the Peak District, the dales and the moors of North Yorkshire, which my noble friend Lord Peel knows better than anyone; Snowdonia, preserved and protected for so long by that great Master of Hounds, Richard Williams, and his family, and now managed by the National Trust; the Lake District—John Peel country; the Highlands and islands of Scotland.
When the Edinburgh Festival and the Tattoo are over, thousands of visitors stream north into the Highlands, many to walk the mountains and moors; although how many recognise that the magnificent countryside which they are enjoying is the result of years of committed management of grouse moor, deer forest and salmon river, I have no idea.
There is clearly enormous potential, therefore, for further development of these great tourist assets, to enable them to be enjoyed by visitors from overseas and by holidaymakers from other parts of our own country. We need to recognise, however, that in order for this to be achieved some facts must be recognised and some problems overcome.
First and foremost, neither the visitors to our countryside nor those who live there want to see the countryside turned into a massive theme park. That would destroy the attraction both to visit and to live there. It is a cry we have heard again and again over the last few years; it is a very real concern and must be carefully considered. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in replying, will recognise and understand this point, as he has often demonstrated to the House his grasp of complex issues of style—for an issue of style is what this is.
The most important factor in achieving the right balance—and we have heard a lot about balance this evening—is that, in developing tourism in the countryside, account must be taken of the very different reasons why people visit. When I started speaking, I purposely mentioned the weather and the fact that it is not the prime motivating factor in choosing to go to some of Britain's wild areas, such as Scotland, the moors or the West Country. That is even truer in the colder months of the year. We therefore need a tourist industry which, if possible, offers attractions all the year round.
Whether or not it is politically correct, one of the main attractions of the British countryside is that, because it has been so well conserved, it is immensely appealing to field sportsmen. To sportsmen and

1371
women all over the world, Britain is a field sports Mecca. Thousands come here every winter to hunt, to shoot and to fish. The income they bring is essential to the communities they visit, because those are the most difficult and the most fragile communities. That income sustains them through the winter months when farm incomes are low and when the fair-weather tourists return to their cities. It is the focus of this not vast amount of income—but income in particular places at particular times—that is so important. This part of the rural tourist industry is essential to the survival of the whole and must not be underestimated.
One specific example of what can go wrong can be seen in Scotland; and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Kimball touched on it. The catastrophic fall in salmon numbers in Scotland in recent years had led to a corresponding fall in the number of visitors. No salmon equals no fishermen, and this has caused immense damage to that part of the tourist industry, which, in some parts of Scotland, is leading to hotel closures and job losses. Between 1991 and 1995 the decline in expenditure on fishing by tourists to Scotland was over 20 per cent, but it still managed to account for over £28 million of annual expenditure in those areas. Although I am not clear about this, I suppose that responsibility for tourism in Scotland now lies with the Edinburgh parliament, but one of the most significant causes—and my noble friend Lord Kimball will correct me if I am wrong—in the decline of the salmon is the continued activities of the north-east coast driftnet fishing, which operates under Westminster's jurisdiction. I am not confident that this will be addressed in time, although it has been raised in your Lordships' House four, if not five, times in the past few years.
Another example along similar lines is the unnecessary bureaucratic arrangements that we now have for visitors from abroad when they come to shoot in this country and bring their guns. We all recognise the importance of gun controls. It is now widely recognised that the present measures place silly burdens on law-abiding sportsmen and women, while doing little to hamper real criminals. I do not believe—again, I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that I have ever heard of a case of a visiting sporting shooter committing a crime involving a gun in this country. It is time the Government recognised that shooting is an important part of the rural tourist industry which, like fishing, brings income to the most depressed parts of rural Britain and to the community that lives there, and does so in the months when income is lowest. It also contributes disproportionately to the maintenance of the landscape, which is such a key attraction to other visitors.
Field sports, too, are at the centre of many special events that take place throughout the country every year. Where I live, on the edge of the Cotswolds—the other end from my noble friend Lord Plumb—we have, as noble Lords can imagine, quite a few visitors who come to see Our beautiful countryside. At present, almost on my doorstep, we are gearing up for the Badminton Horse Trials at the beginning of May. Over the course of the trials, over 250,000 visitors will
1372
make it the largest outdoor sporting event in Europe. During that time, many of the local businesses take more money in one week than in the rest of the year. That one week is essential to their survival. Every pub, hotel and bed-and-breakfast will be full to bursting point. I wonder how many visitors know that that event is only possible to stage because the hunting infrastructure at Badminton in terms of stabling and management of the landscape provides the facilities to run such an event. I also wonder how many people who have never been there realise that the biggest cheer that the crowd gives is when the hounds parade in the ring at the climax of the three days.
This is only one of many such events throughout the country—for example, the Game Fair and the many agricultural and county shows, like the Great Yorkshire Show, the East of England Show and the Bath and West Show. These are enormous crowd pullers from the towns into the countryside and are of immense economic significance. I shall give your Lordships only two statistics. They are both from Wales, which is not, in some cases, the centre of our rural tourist industry. However, both these things are reliant on field sports. The first is the Welsh Game Fair, which attracts 60,000 visitors a year and, the second, just down the road, is the Welsh Hawking Centre in the Vale of Glamorgan, which attracts 65,000 visitors throughout the year. Many of these visitors travel considerable distances to attend and provide ample evidence of the potential for rural tourism.
We are reaching the end of the debate. It will be clear to the whole House that tourism in the countryside is an important rural industry and that it has potential for growth and development if encouraged in a sensitive and thoughtful way. Moreover, it has the potential to generate vital income for hard-pressed farmers in some of the most depressed areas. But, more significant than that, I hope the Government realise that one of the most important aspects of rural tourism lies in the unique field sports that we have to offer in this country. They are not unique in the sense that no other countries have hunting, shooting or fishing, because they all do; they are unique in the sense that it is recognised across the world that the quality of the sport that we provide in Britain is greater than anywhere else.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will take a leaf out of what is perhaps a strange book; namely, the book of conservation in Africa, where it is increasingly recognised that the sportsman's dollar is the key to conservation and a burgeoning tourist industry; and that governments have a responsibility to help in developing this side of tourism rather than hampering it. Too many fragile rural communities depend upon the income generated in part by their field sports tourists to allow spurious ideological debates to threaten their livelihoods and ways of life.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for bringing the debate to the House

1373
this afternoon; and, indeed, for his excellent introduction, which focused particularly on the need for professionalism in the industry. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us some indication as to how the Government believe the small business service and RDAs will give guidance and help to the tourism industry at the sort of level that is needed.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned market towns in particular and produce marketing, which are both areas of great importance. The regeneration of market towns encompasses that holistic approach which many noble Lords agreed this afternoon is particularly important. The noble Earl also mentioned the "loved to death" honeypot areas. There is some best practice which needs to be more widely disseminated as regards how to deal with the pressure that especially beautiful landscapes bring.
I am glad that we have a Treasury Minister to answer our debate. I know that some noble Lords may perhaps be of a different opinion. But too often we have had debates about the rural economy and have been told in response, "Well, that's a matter for the Treasury". Therefore, it is a nice change to have a Minister with Treasury responsibilities on the Government Front Bench.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned trains and their importance to the rural infrastructure. I found the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about information on trains most interesting. Indeed, the French have huge signs alongside their motorways encouraging people to turn off the motorway, so there is no reason why that idea could not be more sustainably applied to trains. However, I was much less keen on the noble Lord's idea of a myriad of Portmeirions dotted around the countryside—lovely though that one example may be.
My noble friend Lord Phillips made some telling points about the importance of difference and diversity; indeed, that is actually what tourists who come to Britain are particularly looking for. My noble friend also touched on the "agencyitis" that is still inflicting small businesses and people who are trying to apply for grants. It was about this time last year that I introduced a debate in your Lordships' House on how we would be able to deal with the huge number of agencies that were being established. My noble friend told us this afternoon about the cultural consortium, which is in addition to the RDAs, government offices and the Countryside Agency.
There is still confusion among small organisations and businesses as to where best to go for help with starting businesses and obtaining grants. The Government need to give more thought to this, although the Minister will probably say that this matter will be addressed in the White Paper. However, as has already been mentioned, the White Paper has been put back twice to my knowledge. Indeed, it is now due in the autumn; but if we are not careful we shall find ourselves on the other side of an election.
1374
Several noble Lords mentioned the importance of cheese. I am especially pleased to be able to conclude and bat for Somerset in the way of Cheddar, just to balance the Cheshire and Leicestershire cheeses that were mentioned.
I should like to refer to the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, with cormorants. I do not make light of it, but I am reminded of the imaginative use that the Chinese have made of birds that like to fish avidly. They have turned them into a tourist attraction by making them fish for the amusement of tourists. I am not sure how that works out in welfare terms, but that is what came into my mind when the noble Lord was speaking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was quite right to draw attention to costs to landowners in the countryside Bill. I am sure that that is something which we shall discuss at length in your Lordships' House.
Tourism offers a way of linking what we value in rural areas to the willingness of the public to pay for it. I am not just talking about those who spend their money in rural areas; we need to show urban visitors what is achieved in the countryside and what it can offer. They may subsequently be more willing to see it funded out of the public purse.
Several noble Lords have said that tourism offers no solution to the agricultural crisis. It may be tempting to think that all farmers can run B&Bs and riding schools and therefore the agricultural crisis will go away. However, I believe that farmers are beginning to feel insulted at the continued suggestion that diversification will be the answer to all their problems.
Tourism, just like farming, is faced with the strong pound; in fact, it is a "double whammy" for rural areas. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, as regards the strong pound and the weak euro. The strong pound dissuades people in Britain from visiting our rural areas in that they are more likely to go abroad. A weak euro is, of course, irrelevant to Americans or those from the Far East. Nevertheless, tourism is increasingly viewed as being crucial, even in areas which have less of a tourism tradition. Short-stay breaks, weekends and out of season visiting must be encouraged; we cannot depend on a period of 10 weeks in a year.
I have listened to what has been said about hunting, shooting and fishing. Whatever our personal views on these issues, there is no doubt that the consideration of this matter by the Burns committee was long overdue. I understand that the evidence indicates that the contribution of field sports to the economy of rural areas is undeniable; and that my part of the world, Exmoor, was considered in this connection. Difficult ideological decisions will have to be made on this matter. However, as I say, the contribution of field sports to the economy of rural areas is undeniable.
I declare an interest as a councillor on Somerset County Council. Somerset is perhaps not one of the biggest tourist destinations. Many—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Arran, feels this way—may regard it as a service station on the way to Devon and Cornwall. Nevertheless, Somerset's annual tourist expenditure is

