Sitting of 20 April 2000

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

  CONTINGENCIES FUND ACCOUNTS 1998–99
  Ordered,
  Accounts of the Contingencies Fund 1998–99, showing:—

  (1) The receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1999.

  (2) The distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Adjournment (Easter)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.34 am
Ms Jenny Jones: European framework directive 89/391/EEC may not be the stuff of headlines, but, since it was incorporated in our health and safety regulations, it has become apparent that its implementation could threaten the livelihoods of external health and safety consultants. It appears that firms are now being encouraged to use only in-house employees in that role, rather than employ external consultants.
I was alerted to the problem last June by constituents of mine who have run a very successful health and safety consultancy in my area for more than 35 years. They employ 23 people, are very good at what they do and are highly regarded.
For the past 10 months, we have corresponded with Ministers and with the Health and Safety Executive. My constituents have also attended consultation meetings and have met the chief executive of the HSE. However, although many issues have been resolved, it is obvious that the question of to whom firms should turn for advice still has not been satisfactorily resolved.
I understand that the present view in the corridors of power is that what, for want of a better term, I shall call the consultancy culture that developed in the 1980s and 1990s is to be overturned.
Mr. David Drew: Good.
Ms Jones: My hon. Friend says that that is good, but I suggest that he listens to what I have to say.
There is a long tradition of self-employment and of small firms in my part of the country, which stretches back to the 19th century. There are very good consultants in my area, who clearly predate what happened in the 1980s and 1990s and who are good at what they do. If we are not careful, they will be swept away, and that will not benefit anyone.
1080
We must stop swinging from one extreme to another. Some consultants who set up in the 1980s may not have been as experienced as they should have been. They charged large fees and did not do a particularly good job, but most people who employ consultants now know what to look for and can tell the cowboys from the true experts.
Another problem is that small firms needing health and safety advice often find that it is not viable to employ their own staff. They prefer to go to another business and buy in the expertise that they need. In some circumstances, therefore, the EEC directive is not entirely realistic.
The Ministers whom we have approached have been very understanding, and, in discussions, the HSE has been very helpful to my constituents. It will now produce leaflets and literature informing firms about the health and safety advice that they must get and where to find it. However, the trade press still seems keen to push the line that firms should no longer use external consultants. The February edition of the magazine Safety Management clearly stated in its first paragraph:
Long-awaited changes to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations came into force … making it clear that employers should use competent employees for advice on health and safety matters instead of calling in external specialists.
That is the advice being given in the health and safety industry, so it is no wonder that my constituents are extremely worried.
The many small firms similar to the one run by my constituents employ a lot of people, and many redundancies could follow if they are driven out of business and go to the wall. I know that that is not the intention of the Government, who have made it perfectly clear that they are business friendly and want to help small businesses. I am sure that they would say that I am reporting an unfortunate interpretation of the guidelines.
However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who will reply to the debate, will request that his ministerial colleagues keep a very close eye on the implementation of the directive. It will not do my constituents any good if their firm folds, and the future would be very bleak for other constituents of mine who might lose their jobs as a result.
The guidelines are being implemented. I hope that the Government will monitor very carefully to whom firms go for health and safety advice. It would benefit no one if excellent consultancies were driven to the wall.
9.39 am
Mr. Peter Viggers: My constituents would not forgive me if I allowed the House to rise for the Easter recess without raising yet again the issue of the Royal hospital, Haslar. It is overwhelmingly the most important issue in my constituency and in south Hampshire and one of the most important issues facing the Ministry of Defence, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
The background to the case is well known. In 1994, the then Government decided in "Defence Costs Study 15" that there should be one service hospital—one centre of defence medical excellence—at the Royal hospital, Haslar in Gosport. That decision was implemented over the next five years or so and the job of co-ordinating the work of the Army, Navy and Air Force was proceeding well. Then, on 10 December 1998, the Government announced to everyone's disbelief the closure of the only tri-service hospital as, would you believe it, a measure to promote

1081
better services within the defence medical services. It was proposed to close the only hospital that was thought to be a way ahead and to open a new centre of medical excellence somewhere else, as yet unknown.
A year or so later, it has been announced that that centre of medical excellence will be in Birmingham. I have not yet come across a single person serving in the Army, Navy or Air Force who is enthused about that idea. Birmingham has no particular service connection, unlike many of the other places that might have been chosen.
The reaction to the announcement was dramatic. I announced that we would hold a rally and march, and we thought that we might have 1,000 or 2,000 people, possibly 5,000. I was surprised when I heard that the police were planning for 10,000, and in fact 22,000 joined in the rally and march—quite a gathering. It was led by Members of Parliament. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) for joining us on that occasion and to the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth who, on this as on many other things, is giving a local lead. We marched across to Haslar hospital.
All the people in the Gosport peninsula, and virtually all those to whom I speak in the Ministry of Defence, want to see Haslar retained. They recognise that it has outstanding facilities. It has a world-leading MRI scanner, a hyperbaric unit and a burns unit, and £35 million has been spent on it in the past 10 years. To close it would be the most awful mistake. The fact remains, as declared in a number of speeches and in the outstanding publication that has been produced by the Save Haslar group, of which I am the chairman, that there is a case for retention of the hospital. All those arguments remain.
People in the armed forces are deeply worried that the loss of doctors and nurses will continue in the armed forces until Haslar is confirmed as a centre of defence medical excellence. The move to Birmingham would involve moving not only doctors and nurses but the school of defence medicine, which is at Fort Blockhouse adjacent to Haslar. That would cause intense local difficulty.
I have talked so far only about the defence aspects of Haslar hospital. As it is also a civilian hospital that is effectively the district general hospital for my constituency, cases arise daily that demonstrate how much it is needed. Only on Tuesday, I received a letter from an 82-year-old constituent who told me the story of a friend and neighbour who was admitted to hospital for a heart operation. He was prepared for the operation, taken to the operating theatre and then taken back and told that he could go home because no intensive care unit bed was available. His operation was postponed for two weeks. He returned home and the following day his wife died, perhaps as a result of the stress of having her husband home from hospital. That is just one story.
On Monday this week, I received an updating letter from another constituent who lives in Stubbington, but prefers not to be named. In January 1999, she was told that she needed a triple heart bypass and that if it were delayed by up to two years she would have a 40 per cent. chance of surviving. She was told that the waiting time would be nine months. In November 1999, she was told that the waiting time would be between 12 and 15 months. She is now told that it is perhaps 17 months or longer.
1082
The hospital hopes to give her a waiting time of 18 months. So in a year, the waiting time for a cardiac operation in my constituency has increased from nine to 17 months. There is no immediate prospect of that lady being given a date for her operation. Civilian cases are being severely postponed and beds are needed that are not available elsewhere. My constituents believe that it would be lunacy to close a hospital that is superbly equipped from both a civilian and defence medicine point of view.
The main reason given for the closure of Haslar hospital is that it is impossible for doctors and nurses to receive accreditation from the royal colleges. I submit that that problem can be overcome. Accreditation is entirely a matter of training and it must be possible to co-ordinate the work at Haslar with that in Portsmouth, Winchester and Southampton, and to provide training in conjunction with other local hospitals. It would be madness for Haslar to close.
My constituents are becoming concerned and several are rather frustrated that the campaign to save Haslar has not resulted in an announcement by the Government that they will change their minds. I should like to send them a message of hope and determination. We believe that we will win. If at this point I demand that the Government state, yes or no, whether they will save Haslar hospital, of course they will say no, that they will not save the hospital; that they made the announcement 16 months ago that they would close it. Faced with such a demand, of course the Government will stick to their guns.
What I say to my constituents is that the facts are changing around us. The intention is to move to Birmingham, but there is no enthusiasm in the defence medical services for such a move. I therefore predict that the move may not take place, or at least will take place in rather different circumstances. It is also intended to build up a Ministry of Defence hospital unit within Haslar and then to transfer that to Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham. I maintain that that, too, is unlikely to happen. It was intended that the move should happen in about 2002. Now it will happen in about 2005 or 2007—do I hear 2009? I suspect that the move will not take place.
I have received a number of reports from senior personnel who have visited Haslar and have been surprised to see what the facilities are—the MRI scanner and the hyperbaric unit—and to see the administration unit. Haslar administers hospital units deployed in times of emergency. There is a large number of ancillary units within Haslar that it would be extremely inconvenient to move to Birmingham or somewhere else. I suspect that that, too, will be an argument in favour of retaining Haslar.
Two hospital ships are to be constructed. It is logical that they should be based at Portsmouth. Where better than Haslar to link with the hospital ships? I cannot imagine that it would be easy for hospital ships to link with Birmingham. In that and in so many other ways, I suspect that the need for Haslar will gradually become more clear.
Casevacs—emergency casualties removed from the field of operations—can readily be moved to Haslar. There is no space for them in Birmingham and no arrangements have been made for them so far. I suspect that the Government will realise that the failure to fast-track medical treatment for people in the armed forces is becoming a serious problem. Another constituent

1083
of mine is a young Marine reservist. While on a Marine operation, he incurred an injury to his back. He will have to wait 18 months to have that injury rectified because he is joining the queue with all the civilians. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence will realise that it will be advantageous to be able to fast-track medical treatment for military personnel. The only way to do that is to have a dedicated hospital.
The health authority has consulted locally on retention of Haslar as an out-patient unit seeing 60,000 patients a year compared with the 55,000 who are currently seen at Haslar. All that consultation procedure is predicated on the cross-link unit being made available by the Ministry of Defence to the civilian authorities. If the cross-link—the centre of Haslar—is not made available, the consultation procedure will have been invalid, and we shall have to start again.
For all the reasons that I have given, I say to my constituents, "Do not fear that the campaign to which you have committed yourselves so wholeheartedly is faltering or that the taskforce will lack determination." We are determined to retain Haslar not only as a civilian out-patient unit but as a hospital serving the defence medical services. I say to my constituents, "Have faith and join us in the determination to do that."
9.49 am
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will be aware that, a few years ago, the Government inherited the responsibilities of the then ill-fated British Coal, including the long-standing problems of payments for bronchitis and emphysema to about 100,000 miners. No one can deny that a prompt start was made. Under British Coal, it had seemed impossible for us to make any headway whatever.
Not long after the Government inherited that problem, we were able to celebrate success in the courts: the money would be paid. After that Manchester decision, the Government declared that they would spend between £2.5 billion and £3 billion to compensate those miners. That was a good start—a fast start; we were on our way.
However, the difficulties have been many. I have raised them in the House on several occasions and feel it necessary to speak about the matter again today. When the Labour Government introduced pneumoconiosis payments in the 1970s, we managed to make the payments quickly because not many solicitors were involved and because we were dealing with only eight or 10 sections of the National Union of Mineworkers, and with the solicitors for NACODS—the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—and for the British Association of Colliery Management. That was it. They were able to agree a scale of payments, and in next to no time every beneficiary under that scheme had received their money.
The position was not acceptable for a minority of people, but, after a few grouses, most people accepted the sliding scale and the system has worked happily ever since—except, of course, for those who did not achieve the 10 per cent. threshold in the first place. There are arguments about that. However, it was a success story.
The current problem is different. First, the NUM was shattered by the previous Government—the union was in fragments. Some areas had no pits left; some had no officials; and the whole superstructure of the NUM had
1084
been almost dismantled in many places. The net result was that some solicitors had an eye for an opportunity. We can all see their adverts on telly: they can get us money for anything—for tumbling over the pavement and God knows what else. They must be making a small fortune and their advertisements cost more than the ones for a general election, but I shall not go into that.
Those solicitors saw an opportunity; they saw that £3 billion and thought, "We're going to have a slice of that." Before we could bat an eye, they were in the pit villages, taking over the town hall for a few days. They said, "Come and meet us; we'll get you the money." The situation is different in Scotland, where the NUM still has its own solicitors, and in areas such as the one represented by my hon. Friend the Minister, but in the pit villages where there is nothing left of the NUM, those fly-by-night solicitors went through like a dose of Epsom salts. They told people that they would get them the moon, but people are still waiting.
There is a big problem in that the Government and the other agencies trying to tackle it are having to deal with as many as 300 solicitors instead of only a dozen sets of solicitors. Imagine that: 300 solicitors, who work on the principle that if they can stretch it out, they will get more money for themselves. There are rare exceptions—there are bound to be some good solicitors—but the general principle is that they do not answer letters, as I did this morning. We send off our letters straight away and our constituents thank us. Solicitors do not work like that. They work on the following basis: they do not answer letters but make people think that they are working hard for a week or a fortnight. That is what is happening to the poor old miners, heaving their lungs up—some of them dying—who want that money paid out.
During the past 18 months, I have not been backward in coming forward to explain the problem. I am still doing that. Despite that, the Government announced that, in order to hurry things up, there would be a handling charge for every solicitor for every case. The Government will pay the solicitors money—taxpayers' money—to speed the process along.
Not content with a handling charge paid for by the rest of us, some of those solicitors decided that they wanted commission as well. In some settlements that had been made, they took from 5 to 15 per cent. extra. It is time that that was stopped.
There are other delays. My hon. Friend is probably aware of them. We now have to pay the doctors as much as £100 a day for getting out miners' medical records. The miners had to go before the agency, Healthcall, to have their chests examined for a percentage assessment. The doctors are being paid £100 a day and they too are dragging their feet.
On top of that, some of the tinpot health authorities are involved in the delay. A ring-fenced sum of up to £3 billion is being handed over by the Government—no problem, the money will be paid—but, for the reasons that I have outlined, we are not able to get that money into the pockets of miners or miners' widows. That is why it is important to bring the matter to the attention of the House today—to get the show on the road.
I have mentioned that there are variations between regions and coalfields. We want to make sure that, when the payouts are made—some have been made, as my hon. Friend knows—and speeded up, there are no regional

1085
variations. Payments must be made on a similar basis, even in those areas where there is no NUM structure and where we have to deal with some of those fly-by-night, touting solicitors.
That is my first point. My second point is that the Government will be the beneficiary of about £20 billion—maybe more—from the licence auction of the new generation mobile phones. I do not have one, nor do I have a pager, so I am not into the technical stuff at all, but people tell me that there is real money involved. It is certainly more than we are paying out to the miners—a lot more.
In the run-up to the next election, we should not drag our feet over that money. I was delighted at the announcement on Monday that £100 million would go to the mining areas in order to save the few pits that the Tories did not close. I would have done things differently, but the money is better than a poke in the eye with a big stick.
I was pleased to see the faces of the Tory MPs who did not know what to do about that statement. Some of them wanted to oppose it on principle, because they do not believe in public expenditure, but once they had thought about it, they said, "Oh, I'm not sure about that." Their reaction was mixed. I like that disorientation—I enjoy it. When I hear that there is £20 billion to spend, I should like to do that once a fortnight. [Laughter.] Seriously, I have a list that I sent to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is important. We have had two years of Tory spending plans. I am pleased that is all over. We should never have followed them, but that is gone; it is behind us. We have all this money: we have paid off the national debt and there is £20 billion or even £25 billion extra.
Just as a starter, we have to sort out the pension problem. We did not accept the Tories' unemployment figures. When we came into government, we decided there should be two sets. They were announced yesterday. We should have a cost of living index for pensioners and those who are not in work. There should be an index that identifies the costs for those pensioners who are at the bottom of the pile. We must get these current decisions settled, with a view to ensuring that the Government can announce before the next general election—probably in the autumn spending review—exactly what the new index is and what the new payments will be. I am trying to get the Government off the hook. [Laughter.] This is only friendly advice.
In that brown envelope that I sent to the Prime Minister, I submitted a long list of things that need to be done, because I am absolutely sure that Madam Speaker would be utterly pleased if she thought that these statements were being made by the Government before John Humphrys got hold of them on the "Today" programme. I am trying to kill a lot of birds with a lot of stones here.
The Government have £25 billion, or whatever, to use. A statement has been half-heartedly made about what will happen to those who are in long-term care. This is the first time that any Government have even thought of tackling that issue. Some pensioners finish up in warden-assisted accommodation, of which there are many examples in our constituencies, but some others have to go into long-term care—some, sadly, with senile
1086
dementia—and lose everything. Now that we have had a study on that subject, I have reason to believe that there will be another announcement on the subject shortly. I would like it to be made before the local government elections, and I have a proposal to make about what should be done with that money.
When the Government came to power, they used money from the public utilities, which had been making vast profits under the previous Government, to introduce the new deal. It was not a bad idea to use that money. The Government tell me that unemployment figures are about 800,000 or 900,000 less than they would have been had the Labour Government not come to power. Therefore, the new deal was a success in its way.
We should have a new deal on long-term nursing care. It should be launched with the use of some of the largesse from the licence auction. I am not saying that that could be done year after year, because the payment is a one-off and that new deal would have to be financed out of general taxation afterwards, but the launch could be made of a free long-term nursing care payment straight out of that money.
Those are a couple of the things that I wanted to draw to the attention of the Minister and all the relevant Ministers. I am saying that we must speed up payments for chronic ailments and bronchitis, and we must ensure that vibration white finger payments are made speedily. Let us try to get the job completed before the next general election. If we do, there will be a lot of satisfied customers in the coalfields.
If we can also announce in the next few weeks that long-term care will be free for everyone who, unfortunately, has to spend their declining years in those places, it will be of benefit not only to those people—in one fell swoop, we shall have won the support of all pensioners, feeble or otherwise, if they know that a Government at long last have managed to grasp this very important issue and settle it, with the result that not only pensioners but all their families will thank us for ever.
10.4 am
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow two such powerful speakers as the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Gosport said about Haslar.
There was much with which I identified in the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover. It may surprise the House to learn that I too represent a mining constituency. The coal mines are closed but there are still miners, and I very much identify with the points that the hon. Gentleman made. I hope that areas such as the Somerset coalfield will not be forgotten, and that the miners who are suffering in exactly the same way as their colleagues elsewhere in the country will have access to the money that they should have.
Although the three points that I shall raise are well worn, they deserve to be addressed yet again before the House rises. The first—the issue of post offices—has been discussed ad nauseam in the past few weeks, but I make no apology for returning to it. I believe that we are making progress with the Government, not entirely as a result of the efforts of hon. Members. That progress has much to do with the 3 million people who were prepared to put their name on a petition and make plain their concerns

1087
about what was happening to their local post offices, not just because of the people directly involved in the post offices, but because of all the people who depend on the presence of that service in their communities—the pensioners who do not want to be encumbered with bank accounts with which they are not familiar, but want to continue to use cash, drawing it from a post office, from people they know, in their local community.
We have made progress in three ways. First, the Government have recognised that there will be a continuing need to allow people the choice of drawing benefits in cash from their local post office. Secondly, the Government have recognised that there is a need to maintain the integrity of the sub-post office network. Thirdly, an amendment has been introduced to the Postal Services Bill that provides for a subsidy to be paid.
Unfortunately for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, there is a lack of definition on all three aspects. Business decisions are being taken now. People are deciding whether to invest in a post office business, whether they can safely retire and whether there will be a buyer for their business. More clarity is needed.
Therefore, I make a plea for the Government to talk now to the Post Office and to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, and put flesh on the bones of the arrangements that they are starting to develop. I do not take a partisan view of this. The issue is too important to use as a party political weapon. I believe that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who recognise the value of sub-post offices. I was sorry that the Government took so long to respond to the legitimate concerns. I congratulate them on the fact that they are starting to do so, but they must finish the job. We must have clarity.
Secondly, I want to discuss the rural economy. I make no apology for doing so, because so many people—not only those who are involved in agriculture but all those in businesses that derive their income from agriculture, directly or indirectly—are still in a desperate position. I saw a tenant farmer, a dairy fanner, a man who had worked on the land all his life, a strong man, in tears in my presence because I mentioned the word "retirement" and it suddenly came to him that he had no means of retiring; he had nothing. His business was on its last legs, and once he retired he would be left with no house, no business, no capital—nothing. We must address that issue.
The only thing that is keeping the agriculture industry afloat at the moment is the extraordinary maintenance of the value of land prices. Land and quota are maintaining their prices, not because people are investing in agriculture but because they are investing in farmhouses, parkland and paddocks for their horses.
A farm in my village is for sale, and the estate agents who are selling that land have advertised it as a leisure dairy farm. Anyone who lives in a rural area knows that if there is an oxymoron to end all oxymorons, it is one involving the use of the words "leisure" and "dairy". That is how the estate agents describe that farm, which has provided a living for generations, in order to sell it. I find that offensive.
The Government have made moves in the right direction in terms of the farm summit, but they do not go far enough. The pig sector is still in desperate straits despite the measures that have been taken, as is the dairy sector, which is so important in my area. Those sectors
1088
are not asking for more subsidy. They do not ask continually for more money. They simply want a fair deal for their effort. At the moment, they are not getting that from the processors and supermarkets. Until milk prices are set at a reasonable level, businesses will continue to fail. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could help by sorting out the successors to Milk Marque to ensure that we have the vertical integration that enables milk to be sold profitably.
My final point on this subject concerns the need to consider carefully the position of the tenant fanner—the farmer who does not have capital and who is seeing his business disappear, and, with it, his home. We need to find some way of providing security for those people. We need to find for them pension arrangements, which they do not have. The retirement scheme which we proposed, but which the Government rejected, would have gone some way towards meeting that need.
Thirdly, I turn to schools and education in my area. On this, too, I follow a well-worn track. How can it be right that a child in my constituency in a local education authority school can receive from the Government £1,400 a year less than a child in a leafy suburb of London? It is not just in Somerset that children lose out, but in many areas across the country. The extraordinary distribution system does not recognise the value of the child.
All sorts of academic arguments can be advanced in support of a better deal for our children. I do not want to go into that today, but simply want to say that a child, wherever he lives, is entitled to have a reasonable sum spent on his education. That is not happening. It is no good talking about three years of stability when those are three years of injustice to children in Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Derbyshire or wherever education authorities are losing out under the present formula. The Government need to address that.
The Government must also address the problem of capital. As the hon. Member for Bolsover said, we had two years of sticking to Tory spending guidelines, which meant that there was no money. Now, at last, there is beginning to be some improvement and I give the Government credit for that. Temporary classrooms in my constituency are being replaced by permanent ones. I have a list of five or six this year, but we have 800 temporary classrooms in the county of Somerset and some have been temporary for 40 years. Until we address the problem of capital expenditure in our schools, we will not provide the environment in which children can learn successfully and teachers can give of their best; nor will we give parents the confidence in the state education system that I believe they should have.
For all those reasons, I ask Ministers to look again at the distribution of resources and to make sure that the education, education, education pledge works for all, not just those in city areas which sometimes seem to receive a rather better deal.
10.14 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I want to raise an issue that I know is troubling many of my hon. Friends and which is causing a lot of anger throughout the country. I refer to the wave of bank closures that are hitting all areas of our nation. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the rural economy, and it is in the rural areas