1375
about £385 million. We place great importance on extending the tourist season. All the local authorities in Somerset together produce a graphic and simple to use document, Somerset—The Facts, for tourist businesses. It is important in providing businesses with facts and some indication of the way in which they may choose to develop.
The fact that the county and district councils produce this document is particularly relevant as regards the way in which central government view the funding of local government. Local authorities are the prime movers in their areas in developing tourism and the local economy. However, central government fund those aspects of local government in the "other services" category as if they were less important. Local government focus on their own priorities for areas and they are hard pushed to find the money to fund tourism and economic development.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the funding of infrastructure in rural areas. I refer to trains in this connection. For some time we in the West Country have awaited the Government's response on the Eurostar connection. I believe that I first raised this matter in 1998. I am still not aware of any response. We are served by two London train lines and the A303, but Eurostar provision is essential to bring visitors from the Continent.
There is also the matter of the Government's role in Internet provision. In recent months the importance of the Internet has been emphasised in every way. It will be important to rural areas and to tourism businesses in terms of advertising on the web, booking through the web and asking questions about where to visit. Rural areas and rural businesses will lose out unless the Government resolve the following problem; namely, that unless you live within two-and-a-half miles of a telephone exchange, you can access only a very slow version of the Internet.
An article in the Financial Times last week stated that the Swedish Government are committed to building broad-band networks to reach every Swedish household within two years. The Swedish Government have committed funding to this project because they feared that the rural and northern areas of Sweden would be left out of the IT boom. I fear that rural areas in Britain may develop second-class economies because they do not have the necessary infrastructure to take advantage of our fastest growing method of accessing information.
The Government need to evaluate more precisely the role of the big attractions which receive lottery funding. We have heard about the Eden project, for example. However, we need to know to what extent the benefits are spread around and what strain that puts on the infrastructure. Tourism is not a stand-alone industry. This debate has been useful in highlighting the way in which tourism ties in with many other matters.
The document, Working Together—Communities, conservation and Rural Economies, published last November by the RSPB, the Countryside Agency and Cheltenham and Gloucester College, examines why
1376
10 European initiatives on rural development are successful. They are successful because they link economic, social and environmental aspects and they make clear which element is important in the various projects. Four of the projects were situated in England. It is one of the best documents that I have come across in terms of explaining the importance of combining those elements. I thoroughly recommend it to those noble Lords who are interested in that subject.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I join those who have thanked my noble friend Lord Peel for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject on which so many of my noble friends have expert knowledge.
All noble Lords who have spoken today have expressed pride in, and have spoken knowledgeably about, the tourism projects in their areas. We have travelled from Cheshire to the wilds of Scotland and the south-west. We have had a geographical tour of tourist delights in our isles.
As other noble Lords have remarked, this is a timely debate. Last month the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency published a consultation document, Rural Tourism: Working for the Countryside. In the same month the Conservative Party published its tourism strategy, Tourism Today, which addresses the issue of tourism in rural areas.
Noble Lords are right to say that it is important to ensure that rural areas receive their fair share of tourism spending, but that it is vital that we should not neglect the other traditional areas of the rural economy. Nor, of course, should we promote tourism in such a way that it damages the very countryside that attracts tourists in the first place. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed out how important it is to maintain a balanced approach to development.
Many noble Lords have, rightly, put the debate in the wider context of the widespread agricultural crisis. My noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Monro of Langholm pointed to the concern that the very fabric of our rural society is in danger of disintegrating. What can tourism do to alleviate such a crisis? Tourism has, of course, always been a key sector and, as we have heard today, its importance is likely to grow. Farmers should have the opportunity to diversify into tourism related businesses. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was right to point out that it is important always to bear in mind that the diversification should involve new quality businesses not only to attract tourists in the first place but also to ensure that they return.
Other speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft, have pointed out that it is not always possible for farmers to diversify. In some areas this is not an economic possibility, particularly where there is minimal infrastructure and where access is difficult. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy pointed out that we should recognise that many farmers have already diversified into tourism, with maximum effect; sometimes almost to saturation level. For them it is not a new phenomenon.

1377
Indeed, as we have heard, tourism often has a disproportionate significance to our rural areas. In Cornwall, expenditure by visitors represents more than 20 per cent of its GDP. In the south-west as a whole, landscapes support 43 per cent of all tourist-related jobs. I was very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Arran said with regard to the impact of country sports upon the area. I declare an interest in that I spend my summer holidays in the south-west. I shall certainly look more carefully at the impact of country sports on Exmoor and on the spending there. My noble friend was right also to refer to the importance in the south-west of investment in the upgrading of hotel stock.
Throughout today, my noble friends have been right to emphasise the vital role played in the rural economy by those who manage the estates and market the country sports. Several of my noble friends made powerful cases. I recall the arguments put forward by my noble friends Lord Kimball, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Mancroft. They spoke eloquently of the importance of that sector of the industry to our rural economy.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said in regard to in-coming tourism and its impact on the Highlands. I recall an occasion when I was staying in a highland hotel and found myself woken at 5 o'clock every morning by a horde of Italians. Before my noble friends get too worried, I should say that the Italians were on the other side of my hotel door, but at 5 a.m. every morning they went off to do their shooting. They brought absolutely vital income to that area of the Highlands.
Agriculture and countryside management are of key importance to tourism, as well as being important for environmental and heritage conservation, as my noble friends have pointed out.
But, as we have heard, there are many obstacles that face those who want to and try hard to diversify into tourism in rural areas, especially the obstacle of overregulation—the dirigiste culture mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton referred to issues of planning. I was intrigued by the questions he asked about statutory responsibilities with regard to the need to consider environmental issues but not economic issues. I look forward to the Minister's response in relation to that matter.
In particular, farmers who want to diversify into becoming attractions find that it is difficult to persuade local councils to agree to redundant farm buildings being turned, perhaps, into parts of the farm attraction—whether it is a tea room or a place where animals can be kept for visitors to see. What steps are the Government taking to remedy that problem?
All those involved in agriculture and who want to diversify have to cope with an increasing burden of legislation and regulation. Farmers are used to regulations—my goodness they are—but when they want to diversify they find a whole new set of
1378
environmental, health and health and safety regulations that they need to pore over late into the night.
I read an article in the National Farm Attractions Network which pointed out how many extra problems have been added to the list—certainly they are problems which never occurred to me. It referred me to a new publication which was issued last month by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That sets out the Secretary of State's standards of modern zoo practice. One might wonder what on earth that has to do with a farmer setting up a farm attraction. Most people think of a zoo as somewhere to see exotics such as giraffes or lions, but the actual definition is far wider.
For example, if I am a farmer and I run a family attraction centre and, along with my sheep and my cattle, I display an animal such as a dormouse or an owl—hey presto, my farm becomes a zoo which is subject to the new standards of zoo practice to which I have referred. There is a real fear among farmers that their farm attractions will have to close because of the imposition of these new standards. Noble Lords have referred to bureaucracy and extra rules in passing, but this is an enormous document. It seems that these rules are written and framed with a traditional zoo in mind; they are simply not appropriate for the farm attractions that they also cover, whether it be farms visited by children in the south-west, which have a very high reputation, or a farm being set up for the first time as a farm attraction in the heart of England, where my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke is president of the regional tourism board.
Farm attractions are not seeking to evade good management and proper health and safety measures—they are already subject to many inspections. They want standards imposed which are more suited to their size and to the nature of their operation. Why have not the Government published standards specifically tailored for farm attractions rather than for zoos such as London Zoo? Will they undertake to do so?
I recognise that the Minister carries many spokemanships in his brief; as far as I am aware, that of the DETR is not one of them. But today he is responding on behalf of the whole Government and I therefore gave prior notice to his office that I would be asking questions about these regulations, or "standards" as I believe they are officially called.
We have also heard of other problems. In particular, my noble friend Lord Plumb referred to the issue of transport and the fact that the future success of rural tourism depends on good transport links. But, as he remarked, the Government's integrated transport policy is in a mess. Any money that they put into rural transport seems to be more than cancelled out by the huge amounts taken out of rural areas by their stealth taxes on the motorist.
We have heard of how quick the Government have been to tell farmers and growers that they should diversify to find their salvation. The Government seem slow to recognise how difficult that can be, especially

1379
in the middle of an agricultural recession when it is so hard to attract investment to start up new commercial businesses in areas that appear at present to be failing.
Overall, there is considerable potential in some areas for wise and sensitive growth, but not in all. All of us have a duty to ensure that tourism plays its full role as a force for good, working for the countryside in its development in the rural economy. It is important to realise that tourism can never be seen as a panacea for the ills of the countryside. It is vital that we retain a healthy balance between agriculture, tourism and the rest of the rural economy.
7.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is to be congratulated not only on the way in which he introduced the debate but on the unanimity he has engendered among all speakers. I think that every single speaker has been seized of the importance of tourism to the rural economy, and the Government do not dissent from that. There may have been differences of emphasis—an objective observer from outside may think that perhaps the emphasis on field sports and on cheese went a little further than may be accepted by other people concerned with different kinds of tourism—but, with that very mild caveat, the noble Earl has achieved something quite significant.
The Government certainly agree that tourism is a key driver of the rural economy in many areas of England. We estimate that tourism in the countryside is worth approximately £9 billion a year, including £500 million spent by overseas visitors. The total amount of employment supported either directly or indirectly by visitor activity in rural England was, some five years ago, estimated to be 380,000 jobs, and it is almost certainly more than that now.
The industry has significant potential for diversifying the economy of the countryside—not only through agriculture but in many other ways—and for assisting in the socio-economic development of rural communities. Indeed, as many noble Lords said, the spending power of tourists in rural areas is the difference between viability and business failure in many local services which do not appear on the face of it to be as dependent on tourism as they are. Many excellent examples of that were given, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Many speakers, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and ending with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that tourism is not a panacea for deep-rooted rural problems. But it is a vital element in a thriving rural economy. Again, as many noble Lords said, if it is managed badly, it can damage the environment; but properly managed, it has the potential to benefit us all. It can have a positive impact on the environment and on the host community. The key is—this point was widely recognised in the debate—to manage tourism development so that it is sustainable.
We believe in a living countryside with thriving rural communities. We reject the idea of a division between town and country and we are developing policies in all
1380
departments. At the moment, I happen to be speaking with my tourism hat on, under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but, as noble Lords have recognised, I have to speak in the House for all government departments. Indeed, in a debate like this, that is absolutely essential. Certainly, I am not speaking for the Treasury, particularly at this time, any more or any less than for any other department.
We are aware of the similarities and differences between tourism in the countryside and tourism in urban areas. Nevertheless, they face continuing development pressures and we need to ensure that they contribute to the quality of the local environment and promote sustainability. It is a fact that the benefits of tourism are unevenly distributed across England. Some areas are overwhelmed. They suffer congestion and degradation. Others simply do not get enough tourists, perhaps because of poor facilities or poor infrastructure. I certainly do not want to single out particular areas in that way. Our strategy document of last year, Tomorrow's Tourism, places significant emphasis on the importance of rural tourism. It is no coincidence that the first of the 15 action plans in the strategy is a blueprint for the sustainable development of tourism to safeguard our countryside, heritage and culture for future generations. That has been the theme of this debate.
A number of noble Lords welcomed the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report on rural economies. That has demonstrated the need to modernise government policy frameworks so that we focus on encouraging support for productive, sustainable and inclusive rural economies. We recommended fostering the enterprise environment, lifting the burden of regulation—the noble Lord, Lord Wade, was particularly eloquent on that point—with planning controls which are more supportive of the needs of rural businesses. I shall say more about that later, but I wanted to mention it now to recognise its importance. There has to be increased support for farmers' contributions to the environment, better traffic management, better rural transport—I shall come back to that point—and improved access to the countryside. The point of all of this is that when we are looking at rural economies we see tourism as a key contributor to sustaining them.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that some of the press coverage of this document has not been entirely accurate. We certainly do not plan to have a mandatory congestion tax, as has been suggested in some of the press. This is, after all, a discussion document. Some of the points it raises for discussion should not be taken as firm government policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to IT and the rural areas. Yes, of course, some forms of broad band technology cannot reach more than a certain number of kilometres away from exchanges, but ISDN is available in rural areas. The Government are keen to see that IT is generally available.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked me who is responsible as the lead body for the strategic development of tourism in England. That is certainly the English Tourism Council, which was born out of

1381
the Tomorrow's Tourism report. Of course, because of the international aspect, it must do so in collaboration with the British Tourist Authority, but there is no doubt as to who is in the lead: it is the BTA and the English Tourism Council.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I certainly did ask that question, but I went on to ask who is actually responsible for helping farmers or anyone else in the rural community who want to develop the industry and need help and advice in formulating the business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for that, because there are many different problems and issues, there are many different agencies. But I do not think that there is any overlap between them. If one is looking for help for farmers, one looks to one agency. If one is looking for help in planning, one is looking for help in small businesses. Different people are concerned, but that does not mean that there is overlap.
I was pleased to hear the general welcome for the consultation document on rural tourism from the English Tourism Council and the Countryside Agency. Like many other noble Lords, I am looking forward to seeing the responses to that consultation document and to contributing to the Government's response to it. Yes, it is true that field sports are not included in the 22 key issues for consideration, but it is up to noble Lords to respond and to add field sports to the 22 key issues if they want to do so.
I was asked about the timing of the rural White Paper, which everyone appeared to be awaiting eagerly. That is also good news. Consultation is still going on. The discussion document was launched in February of last year. We have had about 800 comments, which are now still being considered. When that is complete, we shall publish as soon as possible. It is not possible for me to give a date for it, but I can say that there will be a strong tourism development aspect to the rural White Paper.
In case I neglect it, I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about zoo regulations. The revised standards of zoo practice were announced last month. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981, to which they refer, does not apply to farms, as farms do not generally exhibit wild species. If they do exhibit birds of prey, wallabies or animals like that, they will fall within the provisions of the Act as such birds and animals are not normally domesticated in this country. Perhaps I may finish by saying that there is a common theme here. We are concerned with the protection of the public from attack and the protection of the workers in zoos. Above all, we are concerned with public health, because there are issues here which affect wild animals, wherever they may be.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I shall do so briefly. Is he aware of the representations that have been made by the Farm Attractions Network with regard to the fact that it has
1382
been informed by the Government that farms will be affected because there are family farm attractions which have animals that are not normally domesticated in this country? One example given was of a llama; another was of a dormouse. I must admit that I have never yet felt under threat from a dormouse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have, my Lords. I am scared of all animals. Of course the views of the Farm Attractions Network will be taken seriously by the department.
This is a debate about tourism in the rural economy rather than a more general debate about agriculture. What we might say usefully about the very major problems and opportunities for agriculture in the context of a debate of this kind is quite limited. However, reference has been made to the Action Plan for Farming announced last week by the Prime Minister, with its £200 million pounds of funding. It is true that there are parts of the country and types of farm where diversification in to tourism is not possible. But there are many measures that could be of use in developing tourism in the rural economy.
For example, £6.5 million will be available for the provision of on-farm advice through the Small Business Service. A free consultancy service will be available to any farmers wishing to seek approval from the planning authorities for a diversification project under the England Rural Development Plan. There will also be a doubling of the regional development agencies' redundant buildings grant to £8 million in this new financial year. MAFF already works with farmers and with its agencies, including the agricultural development agencies, advising farmers working to diversify in to tourism—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. That will ensure that they are able to benefit from new initiatives such as LEADER + and the England Rural Development Plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a familiar but none the less serious complaint about there being too many agencies concerned with rural tourism. While acknowledging that there has been in the past a considerable degree of what might be called "iniativeitis", we nevertheless need to bear in mind that different parts of the country and different parts of the rural economies have different needs in terms of tourism development. This is not a case of "one size fits all". It is true that people with different needs go to different bodies for support. They approach the regional development authorities, on occasion the regional cultural consortiums, and particularly local authorities, specifically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
It is true that many of the powers of local authorities have been eroded over the years, especially under the previous government. But local government legislation under this Government seeks to restore powers to local authorities and in particular the power to decide for themselves how they spend some of their

1383
money. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will feel that that is a step in the right direction.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Plumb, spoke about planning issues and urged that our planning systems should be quicker and more flexible. I acknowledge the need for that. We are firmly committed to sustainable development and the need to integrate the environmental aspects of development with the economic and social aspects, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
Clearly, new tourism development must be assessed with all those points in mind, and planning guidance has been amended to take account of them. Publications by the DETR such as Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice is evidence of our determination to do that.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked how planning policies can be made more flexible. Tomorrow's Tourism aims to ensure that all tourism development is more sustainable by ensuring that it is aesthetically attractive and in keeping with the landscape. Again, that is why planning policy guidance is being revised.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the Minister on that point. He has not answered my specific point as to why there is a statutory obligation to examine environmental matters and no statutory duty on planning authorities to take into consideration the economic needs of their region. That has not been changed by any recent planning guidance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I acknowledge that it takes a great deal longer to turn around statutory obligations than it does to affect the way in which planning authorities operate through planning policy guidance—which is why, seeing the urgency of the noble Lord's point, we are relying on planning policy guidance at the present time.
Many noble Lords talked about the importance of rural transport. I was slightly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monro, saying that some of this does affect tourism. I suspect that he was referring to specific examples such as support for rural bus services. Much of our transport policy has been directed at tourism. One such example is the abolition of the air passenger duty in the Highlands and Islands, which I hope the noble Lord welcomes. Unfortunately, I am not sure that I am qualified to answer about Eurostar connections to the West Country since Eurostar is a private company and its network and timetabling is not a matter for the Government.
I was surprised to hear noble Lords talking as though there were a possibility that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill could actually damage tourism. I should have thought that the reverse was self-evidently the case and that access for a wider public to more of our beautiful countryside was bound to be helpful to tourism. The Bill contains protection for landowners. We shall be able to debate its provisions
1384
in detail when it comes before this House. I certainly reject the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it will turn England into a massive theme park.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said that this is not the time to debate hunting. Indeed, the Government will not make any public statements about the matter until they have received the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and have had time to consider it. The debate has been not merely about hunting but about shooting, fishing and riding. It would be perverse to suggest that those are not important parts of the rural economy, and they are important to tourism as well. There is no threat to those field sports. There are many ways in which the Government are acting: our approach to infrastructure, accommodation and access will undoubtedly help field sports.
I could refer to the daughter document to the transport White Paper on inland waterways, which will include, for example, angling issues. I do not have time now to go into the detail on the others, but I could refer to the Rural Enterprise Scheme. The annex to the published scheme refers specifically to the needs of riding schools. I could certainly refer, if I had more time, to the Small Business Service and the importance of what it is able to do for small businesses in rural areas. After all, tourism in rural areas is largely a matter of small businesses. I acknowledge the validity of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Harrison, Lord Phillips and Lord Montagu, about the role of small businesses and the need for support to be provided to them.
The unanimity of views expressed in the debate has been impressive. I hope that I have shown in the time available to me that the Government agree wholeheartedly with the emphasis that has been given to the importance of tourism and in particular its importance to rural England.
8.8 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. We have heard from a wide range of experience in terms of geographical accounts of tourism. Some clear and supportive themes were developed throughout all the contributions.
One of the most interesting aspects, about which I feel particularly strongly, is the need to identify the tourist regions and the United Kingdom itself. I was rather taken by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the harmonisation of culture was a deterrent to tourism. That was a very helpful way to crystallise the difficulties that might be faced. That observation was somewhat at odds with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and his vision of what might be described as European tourism in which the local pub would become known as the "Drag and Hounds" and the sterile theme park nightmare, to which many noble Lords have referred, would creep upon us.
I was greatly disappointed that, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, there were no other contributions from the Government