1089
that banks are being closed. I want in particular to talk about my constituency, where some of those bank closures have recently taken place.
East Cleveland has seen the sudden announcement of the closure of two small branches of Barclays and a large branch of NatWest. The villages affected are Skelton, Brotton and Loftus. They are not small, sleepy hamlets, but sizeable villages that could be seen as small country towns. They are neighbouring communities on the fringes of urban Teesside. Barclays has now closed branches in Skelton and Brotton. NatWest is planning to close its branch in Loftus.
The closure of the Skelton branch of Barclays follows an earlier closure of the local branch of NatWest. There is now no effective banking presence in a town of some 6,000 men, women and children. The closure of the Barclays branch in Brotton means that there are now no banking facilities whatever in a community of some 4,000 people. Loftus is the largest settlement in that part of East Cleveland: the town, with small villages and estates, has a population of some 7,000. The NatWest branch there is the biggest bank in the town. If it closes—the closure is expected in early May—it will leave the town, indeed most of east Cleveland, with only one branch of the big four clearing banks: the Loftus branch of Barclays. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that most of my constituents are sceptical about that branch remaining open for the foreseeable future, in view of the track record of that particular banking concern.
I need to say something about what the closures and threatened closures will mean for many of my constituents. With the one exception of Barclays in Loftus, there will be no banking facilities between the town of Saltburn and Whitby—a distance of nearly 20 miles. That area is not uninhabited moorland. It covers large and small communities, many farms and a host of industrial employers—the largest being Boulby potash mine. Boulby is the largest deep mine in Europe, with some 700 employees, who have their wages paid through automatic bank transfer. Many of them have been hit by the Barclays closures, and 103 of them have been hit by the announcement of the intended closure of the Loftus NatWest. In no case was the company informed of the closure proposals by any of the banks concerned, and the same is true for other employers: the 30-odd firms based on the Skelton trading estate, the large Skinningrove steel plant of Corus plc, the nearby Skinningrove fabrication works of the multinational Caterpillar company, and the other varied employers ranging from the local bus depot to the East Cleveland national health service hospital facility.
The local authority first knew of the proposals in the same way as most of the residents—through the local paper. No consultation was built into the proposals. Many small shopkeepers are furious. In Brotton I was told that there were many small shops where the loss of cashing-in and change facilities could cause closures. That is because many of those shops are run by a husband or wife, leaving the other partner to take a job elsewhere. The closures mean that they may have to close shutters and drive the three miles to Saltburn and back just to exchange and bank some change.
Local employees are furious. Many of them have relied on a quick trip into the nearest village on a Friday to draw out some spending money, whereas now they have to trek
1090
to a distant town after work to get their cash from the nearest hole in the wall that may be working. For those without access to a car—some 30 per cent. of households on some of our local estates do not have such access—the outlook is bleak. From Brotton, the nearest branch of any bank is in Saltburn. It may be only three miles, but there is only one bus an hour. If a constituent misses a connection back, it could take him up to two hours just to cash a cheque. He could get a more regular bus to the market town of Guisborough, but that is several miles away and the return bus fare is £2.70.
The banks' attitude towards local feelings was contemptuous. Local management at Barclays has decided to preserve silence on the subject, relying on national press releases, but NatWest is worse. When the local newspaper for Loftus, the East Cleveland edition of the Evening Gazette asked what alternatives there were for NatWest customers, its press spokesman said:
I think there is a small supermarket next door, and they do offer cashback facilities.
That is true, but what a disgraceful attitude to suggest blithely that someone has to get a minimum of £10-worth of shopping merely to get cash out of the till. People are expected to queue at a public checkout to get cash, but no mention is made of other functions such as paying in cheques, dealing with loans and investments or inquiring about services such as mortgages or ISAs.
We should be more able to affect the levels of private sector investment in areas suffering from isolation or relative deprivation. We all know that financial exclusion is not just a problem for the deprived in rural areas. I mentioned the difficulties that the closures will mean for small businesses in loss of turnover and increased difficulties in acquiring change, and there are associated security issues of having more money on their premises.
Many elderly and disabled people experience mobility problems: for them, cash machines, even where they are available, are simply not a suitable option. Closing small local banks can mean the premature loss of financial independence and social interaction, because many local banks act as the linchpin for small communities.
Respected campaigning organisations such as Help the Aged and Age Concern have joined other campaigning organisations in a campaign for community banking services, and they have been vocal in their concern and dismay at the recent spate of bank closures. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000 and others are concerned that, with bankless communities losing the lifeblood of the high street, people will increasingly travel out of town to shop, creating added congestion that is to the detriment of the environment.
Let us consider the figures, bearing in mind the fact that unless we do something about the problem, things will only get worse. In the 10 years since January 1990, more than 4,000 banks have been closed in England, Wales and Scotland. Independent consultants predict that a further 4,000 are set to close in the next five years. That will leave more than 1,000 communities across the United Kingdom without banking facilities.
Tackling social exclusion is one of the biggest challenges facing us. Only last week, we saw the publication of the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, about which I have tabled an early-day motion. I hope that all Members will sign it. That was the theme

1091
of a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the message from Ministers is that social exclusion has been, and will remain, at the top of the Government's agenda.
In November last year, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury published the findings of the social exclusion unit's policy action team—PAT 14—which considered access to financial services. In her introduction to the report, she says:
The banks in particular have a major task ahead of them, extending services to low-income households and developing delivery channels accessible to people in deprived neighbourhoods.
She concluded:
The banks have to recognise the importance of the role they play, the extent to which we all rely on them and their responsibility to sustain equal and open access to those who wish to use them.
The whole point of the report was to identify ways in which the financial elements of social exclusion could be tackled.
In his recent review of efficiency, competition and innovation in the banking industry, Don Cruickshank singled out two main areas for criticism. The first was retail current account banking, which costs householders and small business users between £3 billion and £5 billion a year too much. That is the equivalent to £400 a year for every account holder. The second was the payments system—with indefensible delays, lack of transparency and high charges.
Earlier this week, the Treasury Committee took evidence from three of the big four banks—from the chief executives of HSBC, Lloyds TSB and Barclays. NatWest had to give a presentation in the City the following day, so its representative did not bother to turn up. That says a lot about NatWest. The chief executive of Lloyds TSB made a welcome concession, which obviously surprised his competitors. Mr. Ellwood promised to preserve Lloyds TSB branches where it was the last remaining bank in a remote community. That is a start.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will reassure us that the Government treat the issue seriously and that he will do everything that he can to protect our constituents in rural communities.
10.25 am
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are several points that I wish to make. I shall try to do that quickly and the House will be pleased to learn that I have no complaints about the Palace theatre, Westcliff. It continues to remain open, and I have been invited to attend a performance of a Noel Coward play next Thursday. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) has suggested, perhaps one day I shall also be invited to perform.
I had toyed with the idea of going into detail about a very serious allegation that I have received about the abuse of cadets at Winchester barracks. However, I hope that, when I return to my office, I will discover that my efficient secretary has called the Ministry of Defence and that I will be able to reassure a number of people. I hope that I will not have to go into detail on that matter.
The first point that I wish to make is about the Lady McAdden breast unit centre in Southend, which is known as BUST. Sir Stephen McAdden was a distinguished
1092
Member of the House and represented the constituency of Southend, East. The townswomen's guild started a fund to build the centre in 1968 when 38p was deposited in an account. The centre was eventually opened in 1976 and Sir Stephen's widow, Lady McAdden, heads the unit.
I am sorry to say that, when I visited the unit on Monday, I found a rather unhappy situation. In short, there are great demands on the unit's facilities, but unfortunately it has encountered difficulties with Essex area health authority and the trust; I received a pleasant letter from the health authority this morning.
The unit is entirely maintained by public donations and £5 million has been raised so far; running costs are roughly £300,000 a year. A White Paper published a couple of years ago seems to be the source of disquiet at the unit, because it condemned the practice of palpation that is combined with mammographies at the unit. There has been a lack of proper consultation on that point.
All Members have attended breast awareness receptions in the House over the past few weeks and I pay tribute to all the organisations involved; I attended a local charity event in my constituency.
The Lady McAdden unit had been the only source of breast education and screening of women in my area before the breast screening programme was introduced in 1992 for ladies aged from 50 to 64. The unit deals with women of all ages and it had very good relations with the local hospital until 1997. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case; support for both medical and advisory services has been withdrawn. However, a report by the national health service quality assurance team in April 1999 recognised that the unit played an important part in health promotion of well women and it did not want its existence to be compromised.
When the Minister has time, will he have a word with the Department of Health? I am sure that heads need gently knocking together. The unit has been developed as a result of voluntary subscriptions, but many press reports about it have appeared, and BUST has not had the opportunity to respond to all the negative publicity. I very much hope that the true value of this wonderful organisation will be recognised. It has saved an enormous amount of money for the national health service. I have received many letters and petitions and I hope that the Minister will do his best with the Department.
My second point concerns private and residential nursing homes. In 1991, Southend, West was ranked 27th in terms of the proportion of the population receiving pensions, but I think that it is now much higher in the ranking than that. It is therefore little wonder that I occasionally have to shout at people because as my constituents grow older, they become a little hard of hearing.
I know at first hand the challenges that have to be met in Southend, West if we are to look after our senior citizens decently. Private nursing homes are being short-changed. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) touched on one or two of these issues. To save money, all such homes are being described as residential, even though they all have to provide nursing care. Some of the rules and regulations are barmy. Private home owners say that inspectors are telling them that the rooms are two inches too small, but the quality of care has little to do with chintzy curtains and other fixtures and fittings.

1093
This year, private nursing homes are getting a funding increase of 1.4 per cent., which is below inflation. Council-run homes, which have fees of £485.50 a week or £69 a day, are receiving an increase of £50 per week, whereas private homes, which are overwhelmingly in the majority, are receiving half that amount. Private home owners, who have underpinned the service for so long, deserve better treatment than they are receiving at the moment. When I visited Southend hospital on Monday, I found, sadly, that 74 beds were being blocked by men and women who would be better off in one of those nursing homes.
I turn now to crime. We all know that if we hold law and order meetings in our constituency, no criminals turn up, and we meet all the usual people who say how dreadful it all is. What is happening? In Essex there are cuts. I meet the chief constable and learn about all the new technology, targets and strategies, such as the community safety strategy; glossy magazines are produced, and the great and the good turn up to meetings. Some of those people are paid a great deal—I do not know who is running their organisation while they attend strategy meetings. They all talk about crime, but at the end of the day what is happening? In my view, not enough.
Over Christmas, I was summoned, in a nice way, by a local priest. I turned up, like Mother Teresa, because he was having a problem with local yobs and no one was available to deal with it. I thought that I would act like Joe public and use the council's emergency service. I got on the phone to the service and the person on the other end did not know who the hell I was or what a Member of Parliament was. I found out later that our emergency service is being run from Croydon, which is not particularly helpful. I do not know what the many senior citizens in my constituency would do in similar circumstances. The sad end to that story is that that priest has left the area as a result of intimidation.
Day in and day out, I find that the police are doing their best in difficult circumstances. How do we deal with graffiti? We seem to scrub the walls and receive publicity, and then the next person with a spray can comes along. Some people might think that this is a minor issue, but in fact it is very important. It lowers the tone of the neighbourhood when every wall has graffiti on it. Some councillors think that the solution is to have a wall dedicated to graffiti. How daft can anyone be? The idea that all the people spraying paint will gather at one wall and do nice designs is ridiculous. I hope that the Minister will have a word with the Home Secretary to find out whether he, as a former Essex man, has any bright ideas about how to deal with graffiti.
My next point concerns employment agencies. For many years, I was involved in recruitment. I used to think that employment agencies were the lowest of the low because, as a student, I used to register with them and find it jolly difficult to get a job. However, I ended up running my own employment agency and I have interviewed thousands of people, so I am now biased and think that such agencies do a good job in difficult circumstances.
Several constituents who run employment agencies have contacted me because they are concerned about the Government's proposals. If an agency supplies temporary
1094
members of staff to an organisation, there is a clause in their contract whereby they can join the organisation permanently, and the agency receives a part of their overall salary. There is also a clause that says that when the temp has left, the employer cannot engage that person after a certain period. For many agencies, that period is 12 weeks, and the Government are trying to reduce it to four weeks. Clever employers, who are practical operators, will find a way to get round that, and employment agencies will lose their money.
Jobcentres cannot manage all recruitment, and the private sector plays a valuable role. The Government are not being fair to small businesses and British entrepreneurs, so I hope that the Minister will have a word with a colleague in the relevant Department.
I turn now to proposed bus lanes on the A13. Southend suffers terrible traffic congestion. I do not have an easy answer to that, because one cannot simply knock down all the houses and widen the roads, but the council is absolutely potty to propose to run a bus lane all along the A13 in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
I criticise the council for failing to consult the majority of local traders. I am told that if the proposal goes ahead, it will have a considerable impact on them. Of the £2.3 million that has been earmarked for the scheme, a considerable amount—a quarter—has been spent analysing the proposal, which has caused tremendous upset among local traders. For example, Sancto, a company which has been in the town since 1910 and has been operated by four generations of the same family, was not consulted. That is not good enough when the Government are saying that we should have open government and more consultation. After all, the council is run by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Southend needs a bypass to the north. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has cut the road-building programme, and I hope that the Minister will ask his colleagues to reconsider that. I hope that he and other hon. Members enjoy a happy Easter, but it will be a happier Easter for Southend, West if he can come up with a few answers for my constituents.
10.37 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I declare an interest in the issue that I shall bring to the attention of the House. I chair the Cyprus Commonwealth parliamentary group in the House, and I want to raise the case of Loizidou v. Turkey. Mrs. Loizidou is a Greek Cypriot, and her home was in Kyrenia, which is now in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. As a result of the Turkish military invasion of Cyprus in 1974, Mrs. Loizidou was forced to leave her home and possessions.
The case involves two members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Cyprus and Turkey. As hon. Members will know, the United Kingdom is also a member of that Parliamentary Assembly. I raise the issue this morning because Cyprus is a Commonwealth country, and the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers for the Republic of Cyprus.
The case goes back some years, and, while preliminary discussions about it were taking place, there was hope that the case would be resolved. It went before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in July 1998. Turkey and Cyprus had every opportunity to present their views on the case to the court, and they did so. The court found by 15 votes to two in favour of Mrs. Loizidou.

1095
The case came before the court under article 50 of the European convention on human rights, which clearly states:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
That is something that Mrs. Loizidou cannot do. Her property and possessions are in the occupied area of northern Cyprus, to which she is refused access by the Turkish military authorities. That action by Turkey violates article 1 of the first protocol of the convention.
Following the decision of the human rights court of which all Council of Europe states are members, there have been many attempts by the Council, by the Secretary General of the Council and by the Committee of Ministers, which represents the member states of the Council, to ensure Turkey's compliance with the judgment of the court. Regrettably, Turkey continues to refuse to recognise the court's decision.
As a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, I have put questions to whoever has been the Chairman-in-Office during the Council's sittings in Strasbourg. I tabled a question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as long ago as October 1998. I asked the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), to set out the actions of the Government with regard to the judgment. On 3 November she replied:
We are mindful of the obligation of all parties to the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by European Court of Human Rights judgments. In the case of Mrs. Loizidou v. Turkey, and in line with Council of Europe procedure, the UK, along with other members of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, has invited Turkey to inform the Committee of the measures it proposes to take in consequence of the judgment.—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 541W.]
Despite that reply, there has still been a total refusal by Turkey to honour the judgment. Regrettably, no progress is being made.
At a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in January, the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brian Cowen, made a statement of regret that the Committee of Ministers had made no progress towards the execution of the judgment in the Loizidou case. He said that it was the unanimous view of the committee that the compulsory jurisdiction of the court is an obligation that is accepted by all contracting parties, which obviously includes Turkey. He added that he had sent a letter to Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Cem, emphasising the Committee's concern at Turkey's continued failure to meet its obligations.
Recently, I asked the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to express his view about the failure of Turkey to honour the court's decision. He said clearly that he deeply regretted the lack of response and commitment, and that it cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. So we have clear statements from the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
It is apparent to me and to many other parliamentarians that a decision has clearly been made by the European Court of Human Rights in favour of Mrs. Loizidou in a judgment supported by 15 votes to two. Yet we are still seeing a member state totally refusing to honour the
1096
judgment. This is at a time when on-going discussions are taking place, in which the Government are involved, about Turkey's possible future membership of the European Union. Is the deliberate flouting of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights acceptable behaviour by a future possible member of the EU? I believe that the Government have a clear duty. Is it acceptable that the case is allowed to drag on? Where do the Government stand on the judgment, and what action will we seek to take, along with our fellow member states of the Council of Europe, to see that Turkey honours the decision of the court, which many members of the Council and Governments believe should have been honoured long ago?
10.46 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall bring three issues briefly to the attention of the House before we rise for the Easter recess. The first is prompted by a petition that I placed in the Bag last Friday in the name of one of my constituents, Mrs. Holly, whose daughter was tragically killed in a hit-and-run accident in my constituency a few weeks ago. I shall not go into the details because charges have now been brought. However, we would do well to have greater awareness of speed limits and their enforcement.
Largely, my constituency benefits from a 40 mph limit. That is consequent on the nature of the New Forest. However, as I drive through the forest, I am constantly overtaken by cars racing past me. Even when I move from a 40 mph limit to one of 30 in a village, I find it difficult to remember to make that accommodation in my behaviour.
Despite the fact that I speak from the Opposition Benches, I am not critical of Government policy in this respect. I support the thrust of it. My words are of encouragement rather than criticism, but we need to make a greater effort to achieve a change of cultural awareness as regards speed. We have achieved that for drink driving, and, over 30 years, the public attitude to it has changed fundamentally. I should like to see the same change achieved in the public's approach to the enforcement and observance of speed limits.
I receive constant representations about pornography, particularly that which is hard core. I have taken a rather different view from some of my constituents. I have felt that hard-core pornography tends to be less corrosive than other forms because of the lengths to which a person who wishes to acquire it must go to get hold of it. I have always been rather more concerned about the general reduction in standards in the diet of soap operas that people experience. Even before the nine o'clock watershed, they offer a view of sexual behaviour, language and violence which I do not believe represents norms of behaviour. I have always regarded that as a more corrosive influence on society than hard-core pornography.
A few weeks ago, a constituent approached me—a parent—to complain about the nature of pornography that is available on the internet, and the ease with which it could be accessed by adults and, more particularly, by children. In an idle moment, I accessed the internet in my office. Within a few seconds, I was able, without any ingenuity, without using any passwords and without overcoming any security arrangement, to access a number

1097
of pornographic sites. Most of the material was little more titillating than making a phone call from a telephone booth in most parts of London.
Sir Patrick Cormack: How does my hon. Friend know?
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend does well to ask me that question. I have made several telephone calls from London telephone booths, where one inevitably sees such advertisements.
However, I was able to access some extremely disturbing and profoundly corrupting material, and I think it extraordinary that it is so easily accessible. I began myself to feel the powerful nature of that corruption: I could within moments have established my ability to access such material and then moved on, but I found myself lingering over it, with a sense of fascination. I reckon that I was saved by the Division Bell, which called me to my senses and forced me to leave. I felt profoundly the meaning of the words of St. Paul:
your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
I wonder whether Ministers are alive to the potential for corporate evil that lies within those forces rampant on the internet. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me that Home Office Ministers are indeed wrestling with the question of whether it is desirable—and, indeed, technically feasible—to restrict the ease of access by vulnerable people to such material.
My third and final point is one that has been raised in early-day motions this Session, in questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland and in questions that I have put to the Leader of the House of Commons. It relates to the desire initially expressed by Members of the Scottish Parliament to reopen the Act of Settlement. At first, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave only a dusty answer to those representations; however, the Government's attitude then appeared to change, and a suggestion was made that the issue might be included in the next Labour party manifesto.
I doubt the need to address the issue. I am not persuaded of the disadvantages that Roman Catholics might feel as a consequence of the Act of Settlement. Sectarianism on the mainland has been in steady decline for many years. After all, it is not long since numbers on the Conservative Benches were augmented by Members representing more than half the seats in Liverpool and Glasgow, elected entirely on the basis of the sectarian vote. Those times have gone, perhaps to the detriment of the Conservative party, but certainly to the benefit of society as a whole.
I speak as man who married a Roman Catholic, who has moved within the Roman Catholic community and who has worshipped in Roman Catholic churches. Never has any Roman Catholic told me that they feel disadvantaged by the settlement that we enjoy—with one exception: this morning, in the Members' bathroom, the Government pairing Whip made such a complaint to me. That extraordinary incident was the first time that I had ever received such a representation.
The historical justification for the settlement we enjoy lies in the English experience of political Catholicism before the glorious revolution. We must examine those
1098
issues in their historical context; I do not favour revisionism, whereby we judge the actions of our forefathers by the politically correct standards of the modern age. I accept that the Protestant succession would be difficult to defend in a modern setting, but I believe that those who advocate the reopening of the Act of Settlement have focused on the wrong target.
It is, in fact, the Bill of Rights of 1688 which establishes that the monarch can neither be a Roman Catholic, nor married to a Roman Catholic; and the Coronation Oaths Act of the same year requires the monarch to make a promise—take an oath—to uphold the Protestant religion by law established. Both those Acts were ratified by the Crown in Parliament Act of 1689. Only in 1701, as a consequence of settling the succession, after William and Mary died childless, on Anne, rather than on her Catholic half-brother, were those provisions reinforced and restated in the Act of Settlement, and again in the Act of Union of 1706. The consequence of those Acts is that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic or married to one.
The issue of the monarch's wife is rather more problematical: the legislation merely requires that she not be a Roman Catholic; it does not preclude her being anything else. However, the Coronation Oaths Act requires a promise to be made by both the monarch and his queen to uphold the Protestant succession and the Protestant faith. In addition, since the coronation of Edgar in 987, an act of communion according to the rites of the Church is required as part of the coronation. I suspect that it would be difficult for an adherent of another religion to take such an act of communion. Therefore, the position of the monarch's wife is circumcised—[Interruption.]—circumscribed to a certain extent.
Reopening those issues would present Parliament with a huge practical difficulty. We are struggling with 28 Government Bills in this Session alone. Consider the consequences of reopening all the constitutional measures that I listed—all of which would have to be taken on the Floor of the House—along with other measures, including the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the bishoprics legislation and the Statute of Westminster 1931, and having to deal with consequent negotiations with other Commonwealth Parliaments. An enormous unravelling of our constitutional arrangements would be required.
I remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House of the words uttered by Cardinal Wolsey when this country embarked on the process of creating an intimate connection between Church and state. On hearing that there was to be a reformation, he said that he wished that many things were to be reformed, but warned that others would come after and reform on that reformation, and that the results of so proceeding would be that there was nothing left. I suspect that that is the agenda of some of the advocates of reform.
In principle, I do not want the issue to be reopened for two reasons. First, the papal bull of 1570 that called on adherents of the Catholic faith to depose their Protestant monarch remains extant. It would be quite improper to reopen our constitutional settlement while it remains. Secondly, as the Prime Minister discovered to his cost, the Roman Catholic faith maintains an exclusiveness about the sacrament of the altar that I do not believe is appropriate in an age of openness and inclusiveness.

1099
The argument has now moved one stage further, with the publication of the report commissioned by the Home Secretary, "Religious Discrimination in England and Wales" by Professor Paul Weller. The interim conclusions, on page 84, state:
The religious composition of society has changed significantly since the last Coronation and the next Coronation will therefore highlight a series of very important issues and complexities, which it would be best to begin giving consideration to as soon as possible.
I urge Ministers not to give consideration to those issues, for three reasons. First, the demand for such consideration is greatly exaggerated; there is no appetite for such reform. Secondly, adherents of minority religions—not least the Chief Rabbi—have themselves expressed satisfaction with the existing settlement. Thirdly, a society that is prepared constantly to reopen and unravel fundamental values will end up with no such values at all.
The link between the Church and state expressed in the coronation service is much more fundamental and more profound than that link as expressed in the statutes to which I have referred.
The model of monarchy in the coronation service is that of an Old Testament rather than a New Testament monarchy.
It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Business of the House
11 am
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the business of the House. The business for the week after the Easter recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 2 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 MAY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 4 MAY—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 5 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MAY—Remaining stages of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
TUESDAY 9 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
THURSDAY 11 MAY—Debate on the common agricultural policy on a Government motion. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 12 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
[Thursday 11 May:
The European Scrutiny Committee Thirteenth Report (1999/2000 Session) of 5 April 2000 concerning Explanatory Memorandum 6629/00 Parts I and II of 21 March 2000; Council Document 6629/00 of 2 March 2000; and Explanatory Memorandum 6629/00 Parts I and II of 21 March 2000.
The European Scrutiny Committee Twenty-Seventh Report (1998/1999 Session) of 21 July 1999 concerning explanatory Memorandum 9311/99 of 12 July 1999; Council Document 9311/99 of 16 June 1999; and Explanatory Memorandum 9311/99 of 12 July 1999.]
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for outlining the business for the two weeks after we return. I hope that, if the pattern of this morning's sitting is repeated in future, the business statement will be made at 9.30 am before the Adjournment debate begins or at 12.30 pm when it finishes. It is unfortunate to have to interrupt them.
The right hon. Lady will know about the enormous anxiety in the House and throughout the country about the unfolding tragedy in Zimbabwe. Although it is unlikely that there will be cause to recall the House next week. will she try to ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement to the House to explain the current position when we reassemble on 2 May? Events in Zimbabwe underline the need for the House to have a proper debate on foreign affairs in the near future. It is some time since we held a wide-ranging debate on foreign affairs.
We have asked for a statement on the inter-governmental conference White Paper, and we still do not know when we shall have that.

1101
Will the right hon. Lady tell us when the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland police Bill is likely to take place? She knows that there is considerable interest in the subject in all parties.
Although the right hon. Lady responded positively to requests for a debate on long-term care, we have not yet had an opportunity to discover the Government's conclusions on that important subject. It has been raised this morning in the Adjournment debate as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. We should be grateful for a statement in the near future.
The right hon. Lady has admitted several times that, with the reversion of the Budget to the old date, the pattern for economic debates is not satisfactory. When is she likely to present proposals for regularly spaced debates on the economy and public expenditure?
Is the right hon. Lady any nearer being able to propose a proper pattern of sittings for the whole year? I ask that not because of my concern about the precise dates of recesses but because the staff the House are anxious to know them. She might know that the Doorkeepers open golf tournament takes place on 2 August. I have been approached this morning and asked whether that will have to be cancelled. Perhaps we could be given some idea about the pattern for the rest of this year.
I wish the right hon. Lady a happy Easter.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and return his good wishes for Easter to him and the House.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about making the business statement at the beginning or the end of proceedings under today's circumstances. We thought that sticking to our usual slot, even on a Friday pattern sitting, would be for the convenience of the House. However, I note his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. It causes great anxiety in all parties. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who will do his utmost to keep the House informed. The hon. Gentleman specifically asked whether we could make a statement on 2 May. The Commonwealth ministerial action group is meeting on 2 and 3 May—I fear that I cannot recall the location—and the Foreign Secretary will attend it. His attendance might be incompatible with making a statement to the House. However, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary wants to keep the House informed.
I cannot provide dates for the intergovernmental conference White Paper debate, Second Reading of the Northern Ireland police Bill or a debate on the Government's conclusions on long-term care. On the latter, I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that as yet we have no settled pattern for economic debates. We shall reconsider that. On more certainty about when the House is likely to sit during the year, I am pleased to hear an Opposition Member expressing anxiety about the impact of our decisions on the staff of the House. That is sometimes overlooked. I take his point
1102
about unpredictability. That is one of the reasons for the Modernisation Committee's recommendation, following the Jopling committee recommendation, of greater use of motions for programming the discussion of our debates. Such motions are likely to promote better discussion of issues in Government proposals that hon. Members in all parties identify as important and also because the lack of such agreements contributes to the unpredictability and uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I omitted to provide some information. Last week, I said that there would be a debate on a Select Committee report in Westminster Hall on 11 May. We now know that it will be the second report this Session of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on engineering and physical sciences-based innovation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When I hear Opposition spokesmen refer to patterns of sittings, I start to worry. It is as if the Opposition are trying to fix the business.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They will be asking for guillotines next.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The unpredictability and uncertainty in the House strengthens it and makes the institution what it is.
Is there any news on our annual debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee report?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot provide a date for that debate, but I bear in mind the pressure to hold it. Of course, I take my hon. Friend's point about the anxiety that he and other long-serving Members feel when the Opposition seek a more predictable pattern of debates that they are trying to create difficulties in the Government's handling of business. However, there is merit in reaching common-sense agreements so that important issues can be aired and the House has an opportunity to scrutinise them. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) say sotto voce that the Opposition will be calling for guillotines next. He will remember that the Leader of the Opposition did that not long ago.
Mr. Paul Tyler: While we all welcome the fact that the Government try to give notice of business several weeks in advance, what is the rationale for changing the business for Thursday 4 May, which is an important date for many hon. Members? The change has caused some confusion. A debate was supposed to be held on the Wakeham report on the reform of the House of Lords. Many hon. Members intended to give up the chance to meet their electorate to be present at that debate. However, the business has been changed to a debate on defence. That means that those who had to be in their constituencies have to change their arrangements. Many hon. Members, including members of the Select Committee on Defence, will find it difficult to be present on that day. Why has that change been made?
We endorse the views of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on Zimbabwe. As the Leader of the House pointed out, our return will coincide with a meeting of the Commonwealth leaders. I hope that there will be an early report to the House about what action the Commonwealth can take, hopefully under British leadership, to deal with the deteriorating situation.

1103
I endorse the views of not only the hon. Member for South Staffordshire but many other hon. Members about the need for a Government statement as soon as possible on long-term care for the elderly. Many hon. Members have expressed that view over several weeks.
Finally, I endorse the view that we should wish each other a happy Easter.
Mrs. Beckett: I of course understand that, whenever we change the provisional business that has been announced, there are always as many complaints as there are congratulations. I understand that doing so can create difficulties for Members, and of course understand the point about the Defence Committee.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that several defence debates are scheduled. We strive to accommodate the concerns of the Defence Committee, which include, for example, providing timely debates following completion of its reports and so on. However, there are occasions on which, unfortunately, we cannot accommodate all its requests.
I of course take the hon. Gentleman's point about the debate scheduled for 4 May. I am not entirely sure—this is not a criticism—that he was with us for lasts week's business statement. If he was, he will recall that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the Opposition spokesman, specifically asked us not to stage the House of Lords reform debate on 4 May—indeed, a number of Members expressed that view—because, although all the issues that we debate are of importance, and we would not find time for them on the Floor of the House if they were not, there is a feeling that the debate is a matter of considerable constitutional import and many Members, who otherwise might be engaged on local election day, wish to take part in it.
I note, too, the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Members having been prepared to give up the chance to meet their electorate. I am sure that they are now even more happy that they will not need to make that sacrifice. I also take on board his remarks about both Zimbabwe and long-term care.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the widespread interest in the Government's new policy planning guidance note 6, which will help protect the green belt? However, does she recognise the concern that we are still hamstrung by the structure and other plans that, in some cases, were made many years ago? Will she try to schedule a debate on those issues in the reasonably near future, perhaps combining consideration of the Government's forthcoming White Papers on urban and rural planning, and response to the Rogers report?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, especially as he ties in other documents with his proposal for an examination of such issues. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for such a debate on the Floor. He might find a debate in Westminster Hall a more fruitful opportunity. However, I certainly take on board his point about several issues coming together.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the pressure on the House's business, but join those who are calling for a major debate on foreign affairs. Although I
1104
also appreciate concerns about Zimbabwe, there is an even greater tragedy in Ethiopia. May we have an opportunity to see how we as a people are pressing the world to help that situation?
I also join those who are expressing season's greetings. I hope that we might all enter into the wonder and mystery of Good Friday and the thrilling joy of Easter day.
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I know is the whole House. I certainly take on board his point about the number of foreign affairs issues that are arising. I shall endeavour to raise that matter with the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the ease of travelling on our roads during the Easter school holidays. In the light of such ease when parents are not driving their children to school, will she find time for a debate on home-to-school transport provision?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, I recommend Westminster Hall. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point about the contrast. I saw an interesting description the other day of something that is called a walking bus, which gathers school children to take them to school. That is thought to be conducive to safety and to easing parents' fears. I know that some experiments are being undertaken, but I fear that it is unlikely that I shall find time in the near future for such a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. John Bercow: I, too, wish the right hon. Lady and her husband a happy Easter, although I feel sure that they will both sorely miss the company of right hon. and hon. Members.
When will we have the delayed but important annual debate on small businesses—a matter of great concern to them, as they constitute 99.6 per cent. of all British enterprises, employ approximately half of the private sector work force and contribute two fifths of our national output?
May we have as early as possible a further statement on progress in the proposed appointment of the chairman of the Appointments Commission, on which the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office had a few words to say on Tuesday afternoon? I hope that nominations have not yet closed, though the appointment is to be made very soon. Does the Leader of the House agree that, in view of the importance of that person being characterised by experience, impartiality and a spirit of public service, one outstanding candidate for the post would be my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I hope that she will undertake vigorously to lobby on his behalf.
Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am sorry and surprised that, uncharacteristically, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not present.
Mr. Skinner: It is his day off.
Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps he is having a day off, which makes a change.

1105
There is a slight inconsistency in the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the Appointments Commission. On one hand, he hopes that nominations are not closed, but on the other, that there is an early announcement. Those statements seem not to be mutually compatible. However, I anticipate that an announcement will be made very soon.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for entering the caveat that a debate on small businesses is not an assured annual event, although the Government endeavour to find a regular, suitable opportunity for one. I say that only because, as he will know, one does not have to be in this Chamber for very long, listening to Members calling for annual debates on a variety of burning issues, to realise that we would never do anything if we agreed to all such requests.
It is difficult to tear oneself away from this place. We shall definitely miss right hon. and hon. Members, but we shall just have to steel ourselves.

Adjournment (Easter)
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
11.17 am
Mr. Swayne: I shall attempt to draw my remarks to a close as I see that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The view of the secular state of the New Testament is very much one of grudging tolerance—render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. The view that we have expressed in our coronation service is much more intimate: of priest and king intimately connected by the anointing of oil and the consecration of the monarch. The monarch reigns not only by the grace of God, but with the blessing of God and is defender of the faith. I suggest that such an image is not open to amendment as Professor Weller would have us believe.
I say in passing that the communion service has been an integral part of the coronation service from the outset. The only monarch who avoided it was James II, and we all know what became of him. I argue that any attempt to include, as Professor Weller appears to require, the active participation in the act of acclamation by other faiths would undermine the fundamental of the principal faith—the first commandment.
There is an entirely proper argument to be had about an entirely secular state that is devoid of religious trappings, but we should not go down the road of unravelling our religious settlement by accident or by trying to change its nature, thereby ending up with a coronation service not dissimilar to the political correctness that characterised the opening of the millennium dome.
11.19 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: It is with some pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). At first I thought that he was wise to move from debating the internet to constitutional history, but his circumlocution began to make that subject an even bigger risk than the first. I intend to be very much safer and, as would be expected of most hon. Members, say a few unkind words about Barclays bank. The matter has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar)—I do not propose to go over the same ground again—and parallel points were made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
There is a natural interrelationship between banks and post offices in rural areas. Barclays is currently running an advertising campaign using fairly expensive actors, and I understand that its slogan is, "A big bank for a big world". One fears that that may become, "Only one bank for the whole world". Barclays has been singled out as the major culprit, but it is only third in the league table of infamy, as the NatWest bank and Lloyds TSB have closed more branches.
Barclays has suffered from a lack of good public relations, but, most of all, the banks have all suffered from a lack of any form of community spirit. That problem is endemic to modern society and businesses have changed character rapidly. Many, however large, were family run, or run by an employer who lived in the community, close to or alongside his work force. He was bonded to that

1107
community through direct terms of employment, knowing his work force socially and performing acts of benevolence for that community. All that has been swept away over a short period.
The connection between the business community and the local community has gone. We see that on a vast scale with Rover, whose owners are dismissing a country just as Barclays is dismissing villages. Governments of a democratic persuasion throughout the world sometimes need to put their nationalist tendencies aside, and we may have a lot more in common with the Governments of France, Germany and Italy than with large corporations that flit from one country to another, to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of all of them.
I want to raise another subject that has been visited often and would do so with an even greater tremor were my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) still present. I must declare an interest as a solicitor before I discuss magistrates courts. Like all hon. Members, I fear that there will be further waves of closures. The county of Essex suffered that fate in early 1998 and, as each month goes by, other counties end up in the same position.
The appeal ratio is interesting, and the fees of a lawyer appealing on behalf of magistrates courts would not be large, as the success rate is remarkably small. There were only two successful appeals under the Conservative Administration, and I suppose that the Government would say that they are twice as good because over the past three years there have been four successes in 48 cases.
Again, the problem is the divorce between democracy and the functions of government. Formerly, the magistrates courts were administered by a committee of the county council, whose members are subject to the wonderful invention—if one might put it that way—of having to be elected. That stimulates the mind, as one has to listen to what the people in one's community have to say. That, of course, does not apply to chief executives of health authorities or to members of health trusts or magistrates courts committees. They do not have to be elected and can act as they will until discharged, when they receive a large settlement.
We are missing the whole point about magistrates courts and their place in the community. I have in my hand a document, issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees, that is tragically early 21st century. The words "central council" have an almost Stalinist ring about them and represent the incredible mixture of communism and capitalism that we have these days, which is called corporate finance. The document is entitled "Good Practice Guide on Courthouse Closure", but the very idea of using a good practice guide to close something down is beyond me.
Decisions are made according to "criteria", which is one of the words that I never want to hear again. Criteria are a straitjacket—a device for coming to the conclusion that the decider had reached in the first instance. The arguments for closing magistrates courts, which have been well rehearsed by hon. Members, are that there is concern about facilities and that the disabled sometimes cannot climb the steps to the courthouse. Magistrates courts solve that problem by making the disabled travel 20 miles to court rather than using the nearest courthouse. Another argument is that witnesses and defendants need to be separated, but the point was well made in a recent debate that they would travel home on the same bus to that far-distant village after the case.
1108
When one judges whether institutions should remain open, one must try to sense the spirit of what one is trying to do. Magistrates courts administer justice with the benefit of local knowledge, in the spirit of the communities in which they are set. That is best achieved when magistrates come from a defined and relatively small area, sit in a courthouse in that area and judge people and situations of which they have long and extensive knowledge. None the less, the pace of contraction in the county of Essex, as elsewhere, has been rapid.
I used to appear regularly in a small two-room courthouse in Southminster on the Dengie marshes, where the interviews took place in the car park. The spirit there was as it should be. The magistrates knew everything about the locality, and probably everything about the defendants as well, especially when they faced the antique Essex charge of going in search of coneys—I suppose that we would call it rabbit poaching—for which people were prosecuted on the Dengie marshes until the early 1980s. That courthouse has closed. Local people who have to attend court now get a train from Southminster to Wickford and change for Shenfield, where they change again and catch a train to Witham in my constituency. I suspect that that court, too, may be scheduled for closure.
When King Solomon made his judgment he did not pick up a book entitled, "The Best Practice Guide to Dividing Babies"; nor did he make his decision according to the appropriate criteria. He had a sense of justice and what was right. The sooner we move away from good practice, supposed quality assurance, transparencies and all the other gobbledegook of managerial tyranny, the better. We may then be able to retrieve the sense of justice in our local communities.
11.29 am
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Today, we have a good opportunity to consider some important constituency matters before the Easter Adjournment. When I tell people that I represent Shipley, near Bradford in West Yorkshire, the image of the semi-rural part of my constituency—the leafy suburbs—often comes to mind. However, east Shipley, which is a disadvantaged corner of my area, is less well off than many areas of Bradford and many important issues need to be tackled. East Shipley contains the neighbourhoods of Windhill, Bolton Woods, Wrose, Owlet, central Shipley and parts of Saltaire. There are areas of high unemployment and difficulties caused by poor housing. We need to examine ways in which we can begin to share the prosperity and economic growth that is now emerging in all parts of our community. I am keen to see Shipley East share in that growing prosperity.
Much has been done by the Government to help Shipley East, including the national minimum wage, the new deal for the unemployed, the working families tax credit and the increases in child benefit. That money will bring greatest benefit to many of its residents, and I am pleased to see that the changes are beginning to have a significant effect. Unemployment there is dropping, although not as much as I should like. In particular, youth unemployment has fallen markedly, as has long-term unemployment, as experienced by those who have been unemployed for more than a year.
We have a high pensioner population in Shipley East, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to make a start in targeting those who are less well off, through