1385
Back Benches. Given the importance of this matter, I am surprised that greater interest has not been shown in it.
Many noble Lords felt strongly about planning. From the reply of the Minister, I detected some recognition on the Government Benches of the need for flexibility in planning. The Minister said that farming had perhaps played too large a part in the debate. I do not agree. Frankly, farming is such an integral part of rural Britain that if that is what we are to sell to tourists, it must be viewed with that clear objective in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not put it quite like that. I said that in the context of the subject-matter of this debate it was not possible to do justice to the importance of farming. I did not say that farming was not important.
Earl Peel: My Lords, that was not how I understood the response of the noble Lord at the time, but I accept what the Minister has said.
The Minister can be under no illusion as to the strength of feeling, certainly on this side of the House, about the importance of field sports to tourism. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said she believed that when the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is produced, the economic importance of field sports will be recognised. However, I detected some reluctance in the tone of her voice. That is a pity because it is contrary to the views expressed by her right honourable friend Charles Kennedy when he addressed the Game Conservancy Trust at the Game Fair last year. I was rather encouraged by what he said then about field sports and their importance to the countryside. The theme which emerged in many speeches of noble Lords is that one is not concerned solely with the economic value of field sports, but with their contribution to the maintenance of the landscape.
The Minister said he believed that it was up to noble Lords opposite to ensure that field sports featured in the final paper on tourism. I believe that it is up to the Government, not us. We have presented the facts. We hope that the noble Lord will take note of what has been said and report to the relevant departments. Surely, the importance of field sports has been so clearly expressed from these Benches that the Government cannot but accept the importance of field sports to tourism, the landscape, and rural Britain. The Minister said that he did not wish to see any division between town and country; nobody wishes to see that. However, if the Government insist on forcing the wishes of one on the other, divisions are bound to develop. I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to that matter in future. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Central Africa
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what response they are making to the continuing conflict in Central Africa.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister and all those noble Lords who have stayed late this evening to participate in this debate which seeks to draw attention to the gravity of the conflict in Central Africa, especially in the Great Lakes region of Eastern Congo. The debate seeks a more positive and visible contribution from our own Government to the peace process, and to encourage the efforts of humanitarian agencies that work to improve the lives of ordinary people.
The conflict in the DRC is spread over a vast area of Africa which is much larger than Western Europe. It is difficult for us here to identify the localised causes of the conflict, which have a long pedigree, but it is much more than a three year-old struggle for power in the Congo, which has now sucked in at least nine other countries. Daily, the war claims lives and dissipates wealth which should support the local economy. As always, the victims are the marginal farmers and their families who depend on the various factions. About 960,000 people are displaced, with tens of thousands more in neighbouring countries. Half a million people in the east are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, according to the most recent UN Mission there. Even the named villains—fighting forces such as the Interahamwe, Banyamulenge Mai Mai and remnants of the old Rwandan army—include many innocent civilians caught up in their wake. "Rebels" are so-called by national governments and our media for convenience, but they represent large dispossessed minority groups who are desperate to avenge previous tragedies in the wake of the 1994 genocide.
Moreover, while the killers in this proxy war have their own local identity, they are also armed and subsidised by respected national leaders who themselves have been fighters alongside them. The people of Congo have been waiting for over three decades for their liberation; and they have also seen the steady collapse of their society, economy and mineral wealth. One can sympathise with the MLC leader Jean-Pierre Bemba when he says:
"Who is surprised that after 40 years of independence, the economic and social development of Congo-Zaire has completely failed … All of us witnessed, some as accomplices, others as spectators, a real apartheid exercised by black men against other black men …
Betrayed by promises which have not been fulfilled and repeated lies, the Congolese have once again been reduced to a form of slavery".
How can we help in this major conflict which saps the energy and resources of a whole region? We had high hopes of President Laurent Kabila when he swept to power in Kinshasa in 1997 with the promise of elections and a united country. At that time he owed his success to the Rwandan Patriotic Army under Paul Kagame, now Rwanda's acting-President, and Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, both of whom had served

1387
in Uganda's liberation war. They have now turned against him, whale his main ally Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe has made the war a costly distraction from his own problems at home. The present drama of civil war with frequent calls for UN intervention are all too familiar to Congolese who still remember Katanga.
This time the UN has been too timid or ill-equipped to enter the Congo, let alone solve its conflicts. It still has to investigate the crimes against Hutu refugees from Rwanda in 1996, two years after the genocide which left about 800,000 dead. Many in the aid agencies suspect that half a million refugees were forcibly repatriated in three days from Mugunga and neighbouring camps with western connivance, leaving many thousands more to an unknown fate at the hands of the militia and foreign armies in eastern Congo. Meanwhile, the Rwandan and Ugandan armies are still free to roam around the area at will beyond the rule of any law except the gun. It is easy to criticise the UN, which is no more than a creature of governments, but perhaps our own Government can explain why the international community still gives massive support to Uganda and Rwanda, which is always justified by the terrible events of the past, while it neglects to improve, or even fully evaluate, the dire situation of the people of Congo, both refugees and displaced.
I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, on 22nd February that we had to be cautious. The Lusaka accord was the best deal on the table and it was supported not only internationally by the African state; involved, the UN and OAU, but it was also what the participants had actually agreed. MONUC, the UN Mission, is ready to expand under the terms of the accord. In February Resolution 1291 again extended the mandate until August and authorised an expansion of the mission up to 5,500 military personnel, including 500 observers. In theory, a joint military commission is responsible for peacekeeping until a UN force is established. But the news is not good. Attention has shifted towards the internal political dialogue, but the violence in Kivu and fighting in Kasai have stalled the whole process.
Much was expected of the former President Ketumile Masire who is meant to be the facilitator of the internal dialogue. Unfortunately he was shabbily treated in Kinshasa two weeks ago and unable to leave the capital to carry out his work. Presumably the Minister will confirm that European Union governments have protested vigorously about this treatment.
What about the latest UN report by M Bernard Miyet which points to continuing conflict and the imposition of unacceptable restrictions on peace keepers? The UN Human Rights Commission was also "gravely concerned" last year with the executions, disappearances and arbitrary arrests by the armed forces and militias, recommending that the crimes be investigated and the families compensated. We have seen all too often in our own peace process how hearts can be lifted at the prospect of reconciliation, only to be disappointed by the failure of the principal parties to implement any agreement. Others will speak about
1388
Zimbabwe, but perhaps I may express the hope that Britain, with its own agenda there, will not thereby raise the political temperature over the Congo.
We may now see a new Congo mission on the East Timor model—although not exactly like it—emerging from the United Nations which would be welcome if it genuinely commanded international support and the full co-operation of President Kabila and the parties involved.
However, as Kofi Annan said recently, it is not all "unrelieved gloom". Nelson Mandela, the facilitator, and several heads of state have been involved in Arusha in a potential settlement for Burundi. Several of us heard Mr Mandela give an impressive speech this morning. There could hardly be a greater show of African determination today to settle African problems.
The FDD leader, Jean-Bosco Ndayikengurukiye, has now indicated his willingness to attend within "an appropriate framework". There is, for the time being, an alliance between the Tutsi-dominated PARENA Party and a wing of the mainly Hutu FRODEBA Party. The sticking points, I believe, are army reform, amnesty and the make-up of a transitional government.
A major issue in Burundi is the dismantling of the regroupment camps which have caused such dislocation in the rural economy. These must he dismantled as soon as possible. Mr Mandela said the same this morning. They are like concentration camps and should be removed. Aid agencies, Churches and human rights agencies are active, trying to speed up the legal process for the thousands accused of ethnic killings and bringing some humanitarian relief to those who are displaced or on the run. I hope that the Minister can say whether the Government plan to increase their own aid programme in Burundi.
There is an astonishing story of a Burundi orphan found hiding in the funnel of a British steamer in St Helena. His entire family, including 12 brothers and sisters, had apparently been killed by soldiers. He had fled through Zambia and Mozambique to South Africa. There must be many stories like that still untold.
As a board member of Christian Aid I know that there are many individuals working behind the scenes to achieve peace education, human rights, reconciliation and development in Burundi. In South Kivu, despite the lack of access and insecurity because of Interahamwe activity, emergency relief and development projects such as the provision of microcredit, especially for women's groups, in Bukavu can still co-exist. Oxfam and Save the Children are also active there. What sustains aid workers is the knowledge that the people themselves seem to put up with an intolerable degree of suffering and can get by with very little outside support or understanding.
Perhaps the Minister will put me right on this Government's commitment. I have been combing speeches to find Central Africa content. I believe that because of our new interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans we have lost some of our capacity for African

1389
diplomacy. I do not doubt that expertise is there in the FCO—it gave me an excellent briefing last week—but I wonder whether we have real determination at the top.
We are only scratching the surface of the conflict. But I believe that we could be more active, and we may need to be, to prevent another genocide from occurring in this highly volatile part of the world.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on raising this important topic. It is of grave concern that we have had such serious conflict and such waste of life and opportunity. Once conflicts start, it seems almost impossible to restore stable peace.
Such conditions are not unique to Africa but—I hope that I am mistaken when I say this—there seems to be almost an air of indifference to the tragic situations in so many countries in Africa. Fortunately, the future is not entirely bleak. I had the pleasure this morning, as did the noble Earl and many others, of attending a briefing at the South African High Commission given by Mr Mandela on his mediation in Burundi. He said that it would be a very long time before anyone can be satisfied that the problems of the continent have been resolved. But as most noble Lords will know, Mr Mandela took up the invitation to follow the late Julius Nyerere in seeking to mediate and find a solution to the problems of Burundi.
There are currently 19 different organisations meeting in Arusha, Tanzania, trying to find solutions to the political and economic future of the country. Mr Mandela said that he was hopeful that there may soon be a breakthrough although formidable issues remain to be settled. An amnesty is being discussed. How does one differentiate between the acts carried out apparently in the pursuit of a political and even democratic objective from the slaughter of individuals? It is very difficult to separate them.
There needs to be discussions about the kind of democracy which is workable and necessary for a country like Burundi. One needs to balance the need of democracy with the necessity to provide effective protection of, and representation for, minorities. If we do not achieve that, we make no progress.
Mr Mandela made it clear that in order for the peace process to be effective, before he himself will visit Burundi officially, there has to be the release of all political prisoners; the media have to be able to function without impediment; and the so-called "regroupment camps" closed down. President Buyoya denies that there are political prisoners and that the regroupment camps are internment camps. But the fact that Mr Mandela is prepared to speak out as loudly and clearly as he does is of great significance.
The costs of negotiations are expensive. Although it is hoped to provide draft proposals soon, and that they will be quickly discussed and agreed upon, the parties in Arusha, as Mr Mandela said, do not necessarily have the incentive to come to quick decisions.
1390
They must be encouraged to do so. Some people have expressed concern that reconstruction and development aid for Burundi is being withheld until political solutions are in place. Is that the case? We need to know.
I know that the Minister has taken a close interest in this region. I raise two points. How will the Government respond to Mr Mandela's request for more funding to continue the peace process? He says that the money is running out. Clearly, we cannot allow the peace process to end simply because of that. Can my noble friend tell me what plans are in place for development assistance?
Mr Mandela made a powerful plea to the important nations of the world to work together and to speak with one voice in every area or region of the world where conflict needs to be resolved. I believe that that is especially true in Africa. We have left behind us, I hope, the Cold War position where each side had its client states and cared not one whit what happened within the country provided the leaders mouthed either the tenets of Marxism/Leninism or the said how much they believed in the free market capitalist economy, with little, if any, sincerity. Yet there remains a suspicion that powerful nations want to retain or even enhance their spheres of influence.
Geographically, it may be argued that Angola is not part of central Africa, but I believe that it is—certainly for the purposes of the debate. The whole issue of what is happening in central Africa and Angola is tied together with intertwining strands throughout. For decades, the people of Angola have suffered and they have continued to suffer even since the ending of the Cold War. It looks as though finally the United Nations is seriously addressing the problems facing Angola and looking at ways to end the influence of UNITA which has waged a bloody civil war even since the elections of 1992.
It has finally been accepted that UNITA is culpable in this matter and the UN has at last begun to examine the way in which sanctions against UNITA have not been fully and properly implemented. The report of the panel of experts on violations of UN Security Council sanctions on UNITA, commonly known as the Fowler report, made known its findings on 15th March this year after a six-month investigation.
The Fowler report studied breaches of sanctions in armaments supply, petroleum deliveries, diamond smuggling and UNITA finances and assets. That report is extremely hard hitting. It names individuals, countries and politicians who have been involved directly and by collusion, and involved indirectly by omission.
The Fowler report proposes extremely tough measures against those who have given succour to UNITA, whether they be individuals, organisations or countries. Some already have denied the charges made against them and have cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence garnered by the panel of experts.
It has been said, for example, that too much reliance is given to the evidence of UNITA defectors and that the evidence has not been properly checked. It has also