1109
the minimum income guarantee, the free television licence for the over-75s, which will be introduced shortly, and the £150 winter allowance. However, there is more to do.
We have done a lot. When I was a member of Bradford council, before I became a Member of Parliament, we managed to introduce several significant regeneration schemes in Shipley East. We retained its objective 2 area status, and obtained matched funds from the European Union to set against local public funds. We managed to lever £1 million out of objective 2 status, which was matched with another £1 million, and that money has brought significant benefits. For example, we have a scheme to increase information and communication technology learning—Shipley Communities Online. We have child care facility schemes, such as the Jumping Jacks scheme at Bolton Woods. Several other projects have started, thanks to other Government initiatives, such as the health action zone. We are working on developing a healthy living centre in Shipley East.
Several small but important ideas have helped to rebuild confidence and economic prosperity in the Shipley East community. They all add up to a comprehensive plan for regeneration and include small projects such as tree planting and road resurfacing. For example, Festival avenue is having a new road constructed, and £85,000 has been spent on bus shelters and new litter bins. Small things like that make a difference in improving the infrastructure of a less well-off community.
Through careful planning, we have also managed to secure a retail development at Low Well and significant industrial and job creation opportunities at Fox Corner in Shipley. I have worked hard, together with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to try to get world heritage status for Saltaire, part of which is in Shipley East, and we are making good progress.
Some major issues have been controversial locally and have required sensitive consideration. One example is school reorganisation. East Shipley, like the rest of Bradford, has had a three-tier system for many years, with first, middle and upper schools, but we are now moving to the primary and secondary model prevalent across the country. That has been a difficult process with several schools having to close. However, from such ends come new beginnings and, although we were unsuccessful in persuading the council to site a new secondary school at the location of Wood End middle school, we have managed to obtain important new investment in Salt grammar school, the Frizinghall challenge school and Immanuel college. Many new classrooms, teaching facilities, sports facilities and other important education provisions will bring great benefits to the children of Shipley East.
Most important in many ways has been the focus on housing and tackling the poor quality of social and council housing in Shipley East. I am pleased that the council has been able to secure £1 million of new investment this year to refurbish many estates and improve, repair and re-roof many properties that were in a dilapidated state. For example, the old flats on Gaisby lane have been demolished and new houses are being built as I speak. That is a tangible example of the delivery of a regenerated community in a poorer area.
1110
Some successful local community organisations have made good progress, such as Windhill community centre, with its Windhill futures project. Kath Quinn and others are doing a great job in developing plans for the future. At Wrose community centre, Bob Lee and others are working hard to bring the neighbourhood together, and at Bolton Woods community centre, Tony Miller, who is also a local councillor for Shipley East, is working hard on several projects, including the information technology learning scheme that I mentioned earlier. I pay tribute to the local councillors for Shipley East, Mark Blackburn, Phil Thornton and Tony Miller, who do a lot of good work, sometimes unsung.
Much has been done in Shipley East, but there is much more to do. I must emphasise the need for housing regeneration. One corner of Windhill—Wood End crescent—is particularly deprived. It has a very dilapidated estate of three and four-storey blocks of flats that are derelict and crumbling. They are half-empty because nobody wants to live there. I fear that they may be beyond saving and we will need to consider rehousing the few remaining residents. We should also consider flattening those properties and building new social housing on Wood End crescent estate. I have spoken to the council's chair of housing, Jim O'Neill, and the city housing officer, Geraldine Howley. They toured the estate with me, and we have a plan to make progress by June towards funding new housing on that site.
We have delivered a lot in Shipley East, but there is more to do. As a Labour party, under a Labour Government, we will get there.
11.39 am
Dr. Rudi Vis: I was not here at 9.30 am and I did not think that I would be recognised, so I have not written anything down. It is no use sending me little envelopes, because I will not know exactly what I have ended up saying. I am a member of the Council of Europe and in January we had a debate about Chechnya. Many right hon. and hon. Members from this House and colleagues from the other place contributed to that excellent debate. We made several proposals to which we believed the Government of Russia should adhere and said that we would revisit the issue in April to see whether any progress had been made. However, not much progress was made, and there have been enormous human rights violations in Chechnya. These matters have been discussed by the Prime Minister and the new president of Russia, Mr. Putin.
In the context of the Council of Europe, there are other nations with poor human rights records. I wish to refer to Turkey, a nation with phenomenal human rights problems. It has other problems, such as the divided Cyprus on which there have been a large number of UN resolutions, none of which Turkey has adhered to. There is the Ilisu dam, into which we are potentially putting £200 million which will flood many of the historical areas of the Kurdish people. We have had the Loizidou case, which is now nearly 20 months old, on which Turkey is not listening to the European Court of Human Rights.
The main issue is the human rights violations by Turkey, its military and Government, against the Kurdish people. I have always been amazed that we have no Kurdish representatives on the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, the Organisation for Security

1111
and Co-operation in Europe, NATO or any of the international bodies, despite the fact that a large percentage of the population of Turkey is Kurdish. We must ask why there is no fair representation of the Kurdish people.
The PKK, depending on where one stands, is either a terrorist organisation or a group of freedom fighters. However, it has come up with new plans for peace, to which the Turkish Government have not reacted. I would argue that the PKK should no longer be seen as a terrorist organisation. We have been willing in other parts of the world to start discussions with organisations that may have been terrorist in the past. If we could start discussions with the PKK, it would be a good step for stability in that part of southern Europe and the middle east.
The PKK' s peace plans were sent to the Foreign Office, where officials said that the plans were wonderful, but that they could go no further because the PKK was a terrorist organisation. Perhaps the Foreign Office could examine those plans again and build bridges with the political wing of the PKK to help the peace process in Turkey for the Kurdish people.
11.44 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: First, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who have done us a service in highlighting the continuing concern about bank closures. I am committed to the idea of a community reinvestment Act, requiring banking and financial services providers to disclose their level of investment in areas of deprivation.
The social exclusion unit report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East referred, highlighted the inadequacy of voluntary disclosure by banks. I am not convinced that that voluntary approach will work, but I await with interest a Bank of England report on the subject which is due shortly.
I want to concentrate on a specific local issue and highlight the need to expand intensive care and high-dependency unit facilities within my local NHS trust. These facilities are crucial at district general hospitals, and help to ensure safe clinical care and to improve the entire patient care process within hospitals. They help also to minimise treatment delays.
Northwick Park and St. Marks hospital—which sits just in the borough of Brent, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—serves my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). In the run-up to the last general election, the previous Government closed the accident and emergency units at Mount Vernon hospital and Edgware general hospital—at a stroke closing two thirds of the accident and emergency provision that had served constituents in Harrow.
The decisions marked the end of Mount Vernon hospital's time as a district general hospital. That move continues to be resented deeply by my constituents—not least because it has led to recent decisions to shift the regional specialties in burns, plastics and oral-maxillofacial surgery off the Mount Vernon hospital site to Northwick Park hospital.
1112
I wish to praise the considerable work and effort of the Pinner Association, the Hatch End Association and Community Voice who, between them, collected more than 80,000 signatures against the initial proposal to shift burns and plastics services to Chelsea and Westminster hospital, well out of the local area. Having that scale of support makes meetings with local health decision makers more productive. The news last year that we had finally secured the burns and plastics unit at Northwick Park hospital, with much better access for Harrow residents, has been welcomed—albeit reluctantly, because the move from Mount Vernon was required.
Northwick Park and St. Mark's hospital merged with Central Middlesex hospital in April last year to create the North-West London Hospitals NHS trust. As well as bringing in new management, the merger means that the trust is now the biggest provider of acute care in north-west London. I am delighted that the accident and emergency unit is benefiting from the Government's casualty modernisation scheme, with a £2.2 million refit due to be completed by autumn this year.
With the transfer of burns, plastics and oral-maxillofacial services from Mount Vernon, Northwick Park hospital is set to expand further. That will increase the pressures on intensive care and for proper high-dependency unit provision. Northwick Park hospital is the largest hospital in the trust. It currently has some six intensive treatment beds, and no high-dependency facilities at all. The existing facilities are not adequate to meet local demand and need urgent redevelopment and expansion.
The ITU facilities at Northwick Park are co-located with the theatre complex, with six ITU beds backing on to theatre recovery. There are options for fast-track and relatively inexpensive expansion of the existing area, which would meet the immediate needs of the local population. There is space to add two beds capable of use either as ITU or HDU beds, plus space for a further four HDU beds. That would be achieved through the conversion of areas at the heart of the current ITU department. At present, they are used for offices and laboratories, which could be relocated to the hospital's basement.
The overall fabric of the ITU facility at Northwick Park hospital is good, and recent refurbishment means that the proposed conversion could be completed quickly and at a relatively low capital cost. In addition, I am told that there has been a proposal to add four HDU beds to the medical assessment unit if funding is available. That would incur no capital building costs, although there would be some equipment and recurrent costs.
The other crucial ingredient in the successful expansion of intensive care and high dependency unit provision is the staffing needs of those facilities. The intensive care areas in the North West London Hospitals NHS trust are fully staffed, with both trained and untrained nurses. Recruitment and retention of nursing staff in intensive care has been problematic nationally, but the trust is especially proud of its record of attracting and retaining trained intensive care nursing staff. Each site consistently attracts a high level of interest when new jobs are advertised. No problems are anticipated in recruiting staff if additional beds can be opened.
One of the reasons for the success enjoyed by both hospitals in retaining staff is the flexible approach that they take to intensive-care nursing, together with their

1113
commitment to proper training and education. At Northwick Park hospital, key theatre recovery staff are intensive-care trained. Within that innovative model, the group of nurses works as part of a team with the ITU staff, and they led a pilot project on high dependency care last winter.
It is likely that there will be increased demand for intensive care services. The trust has a full staff complement on each of its two sites. It—and Northwick Park hospital in particular—is extremely well placed to open additional ITU and high-dependency unit beds to cope with that expected increase in demand.
The trust has assured me that it will continue to develop innovative staffing solutions, which may offer lessons for the wider national health service and contribute to the development of ITU and high-dependency services across the capital. At Northwick Park hospital, there is now an urgent need to expand the intensive treatment unit to meet that local demand, and to open high-dependency beds to improve the patient care process. Investment in that facility would offer a long-term benefit to the local health economy.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage a swift and positive response from Ministers and officials in the Department of Health.
11.51 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate. I would have liked to talk about my idea for a new deal for pensioners, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) could have persuaded me to explore the rural dimension, but perhaps he would enjoy reading the rural manifesto launched by Labour Members this week. However, both The Independent and Conservative Front-Bench Members decided to concentrate on what that manifesto did not contain rather than on what it did. That is unfortunately what happens to modern politicians, but we certainly did not say that we wanted to build excessive numbers of houses in the green belt, as they maintained.
I have two brief points to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister, and a third that I would like to cover in slightly more detail.
We have heard a lot recently about the future of British Nuclear Fuels plc, and the current proposals were aired last week. It is important to understand that Sellafield is not the whole of BNFL, and that BNFL is not the whole of the nuclear industry. There is an important plant at Berkeley in my constituency, where some of the brightest brains in the country work on the Magnox reactors. There is also great investment in ideas for the future, and it is about time that the House held a proper debate on nuclear energy.
The announcement on electricity supply made last Monday was very important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will agree, but we cannot ignore the other elements in that supply. I hope that all the negative publicity associated with BNFL could be put in the context of how we want to progress. For all sorts of reasons, we need people to go into this important industry, either to clean it up or to explore future developments in power generation.
1114
My second brief point concerns the sale of land by the British Railways Board, which affects the constituencies of many hon. Members. I have a particular interest in the matter, because there is a proposal for a land sale at the Stonehouse site on Bristol road in my constituency. With the help of the county council those opposed to the sale have managed to delay it until a proper investigation has been held.
I have written to the British Railways Board, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the rail companies about the matter. I have also raised the matter in questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The process is rather byzantine, and I feel that there should be a presumption against sale where there is a potential to bring sites back into use, as is no doubt the case with the Stonehouse site. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message forward. It is all well and good to talk about the benefits of bringing money into the Treasury, but it is more important that we consider the potential for integrated use of not only rail transport but all public transport.
The main issue that I want to raise is of constituency interest but also some national interest. In many respects, home improvement agencies are a good news story for the Government. We have done an awful lot to extend work on improving homes through the home energy efficiency scheme and more recently—it is a pity that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is not in his place—with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. The Bill has been accepted by the Government and has reached Report stage and we hope that it will receive all-party support. The Bill is an important statement. As always, one could call for more detail and an even more advanced strategy to achieve what we all want, which is to help people who live in poverty and cannot heat their houses.
I declare an interest as a trustee of the Care and Repair agency in Stroud. The reason why I raise the issue at this time is that, although it is a good news story, some hon. Members—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has a constituency interest in it—were disappointed that, having set up bureaux in different areas, the Government did not re-award the contract to Care and Repair. The co-ordinating body was run by Care and Repair England. The body was originally set up by Shelter and other agencies that are active in the field such as Age Concern, Anchor Trust, and so on.
Care and Repair lost the contract to fulfil the national co-ordinating role in January this year. That was disappointing in a number of respects. The agency felt that it had done a perfectly good job. It had civil servants sitting on its board. All the reports that came back to it said that it was doing a good job. Last year, it received a grant of £423,000, which was money well spent. It has always argued that the grant did not cover the work that it did so it had to find other ways of funding its work. Having done the work, one would have thought that Care and Repair had a fair chance of having the contract awarded a second time.
I know that the Audit Commission was unhappy that the first contract was awarded to Care and Repair England, but it is the national co-ordinating body. It is the parent body of all the agencies and it works closely with other bodies such as Anchor Trust. The sad thing was that Care and Repair was not re-awarded the contract. I have

1115
been trying to get to the bottom of that. I have written a number of letters to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. I know that he was ill when the contract was awarded to Collective Enterprises Ltd. I cast no aspersions on that organisation, but we are looking for a further extension of the number of bureaux, and Care and Repair England had that under way.
Care and Repair has a good reputation for advice and working with the different bureaux, yet it lost the contract supposedly because it put in too high a bid. That may or may not be the case, but the problem was that it was apparently given the wink by people close to the Ministry to go for a realistic bid in terms of what it costs properly to co-ordinate home improvement agencies. Yet as a result of putting in that bid, it did not get the contract. I hope that there is a case for taking forward the issue with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions because the matter has left a bitter taste in the mouth of the agencies.
If we have a good news story, we should know what is going on and how matters are handled. They are important. Care and Repair has done an awful lot of good work. I have spoken before about the value of the organisation, and justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
11.59 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: An interesting thread has run through the debate; that does not always happen on these occasions. The subjects of health, food and rural life have predominated; almost all hon. Members made some reference to them.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) told us about the threat to the Royal hospital Haslar. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke about chronic bronchitis among former miners. I very much endorse his point about the need to keep such issues out of the hands of lawyers—with all due respect to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who subsequently confessed his membership of that profession. I am only too aware that sufferers from organophosphate poisoning have experienced similar difficulties with compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to concerns in rural areas—to which I shall return in a moment—that are echoed throughout the country. The hon. Members for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about banks that were pulling out of their responsibilities to rural areas.
I thought that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) would not fit into my pattern, but he did because he was concerned about breast-screening services. That matter is most important to several hon. Members.
Similarly, I thought that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might disappear into another subject. However, when he engaged with the effect of internet pornography, from which he was saved by the Division Bell—I always wondered about the origin of that expression—it became clear that such practices could have an unsettling effect on the mental balance of those who indulge in them. That too is a health issue.
1116
I endorse every word said by the hon. Member for Braintree on the fact that magistrates courts committees throughout the country—including my area of Devon and Cornwall—seem to be out of touch with real life. I was delighted to hear a solicitor making those points. I hope that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy, the Lord Chancellor will take the Book of Solomon home for the Easter recess rather than the criteria of the central council.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) made an important connection between healthy living and poverty and housing. I was pleased to hear that there is a healthy living centre in his area. I wish that they existed in all our areas.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West spoke about intensive care. That is a growing problem, not only in central London but throughout the country.
I have great difficulty in dissenting from anything said by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I wish he would be more controversial. He always picks on Liberal Democrat policies and endorses them. However, I strongly agree with him on the connection between warm homes and health; it is extremely important and I am glad that, together, we are making some progress on that matter.
I want to add to the themes of nutrition and health—issues to which we do not pay sufficient attention. There are three related issues. The first is the continuing threat to smaller, specialist, top-quality food producers, processors and retailers.
The second is the organic sector, about which I have a special concern. Consumer demand is increasing rapidly, but three quarters of the organic produce on supermarket shelves has to be imported—what a crazy situation.
Thirdly, there is the dairy sector, which includes many small family farms. They have been hit disproportionately hard by BSE, by the structural changes in milk marketing in recent years and by the uncompetitive level of the pound. Weekly—even daily—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I share the experience of talking to dairy farmers who are in a desperately difficult situation.
That was why I was pleased to read the report, published on 24 January, of the Select Committee on Agriculture on the marketing of milk. A few days ago, the Government published their reply to that Committee, from which, sadly, it is evident to every Member who represents an agricultural area that the Select Committee is far closer than the Government to the real life—the grass roots—of the dairy sector. The Government are substantially out of touch.
This sector, and those who process and retail its products, are hit by too many regulations. They encounter a lack of flexibility, of discretion and of common sense in those who are given responsibility for implementing those regulations.
Just as the specialist cheesemakers are particularly badly hit by that situation, so are the low throughput abattoirs. In that area, our continental competitors have a considerable edge over us, because they recognise the need to differentiate according to size between the different organisations involved in the food process, and they, with their artisan or craftsman status and with derogation, manage to ensure that the smaller producer or processor is given a quite different set of regulations. In

1117
Britain, that simply is not the case. We must persuade our Ministers, from all parts of the United Kingdom, to follow the example of the continent.
I have already mentioned a related issue—that of organic supply. At the National Farmers Union annual general meeting in February, the Prime Minister, in his speech, made the following absolutely explicit statement:
Our plans envisage a trebling of the area under organic farming by 2006.
That means an increase from the current figure of 3 per cent. to 9 per cent. in that period. In my private Member's Bill, the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, we are looking slightly further ahead—to 2010. Many Members on both sides of the House, senior Members and those who have great expertise in that subject area, have backed the Bill. I am now looking to see not only whether the Government will live up to the Prime Minister's aspiration, promise, pledge or whatever it may be, but whether they will endorse my Bill. The content of a number of answers that I have received to parliamentary questions that I tabled in recent weeks do not give me much confidence that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has endorsed the Prime Minister's target, let alone my own.
Next, I return to the dairy sector. The Committee report is a very thorough document, as one would expect from one of the most important Select Committees of the House. It refers even to the detailed issues that were raised by the so-called Duckett's Cheese case in the county represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, which I have mentioned before in the House. That case is alarming, because it seems that the hygiene police are being given additional powers and are not being in any way constrained, even though the case obviously has huge implications for the way in which we deal with problems relating to the sector.
The Prime Minister's summit at No. 10 Downing street to consider together all the issues surrounding the agricultural industry produced useful, stopgap, temporary remedies, but the long-term remedies are not in place.
The marketing strength of most of our farms in this country is far outweighed by that of the supermarkets and the big processors. Therefore it is a buyer's market, and we cannot deal with that problem until we identify the extent to which there is real competition and ascertain that those commercial giants are not using monopolistic powers—oligopolistic powers. At the moment, we are looking in vain to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Competition Commission for a fundamental and radical review.
Imports of dairy products are at an all-time high. That of course relates to the strength of the pound, and will not just go away. Everyone will be trooping back through the door of No. 10 next year unless something is done to address that problem.
Finally, I wish to discuss vertical integration. Under the previous Government's deeply regrettable legislation, which not only massacred the quite good system of milk marketing but made it very difficult for a producer co-operative to be effective in the sale of milk, there was the real risk that Milk Marque would not only be a puny child but might die in infancy—and so it has proved. We alone in the Agriculture Committee, against the
1118
opposition of the Labour party and of the then Conservative Government, argued that producers—the farmers—should be given more market power.
I hope that, at the very least, the Minister who is present today will give us an undertaking that the Committee report and the Government's response to it will be debated as soon as possible—preferably before the Whitsun recess. Perhaps he would use his best endeavours to ensure that such a debate takes place, in Westminster Hall at least.
12.9 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: In a debate of 14 speeches that has ranged from Wood End crescent in Shipley to Chechnya, I am not easily able to detect a common thread, although there were a number of subjects in common—among them, that raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the plight of farmers. Those of us who represent rural constituencies are acutely aware that all sectors of agriculture are under enormous pressure. We only have to look at the demonstration across in Parliament square to know just how acutely one sector is suffering, but every aspect of agriculture is under great pressure. Although it is of particular concern to hon. Members in rural seats, it is also of interest and concern to every hon. Member, because of the food that that industry provides.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on her opening speech: her treatment of these debates is exemplary. I must not be too kind to her because if she were standing at the next general election, I would be doing my best to ensure that she did not get elected, but I deeply appreciate her exemplary manner in this House and as a neighbour. She rationed herself, as did the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), to a five-minute speech, thus demonstrating that in five crisp minutes a topic can be dealt with adequately.
No hon. Member will cross swords with me when I say that the highlight of today's debate has been the return to vigorous and healthy form of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We missed him in the last two of these Adjournment debates and we are glad that he is restored to health. He demonstrated in his own inimitable way just how a subject can and should be pursued. Although like the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), I could not necessarily associate myself with all the castigations of solicitors that he poured out today, he made some extremely valuable and cogent points.
Mr. Skinner: Fly-by-night solicitors.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, the hon. Gentleman talked about fly-by-night solicitors: some do exist, and we all know about them. He made some trenchant points and we were glad to have his contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) demonstrates that he has earned a long service and a good conduct medal for the way in which he has conducted the campaign for Haslar hospital. He now deserves the Victory Cross because, by highlighting to the House the importance of the hospital, he has shown how crucial it is not only to his constituency but to the services in general that it should be retained. At the beginning of February, I happened to be in Gibraltar on a Royal Fleet Auxiliary

1119
vessel. I asked some of the people who were running the hospital on the ship, "Is my hon. Friend overstating the case?" They said, "Most certainly he is not. We are extremely grateful to him and we very much hope that he will succeed." So do I.
We had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He has been in the forefront of those who have talked about the plight of rural post offices. The House has addressed the subject on a number of occasions and, I think, will do so again. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the halting progress that has been made, but there is much more to be done before postmasters and mistresses are reassured. Coming from a constituency with many of these post offices, which are the lifeblood of the local community and the real community centre, I know how vital it is that they should survive.
I know, too, how important it is that there should be a more equitable distribution of funding for individual pupils. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Somerset. I have not been able to leave my place to check this, but I think that Staffordshire is even worse off.
Mr. David Heath indicated assent.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. This is an important point. Those of us who represent areas where children receive so much less per head than children in the home counties find the logic difficult to comprehend and the fairness impossible to comprehend. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover talks about the Tories. I have agitated on this issue on behalf of Staffordshire under successive Governments. We have not got the formula right. The Labour Government have now been in power for three years and it is time that they got the formula right. We very much hope that they will.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) talked about banks. I have to be a little careful in my response to his argument, because I might provoke the Minister into saying something similar to what a junior Minister said a couple of weeks ago; he earned himself a firm slap on the wrist for doing so. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made his own concerns clear, and he represents a constituency not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman's: indeed, it adjoins it. We all share those concerns. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was right to say that we should not just point the finger at Barclays: NatWest and Lloyds TSB have both closed more branches than Barclays. However, it behoves those who are in charge of our clearing banks to recognise that they have certain social obligations; that services need to be provided, particularly in rural areas; and that everything cannot be done on the internet or online.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made another extraordinary omnibus speech of the kind with which he entertains the House regularly in Adjournment debates. He covered a variety of subjects, and I was glad that he referred to our former colleague the late Sir Stephen McAdden, whom I remember well. My hon. Friend made a powerful and eloquent plea for the breast cancer centre which was named after Sir Stephen's widow, who I understand still runs it. I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that, and to the other
1120
points that my hon. Friend made. I was amused that, when my hon. Friend spoke about crime, he cast himself in successive sentences as Mother Teresa and as Joe public. I think that he wears the mantle of the latter more easily than that of the former.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—I was going to say the hon. Member for Cyprus because he frequently refers to Cyprus—sent me a note to explain that he is chairing an important Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting at the moment. That is why he cannot be here. He used the debate, as he does so often, in a classic way to highlight a particular case.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) gave us a most interesting constitutional essay. All I would say to him is, "Don't let's tamper with the Act of Settlement." If a particular problem arises, it is within the competence of Parliament to deal with it when it arises. My hon. Friend talked about speed limits, and he also gave us a somewhat alarming account of how he was rescued from perdition by the Division bell. In doing that, he made it clear that there is real danger on the internet: that it is a point that we should all take very much to heart. Some us are perhaps mightily relieved that we no longer have young children who can play with these sets and call up the most extraordinarily grotesque images. It is a problem that the Government must tackle.
As well as dealing with the banks, the hon. Member for Braintree made a lovely side-swipe at managerial gobbledegook. I echo strongly what he said about that. We want good, plain speaking. The hon. Gentleman cited Solomon in the most exemplary fashion.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) talked about the need for more intensive-care facilities in his constituency. Again, the highlighting of constituency cases and problems is what the debate is mainly about; it is right that he should have done that. I cannot respond with any knowledge about Harrow, West, but I hope that the Minister will relay the hon. Gentleman's points to Ministers in the appropriate Department.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) came to praise the Government in what I thought were rather extravagant terms. I wonder whether there are local elections in Shipley next month. If there are, he was obviously aiming for appropriate headlines in the "Shipley Gazette", or whatever it is called. His blushing acquiescence shows that I have hit the nail on the head.
The debate has once again illustrated that it is a very useful occasion for the House. It enables Members to raise a whole range of topics and to do so in a non-confrontational way and in a manner that allows the Opposition to respond and the Government to take on board their points. I hope that the Minister will do just that.
In fulfilling my part of the time bargain, which I always scrupulously seek to do, may I conclude by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister and all hon. Members a very happy Easter? It has been a long haul since Christmas; Easter this year is almost as late as it can conceivably be. Although I had my leg pulled by the Member for Bolsover—and quite justifiably so—when I talked about sitting patterns, a more structured parliamentary year would not be a bad thing for any of us.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) ended with a message,

1121
which I heard clearly. Several hon. Members gave messages today which they asked me to pass on to my ministerial colleagues. Some did so politely, asking whether I could have a word with Ministers. Others were more extreme and asked me to knock a few heads together. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who always gets to the bottom of the matter, told me to poke a stick in an eye and pick up a few bricks.
Other hon. Members sent a message to their constituents, and I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He spoke movingly to the troops back home, if I may put it like that—the 22,000 troops whom he met on the march to save Royal hospital Haslar. I also suspected that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) was talking to the people back home in Saltaire, perhaps not because of the local elections, but to encourage his colleagues there.
Haslar hospital is important, and the hon. Member for Gosport, who has pursued the matter diligently, spoke authoritatively. He knows that the Government's position is that the defence side of the hospital is to close and move to Birmingham. There are problems in that, and I will convey his views to ministerial colleagues. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the plan is to open a new hospital for civilians in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) also talked about a hospital, Northwick Park, which, I am told, had a serious flu crisis over the winter. The staff coped remarkably well, and I understand that they have been encouraged by the millions of pounds of funding, which my hon. Friend mentioned, which is being given to the hospital's accident and emergency unit. He knows that this year the NHS budget is growing by 9 per cent. in real terms. His request for a high dependency unit, which is a cornerstone of a modern district hospital, has been heard, and I shall pass on his views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) also raised health issues when she talked about health and safety. The Government's policy is clear: we want health and safety issues to become part of mainstream business. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover talked about the coal industry, and it is important that health and safety thinking permeates all business.
Small businesses may not have the necessary resources and expertise, and it is a key priority for the Government and the Health and Safety Commission to provide small firms with the help that they need to ensure the health and safety of their workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, the commission is considering a revised strategy, which it will publish shortly. I shall ensure that her remarks are reported directly to the Health and Safety Executive. My hon. Friend talked about the importance of small business, as did other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned a range of issues, including those relating to residential and nursing homes and employment agencies, which are very much small business issues. He also referred to the problems at the Lady McAdden breast
1122
centre in his constituency. That facility is supported by enormous local voluntary effort, and it is important that such provision has a healthy relationship with the mainstream NHS.
The hon. Gentleman also told us that he had a problem with cadets in his area. I understand that, as we speak, the Minister for the Armed Forces is helping to resolve the matter.
I am pleased to hear about the Palace theatre. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was to perform there.
Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I was not sure whether he would be a Joe public figure in his performance, or more of a Mother Teresa figure.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about the need to tackle crime. He made strong points about doing practical things at local level, and contrasted that with strategies. The importance of the Government's policies is that strategies will be defined. Local policing plans will be drawn up that meet people's needs. There will be the opportunity to challenge the police. For example, we shall be able to challenge the chief constable of Essex if targets are not met.
Some of my hon. Friends talked not about small business but about the big business of the banks. It seems that, in some of their actions, the banks have treated customers with arrogance and contempt. It is important to nail that. I followed with interest the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Treasury earlier this week. There is a need to find new and better facilities. In a sense, the demand for better banking facilities, both in urban and in rural areas, is linked with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about rural areas. I shall send him a copy of the manifesto produced by the rural group of Labour Members. It is a well-written document, which I plagiarise from time to time; there are ideas that we can pinch from one another. I accept, however, that we shall have to work hard on some people.
I was interested in a remarkable new concept of small farming—the leisure dairy farm. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the needs of the farming industry and referred to regulations. We are over-regulated and we need to relieve the burden. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for North Cornwall about a retirement scheme. In principle, that would be a good way forward. The difficulty lies in working out a scheme which does not retire people out of the far end without drawing in new people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about Care and Repair. I put on record my thanks to the staff, who have worked hard over many years. I know that my hon. Friend is pursuing the matter. As well as thanking the staff, let me express the hope that Collective Enterprises Ltd. delivers for elderly people.
I do not know how to describe the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I thought that he was going to get us into trouble at various times. He talked about the need to reduce speed on the roads, which is important. He spoke also of changing the culture surrounding the public's attitude to speed. He referred to phone boxes, pornography and circumcision. I was pleased that he was saved by the bell. I am not sure whether we should quote the phrase from Macbeth about

1123
the knell that summons thee to heaven or to hell. I was slightly concerned about the direction that the hon. Gentleman was taking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover spoke forcefully about an issue that is close to his heart and mine—putting money in miners' pockets. They have given their health and, in some instances, their life, to keep us warm. It is essential that the 100,000 ex-miners are compensated quickly. The sum might be £2 billion eventually, and £55 million has been paid out. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to focus on solicitors and health professionals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about regeneration. Saltaire should be a world heritage site; with his efforts, and those of his colleagues, I am sure that it is getting there.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) talked about Cyprus, Turkey and the European Union. There is an opportunity, with applications for EU entry, to try to resolve some of the difficulties.
This has been an interesting debate. I am sure that we shall have a good Easter, even though some of us will be involved in election duties until 4 May. The comments made during today's speeches show how seriously we all take our constituents' interests.
It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Rights of the Child
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am pleased to bring to the House a petition brought to me by two young people. It was organised by a organisation based in my constituency, Big Take, on behalf of the Oasis Trust, the Tear Fund, Youthwork magazine and the Jubilee Campaign. It comprises 278 signatures, mainly, although not entirely, those of young people who are, for the most part, from London, including many from my constituency who were organised by the Salvation Army Citadel at the Elephant and Castle. The petition relates to matters in which, most impressively, those young people have taken an interest.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of the people in London.
  Declares that Her Majesty's Government has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is therefore committed to children's rights and therefore has a responsibility to do all it can to help end the exploitation of child labourers in overseas countries.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Secretary of State for International development that all aid to countries such as Indonesia, India, Mali or Pakistan where child labour is known to be an extensive problem should have a reasonable percentage of the aid linked to a programme of education for the child labourers. And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  School Nurses
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  12.31 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Chair for granting me this debate, just before we break for the Easter recess. The motivation for requesting it arose from visits to schools in my constituency, where I met teachers, head teachers and parents who are worried about the reduction in Kingston's local school nursing service. Having spoken to representatives of the health authority, I am aware that, last year, the service was cut back. A major review of the service has been carried out, but no decision has been taken. Meanwhile, the service is left in limbo and there are insufficient school nurses to serve the 20,000 children in Kingston's schools. That is a matter of deep concern.
  I am aware of the broader issues and, in the desire to prevent the debate from becoming too parochial, I shall give my view of the importance of the role of the modern school nurse and how it fits in with Government policy. The days of Nitty Norah are long past. I remember lining up in the queue to have my hair checked with the head lice comb, but the school nursing service changed many years ago. Now, it is far more involved in real health screening, with highly skilled professionals delivering added value through the health care that they provide to schoolchildren.
  School nurses conduct proper interviews to compile a profile of a school; they assess children for specific problems at different ages; and they run immunisation and vaccination programmes. They are in regular contact with schools, so that problems picked up by teachers can be referred to the school nurse. They help to ensure that vulnerable children and those on the child protection register can talk to a private and confidential ear. That counselling, listening and advocacy role is an often overlooked part of the school nurse's role.
  Many school nurses run drop-in clinics, not only for schoolchildren, but for parents and teenagers outside school, in which they deal with issues ranging from mental health to sexual health. They run enuresis clinics and parenting programmes. School nurses play an essential part in health education and the promotion of healthy living. That sophisticated role should be recognised, developed and given proper investment.
  The Government have recognised that in their documents "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" and "Making a Difference", which specifically refer to the role of the school nurse. It fits well with the health improvement programme, sure start and the healthier schools initiative. That role could play a key part in the way in which primary care groups and trusts deal with public health policy.
  "Making a Difference", which was published in July 1999, states:
  We need to develop the public health role of the school nurse too, building on the opportunities their contact with children and young people provide.
  I therefore acknowledge and put on record the fact that the Government say the right things. When they develop their forthcoming policy on sexual education and sexual health—the Minister may want to refer to that—I hope that they put school nurses at its centre.

  1125
  The need for early detection of special educational needs is part of public policy. Do the Government provide sufficient guidelines to health authorities? Are they placing sufficient emphasis on their statements to health authorities? Are they providing the resources to ensure that a key role such as that of the school nurse can be properly fulfilled? I am worried that they have not yet done that.
  The Government have a problem. The history of the school nurse service shows that the experience in different communities is diverse. No Government have developed a national framework from the start of the school nursing service. Some people believe that it began in 1892, whereas others trace it back to the 1870s. There were changes in the 1960s and in the early 1970s, and the Court report was published in 1978. The previous Government also made changes.
  The importance of the school nurse service has been recognised, but there has been a lack of willingness to provide a proper framework. It has fallen between the stools of health and education and has never received the priority that it deserves. I hope that the Government will develop the statements in their documents to provide a clear lead.
  There is a great need for such a clear lead. I have read several academic studies in preparing for the debate. A paper that was published by Berry Mayall and Pamela Storey in 1998 put that need in the clear context of experience in schools. The paper discusses current pressures on schools through, for example, local management of schools and large classes. It makes the point that teachers are almost too busy to provide much of the lay, informal care that they used to provide. Children therefore rely increasingly on school nurses, whose numbers are reduced.
  There is a genuine problem, which merits debate. At the end of the paper Berry Mayall and Pamela Storey make the point that other health service purchasers claim that a school health service largely duplicates other health provision—GPs, primary care groups, health centres—in the health service. However, there is a key drawback, which I hope that the Minister will recognise, to that argument.
  Children cannot easily seek help on their own. There are many reasons for that. They may not think of doing it, traffic may be a problem, health centres may be a distance from their homes. It is often the custom that parents look after the health and welfare of children. Children expect parents to do that and they do not often take the initiative. If health care is not provided in schools, it might never be provided for many children, especially our most vulnerable children. Researchers and other commentators are right: we need to develop the service.
  I was especially anxious about the lack of statistics and information on the subject. The data are no longer held centrally. When I asked the Library for information on the number of school nurses, I received figures from 1990 to 1994. They showed a reduction in the number of school nurses over those years. There were no data after that. The Library claimed that employment data no longer provide such a breakdown. The Minister may want to consider that and obtain the data so that the Government
  1126
  could understand what is going on and ascertain whether the number of nurses is decreasing. That is certainly what has happened in my area.
  The Royal College of Nursing told me that it is very worried and that the service was the first to be cut because it is not noticed so easily. It provides preventive health care and is therefore much more vulnerable. I hope that the Government will give the matter the attention that it deserves.
  I also refer the Government to a draft national framework for school nursing practice published in October by the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, working with the Queen's Nursing Institute. They advocate what I am talking about: there needs to be a clear framework to provide such a vital service. The introduction to the document states:
  In the absence of a clear national framework or strategy for the School Nursing Service many service developments have been ad hoc and confined to individual Trusts. With widespread disinvestment in the service over recent years, school nurses have often had to fall back on their individual skills and ingenuity with few resources.
  A Government who rightly put huge emphasis on public health and a primary care-led NHS, cannot be happy with that. I hope that the Minister will make a particular comment on that draft national framework and on whether the Government are considering adopting it. I hope that they will do so because it would support a vital service.
  As primary care groups and primary care trusts develop, I ask the Government to consider giving them guidelines to ensure that the school nursing service and the school health service generally are not forgotten in the allocation of resources locally. It might be too tempting to the GPs who will inevitably lead PCGs and PCTs to forget community nurses and particularly school nurses, whose voices may not be heard as loudly as they ought to be. Given the amount of money that we are talking about—a relatively small sum in the overall health budget and budgets of PCGs—that would be a mistake. The Government rightly talk of joined-up government. The service could provide so much and meet so many of their social objectives, so it is important.
  I return to the comments of those in my constituency, who provoked my interest in the subject. As I said, there have been cuts, and, as a result, the health authority wanted to review the service and to consider how to use its pot of money more effectively. That review was led by the school nurses, and rightly so. I congratulate the people involved in it; many positive things came from it. They have talked about using best practice and conducted a wide review of the literature and what is going on elsewhere. They are proposing to move away from a service based on principles of routine screening to more preventive, targeted health care, which is probably right.
  The review also uncovered many negative aspects, especially the impact of the cuts. School nurses in Kingston qualified the proposed service structure in which new services would be developed by saying:
  The proposed structure can be developed within current resources. However, school nurses feel that they will not be able to deliver all of the service principles with such a structure.
  In other words, as a result of the cuts, they cannot deliver the service that the review required.
  Although recent discussions with people who are much involved in the school nursing service have revealed that they have done many innovative things, such as ensuring

  1127
  that the child protection scheme has been properly covered and pushing through the vaccination programme, they cannot give certain vulnerable children the extra support that they need. They cannot provide regular, weekly contact with schools or develop drop-in centres. They certainly cannot assume the health promotion role that the Government clearly want them to play. Even after the review, the service faces great problems.
  Although some vacancies are to be filled, we have only four school nurses looking after almost 20,000 children. That shows the size of the problem. Even when the vacancies are filled, and there are perhaps seven or eight nurses, there will still be fewer than just a few years ago. It is therefore not surprising that there are problems.
  Several schools have written to me about their problems. Lovelace school in Chessington said:
  The reduction in the number of Nurses available to the schools in the Borough has been a great concern to the Governors at Lovelace for a while now … It is important, therefore, that Ministers are made fully aware of the implications of such lack of support and are consequently urged to reconsider the funding of the service.
  St. Philip's school, a special school in Chessington, said:
  I am writing to express my growing concerns about the School Health Service and the recent impact that the lack of a school nurse is having on the children in this school…I am concerned that we are not going to be able to carry out the statutory annual medicals for all the children this year.
  That is the extent of the problem that we face. Knollmead primary in Tolworth wrote:
  Schools have missed the regular weekly nurse visit. Staff, pupils and parents knew when to expect the nurse and each week in her message book we would put any concerns requiring follow up, knowing that this would be prompt. The loss of this part of the service has been felt and I do urge its restoration for the good of the children.
  Local schools are very concerned.
  I stress to the Minister that the review has uncovered real concerns, which shows that we need a framework. For example, there is a wide diversity in spending on the nursing service per pupil per annum in one health authority. In 1999–2000, Kingston and district community NHS trust spent £13.86, Teddington memorial NHS trust spent £19.69 and the South West London community trust spent £31.56—more than twice as much as Kingston. Such a wide variation in the allocation of funds in the same health authority cannot be right; nor can that deliver the programmes that the Government want to deliver.
  Finally, I have a particular bugbear. People talk of Kingston as a leafy borough, as the Deputy Prime Minister did early in this Parliament, but may I explain to the Minister that it is not? There are prosperous areas of course, but it is not homogeneously prosperous. Indeed, there are pockets of severe deprivation in my constituency, and children in schools need help. As the review says, in spite of the impression that Kingston and Richmond is a very affluent district, its Jarman score shows that its deprivation level is slightly above the average for England and Wales. The area includes pockets of considerable deprivation.
  There are children who need the school nursing service. I urge the Minister to contact Kingston and Richmond health authority to urge it to provide the service with the resources that it needs. For the country as a whole, the Government should make sure that the service can be properly developed and properly resourced.
  12.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for raising this important topic and for making significant points to which I shall try to respond as best I can in the time available.
  School nurses clearly provide an extremely valuable service to children. They have been looking after children's health for more than 100 years—the first was appointed in 1894—and they are often the first point of contact for teachers, parents and children requiring health advice in school. They often work closely with general practitioners with primary care and sometimes with specialist paediatricians, when the need arises. They also play an important part in providing a safety net for children who have perhaps slipped past the routine development checks or immunisations offered under primary care in the early years, and have a role in other immunisation and health advice campaigns and in offering counselling to teachers and children in school.
  I pay tribute to and give thanks for the role that school nurses are playing this year in delivering the meningitis C vaccination. Without the school nurse network, it would be extremely hard to achieve such an unprecedented roll-out of the new vaccine in such a short time and before any other country. School nurses offer health support to children who have medical needs and can play a crucial role in all stages of child protection.
  In the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the Government set out a framework for the future role of school nurses as public health practitioners, including many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. The White Paper stated:
  School nurses are ideally placed to help children, young people and their parents find the support and services they need. The potential to develop school nurses is a growing element within the Healthy Schools programme and their role is being increasingly considered within other Government initiatives.
  School nurses can provide support on personal relationships, managing stress and risk-taking behaviour. They can complement primary care services, especially for the most disadvantaged.
  School nurses' enhanced child-centred public health role means that they will be working in new ways, operating across traditional professional and agency boundaries which will require multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral working to deliver high-quality and effective services. School nurses will be expected to lead teams, to include nurses and other community and education workers to assess the health needs of children and school communities and perhaps to agree individual and school health plans and the delivery of those through multi-disciplinary partnerships. They will be involved in immunisation and vaccination programmes and will also contribute to personal health and social education and to citizenship training. School nurses will offer support and counselling and promote positive mental health. The new role may involve work on teenage pregnancies or the housing needs of children who have asthma. School nurses will work with other teams across the community to provide the support that children need.