1391
been said that French officials have complained that too much emphasis is placed on the role of the Francophone countries. However, Ambassador Fowler clearly stated that the standards of evidence used by the panel were more stringent than would be required in a court of law.
On 18th April, a couple of weeks from now, the UN Security Council is due to meet to draw up a resolution on the findings of the expert panel report. I hope that the UN will live up to its responsibilities in full and in a manner which it has singularly failed to do up to now.
I am pleased that the most vocal and strongest proponent of accepting the Fowler report and its recommendations has been my honourable friend Peter Hain, Minister of State at the Foreign Office. On 15th March at the Security Council, he stated:
"The time has come for the international community to face up to its obligations. It is no good putting our hands up in the UN for sanctions against UNITA and then take no action while citizens in our countries make money out of misery. That is simply hypocrisy".
He went on to say:
"Britain looks for yard to a series of mandatory UN resolutions to implement the report's key recommendations. The Security Council next month [a fortnight from now] must make decisive action. There must be no delay and no equivocation. The credibility of the Security Council is at stake".
I hope that that remains the Government's position.
If the UN acts seriously on 18th April and subsequently, I believe that that will be an immense help not only to Angola but to the UN in its quest for peace and stability in other parts of Africa. People have looked at the UN and at what has happened in Angola and have said that the UN and its powerful members have not been serious about peace and stability. Now they must surely be serious about peace and stability because, as was said by the noble Earl and no doubt will be repeated by others with an interest in different parts of the region, we are witnessing tragedy upon tragedy upon tragedy. Somehow, we must act and we must act soon.
8.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, I have an immediate and personal interest in the affairs of another Central African country; the Sudan. The problems of these African countries spread over their borders and I am aware that the problems of the Sudan refugees have spread over the border into Uganda and Kenya. The problems cannot easily be contained within national boundaries.
I was last in the Sudan in early December and met with its Church leaders in Nairobi in February. I list among the problems of the Sudan the following. First, the civil war that has run since the 1960s between the northern and southern parts of the country. Secondly, the consequent large number of displaced persons from both north and south who have spread over the borders. Thirdly, little economic development in the south, but the recent discovery and exploitation of oil, in which the government in the northern part of the country are taking the lead and controlling. Fourthly, a breakdown of community in the south, with men as
1392
young as 11 or 12 away at the war and the consequent alteration of social patterns that that brings. Fifthly, the consequence of all of that is the severe malnutrition of many, the lack of medical care for almost all, and the fact that there is virtually no education for the future. All that brings about a continuous maelstrom in a crucible that might ignite at any moment to produce even more severe results.
What is it possible to do in order to forward the process of peace? The IGAD talks are due to restart this week, but I want to make clear to the House the Churches' commitment to bring reconciliation to the area wherever that can work. That is an important role. The Churches are the only institution in the Sudan which are able to step across the boundaries between north and south. Last year, it was most encouraging to learn that Bishop Joseph Merowe, now the Archbishop elect, was given free conduct as a southerner to go to Khartoum and to execute the duties of his office from there. He has been twice to Juba, up to Port Sudan and is now back in the north having visited the south.
That is a welcome sign, but are we able to bring pressure on the government of Sudan to extend that to other people, not just Church leaders? If the agencies working for peace and reconciliation are to be taken seriously, it is important that they can step across the boundaries. We hope that the Government will want to support us and all others working in the Sudan to make such crossings of boundaries possible.
How might we achieve the next step in reconciliation and what support can we give to both sides who are weary of war but cannot find a way out on their own? At the end of April, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will be in Juba for the enthronement of the new Archbishop of Sudan. Who else can be drawn to share in an act of worship at that time so that the practice of reconciliation can begin and not just be talked about? Will other people be allowed to go to Juba? Will there be a possibility of persuading both sides in the conflict to suspend war and in a cease-fire open land routes so that people from Merowe, Bishop Joseph's old area, can go to Juba? It is only 60 miles by road, but if you want to go there from Merowe, you must fly to Kenya or Uganda, back to Khartoum and from there down to Juba—and then all the way back again. That is not only an enormous expense, but it is extraordinary when a 60-mile road journey can be made.
What other opportunities could such a visit by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury help to unlock? What will the Government encourage the most reverend Primate to do along with others whom he may be able to invite to join with him in supporting the new Archbishop of Sudan as he starts his ministry? Can we persuade other Bishops from the Sudan to attend and persuade members of the SPLM there also? Would the enthronement of an Archbishop be a possible occasion on which that could take place?
I move to the question of displaced persons; that is, displaced within the Sudan, where southerners in the north and northerners in the south are moved out into

1393
camps. I visited a camp at Jebel Aulia outside Khartoum. Within recent years it has been moved further out of Khartoum into completely barren desert and it is very difficult to see how those who must live there—some 25,000 people—can have any hope. They cannot grow a thing; there is no source of water; there is extremely exiguous medical aid; yet, they are still under pressure to live a human life. How can others from the north who are in refugee camps in the south—at Aruna or over the borders into Kenya and Kakuma—live a human life that is worth living?
It is just possible that there are signs of hope. During my visit to Juba in December, I met people from four different displaced camps, each with their own tribal identity, who were ready to work together. One thing that bedevils life in this part of Africa is the extreme tribalism. Any sign that people are ready to cross those boundaries seems to me to be worth supporting and trumpeting: four tribal units in Juba are ready to work with one church leader; there is a Nuer-Dinka agreement; and a WUNLIT agreement just continues to hold. How can we show our support for those kinds of agreement that cross tribal boundaries and which are so often the cause of internecine warfare?
Of course, many camps suffer severe conditions. There is malnutrition, medical shortage and educational deprivation. In that regard, many aid agencies have left Sudan because the SPLM agreement has broken down. The agencies have wanted to control where aid should be targeted. If the SPLM controlled where aid went, would that prolong the war? I believe that that is a serious question which we need to ask—and press—both of the SPLM and of the aid agencies.
I also observe the way that local community breaks down and, with all men at war, the important role of women develops. The sub-structure of civil community for the future depends very much on the educational opportunities that women can receive: education in leadership, in the administration of justice and in peace issues. I am reminded that there may be parallels here with Northern Ireland when a women's peace initiative made such a breakthrough.
In addition, there is the business of freeing land so that it can be worked. One UN estimate is that approximately between 0.5 million and 2 million landmines exist in the south. A former SPLA engineer and 38 people working with him have been on the clearance programme which has opened 572 miles of roads for relief convoys. However, what about opening up the land so that it can be used to grow food? Education to persuade soldiers to fight for a homeland, not a mineland, is the battle-cry of that former SPLA soldier.
Then there are questions about who controls economic development, and serious questions about the use to which the revenue is being put which is derived from the oil now flowing. Can any pressure be put by the Government on the Government of Sudan to use the currency gained for rebuilding the infrastructure for education and for health and not on war? The Government of Sudan are still bombing civilian targets, hospitals and schools in the south.
1394
Recently, the Samaritan's Purse Hospital in Lui was bombed twice in one week and more than 40 bombs fell. I believe that we need a tide of public opinion to condemn those barbaric acts.
It will be helpful if the Minister can let us know whether Sudan's plight was discussed at the EU/Africa Summit in Cairo last weekend. What action can we take, apart from raising the matter there, in order to put pressure on other governments? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, mentioned at the end of his speech, we need to put pressure on the United Nations to continue to engage seriously with those matters. If the United Nations does not act and does not put any teeth into its actions but continues to mouth words, I do not believe that we shall see any credibility given to it in the future.
I want to say to the Minister that the Church is ready to step over the boundaries to assist in putting the gospel of reconciliation into practice. The visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of April provides us with such an opportunity. I hope that the Minister will give us an indication of how that visit, too, may help to broker peace in this troubled region. If we can do it there, it might provide a good example for other parts of Africa as well.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Earl has done millions of ordinary African people a great service by asking this Unstarred Question. He is continuing a very good tradition which is being established in your Lordships' House: to keep Africa on the agenda. This is the third debate in one month which centres on Africa. Education and economic development respectively were the topics of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. However, both of those roads to progress will remain closed while there is war or civil conflict, and Africa has had more than its share.
Development cannot take place while civil society is disrupted. Much needed development assistance has to be diverted to urgent humanitarian aid, and too often that cannot be delivered to the people who need it because of the danger involved. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, spoke at the EU/Africa Summit about the elements of building a free society. However, I am sure that he would agree that, before we can even start down that road, we must find ways of ending conflict.
The noble Earl and other noble Lords have described the complex situation in the DRC with no fewer than 10 countries—11 if UNITA is counted separately—having been involved at some time or another in the conflict or conflicts. Although there are, loosely speaking, two sides to the conflict—that is, pro and anti-Kabila—some countries are opposed to others only in World War I style; that is, because "my enemy's friend is my enemy". I do not believe, for example, that there is a real axe to grind between Uganda and Angola or great friendship either between Rwanda and UNITA, although there is reputed to be profitable gun-running between them.

1395
The visit of former President Nelson Mandela this week is very timely for our debate. My noble friend and other noble Lords met him this morning. Unfortunately, I could not because I had a Science and Technology Select Committee visit in my diary. What he said then and in today's Guardian interview with Anthony Sampson is very cogent. As facilitator of the Arusha peace talks in Burundi, in succession to Mualimu (Julius Nyerere), he is presiding over complex negotiations. The sub-committee structure of the talks in which different aspects of the internal conflict and their resolution are being discussed by those directly involved is a useful model, I suggest, for the Lusaka negotiations on the large and even more complex conflict in the Congo. I gather that former President Mandela feels encouraged by the progress in Arusha and even talks of a possible breakthrough being achieved quite soon. If Burundi, as one of the countries involved in the wider conflict, can achieve stability, that would be an example to the powers who are signed up to the Lusaka agreement, which is "the only show in town", to use the words of Kofi Annan.
But that process is still a long way from success, not least because leading figures in the DRC, Zimbabwe and UNITA—to name only three—are making tidy fortunes in diamonds and arms trafficking. I expect that my noble friend knows about whom I am speaking and I could invite her to name them, but perhaps that would not be very helpful in the current diplomatic climate.
I am sure that President Mandela is right in saying that all five foreign armies now in the Congo should withdraw as a first stage of the peace process after a ceasefire. That withdrawal must be simultaneous and under the aegis of the proposed United Nations force. The figure of 5,000 troops has been suggested. That seems to me to be far too small a force in view of the vast area concerned. No such force should be deployed until a ceasefire is agreed. But even then that force must be prepared to defend itself and be powerful enough to ensure that the agreed withdrawal takes place. The lessons of the United Nations in Angola—I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside—must be learnt and the mistakes not repeated.
That will be only the start of a much wider settlement in the Congo Basin which, in the long term, might involve, for example, voluntary population movements and even—dare I say it?—some alteration of the sacred colonial borders. But that would be for the populations concerned to decide if and when democratic government can be restored.
I warned my noble friend that I should use this opportunity to mention the parallel conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea about which I know more, having visited both countries in the past eight months. I am aware that that is a few kilometres north of the Congo but at least Ethiopia and Eritrea have a common border with the Sudan, which, at one point, was involved in the central African conflict.
It is relevant also because the framework peace agreement, which has been drawn up by the OAU, to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea
1396
could be considered a model of its kind. It is tantalising that the final part of the agreement—the technical arrangements for implementation—which would enable both sides to withdraw to their previous positions, to the status quo ante, after a ceasefire, is unacceptable to Ethiopia in its detail. That is despite the fact that in the agreement Eritrea made an important concession in agreeing to redeploy its forces two weeks before Ethiopia does the same. It is clear to me that for reasons best known to itself, Ethiopia is dragging out the peace process and prolonging the damaging economic effect of sustaining two large armies, armed to the teeth, facing each other along a 600-kilometre front with periodic, quite severe, eruptions of conflict.
I was taken to the front in Eritrea, to the place on the border which is nearest to Asmara. There we saw the remnants of a very severe battle in which the Ethiopians had tried to break through a defended Eritrean position with three rows of trenches. Some tanks had got through, but they had been destroyed. Most of them did not manage to make it. We saw 27 destroyed tanks and the Eritreans told us that the mass grave that was in front of us contained 10,000 bodies, many of whom had been used as human minesweepers. Therefore, it is not a small conflict. That battle took place almost a year ago.
Added to that is the current famine in the Ogaden and parts of northern Ethiopia. Eritrea has been asked by USAID to let food aid pass through Assab to Ethiopia, which is the port nearest to Ogaden. Djibouti is now being used to capacity. But that offer of Eritrea is not acceptable to Ethiopia.
Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, said that,
"Valuable resources in Ethiopia are being diverted to perpetuate the conflict".
Is it not time for the United Kingdom, through the European Union and the United Nations, possibly the Security Council, to put gentle but firm diplomatic and economic pressure on Ethiopia to sign up to the OAU peace agreement and end this senseless conflict? At the same time, we should be greatly increasing our humanitarian aid.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Sandwich for introducing this debate. At the outset, I express the hope that the Government's current and welcome focus on the disturbing events in Zimbabwe will not distract attention from the conflicts in central Africa in which, of course, Zimbabwe is also involved.
Likewise, international pressure for progress on implementing the Lusaka Agreement to bring an end to the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a major priority. But at the same time, the UK, with its responsibilities as a Security Council member and major aid donor, needs an explicit and coherent policy for the countries and the conflicts which surround the Congo.

1397
The impact and durability of the war in the Congo is compounded by its regional nature. Crisis in one country has the potential to create crisis across central Africa. The failure to have a coherent and comprehensive strategy across the whole area leads to what are seemingly curious decisions. For example, only a few months ago, the United Kingdom was selling spare parts for military equipment to Zimbabwe, which is one of the main protagonists on one side of the Congo war; and yet at the same time it was providing bilateral budgetary support of £10 million per annum to Rwanda, which is deeply engaged on the other side of the Congo war.
The scale and complexity of the conflict in central Africa are immense and measured in terms of human suffering devastating. No fewer than 15 countries are involved in conflict of different intensities in that area. Millions of human beings have been affected directly as refugees or displaced people. And that is to say nothing of the tens of thousands of innocent civilians massacred, maimed and raped in those wars. Moreover, there are all the indirect effects as the economies of the countries concerned are damaged or in some cases destroyed.
Behind that complexity there seem to be four points, each of which should have a bearing on the United Kingdom's policy towards central Africa. The first is conflict prevention. In developing long-term strategies to deal with conflicts, prevention must be at the top of the agenda.
Secondly, there is peacekeeping. There are 1.3 million people in the Congo who are the victims of a vicious circle. The Security Council does not deploy peacekeepers because it says there is no peace to keep. Yet if there were a significant number of peacekeepers, many on the ground believe that they could make a significant contribution to building the confidence necessary for meaningful peace to develop.
Thirdly, there is the cycle of poverty and conflict. As in so many regions, poverty and hardship are parts of the cause as well as the consequences of conflict. In Burundi, economic collapse has contributed to the siege mentality which helps to raise tensions. In the Congo, 2.1 million people have only a precarious access to food. Although there are dilemmas in providing humanitarian aid in conflicts, it is sad that donors seem to be awaiting the successful conclusion of the peace process in Burundi and greater progress towards peace in the Congo before more actively engaging. More could be done now, on which I shall touch later.
Fourthly, there is the question of arms. There have been disturbing recent reports of substantial arms shipments brokered by UK citizens from, for example, Bulgaria to Zimbabwe for probable use in the Congo. It is intolerable that, while the Government try to tighten up the UK's regular arms exports, that kind of brokering, which would be regulated in the United States, can still go on, making the United Kingdom an international centre of that sleazy trade.
1398
As was demonstrably clear when some of us—it has been mentioned by other noble Lords—listened to Nelson Mandela at South Africa House this morning, leadership of the peace process in central Africa must be driven by the leaders of the African countries involved. But that does not mean that there is not an important role for the rest of the world, which must also be part of the solution. What more could Britain do? I suggest that there is a great deal more: first, there is conflict prevention. The Government should be investing massively in conflict prevention. Apart from the human suffering that would be avoided if such investment succeeded, it is far more cost-effective to invest in preventing conflict than in dealing with its consequences.
We should press the United Nations Security Council harder for an immediate deployment of an adequate number of peace keepers. Such a stark contrast between the international community's determination in Kosovo and Timor and, as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees recently put it, its "timid and piecemeal" approach in Africa gives the dangerous message to the Congo combatants that the world is not that much concerned about seeking peace in Africa. At the same time, there is a need to build support for peace internally. Wars are fought in the name of people who are never consulted. By way of example, all Burundians must be informed about the external process, including the vital efforts of ex-President Mandela. The UK Government, along with other donors, could support the process, as well as providing support to strengthen civil society.
Some more generous aid cannot wait until there is secure peace. There needs to be more substantial humanitarian aid to the Congo now. There are currently funds to reach only one seventh of those in need of food and who are accessible to the aid agencies. In Burundi, the United Kingdom should continue to give creative support to local initiatives which could both contribute to the success of the peace process and begin to reverse the economic collapse. Perhaps most dramatically, if the United Kingdom and other donors committed themselves now to the carrot of swift and substantial support for demobilisation once a peace deal is finalised, that might itself help to bring that deal closer.
Then there is the issue of arms, a subject in which, tragically, British brokers have a bizarre advantage. The comments of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Peter Hain, earlier this year are to be welcomed, that, post-Zimbabwe and the export of Hawk parts to Zimbabwe, there would in future be an extremely strict look at export licences for arms to all countries bordering the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is vital that that pledge is now strictly enforced. Controlling direct arms sales, however, is not enough. The Government's forthcoming Bill on strategic export controls must also regulate selling and brokering to all destinations, not just those currently under embargo. Central Africa glaringly shows up that arms to non-embargoed countries find their way to embargoed ones.

1399
Another question that arises from the current experience of conflicts in central Africa, as it has from so many other theatres of conflict in the past, is the pernicious effect of the militarisation of refugee camps. Camps in the region serve not only as recruiting bases for armed groups but also as transit points for arms and supplies. That syndrome will continue to bedevil peace efforts not only in central Africa but elsewhere in the world unless it is tackled comprehensively by the Security Council and the UN system. The UK Government could also play a role here by influencing the Security Council to take action.
In conclusion, I renew my encouragement to the Government to develop a more comprehensive strategy across the areas of foreign policy and aid and conflict resolution policy for central Africa as a whole. The multiple conflicts across the region are so closely interwoven that the pulling of any single thread can have unexpected and contradictory consequences. The canvas must be studied as a whole.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, to take up one point of great importance on which the noble Lord has just touched—the question of strategic export controls of arms—I believe that the Government have already decided that they will include brokering in their new legislation. It would be useful to have confirmation from the Minister, when she comes to wind up, that that is the case. I know about the individuals in this country engaged in procuring arms for Eastern Europe and selling them to Zimbabwe and other countries in the regional neighbourhood. The gentleman to whom the noble Lord referred is probably Mr John Bredenkamp, who lives in Sunningdale and who has been referred to recently in Africa Confidential.
The main question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, at the beginning of his speech was whether there was real determination at the top to deal with the problem of conflict in Central Africa. The signs are that we see Ministers exhibiting real determination. I remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already mentioned the speech made by the Foreign Secretary at the EU-Africa summit in Cairo. Before that, a contribution was made at the end of February in Nairobi by the honourable gentleman, Mr Peter Hain. He hosted an international conference to see what more can be done to secure peace in that region.
Mr Hain and the participants agreed that they were solidly behind the Lusaka peace agreement, that a UN mission should be deployed as soon as possible to monitor progress in the DRC and that we would support the regional peace-makers and oppose those who chose the path of war. Mr Hain addressed all the DRC's neighbours who are involved in the conflict—Zimbabwe, Uganda, Rwanda, Angola and Namibia—calling on them to stick by the Lusaka agreement, to stop fighting, and to help to secure peace and stability now. He also mentioned the unholy links between neighbouring governments and commercial interests
1400
allowing them to profit from human misery and plundering the natural wealth that belongs to the people of the DRC, a point I shall return to later.
Mr Hain said that the war in the DRC is Africa's biggest crisis, and as he put it, it is a litmus test of the UN, Africa and the international community's resolve. I respectfully agree with that. How do we turn the general principles that were laid down in Nairobi into practical measures that will stop the fighting and allow democratic political processes to kick in?
The Kenyan initiative to convene a regional conference on ways of stopping the circulation of small arms is a useful step, but a great deal of work has been done on that subject already. I hope that it will not go over the same ground as others have already covered—for instance, the useful work that was presented to the CHOGM by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Over a Barrel: Light Weapons and Human Rights in the Commonwealth; the work by Human Rights Watch, Arsenals on the Cheap: NATO expansion and the Arms Cascade; and the work published by SaferWorld are three recent examples of initiatives that have been taken on the proliferation of small arms and what can be done about it.
I particularly like the recommendation in the Human Rights Watch report that the results of the OSCE survey on arms trade controls should be published, including the names of member countries that have not replied. Perhaps the Kenyan meeting could take a broad look at the proposals that have already been made at other international conferences and see how many of them have been implemented or even considered by governments.
We have heard that there are symptoms of a new level of instability in the Great Lakes region. I cite the sudden resignation of the Rwandan President Pasteur Bizimungu, after the departure of the Prime Minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigyema and the Speaker Joseph Sebarenezi. Such signs are not good. In Rwanda there have been desertions from the army, the military police and intelligence and several independent journalists have fled the country.
As we have already heard, in Burundi, the rebel leader Jean-Bosco Ndayikengurikiye, of the FDD, has said that he would attend peace talks only if certain preconditions are met—I believe the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, called it an appropriate framework. They want the dismantling of the regroupment camps and the release of political prisoners. The facilitator, former President Mandela, has said that he will do his best to deliver those conditions, but President Pierre Buyoya has said that he will not close the camps unless security returns. Five Tutsi groups have rejected the Arusha process because, they say, it means that Burundi would be led by the perpetrators of genocide.
Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, who recently toured the Great Lakes region, says that apart from the immediate concern of a ceasefire, three large problems have to be solved before any lasting agreement can be reached: reintegration of rebel forces into the army and civil society, accountability of war criminals, and the management of the political transition.