  1129
  The Government have set up an innovation fund of £1 million to explore new ways of working for health visitors and school nurses, including new roles and partnerships. Since last summer, 31 health visitor and school nurse leadership posts have been set up across the NHS demonstrating the new roles and ways of working. Those appointments have been made in order to develop and demonstrate the new role and to provide examples of best practice that we can roll out across the country. Health visitors and school nurses form a core element of the innovations network and provide a locus for networking across their own health regions. The posts will be demonstrating the new, ways of working and focusing on the particular aspects of the needs of those local communities they serve, be those the special needs of pregnant teenagers, vulnerable families or deprived neighbourhoods, or the particular problems experienced by black and other ethnic minority communities.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether we should have some sort of national framework or standards. He raises an important issue to do with developing the public health role of school nurses and health visitors in practice, and how we implement many of the proposals described in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation". One of the key methods will be through primary care groups and, increasingly, primary care trusts. New partnerships and relationships will evolve, as the primary care groups develop their public health role. That is one of the issues that the modernisation action teams are examining, as part of their work towards the national plan for the NHS to be drawn up this summer. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that issue, and we are considering it at the moment.
  The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out that there are frameworks in place within which those issues can be developed, such as the health improvement programmes. He did not mention the healthy schools initiative, but that will be an important part of the future role for school nurses. Although parents have the prime responsibility for keeping their children healthy, school is clearly a vital influence on children's health. The healthy schools standard that we have developed provides a structure for the shared responsibility for promoting health and integrating initiatives aimed at the school population. The healthy schools initiative will provide school nurses with the opportunity to contribute to a common health and education agenda and to make those links between health and education that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. A number of other related policy developments recognise the potential for school nurses to contribute to the Government's agenda, such as child and adolescent mental health, parenting, quality protects, teenage parenthood and smoking. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that work on the implementation of the teenage pregnancy report must include the role of schools nurses.
  By launching the national healthy school standard in October 1999, the Government set out to give all schools the opportunity to become healthy schools. We also
  1130
  ensured joint working between health and education authorities by funding programmes designed to support the implementation of the national healthy school standard in every local education authority. One of the conditions of funding was that the work programmes should be approved by the relevant chief education officer and director of public health. These partnerships are expected to attain national standards and criteria, and to reach a stage where they can be accredited under the national standard. In turn, they can accredit schools in their area.
  We have, in the last week, accredited three health education partnerships—Liverpool, Manchester and Norfolk—with reaching the standards required by the national programme, and we expect all local programmes to be accredited by March 2002. I understand that the Kingston and Richmond healthy schools programme is aiming for accreditation in April next year.
  Schools and partnerships gaining accreditation will continue to be monitored by regional and national assessors to ensure that the process is not a one-off, but a continuing improvement in the level of health information and opportunity within school communities. School nurses have a vital role to play within the development of healthy schools.
  Healthy schools are an essential training ground in preparing our young people for citizenship and providing building blocks in building a healthier nation. A considerable amount of work has been done in schools in the past. This work has contributed to the development of the healthy schools programme. However, what has been slower to develop in school health promotion programmes, relative to programmes in other settings, is the wider perspective, which recognises the importance of supportive social and physical environments for health promotion.
  In Leicester, for example, school nurses are involved in multidisciplinary teams across the community to ensure that there are improvements in housing for children with asthma or children in vulnerable areas. Such work to link what is done in schools, as part of the healthy schools programme, with what is done in the wider community is where school nurses have an important role to play. They need not necessarily do everything themselves, but they can work as part of a team—or as team leaders—to deliver the wider public health roles that the hon. Gentleman and I agree are important.
  We believe that the national healthy school standard will encourage the development of that perspective and, through the need to link to local priorities, a greater concentration on local issues can be given, particularly in more deprived areas.
  Ten schools in Kingston and Richmond have already received their healthy school award, with a further six schools due to receive their award this May. A wide range of projects is undertaken by the local schools, including an important early introduction to healthy eating through from healthy lunch box work at Buckland infants and nursery school, a refugee compact club at Southborough boys school and an impressive sun safety project at Latchmere junior school.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a fall in the number of school nurses in the area, but my information is that there

  1131
  has not been a reduction. Perhaps he and I could pursue that matter later. The review has addressed important issues and has been an opportunity to examine clearly the future public health role that school nurses can play. It has recognised the value of the service provided by the school nurses.
  I understand that the health authority is keen to examine the report from the child health sub-committee of the national screening committee, as one of the elements to
  1132
  inform development of the work locally. The hon. Gentleman talked about national guidance, and the work being done by the child health sub-committee may prove extremely important. It is looking at the evidence base involved in—
  It being One o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, till Tuesday 2nd May, pursuant to Orders [1st and 23rd March].

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mr. Tharcisse Muvunvi and Captain Valentine Strasser have been granted asylum within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [113142]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]I will write to the right hon. Member shortly.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been relocated to Morecambe in the last 12 months. [120014]

  Mrs. Roche
  Local authorities have been responsible for accommodating destitute asylum seekers in the last 12 months. Therefore, we do not know the number of asylum seekers who may have been relocated to Morecambe in the last 12 months.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the relocation of asylum seekers to seaside resorts through(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory dispersal schemes; and if he will make a statement. [120017]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office has not dispersed any asylum seekers under the voluntary dispersal arrangements. This is an arrangement between local authorities.

  Under the New Asylum Support Service arrangements, brought in on 3 April 2000, all areas of the United Kingdom will be expected to share the responsibilities of destitute asylum seekers. Those asylum seekers who are eligible for support are being dispersed on a fair and rational basis around the country. On this basis, destinations may include seaside resorts. However, it is our clear intention that no local authority should have a disproportionate share of the responsibility.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy on consulting hon. Members on the relocation of asylum seekers to their constituencies; [120016]

  (2) what information is provided to hon. Members representing constituencies in the North West of England from the National Asylum Support Service and the North West Regional Consortium about proposals for relocating asylum seekers in their constituencies. [120019]

  Mrs. Roche
  A letter will shortly be sent to Members of Parliament advising of the likely cluster areas for dispersal during the first three months of the new arrangements.
  592W
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the National Asylum Support Service has to use the Grosvenor Hotel in Morecambe to house asylum seekers; [120015]

  (2) what visits have been made by his Department's officials to Morecambe to look at potential properties to house asylum seekers. [120018]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has no plans to use the Grosvenor Hotel to house asylum seekers. NASS officials have not visited Morecambe to look at potential properties.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means it is possible for a person with a well-founded fear of persecution in another country legally to enter the United Kingdom(a) when holding valid travel documents from the regime which they are fleeing and (b) in the absence of such documents. [120052]

  Mrs. Roche
  All asylum applications, irrespective of the applicant's method of entry, are considered in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. To be recognised as a refugee, a person must be outside his or her country of nationality and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

  As a matter of law, any asylum applicant who gains entry by material deception having presented a valid travel document or who enters without any documents or using false documents is an illegal entrant.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford will receive a reply to his letter of 24 January to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), concerning the proposal to house asylum seekers in the Maldon district. [119963]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information necessary to provide the answer has been subject to protracted inquiries. I apologise for the delay and a reply will be sent to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount(a) spent, (b) claimed and (c) reimbursed to each local authority in the United Kingdom, and in total, in relation to expenditure on asylum support in each six month period since 1 April 1999; how many payments to local authorities are (i) outstanding and (ii) in dispute; and if he will make a statement. [120055]

  Mrs. Roche
  Tables showing the amount spent, claimed and reimbursed to each local authority in the United Kingdom have been placed in the Library. It is not shown in six month periods; for the first eight months from 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999, these costs were covered by a special grant report, for the four months
  593W
  from then until 31 March 2000, the costs were covered by grant paid under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. These are shown separately. In each case, the amount claimed is the amount that has been paid.

  All claims received by the National Asylum Support Service so far have been paid, but all are still subject to audit.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria must be met by those wishing to provide accommodation to the National Asylum Support Service. [120057]

  Mrs. Roche
  The accommodation provider will have a contract with the National Asylum Support Service. They will ensure that the accommodation is "suitable" in that it will be of an adequate standard; the relevant standard. The relevant standards are the same as those applied by local authorities when re-housing any homeless residents.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement his proposals for regulation of the private security industry. [119566]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As we indicated in our White Paper last year, we intend to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals for better regulation of private investigators. [119567]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our White Paper of last year, "The Government's Proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales", proposed that a new authority should be established to set and improve standards in the industry and to license those who work in the private security field. The White Paper proposed that licensing should apply to private investigators in due course.

  Custody (Vulnerable Adults)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specialist training and standard

  £ million

  Planned expenditure

  Initiative

  Expended so far

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Active Community Demonstration Projects

  0.5

  1.36

  1.36

  Drug Treatment Testing Orders1

  1.75

  20

  40

  Youth Justice Pilots2

  1.3

  0.1

  n/a

  Reducing Burglary3

  12

  4

  Up to 42

  Targeted Policing3

  6.7

  15.6

  Up to 10.7

  CCTV3

  57.2

  40.98

  90

  Locks for pensioners3

  n/a

  4.5

  6.5

  1 Funding added to probation grant. Y1 figures is for pilot areas. Y2 figure is for pilot areas to continue until October when the programme will be rolled out nationally subject to ministerial decision.

  2£22 million annually has been built into local funding settlements from April 2000 onwards to resource national rollout from June 2000 of the new youth justice measures under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This figure reflects estimates in the November 1997 White Paper and the Financial Memorandum to the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  3These initiatives are part of the Crime Reduction Programme, which has a three year budget including evaluation, development running and other overhead costs. Figures shown are what has been committed so far. Total available over three years to 2002 is £62 million for Reducing Burglary, £33 million for targeted policing, £153 for CCTV and up to £11 million for locks for pensioners (depending on take up). Figures of £4 million for targeted policing and 6 million for reducing burglary have been earmarked for evaluation.

  4 There is potential for a further £5 million spend on deferred bids.

  594W
  protocols are made available to custody officers for handling persons with learning difficulties and other vulnerable adults. [119996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Codes of Practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 require the presence of an appropriate adult whenever a mentally disordered person (including a person with learning difficulties) is being detained or questioned.

  National Police Training (NPT) has developed a two-week training course for Custody Officers which is available for delivery by forces. The course, which includes the content of the provisions of the Codes of Practice, is regularly updated and revised. It is, however, essentially for Chief Officers to decide on the training to be undergone by their officers.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recognise the value and importance of the custody officer training package, and continue to work with NPT in promoting the use of this course by police forces.

  Regeneration-related Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number and value of(a) bids and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible; [119796]

  (2) if he will list for each (a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative. [119788]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office is responsible for a number of initiatives which although not directly aimed at regeneration, contribute indirectly to the regeneration of deprived areas. The information requested on the sums already expended and planned budgets for the current and next financial years in respect of these initiatives is given in the table. Expenditure plans beyond March 2002 will be determined by the current spending review.
  595W
  The information requested on bids for and grants made in each of the last three financial years for each initiative, could not be collected in the time available. I will write to the hon. Member with the information shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Prohibited Weapons
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prohibited weapons are held by private individuals in England by permission of the Secretary of State. [119870]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Secretary of State's authority to possess prohibited weapons is only granted to those people who can show they have a genuine need to possess them, almost always to allow them to follow their trade or profession. Authorities are conditioned to limit holdings of prohibited firearms to the minimum number required and specify stringent security conditions under which the weapons are to be kept.

  The vast majority of authorities are held by companies who either manufacture, sell or transport such weapons or who need them for research, development or testing purposes.

  There are only five private individuals in England authorised by the Secretary of State to possess a total of 1,282 prohibited weapons. The vast majority of these are held by one person in one of the most comprehensive private collections of historic firearms in the world. The remaining firearms are held by a forensic firearms expert; a lecturer and technical consultant; the owner of a private museum; and a professional trapper of dangerous animals who is called in by the police to deal with such animals as escaped big cats.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the last three months when powers under the Royal Prerogative were exercised on advice from him. [118412]

  The Prime Minister
  As Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service, a number of powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised on my advice. These include a range of public appointments, the conduct of foreign affairs and defence, and the management and regulation of the Civil Service. Records are not kept of the individal occasions on which such powers are exercised.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Office, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted.[119505]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy in answering questions tabled by hon. Members to indicate in each case whether British Nuclear Fuels assisted in the preparation of the reply; [120047]

  (2) if he will list each of the (a) oral and (b) written parliamentary answers he has provided since May 1997 which were based on information provided by British Nuclear Fuels. [120049]

  The Prime Minister
  Internal advice and the source of such advice is not made public in line with exemption 2 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a final statement on the impact of the Millennium Bug on Government Departments and Agencies. [120545]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am pleased to report that, as I predicted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on 28 February 2000,Official Report, columns 135-36W, thanks to the hard work carried out in Government Departments and Agencies, the Leap Year date change had a negligible impact on them. Very few incidents were reported, and none of them had any impact on the public. Completed questionnaires will be placed, as usual, in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet, as had been the Government's practice throughout. This degree of openness and transparency has been one of the distinguishing features of the Year 2000 programme.

  These will be the last questionnaires. My assessment of the impact of the Bug is that is has been very slight, both for central Government and for all the essential services in the national infrastructure. As I have said before, and repeat now, this success was not a matter of chance. Many people worked long and hard to bring it about. Government and businesses will continue to be vigilant throughout the year; but there is no longer any need for systematic monitoring.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the funding available following bids under the most recent phase of the New Deal for Schools; and if he will make a statement. [118336]

  Jacqui Smith
  Allocations to local education authorities were announced on 11 April 2000.

  Pupil Behaviour
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what new measures he will
  597W
  make available to the city academies to help ensure high standards of behaviour by pupils; and if he will make a statement. [118679]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 11 April 2000]The first City Academies to be established under the Education Act 1996 will be operating under funding arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are due to be set up in the autumn of 2001. Detailed arrangements for managing behaviour will be for the schools themselves to determine, but they will have access to my Department's guidance on a range of behaviour issues.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in England and Wales with sixth forms and the relevant LEA giving the number of pupils in year(a) 12, (b) 13 and (c) 14+ for each of the past three years and the cost per full-time student in each of these schools. [119690]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not publish information on maintained schools with a sixth form in England at individual school level. Information held at local education authority area is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The Department is currently collecting information on sixth forms in maintained secondary schools for January 2000 and this data will be published in a statistical volume in September.

  For information on sixth forms in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) maintained and (b) independent special schools there were in (a) 1970 and (b) 1999; how many children attending those schools came from broken homes; and what was the cost of the maintained special schools in both years. [119769]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 1999 there were 1,148 maintained special schools and 84 independent approved schools. Latest expenditure available for costs in relation to maintained special schools is for 1998–99 and shows a unit cost of £10,350 per pupil. We do not have comparable figures for 1970 and we do not collect information on the domestic arrangements for children who attend these schools.

  Exclusions
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were excluded in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) 1999; and if he will estimate how many of those came from broken homes. [119768]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of permanent exclusions from maintained schools (except special schools) submitting returns under the voluntary national exclusions reporting system which covered the period from April 1990 to April 1992 was 2,910 in year one and 3,833 in year two.
  598W
  Figures on permanent exclusions were first collected by my Department in January 1996 in respect of the academic year 1994–95 and have since been collected annually. Data on permanently excluded pupils' family background have not been collected. The figures currently available are shown in the following table.

  Information on permanent exclusions for the academic year 1994–95, and academic years 1995–96 to 1997–98, were also published in two separate statistical releases, entitled "Permanent Exclusions from schools in England" on the 30 September 1998 and 16 June 1999, respectively. Both releases are available in the Library.

  Provisional figures for permanent exclusions from schools in England for the academic year 1998–99 will be published in a statistical first release in May.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: Number of permanent exclusions in each academic year

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994–951

  1,365

  9,197

  1995–96

  1,068

  10,344

  1996–97

  1,575

  10,463

  1997–98

  1,539

  10,187

  1 The number of permanent exclusions was estimated to take account of a small number of schools that did not provide any information on their permanent exclusions

  Statemented Children
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were statemented in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999; and how many came from broken homes. [119767]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no figures available for 1970 and 1980; statements of special educational needs were only introduced after the implementation of the 1981 Education Act, in 1983. In 1999, 255,584 children had statements. We do not collect information on the domestic arrangements of children who have statements.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the education standard spending assessments per pupil for(a) England, (b) Devon, (c) Torbay and (d) Plymouth for the current financial year. [119855]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the education standard spending assessment (SSA) per pupil and the DfEE special and specific grant allocations per pupils for the areas requested for 2000–01. The special and specific grant totals includes the money for schools announced in the Budget on 21 March.

  £

  SSA per pupil

  Special/specific grants per pupil

  England

  2,782

  145

  Devon

  2,649

  160

  Torbay

  2,712

  141

  Plymouth

  2,695

  145

  Performance and Assessment
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the mechanism used to calculate a school's improvement since its last inspection as reported in the Performance and Assessment report using a 7-point scale. [119920]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  PANDA (Performance and Assessment) reports are a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him therefore to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119547]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 19 April 20001]My Department follows the guidance on advertising given in the "Framework policy and guidelines for the use, management and design of public sector websites" published by the Cabinet Office, which recommend that:Government sites are permitted to carry advertising. In designing pages. Departments and agencies should ensure that advertisers' branding does not detract from the effectiveness and appearance of their own branding or that of the Government as a whole. Particular attention should be given to avoid any implication of endorsement of products or services or of contradiction between Government messages and those of advertisers.

  My Department does not currently carry advertising or receive sponsorship for its websites and as a consequence no revenue has been received or retained within the budget of the Department. That is also the position, to the best of my knowledge, in relation to the websites of my Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Local Information Availability
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to improve the availability of local labour market, learning and skills information. [120484]

  Ms Jowell
  I am pleased to announce that we are funding an increase in the sample size of the Labour Force Survey in England of approximately 40,000 households per year to improve the availability of local labour market, learning and skills data in partnership with the Office for National Statistics. This was recommended in the second report of the Skills Taskforce and, in addition, will aid in the monitoring of adult learning targets and the monitoring of equal opportunities issues at the local level.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the recently completed Financial Management Survey of the Teacher Training Agency. [120483]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, my Department has undertaken a review of the Teacher Training Agency. I am today publishing the results of stage two of the quinquennial review, which comprised a financial management survey of the agency.

  The survey report states that the agency has good levels of financial control and has in place effective organisation, finance and management structures and systems. The report's recommendations will help the agency to address the areas for relatively minor improvement which have been identified, and make best use of resources in taking forward its corporate objectives.

  Copies of the financial management survey report are being placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive response to his letter of 16 February on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Holmes. [120020]

  Mr. Wills
  A reply was issued on Wednesday 19 April 2000.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many former grant maintained schools have(a) used and (b) exhausted their reserves since 1998. [120259]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the public balances held by former GM schools at the beginning and end of the 1999–2000 financial year will not be published by LEAs until 30 September 2000. Information on their private balances is not collected by local authorities or central government.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many former grant-maintained schools have sought financial contributions from the parents; and how much has thereby been raised since 1998. [120260]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on this is not collected by central or local government.

  School Meals
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to make regulations and issue guidelines about minimum nutritional standards in school meals; and if he will make a statement. [119465]

  Jacqui Smith
  We intend to lay regulations setting minimum nutritional standards for school lunches before the summer recess, and to make available guidance to school caterers this autumn. The regulations will come
  601W
  into effect in all maintained schools in April 2001. The standards have been developed in a practical non-prescriptive manner to ensure pupils receive good quality meals. Headteachers are now free to choose different suppliers for meals as a result of the Government's fair funding arrangements and these standards will help to ensure they are of consistent quality.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which foodstuffs listed in the guidelines for minimum nutritional standards in schools contain iron, zinc, selenium and protein. [119502]

  Jacqui Smith
  We intend that the regulations setting minimum nutritional standards for school lunches will set food—rather than nutrient—based standards. We shall aim for workable standards which will not contain compulsory food items. Schools and local education authorities will be required to offer options from the four main food groups.

  Supplementary guidance for caterers will offer advice and list those food items which best provide the nutrients which are particularly important in a young person's diet, such as iron.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he plans to put in place to monitor the operation of, and enforce the guidelines for, minimum nutritional standards in schools.[119501]

  Jacqui Smith
  Schools and local education authorities will be under a duty to comply with the regulations which will set out the new nutritional standards for school lunches. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will investigate any complaints that the standards are not being met and will if necessary issue a direction to ensure compliance with the statutory duties. Guidance on the regulations will include advice on monitoring of nutritional standards. Finally, the Department will be evaluating the impact of the nutritional standards over time.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  MIRAS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of MIRAS on unemployed people with endowment mortgages; [119966]

  (2) what plans he has to increase income support, or other state assistance, following the abolition of MIRAS, for unemployed people who are paying increased mortgage repayments as a result of mis-selling of endowment mortgages. [119965]

  Mr. Bayley
  There should not be any effect due to the loss of MIRAS. Benefit was recalculated from 6 April automatically, and customers received a notification from the Benefits Agency, informing them of the change to their benefit. An endowment mortgage does not affect the recalculation of benefit. The mortgage scheme only makes payments on the interest element of the mortgage.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the report on the Contributions Agency by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate was published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [119821]

  Mr. Rooker
  The BFI report on the then Contributions Agency was published in July 1999. A copy was placed in the Library and can also be found on the Department's internet site at www.dss.gov.uk/

  State Pension
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing the basic state pension in line with average earnings over the next five years in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK. [119868]

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

  Estimate for Great Britain and Scotland

  £ million

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Year

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  Gross cost

  2000–01

  350

  250

  50

  2001–02

  900

  700

  100

  2002–03

  1,650

  1,250

  150

  2003–04

  2,450

  1,900

  250

  2004–05

  3,300

  2,600

  300

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest £50 million and are in 2000–01 benefit rates.

  2. Costs include benefits whose rates are linked by statute to the rate of basic Retirement Pension.

  3. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of means-tested benefit savings have been estimated using the Policy Simulation Model and PENSIM.

  4. Net costs are not available for Scotland.

  5. UK figures are not available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time that(a) male pensioners, (b) female pensioners and (c) all pensioners have drawn the basic state retirement pension at five yearly intervals since 1970. [120053]

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

  The mean and median length of time in years since reaching pensionable age for the population of pensionable age

  Men aged 65+

  Women aged 60+

  Men and Women aged 65+/60+

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  1970

  7.6

  6.1

  10.9

  9.5

  9.9

  8.3

  1975

  7.6

  6.2

  11.3

  10.0

  10.1

  8.6

  1980

  7.8

  6.7

  11.8

  10.8

  10.5

  9.2

  1985

  8.4

  7.4

  12.2

  11.3

  11.0

  9.8

  1990

  8.6

  7.3

  12.8

  11.4

  11.4

  10.0

  603W

  The mean and median length of time in years since reaching pensionable age for the population of pensionable age

  Men aged 65+

  Women aged 60+

  Men and Women aged 65+/60+

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  1995

  9.0

  7.8

  13.3

  12.3

  11.8

  10.3

  1998

  9.2

  8.1

  13.4

  12.4

  11.9

  10.6

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are supplied by the Government Actuary's Department and are based on population estimates supplied by the Office for National Statistics.

  2. Figures relate to Great Britain.

  3. Estimates are likely to overestimate average durations of State Retirement Pension claims, due to those who claim their pension after State pension age.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK of raising the basic state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee for (i) all pensioners, (ii) pensioners aged over 70 years and (iii) pensioners aged over 80 years. [119867]

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

  Estimates for Great Britain and Scotland of the cost of raising the basic state pension to the level of the M1G in the year 2001–02

  £ million

  All pensioners

  Pensioners over 70

  Pensioners over 80

  Great Britain

  Gross cost

  5650

  3750

  1450

  Net cost

  4500

  2850

  950

  Scotland

  Gross cost

  500

  300

  100

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest to the £50 million and are 2000/1 benefit rates.

  2. Costs do not include benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic Retirement Pension as the question asked for the pensioner costs only.

  3. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of means-tested benefit savings have been estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. Net costs are not available for Scotland.

  5. UK figures are not available.

  Reviews, Task Forces and Advisory Groups
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) Reviews, (b) Task Forces and (c) Advisory Groups have been established by his Department since 22 February 1999; what is their membership; and what reports have (i) been published and (ii) are due to be published by (1) them and (2) other such bodies established before 22 February 1999. [119949]

  Mr. Rooker
  A table containing the information requested on Task Forces, Reviews and Advisory Groups has been placed in the Library.

  Full lists detailing Government Task Forces and Review Groups will be published every six months. The next list covering the period to the end of April will be published in due course.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set the Benefits Agency for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement.[120588]

  Angela Eagle
  The targets we have set BA for 2000–01 are as follows.

  They reflect our determination to reform the welfare state and to modernise the Social Security system to encourage work for those who can and provide security for those who cannot.

  They underpin the Departmental Aim and Objectives set out in our Public Service Agreement.

  Further information on BA plans for 2000–01 is contained in their business plan, which will be published on 5 May. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Targets for 2000–01 are:

  Benefits Agency Secretary of State Targets 2000–01

  Active Customer Focused Service Delivery

  1. By March 2001 extend the scope of electronic service offered to the public, namely by providing a wider range of services available via the internet.

  2. Seek to improve key customer services, set out in Benefits Agency Customer Charter, namely by providing:

  easy access to accurate benefit information;

  accurate and timely payments; and

  effective complaints handling.

  3. Implement an action plan to establish a Performance Management Unit to reduce variations in performance within the Agency specifically, by March 2001:

  Improving the performance of the lowest performing offices;

  Improving the management information to underpin performance improvements.

  4. Continue to work with the Employment Service, Local Authorities and private and voluntary sectors in 12 locations to pilot ONE.

  5. From May 2000, introduce a take-up campaign, contacting at least two million pensioners and encouraging them to claim the pensioner Minimum Income Guarantee in order to make inroads into pensioner poverty.

  6. By October 2000, deliver a national Retirement Pensions telephone claims service.

  7. From November 2000, deliver improvements in computer produced notifications to Income Support customers.

  8. By March 2001, work with others in the Department to develop, pilot and evaluate broad based measures of consumer focus and satisfaction, so we can introduce new arrangements during 2001.

  Secure and Accurate Services

  9. Reduce by 30 per cent. losses from fraud and errors in Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.

  10. By March 2001, work with others in the Department to prepare the way for extending ACT as the normal method of payment in a programme starting from 2003 and concluding in 2005, so that

  a programme of customer research can be conducted;

  payment processes can be improved to better support Automated Credit Transfers.

  605W
  Investing in our People

  11. By December 2000, contribute to the reduction in public sector sickness by reducing absences by 10 per cent. from 1998 Public Service Agreement baseline levels.

  12. By 31 March 2001, work with others in the Department to develop, pilot and evaluate new ways of measuring staff perception of the organisation to improve satisfaction and motivation.

  Effective Management of Money

  13.To recover £135 million in cases where benefit has been overpaid, contributing to the Department's overall target of £175 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the effect on housing benefit expenditure will be if social rents in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK were reduced by (i) 5 per cent. (ii) 10 per cent. and (iii) 15 per cent. [119978]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated savings in Housing Benefit expenditure1 for percentagereductions in social rents2 at 2000–01 prices3

  £ million

  5 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  15 per cent.

  Scotland

  40

  90

  130

  Great Britain

  420

  830

  1,240

  1 Estimates relate to gross Housing Benefit expenditure (the amounts actually paid to claimants) in respect of the current financial year 2000–01

  2 Social' rents are taken to refer to Local Authority and Registered Social Landlords

  3 Estimated results are based on a combination of information from the Family Resources Survey 1997–98, uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit levels, along with the forecasts underlying the Departmental Report 2000.

  Notes:

  1. The information relates to Scotland and Great Britain. The Department forecasts only apply to Great Britain, therefore it has not been possible to supply corresponding data for the UK.

  2. Figures are rounded to £10 million

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have been entitled to means-tested benefits in each of the past five years; how many are expected to be entitled to be means-tested benefits in each of the following five years; and what proportion those represent of total pensioners in each year. [119944]

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

  Total of number of pensioner benefit units receiving and number entitled but not receiving means tested benefits in 1996–97

  Number in millions

  As percentage of all pensioner benefit units

  Income Support

  2.0 to 2.3

  26 to 29

  Housing Benefit

  1.9 to 2.1

  24 to 27

  Council Tax Benefit

  3.4 to 3.9

  43 to 50

  606W

  Total of number of pensioner benefit units receiving and number entitled but not receiving means tested benefits in 1997–98

  Number in millions

  As percentage of all pensioner benefit units

  Income Support

  2.0 to 2.3

  25 to 29

  Housing Benefit

  1.8 to 2.1

  23 to 26

  Council Tax Benefit

  3.2 to 3.8

  41 to 48

  Notes:

  1. Estimates refer to pensioners in private households, in Great Britain

  2. Self-employed pensioners are excluded from counts of benefit recipients and entitled non-recipients

  3. Pensioner benefit units here include couples where either member is over 60

  4. Estimates are presented as ranges because estimates of entitled non-recipients are in ranges.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of(a) removing the means test for benefits for pensioners and (b) keeping SERPS in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [119869]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost of removing the means test for benefits for pensioners depends on what assumptions are made. The net cost of uprating the basic State Pension to the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee is around £4.5 billion, excluding the effect on linked benefits. Retaining SERPS in preference to the State Second Pension would result in a cost saving because the State Second Pension will be more generous to some 18 million low and moderate earners, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records. Estimates apply to Great Britain. Separate costs for Scotland are not available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the proposed pensioners tax credit; and when it will come into force. [119971]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement, proposed that the pensioner credit should be introduced in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) of 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 401-02W, on pensions, if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on pensioners as a proportion of GDP in each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91. [120239]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on people over 60 as a percentage of all social security benefit expenditure and as a percentage of GDP

  Expenditure as a percentage of:

  Year

  Expenditure (cash £ million)

  All expenditure

  GDP

  1979–80

  10,138

  53.99

  4.91

  1989–81

  12,134

  53.55

  5.15

  1981–82

  14,357

  51.83

  5.56

  1982–83

  16,105

  50.92

  5.70

  1983–84

  17,456

  49.41

  5.70

  1984–85

  18,496

  48.39

  5.61

  1985–86

  20,172

  48.38

  5.58

  1986–87

  21,697

  48.31

  5.58

  1987–88

  22,866

  48.97

  5.32

  1988–89

  23,652

  49.97

  4.94

  607W

  Expenditure on people over 60 as a percentage of all social security benefit expenditure and as a percentage of GDP

  Expenditure as a percentage of:

  Year

  Expenditure (cash £ million)

  All expenditure

  GDP

  1989–90

  25,715

  51.25

  4.92

  1990–91

  28,490

  50.42

  5.06

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure figures are consistent with Table 3 of the 2000 Departmental Report (Cm 4614) and earlier equivalents.

  2. Social Security benefit expenditure includes non-Departmental funded expenditure on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and earlier equivalents.

  Combined Pension Statement
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the combined pension statement launched on 12 April, referred to in departmental press release 00/114. [119945]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have placed in the Library an example of the combined pension statement issued by the Prudential, which includes details of both state and private pension rights.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it has cost to administer the winter fuel payments in each year since their introduction; and what the projected costs are for the forthcoming year. [119938]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Cost to administer the winter fuel payments since their introduction

  £ million

  Year

  Cost

  1997–98

  13.7

  1998–99

  13.1

  1999–2000

  14.3

  Notes:

  1. Administration costs for 2000–01 are not yet finalised.

  2. A provisional estimate of £10.2 million was anticipated; however, this does not include publicity costs or the extra costs resulting from the ECJ ruling.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the additional cost to his Department's wage bill would be(a) in Scotland and (b) the UK if the minimum wage for all age groups was raised to (i) £4, (ii) £4.20 and (iii) £4.50 per hour. [119980]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The additional pay bill cost for the Department of Social Security of rises in the minimum wage

  £

  Additional costs

  Rate of minimum wage

  All DSS staff (including Scotland)

  DSS staff based in Scotland

  4.00

  2,634,176

  308,366

  4.20

  7,398,281

  869,668

  4.50

  15,260,259

  1,803,400

  Data Matching
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has completed checking the individual payroll items against the departmental central index; and if he will make a statement. [119860]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department does not at present match its payroll data against the departmental central index (DCI). To do so would involve a change of conditions of service of its staff and would have implications in respect of data protection legislation.

  However, the large employers unit of the Contributions Agency, now part of the Inland Revenue, does carry out a reconciliation of National Insurance contributions paid by employees of companies against its records. In common with other large employers, this Department has been examined by this unit.

  There is no evidence of widespread benefit fraud by staff: the last payroll cleansing exercise conducted by the Contributions Agency of the Department's payroll identified only one member of staff claiming benefit using their own national insurance number.

  Company Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pension schemes of companies that have(a) gone into liquidation and (b) otherwise ceased to exist are awaiting regulatory approval for their winding-up. [119950]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no system of regulatory approval for pension schemes that wind-up. The Inland Revenue gives approval in respect of arrangements made by the trustees to secure the pension rights when a scheme ceases to be contracted-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Schemes (SERPS). There are about 24,000 schemes in the process of ceasing to contract out. Many of them will also be winding-up. No information is available about schemes winding up because the sponsoring employer is insolvent.

  Government Pensions Liability
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2000,Official Report, columns 477-78W, on Government pensions liability, what is the Government's liability in each case in each of the years referred to as a percentage of estimated gross domestic product assuming that gross domestic product increases in real terms at (a) 1.5 per cent. per annum and (b) 2 per cent. per annum. [120066]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  With real GDP growth of 1.5 per cent. per year pension expenditure is estimated to increase as a proportion of GDP between 2000–01 and 2030–31, from 4.3 per cent. to 4.7 per cent. After 2030–31 the proportion of GDP represented by pension expenditure falls, from 4.7 per cent. to 3.8 per cent. by 2050–51.

  With real GDP growth at 2.0 per cent. per year pension expenditure as a proportion of GDP follows a more general pattern of decline, from 4.3 per cent. in 2000/01 to 3.0 per cent. in 2050–51. This more general pattern of decline is wholly attributable to the faster increase in GDP.
  609W

  Government's pensions liability as a proportion of GDP assuming real growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum, 2.0 per cent. per annum in GDP

  Percentage

  Year

  Real GDP growth of 1.5 per cent.

  Real GDP growth of 2.0 per cent.

  2000–01

  4.3

  4.3

  2005–06

  4.3

  4.2

  2010–11

  4.5

  4.2

  2015–16

  4.5

  4.1

  2020–21

  4.4

  3.9

  2030–31

  4.7

  4.0

  2040–41

  4.4

  3.6

  2050–51

  3.8

  3.0

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been calculated using the following assumptions: Total pension expenditure is the sum of expenditure on SERPS, State Second Pension, and the Basic State Pension.

  SERPS expenditure is based on the assumption that State Second Pension is introduced in 2002 and so any SERPS expenditure after that date is on earlier accruals.

  SERPS expenditure does not include the effects of the Inherited SERPS scheme and accompanying deferral announced on 15 March 2000.

  State Second Pension expenditure assumes the scheme becomes flat rate from 2006 onwards, when Stakeholder pensions are established. From 2006 everyone aged under 40, and earning over £9,500 (in 1999 earnings terms) chooses to contract out of State Second Pensions. Contracting out is based on the proposals contained in the current Bill.

  Increases in contracted out rebates as a result of introducing State Second Pension and Stakeholder pensions are not included in expenditure figures.

  2. Expenditure figures are consistent with those in the Government Actuary Department's report on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill 1999.

  3. GDP for future years is estimated by taking the figure for 19992000 and uprating it. GDP figures are often subject to revision in later years, and because of the long time horizon over which projection is undertaken the effects of any error corrected in a subsequent revision will be magnified.

  Source:

  Pension costs from GAD, base GDP figure from ONS.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119515]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117813]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 31 March 2000, 82 lawyers were employed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, including its Agencies.
  610W
  It is not possible to make strict comparisons with the situation that existed prior to the formation of the Department in 1997. The organisational changes that accompanied the merger of the former Department of Environment and the Department of Transport included new responsibilities for the regions. However, on 31 March 1995 the former Department of the Environment employed 39 lawyers and the former Department of Transport obtained its legal services from the Treasury Solicitors Department, who allocated 29 lawyers for the purpose.

  The increase in legal activity over the last five years is due to a variety of factors, including additional work on legislation, human rights and devolution.

  Legal Alcohol Limit
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 430W, on alcohol limits for drivers in EU member states, what were (a) the nature and conclusions of the Council of Ministers' discussions on 28 March, concerning the Commission Communications, and (b) the Treaty Article on which any such harmonisation proposal would be based. [118840]

  Mr. Hill
  At the Transport Council meeting of 28 March 2000, the European Commission presented its recently adopted Communication on road safety. The United Kingdom strongly welcomed the Communication and other member states also responded positively. The Commission indicated that blood alcohol levels would be the subject of a Recommendation. However, the Commission pointed out that the proposal for a Directive which was first presented in 1988 remains on the table if the Council wishes to debate it. It was concluded that there should be a discussion of the Communication at the Council meeting in June.

  Any harmonisation proposal would be based on Article 75 of the Treaty of Rome which, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, covers the competence of the Union to act in the field of road safety.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will name the board member for each regional development agency with responsibility for environmental issues.[118955]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Members are appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their experience and capacity and are not allocated responsibility for particular issues. However, some RDAs, as noted, have given responsibility for environmental matters to one or more of their members.

  Agency

  Members

  East of England Development Agency

  Richard Powell

  Yorkshire Forward

  Pamela Warhurst

  North West Development Agency

  Kath Reade

  South East of England Development Agency

  Kit Oliver

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Graham Chapman

  Gill Gardiner

  Bob Middleton

  611W

  Agency

  Members

  Advantage West Midlands

  Responsibility shared across all board members

  South West of England Regional

  Responsibility shared across all board members

  One North East

  Currently under consideration

  Japan (Visit)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) itinerary, (b) purpose and (c) cost of his visit to Japan.[119532]

  Mr. Prescott

  [holding answer 17 April 2000]I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of G8 Environment Ministers from Friday 7 to Sunday 9 April in Otsu, Japan. I then travelled to Tokyo where on 10 April I had meetings with Prime Minister Mori, Foreign Minister Kono and the honorary Chairman of Toyota. I also visited the Tokyo traffic control centre and met UK and Japanese businessmen. I returned to the UK on Tuesday 11 April. All travel was in accordance with the Ministerial Code and my costs for the trip were approximately £7,500.

  Parking Charges
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is on use by local authorities of the revenue generated from charges for on-street car parking to pay for heritage projects and tourist facilities; and if he will make a statement. [119998]

  Mr. Hill
  The use by local authorities of on-street parking revenue surpluses is governed by section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Briefly, this provides that local authorities may use surpluses for the provision and maintenance of off-street parking facilities but if it appears to the local authority that the provision of further off-street parking provision in their area is unnecessary or undesirable, surpluses may be used for the purpose of meeting the costs of public transport services and highway or road improvement projects. Local authorities may not therefore spend revenue from on-street car parking to pay for heritage projects and tourist facilities.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the passenger projections for Croydon Tramlink. [119839]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a commercial matter for Tramtrack Croydon Ltd., the private sector consortium which holds the concession to build, operate and maintain Croydon Tramlink.

  Parliamentary Answers (BNFL)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each of the(a) oral and (b) written parliamentary answers
  612W
  Ministers in his Department have provided since May 1997 which were based on (a) information and (b) a draft provided by British Nuclear Fuels. [120044]

  Mr. Mullin
  Internal advice and the source of such advice is not made public in line with exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Best Value Inspection Regime
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those private sector companies involved in the best value inspection regime. [119990]

  Ms Armstrong
  No private sector companies are yet involved in carrying out best value inspections. However, both the Audit Commission and some of the other Inspectorates intend to use teams which include staff with private sector experience, either on secondment or as consultants. The Audit Commission are also in discussion with a number of potential private sector providers with a view to their use on future occasions.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number and value of(a) bids for and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible. [119798]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be collected in the time available. I will write shortly with the information to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative. [119793]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Expenditure since 1997 and the amounts budgeted for this financial year and for 2001–02, for the area-based and other regeneration-related initiatives for which my Department is responsible are set out as follows. The level of funding for each of these initiatives beyond March 2002 is being considered in the current spending review. Information on planned budgets and the total expenditure in previous years for other regeneration programmes may be found in the departmental Annual Report.

  £ million

  (i) Amount budgeted

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Area-based initiatives

  Single Regeneration Budget

  813.8

  878.5

  New Deal for Communities

  120.7

  450.0

  Other regeneration-related initiatives

  European Regional Development Fund

  286.2

  231.2

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust

  20.6

  18.2

  613W

  £ million

  (ii) Total expenditure

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Area-based initiatives

  Single Regeneration Budget

  458.8

  560.9

  679.1

  New Deal for Communities

  —

  0.2

  48.5

  Other regeneration-related initiatives

  European Regional Development fund

  191.5

  229.4

  336.2

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust

  —

  —

  1.0

  1 Provisional outturn

  Severance Payments
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy relating to monitoring severance payments made to council officials. [119859]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government (Discretionary Payments)(Amendment) Regulations 1999 introduced provisions which require local authorities in England and Wales to formulate and publish a written statement of their policy in connection with the exercise of their discretion to pay compensation, including severance payments, under parts II, III and IV of the Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996.

  The 1999 regulations require each employing authority to be satisfied that their policy is workable, affordable and reasonable having regard to the foreseeable costs. In that way, elected members have direct responsibility for the decisions taken within the terms of their published policy statement and are locally and legally accountable for them to local council taxpayers and to the District Auditor.

  My Department does not monitor individual severance payments made by local authorities, nor would it be appropriate to intervene in the way such authorities exercise these statutory functions. We do, however, remain in close touch with the Audit Commission, the Employers' Organisation and other interested parties on the continuing effectiveness of these regulations.