1401
Mention has been made of the expiry of the funding for the initiative of President Mandela. The noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Joffe, both asked whether the British Government will agree to top up that money, a suggestion with which I agree. Not only do I hope that the UK will agree to do that, but I also hope that we shall attempt to secure the process of funding with our partners in the European Union so that we can keep it going for that much longer.
In the DRC itself, President Chiluba of Zambia says that there are no more skirmishes, but in certain areas there is full-scale war. The facilitator of the peace process, former Botswana President Sir Ketumile Masire, has said that his efforts are being frustrated by the Kabila Government's refusal to let him visit the interior of the country. The UN Secretary General's Special Representative for the DRC, Mr Kamel Morjane, has been to Lusaka to confer with President Chiluba on what is called "the deteriorating situation in the DRC".
The Joint Military Commission ends its meeting in Kampala today, to be followed by a ministerial level political committee that will take place between tomorrow and Saturday. That meeting will discuss cease-fire violations, co-operation of the belligerents with the UN Mission and the financing of the ceasefire supervision. Can the Minister say something about the JMC and whether there are results that can be reported to the political committee or whether the process is still confidential? The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, quoted the report made by the Secretary-General in January 2000 in which he stated that 960,000 people are internally displaced in the DRC as well as 300,000 refugees in six neighbouring countries. Those figures are not as large as the numbers who were displaced in Rwanda following the genocide, and the number of deaths probably has not reached the level of over 800,000 who were killed in Rwanda. Nevertheless, there are warning signs of a large increase in the fighting, in particular in South Kivu.
The Secretary-General has stated that reports from South Kivu strongly suggest the danger of large-scale violence among the different ethnic groups. The Banyamulenge, who are native Congolese Tutsis, say that the Mayi-Mayi, armed by Kabila but said to be under Zimbabwean command, are planning to exterminate them. At the beginning of the year 700 families escaped to Bujumbura, the capital of Burundi, while a further 200 families reached Bwagera in the Rusizi plain of South Kivu. However, an estimated 150,000 people are now surrounded on the Moyen Plateau. In a message to the Secretary-General last week, their organisation warned that the stage was set for the genocide of the Banyamulenge.
Noble Lords will recall that the genocide in Rwanda was preceded by equally clear warnings. As the Secretary-General commented afterwards, when asked about the message he had received from General Dallaire telling him what was about to happen, the fundamental failure was lack of political will, not lack of information. I hope that we shall not see a repetition of that case where warnings were issued and were
1402
received by the international community—including the United Nations—but we failed to act. Unfortunately it looks as though the Democratic Republic of Congo could become the scene of human tragedies that, collectively, will equal the loss of life in Rwanda.
It has already been mentioned that when the camps in DRC were closed and the people living in them returned to Rwanda and Burundi, over half a million people went missing. They were mainly of Hutu origin. It was a catastrophe that has never been properly investigated because President Kabila refused to allow any UN missions to travel to the region. Now Kabila's forces have teamed up with former members of the Rwandese armed forces responsible for the genocide, and the Interahamwe, to exterminate the Tutsi in eastern DRC. Furthermore, hundreds of Tutsis have been murdered in and around Kinshasa following hate speech broadcasts by government officials. According to Amnesty International, people suspected of belonging to the rebels or in any way associated with them have been summarily executed, including at least one case where a number of alleged RCD members were burned alive.
In the Ituri region, on the border with Uganda, there have been major clashes between the Hema and the Landu peoples, resulting, over the past month or so, in the deaths of between 4,000 and 7,000 people and the displacement of a further 150,000.
Britain can do only so much to stop the carnage in DRC. The general approach adopted by the Foreign Secretary in his speech at the EU/Africa meeting in Cairo may have useful results for the future. However, the Government's review of their work on conflict prevention in Africa is not likely to make any immediate impact in Goma or Kisangani. We need to use any leverage we have to persuade neighbouring countries to withdraw their troops, to stop Kabila from collaborating with the perpetrators of genocide and to end the hate broadcasts.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords,
"I speak of Africa and golden joys".
Shakespeare's description of the continent in "Henry IV, Part II" is a far cry from what we have heard in today's debate, eloquently introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who is so knowledgeable on the subject. Both in this debate and in that held in your Lordships' House on 15th March on education in developing countries, we have heard litanies of disaster. I mention this because a lack of education, the abundance of corruption and poor governance are possibly the three roots of the problems confronting central Africa today.
Africa is one of the world's most important repositories of raw materials. It produces around 98 per cent of the world's diamonds, 55 per cent of its gold and 20 per cent of its copper, as well as large quantities of various strategic minerals such as manganese, chromium and uranium. Africa produces two-thirds of the world's cocoa and three-fifths of its

1403
palm oil and hay immense reserves of water power. It could grow virtually every crop on earth. Why has this potential been wasted?
Nothing is endemic about conflict in Africa, a point so rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. There is no mole reason that the suffering in Africa should be any worse than anywhere else in the world. Lame excuses have been put forward that refer to the carve-up of Africa, but fundamentally the present disastrous situation stems from the exploitation of the poor by the corrupt rich.
At the risk of over-simplifying a complex subject, from Biafra to Ethiopia, to the vast Congo regions, the fighting is basically all about control of natural resources and wealth. To achieve a modicum of economic growth, most people would agree that Africa needs institution-building, a crack-down on corruption and transparency in government. The real curse of central Africa today is the governments themselves. Africa's elite seem to rule for themselves. Few of the countries are democratic. One shining exception is Senegal, with the newly democratically elected president—a rare model of transfer of power. In a grandiose speech he offered little comfort to those fellow African heads of state present whose regimes have either refused to relinquish power or won it via the gun.
The Democratic Republic of Congo's government and rebels have lately been stepping up the propaganda war and there are mounting allegations of ceasefire violations. The Lusaka peace accord was set up to prevent a return to war. The agreement on a ceasefire in the DRC was signed by the DRC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Rwanda and Uganda on 10th July 1999 in an effort to end what is a regional war being played out in the DRC.
The main pro visions agreed at Lusaka included the immediate cessation of hostilities. The ceasefire was due to come into being within 24 hours of the signing of the agreement, which diplomatic sources interpret as 31st August, when the RDC signed, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. However, there have been continuous claims and counterclaims of ceasefire violations by both sides, including military attacks, territorial advances, troop deployments and reinforcements within and across the borders.
What is the current state of play? The UN's first phase involvement under the peace deal was to establish an observer mission to the DRC called MONUC. MONUC has been trying to establish contact with the relevant players at their headquarters and gathering intelligence but has been unable to do so as a result of inadequate security guarantees from the DRC Government. MONUC also has a humanitarian mandate and humanitarian officials have expressed frustration that military activities appear to be the only focus of MONUC's efforts, despite the seriousness of the situation, in which the United Nations recently reported that more than 800,000 Congolese are internally displaced—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury—and 10 million people are suffering from food insecurity.
1404
However, in extending MONUC's mandate last week to 15th January 2001, the Security Council made no move on approving the military observers or humanitarian support personnel. They are fighting again in the Congo, but that is about all that is clear. After weeks of skirmishing between the Congolese Government and the Congolese rebels, a full-scale battle broke out in northern Congo early last month. That has been followed by battles in six or seven other places in rebel-held areas. Outsiders have virtually no independent means of finding out what is going on. The rebels blame the government; the government blame the rebels. The United Nations, which was asked to send military observers to monitor the truce, is considering sending up to 5,000.
Angola's civil war is spilling across all its borders. Angola takes pride of place; after oil and diamonds its main export is violence. The civil war between the government and the UNITA rebels has already spilt into three of the four neighbours—Congo, Congo-Brazzaville and Namibia. Now Zambia, which has managed until now to keep Angola's fighters out of its territory, is reported to be dispatching soldiers to reinforce its eastern borders. Relations between the two have long been strained.
That appalling scenario of conflict reflects the effect of two basic factors, to which I referred in my introduction. Central Africa's regional troubles stem from the fighting for its wealth and the state of its institutions. Africa's current leaders in this area pay scant attention to the long-term needs to put their countries on a sustainable growth path. Instead, they neglect their basic needs, particularly education. They use the country's budgets, made up of the people's tax revenues and foreign aid, to arm their forces and to perpetuate conflict—moreover, rape and pillage—in a search for control of others' natural resources. The idea that any of these plunderers might revert to obeying public laws rather than private profiteering makes the situation even more despicable, if that were possible.
Sadly, the performance of the Government in helping this magnificent continent back on its feet has proved to be dismal. For example, Mr Hain, when questioned recently in the other place by Mrs Gillan on the scope of military advisers working in Zimbabwe, answered that there were five military advisers providing peacekeeping training, including modules on human rights, rights of the child and democratic control of the armed sources. Are military advisers really what is needed to advise on breast-feeding?
In a recent public statement Mr Hain also offered a home to 20,000 British citizens who live in Zimbabwe, plus thousands of others. I ask, is this the kind of policy we look to from a Minister?
Here is a country after 13 years under Mugabe's rule, as reported in the Herald Tribune this week, which has a fuel shortage so severe that the streets are jammed by queues of cars waiting in line for hours for petrol; a currency that crashed last year, reducing the exchange value of the Zimbabwean dollar from the US dollar's level in the year of independence to less than a

1405
nickel today; a quarter of its population infected with AIDS; and nearly half the workforce jobless. Thousands of rioters have illegally occupied more than 700 farms since February demanding that the white commercial farmers quit; yet the governing party appears not to care and has not withdrawn a single soldier from the Congo.
Our Foreign Secretary at the African-EU meeting in Cairo was photographed kow-towing to Mr Mugabe instead of putting pressure on him. While Mr Mugabe continues his spendthrift ways, the Foreign Secretary refuses to take the three focused actions which would limit his room to frighten his opponents and fire up his ragged army of supporters.
First, he must take steps to agree that EU aid to the Zimbabwean Government is frozen forthwith. Secondly, he must act now to freeze Mr Mugabe's assets. Thirdly, he must take a decision to stop sending the spare parts and providing the military advice which partly enable Zimbabwe to continue to fight in the Congo, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Avebury.
The Foreign Secretary must make it clear that the world is watching. We should suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth and make its return to the fold conditional on the ability to hold fair and proper elections, even though the mechanisms for doing this are quite arcane. British policy should surely be tied to the democratic process and to good governance to strengthen transparency.
Forgive me if I repeat this, but I feel that I cannot say it enough; perhaps one day it may not fall on deaf ears. The Government should be supporting on a larger scale the British Council and the BBC World Service. These most highly respected worldwide institutions are recognised as being the fairest and most unbiased by all listeners. These two magnificent organisations, instead of having their budgets cut, should be encouraged and given a far larger remit. I trust that the Government will also be sending representation to the meeting in Dakar.
Finally, John Gunther in his book Inside Africa, written in 1955, said that an African had told him that their most important need was more education and economic opportunity. Alas, there has been precious little progress since then.
9.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for opening this debate so eloquently. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke so poignantly this evening. I am aware of the noble Earl's interest in Africa and the importance that he attaches to it being kept high on the international agenda.
However, I was a little surprised to hear the comments of the noble Baroness about democracy in a number of countries. As we know, there are many struggling countries in Africa today which are doing well so far as concerns the democratic process; South
1406
Africa, Nigeria and many others, to mention but a few. We were heartened today when many of us heard from the former President Mandela of South Africa about all the good work that is being done throughout the region by the African leaders—
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Baroness that I did say that a few countries in Africa are democratic.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most grateful to hear that clarification. If I misheard the noble Baroness, I apologise for any implicit criticism.
The whole issue is also a priority for this Government. I can reassure the noble Earl that there is commitment to address Africa's problems and that that commitment is real. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Hughes that the approach of Her Majesty's Government towards central Africa, especially in relation to Angola, will remain robust in responding to their testing problems.
We very much support the IGAD peace process in Sudan and welcome the role that the Churches are playing in the drive for peace in the region. We welcome in particular the efforts being made in Sudan. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury is right to highlight the contribution being made and the challenges being faced today by the Churches. We all need to join the race for peace. Her Majesty's Government welcome all runners to join this marathon from wherever they hail.
We, Her Majesty's Government, are playing our part. The attendance at the Africa/Europe Summit in Cairo this week by both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Peter Hain demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the region. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for alluding to their statements as evidence of their, and the whole Government's, determination on this issue.
We also agree with the emphasis placed on conflict prevention by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. It is a fundamental element in our foreign policy worldwide—nowhere more so than in Africa. I can reassure the noble Lord and confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the proposed legislation will seek to include the brokering of arms.
Many noble Lords rightly concentrated on one issue that dominates Africa today; namely, the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC is the major challenge facing Africa, the United Nations and the international community. The conflict is damaging the Congo and all the countries involved. The costs are extremely high in terms of human lives, physical destruction, impoverishment of already desperately poor people and abuses of human rights. There are more than 1 million people internally displaced in the DRC and more than 100,000 have fled across the border and become refugees in Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and now Congo Brazzaville.
But there is good news. The framework for peace is there. In the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, the Burundi Peace Process and the proposed International

1407
Conference on the Great Lakes we have credible formulae for lasting peace. So our aim must now be to help implement the Lusaka Agreement, to support the Burundi Peace Process and to work with African, United Nations and our European partners on the preparation of the international conference.
However, if Lusaka is to work, the parties must show their commitment to it. Recent reports of increased fighting by all sides are a major threat to Lusaka and to the possibility of the UN deploying. We have expressed our concern and exerted pressure on all those concerned to choose peace and show renewed commitment to Lusaka—the best chance that we have for peace. It is a war no one can win and everyone can lose. The parties must stop fighting or there will be no UN observer force and no UN peace assistance mission.
We, along with the international community, will maintain the pressure on all parties to implement the agreement, pointing out that their interests will not be served by prolonging the conflict and instability in the region. There is no military solution. Negotiated peace provided for by Lusaka is the only solution. Everything rests on its successful implementation.
In the Security Council and with the rest of the international community we shall continue to drive the peace process forward, both through political and diplomatic support, but also practical assistance. We shall not shirk this enormous challenge.
I understand noble Lords' concerns, particularly those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, as regards the peacekeepers. I hope that noble Lords will be comforted by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1291 of 24th February, which authorises the expansion of the UN force in the Congo to 5,537 military personnel. It is a clear demonstration of the Security Council's readiness to provide practical support for Lusaka and help resolve the conflict.
But deployment can only be, and must be, an operation which helps the parties implement an agreement to which they themselves are fully committed. We cannot force compliance. The deployment of troops will not in itself guarantee peace and security for the DRC and other countries in the region. There are other issues which we are addressing.
First, if there is to be peace, it is vital that there is an open and inclusive national dialogue on the future of the DRC to arrive at a new political dispensation and national reconciliation, as provided for in the Lusaka agreement. This must get under way quickly. The UK has already provided £25,000 to fund the dialogue. Sir Ketumile Masire, the facilitator, has accepted our offer to provide him with a technical adviser. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords by telling them that the Government oft he Democratic Republic of the Congo have apologised for the confusion which cut short Sir Ketumile's recent visit. We understand that he will return to the region shortly.
1408
Secondly, along with our EU partners, we must prepare for an international conference on the Great Lakes region. Although the conference will not be launched until Lusaka has been properly implemented, we believe that it is valuable as an incentive to the parties to move forward.
Thirdly, we are encouraging the parties to develop a plan for the successful disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration and relocation (DDRR) of the armed militia groups active in the region. This is critical for the successful implementation of the Lusaka agreement and for lasting peace in the region.
We have set out the main principles which should underpin any successful DDRR programme, and presented them to the parties. Our aim now is to encourage them to take this forward with the UN. The success of the process is dependent on the political commitment of all the parties involved in the peace process.
Fourthly, we fully support the proposal for the establishment of a panel of experts to investigate the illegal exploitation of DRC's natural resources. These are being used by all sides to help fund and sustain the war and this is robbing future generations of Congolese of the resources to build a stable future. The international community needs to ensure that commercial dealings in DRC's natural resources are legal; and that the people of the DRC, not private individuals, are the ones who benefit.
Fifthly, in line with all these actions we are also tackling the humanitarian situation in the DRC. We remain concerned about violations of human rights and humanitarian suffering on both sides of the lines, including acts of incitement to ethnic hatred and violence. The difficulty in helping the victims is gaining access. We are pressing the UN to take a firm lead in negotiating access for humanitarian agencies. We all know that a great deal of humanitarian suffering has been caused by this conflict. International donors, including the UK, are providing assistance. Since the war began, the UK alone has committed £1.7 million in humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the conflict. This assistance has been provided through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations.
We have called on the government of the DRC and on the other belligerents to provide the necessary security guarantees for international NGOs so that they can work in those areas hardest hit by the conflict.
We deplore what is happening in Zimbabwe. We are pressing the government there to abide by the rule of law. As noble Lords are aware, land is an emotive issue in Zimbabwe. We have consistently said that we would support a land reform programme that is transparent. The Department for International Development has decided to support land resettlement through nongovernmental channels. We shall make available up to £5 million over the next three to five years.
We have considered carefully whether it would be appropriate to call for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, but we have judged that, despite the seriousness of what is happening today in

1409
Zimbabwe—the farm invasions and other matters—that is not appropriate. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met President Mugabe in Cairo on Monday and that we have raised our concerns. We look forward to receiving the Zimbabwean delegation here.
Many noble Lords have touched on other issues. Perhaps I may say quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we have good news in regard to Ethiopia and Eritrea. We understand that the government of Ethiopia are now in a position to accept the OAU peace package in its entirety and that a peaceful resolution may be in sight.
So far as concerns Burundi, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, that we are providing practical and political support for the Arusha process and the associated peace-building efforts. We are willing to contribute further funds to the Arusha peace process if it proves necessary. Nelson
1410
Mandela's appointment has greatly encouraged us all. Those of us who heard him speak today will have been heartened by his words.
We have shown our commitment to the quest for peace and we will continue to do so. The UK, along with the international community, will support Africa in its efforts to manage and resolve its crises. In the DRC we have provided political, diplomatic and financial support. We stand ready to help to implement all aspects of the Lusaka agreement—the national dialogue, DDRR—and to address issues such as the exploitation of the DRC's resources by both sides. Our vision is of a democratic and prosperous DRC, at peace with itself and with its neighbours.
Ultimately, though, we understand that the best and most lasting solutions to the continent's crises will be those fashioned and honed by Africa itself. But Britain will do all it can to help.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Anglo-Scottish Ministerial Meetings
  Anglo-Scottish Ministerial Meetings
  NHS Trusts: Audit Commission Fees
  NHS Trusts: Audit Commission Fees
  Hotel Registration
  Hotel Registration
  Blind People: TV Licence Fee
  Blind People: TV Licence Fee
  Irish Republic: Commemorative Celebrations
  Irish Republic: Commemorative Celebrations
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  FCO Staff Seconded to EU Member States
  FCO Staff Seconded to EU Member States
  EU Member States Officials Seconded to FCO
  EU Member States Officials Seconded to FCO
  CFSP Working Groups
  CFSP Working Groups
  CFSP Working Group Meetings: UK Representation
  CFSP Working Group Meetings: UK Representation
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  United Nations: Modernisation
  United Nations: Modernisation
  WEU Parliamentary Assembly
  WEU Parliamentary Assembly
  Zimbabwe: Human Rights
  Zimbabwe: Human Rights
  Yugoslavia: Flight Ban Suspension
  Yugoslavia: Flight Ban Suspension
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  UN Millennium NGO Forum
  UN Millennium NGO Forum
  Kosovo: KFOR Peacekeeping
  Kosovo: KFOR Peacekeeping
  Sudan: Bombing
  Sudan: Bombing
  Kosovo: Rule of Law
  Kosovo: Rule of Law
  Religious Discrimination in EU and Commonwealth States
  Religious Discrimination in EU and Commonwealth States
  Roadworks: Code Power Licence-holders
  Roadworks: Code Power Licence-holders