  High Hedges
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many submissions he received in response to the consultation paper on high hedges; and if he will make a statement.[119861]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have received some 3,000 responses to this consultation, which we are currently analysing. We hope to make a statement, setting out our decisions on the way forward on this issue, and the reasons for them, by the summer.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government have done to implement the findings of reports of the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleeping.[119976]

  Ms Armstrong
  Following the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit report, the Rough Sleepers Unit was established in April 1999 to deliver the Prime 614W
  Minister's target of reducing rough sleeping by two-thirds by 2002. On 15 December 1999 the Government published their strategy on rough sleeping, "Coming in from the Cold", which set out in detail how we intend to meet the target. The Rough Sleepers Unit is working across Whitehall and beyond to implement the strategy and reduce rough sleeping.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what scope he plans for the use of economic instruments in relation to water abstraction. [120589]

  Mr. Meacher
  Within the next two weeks, my Department will publish "Economic Instruments in Relation to Water Abstraction: a consultation paper". Copies will be placed in the Library of the House on the day of publication. The paper will say that the Government take the view that economic instruments may be applied to water abstraction in the following way:

  (a) abstraction charges should remain limited to recovery of the Environment Agency's water resources management costs, but should be increased to the extent necessary to meet licence curtailment compensation costs when, but not before, these are incurred, thereby providing incentive for low-value users of water to reduce their licences voluntarily;

  (b) trading in licences should be encouraged in such a way that it delivers environmental benefits together with economic gains, within the regulatory requirements of the abstraction licensing system as it will be following the changes which the Government announced on 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 756-57, and which it will bring forward in a forthcoming Water Bill;

  (c) the Environment Agency should actively encourage abstraction licence trading with a general presumption that trading may be possible in most areas, and in particular by:

  ensuring that its licensing administrative processes operate speedily and efficiently, making full use of e-mail and other electronic means;

  clearly identifying, within its Abstraction Management Strategies, the scope for trading and any unavoidable limitations to particular types of trades;

  establishing an Internet site on which prospective buyers and sellers can record their interest in trading; and by

  requiring trading prices and other details of completed trades to be placed on the same Internet site.

  The Government will consider this view further in the light of responses to the consultation paper and will announce their firm intentions in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale will receive a reply to her letter to him dated 3 January regarding farming issues in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [119741]

  Ms Quin
  I replied to the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on 19 April 2000.

WALES

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage change compared to 1990–91 in his Department's energy efficiency in each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [118996]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 580-84W, which reported progress for all central government Departments to 31 March 1998.

  Figures for the Wales Office are currently included within the data for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's energy efficiency performance target, expressed as a percentage change in comparison to 1990–91, for each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [118997]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 22 March 2000,Official Report, columns 548-49W.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what purposes his Department requires a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors,(c) those applying for employment and contracts and (d) other persons.[120310]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department requires those applying for employment to provide either a birth certificate, passport, or driving licence in order to prove identity. Contractors, potential contractors, and other persons are not required to provide their birth certificates.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pest Control
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many reports of(a) mice and (b) other vermin in the Palace of Westminster he has received in each of the last five years.[119557]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Reports of mice and other vermin in the last five years have been as follows:

  Year

  Mice

  Other vermin

  1995

  113

  32

  1996

  187

  34

  1997

  135

  20

  1998

  53

  30

  1999

  102

  29

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what action is being taken to reduce the numbers of(a) mice and (b) other vermin within the Palace of Westminster. [119556]
  616W
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  A specialist pest control contractor is employed regularly to set and check bait boxes in all areas, particularly in Refreshment Department areas and other places where mice are seen. Further specialist advice is obtained from the MAFF expert. Apart from mice, the only other vermin generally found in the Palace of Westminster are insects; these are treated with insecticides appropriate to the type of pest and situation.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what contracts are let with KPMG relating to public appointments. [118295]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information is not held centrally. However, in respect of public bodies sponsored by the Cabinet Office, no contracts are held with KPMG relating to public appointments.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on her policy in respect of the use her Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119513]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer to the answer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Drug Action Teams
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what financial and logistical support the Cabinet Office has provided for Drug Action Teams. [119960]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Drug Action Teams (DATs) are a partnership of local agencies such as health and local authorities, police, probation and local eduction authorities. Funding for their activities is channelled for the most part through these agencies. However, they receive a grant from the Home Office Drug Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) to fund the running costs for DATs, namely the post of the co-ordinator and administration costs. That grant is set to rise from some £5 million to some £6.7 million over this year to fund the creation of additional DATs, bringing the total up to some 150.

  DATs are supported by DPAS in partnership with the UK Anti Drugs Co-ordinator and Cabinet Office UK Anti Drugs Co-ordination Unit (UKADCU). DPAS provides the link between central government and local delivery and has nine regional offices providing advice and support to the DATs in their area in driving forward the Co-ordinator's Strategy. The Co-ordinator and staff of UKADCU also visit DATs and, in partnership with DPAS, organise conferences for DATs to discuss current and future issues.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the National Farmers Union as part of her duties as Chair of the Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs. [119937]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  None. I am currently arranging a mutually convenient date for a meeting with the President of the NFU, Ben Gill.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what public speaking engagements have been undertaken by special advisers within her Department in each of the last three years. [119968]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator and his Deputy have undertaken a large number of public speaking engagements in support of the Government's strategy to combat illegal drugs.

  Other special advisers within the Cabinet Office have not undertaken any official public speaking engagements over the last three years.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the foreign visits taken by Ministers on which they were accompanied by a special adviser since May 1997. [119933]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas, and information on spend by all Ministers on travel overseas for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 is currently being assembled, and will be published as soon as possible. The overall figure on spend on Ministers' travel overseas will include the cost of travel of any Special Advisers accompanying Ministers.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what targets are to be set for reducing the use of drugs in prisons; and what specific measures relate to those targets. [119930]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has agreed the following targets with the Prison Service:

  By March 2000
  Have established CARATs, (Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare) the basic treatment framework to improve the assessment, advice throughcare and support of prisoners; and put in place more and better quality treatment programmes.
  Put in place more dogs trained to detect drugs; more CCTV in visits areas; obtain better information about supply routes and availability of drugs to prisoners; and discourage families from smuggling drugs.

  By March 2002
  Ensure that the CARATs annual caseload reached 20,000; that there are 30 new prison-based rehabilitation programmes and that 5,000 prisoners per year go through treatment programmes.
  Have developed and implemented a model to assess the levels and routes of supply of drugs within prisons.
  618W
  To reduce the rate of positive tests from prison random drug tests from 20 per cent. (in 1998–99) to 16 per cent.
  The targets for March 2000 have been met through the introduction of CARATs in all prisons and twenty-one new treatment programmes. A further eight treatment programmes and four new therapeutic communities will start this year. There are 60 new passive and twelve new active drug dogs, bringing the totals to 121 and 196 respectively. CCTV is available in visits areas in 118 prisons. Improving intelligence is an ongoing task. New sanctions for visitors caught smuggling drugs were introduced in April 1999. They include a ban on the visitors concerned and the imposition of closed visits for three months.

  The Prison Service is on course to meet these targets.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had in the last year with prison governors on the reduction of drug use in prisons. [119961]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None. My right hon. Friend the Minster for the Cabinet Office visited HMP Kirklevington Grange at Yarm, Cleveland, on Friday 11 February. This visit was to launch the Learning Labs initiative and to meet participants on the Prisoners' Passport project. On this occasion the prison governor was unable to be present.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will give details of the financial support provided by her Department for programmes designed to reduce the use of drugs in prisons. [119959]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Prison Service receives no financial support from the Cabinet Office to support its drugs strategy.

  The Prison Service received an additional £76 million from HM Treasury for the three year period 1999–2000 to 2001–02 for its drugs strategy as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Online Services
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of Government services are currently available online through the internet. [119934]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department is currently preparing the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards the targets for electronic service delivery, which will identify the information requested by the hon. Member. I will be placing the report in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the targets she has set concerning the online availability of Government services. [119967]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 203W.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the 3, 4 and 5 waves of quantitative research carried out through the People's Panel. [120009]
  619W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government are committed to publishing the results of research carried out using the People's Panel. The results of the third wave of research were published on 15 July 1999, and the fourth wave of research on 3 April 2000. On 17 January 2000 we also published the results of a re-analysis of the first three waves of research which looked at the attitudes of older people. On each occasion, publication was announced by issue of a press release and copies of summaries placed in the House Libraries and on the People's Panel website at www.servicefirst.gov.uk/index/pphome.htm.

  The fifth wave of research, examining people's satisfaction with, and expectations of, public services is currently under way. We plan to publish the results in July.

  Executive Agencies and NDPBs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the timetable is for future option studies for executive agencies and NDPBs. [120008]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on 7 March 2000,Official Report, columns 608-09W. The Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies 1999 Report, Cm 4657, and the Executive Agencies 1999 Report, Cm 4658, which were published and laid in both Houses on that day listed the current position regarding the quinquennial review of the non-departmental public bodies and the agencies included in each report.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the Prime Minister to discuss the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on management of cross-cutting policies. [119953]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have not had any meetings with the Prime Minister specifically to discuss the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on management of cross-cutting policies, but this subject does come up from time to time in our frequent discussions across a range of subjects.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the Prime Minister in the current year to discuss the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. [119956]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have not had any meetings with the Prime Minister in the current year specifically to discuss the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, but this subject does come up from time to time in our frequent discussions across the range of my responsibilities.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times press officers have accompanied Ministers on foreign visits in each of the past three years. [119931]
  620W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Details of press officers accompanying Ministers on foreign visits are not held centrally. I can, however, respond regarding foreign visits of Cabinet Office Ministers since May 1997.

  As Minister for the Cabinet Office I have not been accompanied by a press officer on any of my foreign visits, nor was my predecessor. Records indicate that, since May 1997, press officers have accompanied other Cabinet Office Ministers as follows: my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on five occasions and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on two occasions.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list gross expenditure on the Government Car Service in 1999–2000. [120058]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Andrew Lansley, dated April 2000:
  The Minister of State. Cabinet Office has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive responsible for the Government Car Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the gross expenditure for the Agency in 1999–2000.
  The estimated gross expenditure for the Government Car Service for 1999–2000 is £7.7 million. The accounts for the full year are currently being finalised and will be audited by the NAO.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to review the operation of regulatory impact assessments. [119936]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 53W.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Departments have reported on their regulatory performance in departmental reports published in April 2000 in terms agreed with the Regulatory Impact Unit. [120011]

  Mr. Stringer
  All of the key regulatory Departments have published Regulatory Reporting sections in their Annual Departmental Reports. The key Departments are:

  Department of Trade and Industry. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Treasury, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inland Revenue, Department of Health, Home Office, Health and Safety Executive, Department for Education and Employment, Customs and Excise.

  Social Exclusion Funds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will introduce new arrangements for providing funds to deprived communities to tackle social exclusion that do not rely on matched funding from the communities concerned: and if she will make a statement. [119577]
  621W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched consultation on 12 April on the Social Exclusion Unit's framework National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. This includes analysis of the obstacles to securing funding in deprived communities and proposals to overcome them.

  In addition, this Government have already committed £800 million over 10 years to the New Deal for Communities programme which is being used to regenerate some of England's poorest neighbourhoods.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries (London)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which national museums and galleries in London are funded by his Department. [119806]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The national museums and galleries in London sponsored by my Department are as follows: the British Museum; the Imperial War Museum, including its branches at the Cabinet War Rooms and HMS Belfast; the National Gallery; the National Maritime Museum, encompassing the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; the National Portrait Gallery; the Natural History Museum; the National Museum of Science and industry (the Science Museum); the Tate Gallery, encompassing Tate Britain and Tate Modern; the Victoria and Albert Museum, including its branches at the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood and the Theatre Museum, Covent Garden and the Wallace Collection. The Royal Armouries, which has a major museum at Leeds, and the Museum of Artillery at Fort Nelson near Portsmouth, also has a site within the Tower of London.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119512]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119445]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is currently collecting data as input into the Cabinet Office spring 2000 report on the progress towards the delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005. I do not want to pre-empt that report but I can say that we are looking very closely at the opportunities arising from electronic service delivery. My Department relaunched its website a month ago providing access to a range of departmental information and services as well as linking out to our 622W
  wider sectors who are already creating a range of exciting online services such as the 24 Hour Museum and the BTA's "VisitBritain" tourist information site. These are already proving very popular and provide an indication of how service delivery will develop over the coming years.

  This is an area that is fundamental to my Department's aims of quality, access, education and developing the creative economy, and our service delivery plans will reflect this.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a substantive response to his letter of 28 January on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Aylin. [120021]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I give my sincere apologies to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire for the delay in responding to his letter of 28 January on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Aylin. I replied to his letter on 19 April.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will announce the preferred developer of the Stonehenge visitor centre; and if he will make a statement. [119786]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A further statement will be made as soon as it is appropriate.

  Countess Road, Amesbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the properties in Countess Road, Amesbury(a) which have been purchased on behalf of English Heritage and (b) on which there is an option to purchase on behalf of English Heritage; and if he will make a statement. [119787]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  English Heritage owns 18 Countess Road and a small paddock which is accessed from Countess Road and has an option to acquire land at Countess East which includes 14 and 16 Countess Road.

HEALTH

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent (i) directly and (ii) indirectly on asylum seekers in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999; and what estimate has been made of expenditure in 2000. [119487]

  Mr. Hutton

  [holding answer 17 April 2000]The Home Office will be responding to this Question on behalf of Government as a whole, using information that we have provided to them.

  NHS Treatment Guidelines
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to review the NHS guidelines for the treatment of people from abroad. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, [120003]

  Ms Stuart
  Policy on overseas visitors is kept under continuous review. New regulations were recently introduced which require the new primary care trusts to identify and charge overseas visitors where necessary and which also clarified the removal of Hong Kong from the list of countries with which we hold reciprocal healthcare agreements. (The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 2000. SI 2000 No.602).

  In addition, we are looking at the current guidance available to hospitals and the public with a view to producing revised versions which are more user friendly.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the high level targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 2000–01. [120348]

  Yvette Cooper
  The high level targets for the Medicines Control Agency are included in its Annual Business Plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library today.

  Physical Punishment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his Department's consultation document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents", if he will list the eight countries in which there are explicit bans on physical punishment by parents, citing the documentary evidence for the existence of the ban in each country. [119817]

  Mr. Hutton
  The countries concerned are listed in the document. They are: Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia and Latvia.

  The documentary sources are the Acts and Statutes of the relevant countries.

  Circular HSC 1999/162: LAC (99) 28
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports he has received from the Social Services Inspectorate about the implementation of circular HSC 1999/162: LAC (99) 28; and how many of these reports indicate that the circular is not being properly implemented. [119862]

  Mr. Hutton
  No formal reports have been received. However, the Social Services Inspectorate regularly undertakes detailed assessment of local social service authorities' performance including services for learning disabled people. In addition, a survey of the use of the Direction on Choice to which the circular refers was carried out in 1998 and this was followed up by a series of regional seminars in the summer of 1999 to disseminate the lessons learned. We are also developing a national learning disability strategy to be launched later this year which will aim to eliminate inconsistencies in service delivery.

  Regeneration Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative; [119789]

  (2) if he will list the number and value of (a) bids and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible. [119795]

  Ms Stuart
  Health action zones (HAZs) are the only area-based initiative for which the Department is responsible. Most of the additional resources available to health authorities in HAZs are allocated on the basis of a NHS weighted capitation formula rather than through a bidding process. Health Authorities that are HAZs received and spent an additional £5.6 million in the first year of the initiative (1998–99) and £89.4 million in 1999–2000 (£3 million less than budgeted for). Resources for 2000–01 and beyond have yet to be finalised.

  Other initiatives classified as regeneration-related initiatives are the Healthy Schools Initiative, Personal Medical Services (PMS) Pilots and the Primary Care and Primary School Partnership pilots.

  The resources budgeted for and allocated to the Healthy Schools Initiative, which has now been rolled out across England, were £1.2 million in 1998–99 and £2.9 million in 1999–2000. £5.7 million will be available in 2000–01. No decisions have been made about resources for future years. The cost of the initiative is shared equally between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.

  PMS pilots receive a "fair share" of the resources that would have been available from the general medical services non-cash limited pool. The only additional resources they receive are for preparation costs. The preparation costs for the first two waves of PMS pilots were £2 million in 1997–98, £2 million in 1998–99 and £3 million in 1999–2000. No decisions have yet been made on a third wave.

  The Primary Care and Primary School Partnership pilots were budgeted to receive £350,000 in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. £100,000 was carried forward from 1999–2000. No decisions have yet been made about further expenditure.

  Slimming Drugs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement the ruling of the European Court on the reinstatement of slimming drugs proscribed by the Medicines Control Agency on 9 April. [119995]

  Ms Stuart
  The United Kingdom Licensing Authority has today rescinded the ban on the marketing of amfepramone, following the European Court's decision to suspend the European ban. Although there are no new safety concerns with this product, in the interests of public health and reassurance to patients, the urgent advice of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines has been
  625W
  sought. The European Court has not given any decision in relation to the European ban on phentermine—another anorectic substance previously on the UK market.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual revenue cost is for each of the next 20 years of the PFI projects approved to date.[118861]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the following table, and represents private finance initiative schemes which have reached financial close.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Annual revenue cost1

  2000–01

  114.67

  2001–02

  204.41

  2002–03

  268.96

  2003–04

  317.53

  2004–05

  317.01

  2005–06

  317.26

  2006–07

  314.69

  2007–08

  313.03

  2008–09

  310.92

  2009–10

  307.52

  2010–11

  305.14

  2011–12

  304.16

  2012–13

  304.20

  2013–14

  304.24

  2014–15

  303.68

  2015–16

  300.86

  2016–17

  300.24

  2017–18

  300.32

  2018–19

  300.97

  2019–20

  299.62

  1 All schemes with a capital value greater than £1 million

  Royal Commission on Long-Term Care
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the cost of full implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK. [119858]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 December 1999,Official Report, columns 444-45. The pro rata costs for Scotland are normally estimated to be 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will direct the Governor of St. Helena to establish a minimum wage on St. Helena. [119807]

  Mr. Battle
  The St. Helena Government is committed to reviewing the feasibility of introducing a minimum wage this financial year, against the background of a 10 per cent. increase in salaries and wages for civil servants (70 per cent. of the workforce) from 1 April 2000 and a reduction in income tax and raising of tax thresholds in the Appropriation Bill passed in March.

  Iran
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent developments there have been in the trial of the 13 Jews detained in Iran for espionage; and if he will make a statement. [120481]

  Mr. Hain
  Since my statement to the House on 11 April, we have learned that, despite earlier announcements the majority were accused of lesser charges, 10 of the 13 defendants are being tried for espionage and that the trial is being held in closed session. We continue to press our deep concern at these developments on the Iranian authorities, in consultation with our EU partners, stressing the need for a transparent and fair trial.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take with respect to the granting of export licences for military materials to Zimbabwe. [119864]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 184-85W to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).

  We are deeply concerned by the continuing violence in Zimbabwe resulting in the death of another farmer on 18 April and the continued attacks and killings of members of the opposition. We continue to monitor developments closely. We take the internal situation into account when considering applications for licences for the export of any goods controlled for strategic reasons. All export licence applications are considered against the UK national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. If there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or external aggression the licence is refused.

SCOTLAND

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [117474]

  Dr. Reid
  Details relating to the Government Art Collection were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 392W.

  The costs of the upkeep and the purchase of works of art in the then Scottish Office for each financial year since 1992 are given in the table. Figures for 1999–2000 include Scottish Office expenditure up to 1 July 1999 and for the Scotland Office for the remainder of the year.

  £

  Year

  Upkeep

  Purchase

  Total

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  653.65

  653.65

  1994–95

  0

  621.36

  621.36

  1995–96

  0

  92,920.27

  92,920.27

  627W

  £

  Year

  Upkeep

  Purchase

  Total

  1996–97

  0

  0

  0

  1997–98

  475.88

  0

  475.88

  1998–99

  0

  3,435.37

  3,435.37

  1999–2000

  0

  3,062.75

  3,062.75

  Expenditure in 1995–96 includes costs relating to the completion of the new Scottish Office headquarters building at Victoria Quay, Edinburgh. These items totalled £73,927.00.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the percentage change compared to 1990–91 in his Department's energy efficiency in each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [119000]

  Dr. Reid
  Information from the former Scottish Office is only available from 1991–92. Details of the percentage change in energy consumption from that date are:

  Year

  Percentage change

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  +6

  1993–94

  +8

  1994–95

  +13

  1995–96

  +19

  1996–97

  +13

  1997–98

  +4

  1998–99

  -4

  1999–2000

  1-10

  1 Estimated

  The percentage change figures indicate that, until 1996, energy consumption was increasing. This was largely because the period in question coincided with the rapid expansion of information technology and, in particular, the growth of desktop computing and associated equipment. Since then, significant improvements have been made.

  These figures do not include the Scottish Prisons Service and the Scottish Courts Service.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's energy efficiency performance target, expressed as a percentage change in comparison to 1990–91, for each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement.[119001]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department took on its present form on 1 July 1999, following devolution in Scotland. We have not yet set energy efficiency targets for the next five years but any targets set will be in line with the Government's environment and climate change commitments.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119519]
  628W
  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Prohibited Weapons
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prohibited weapons are held by private individuals in Scotland by the permission of the Secretary of State.[119871]

  Dr. Reid
  No prohibited weapons are currently held by private individuals in Scotland by the permission that was previously granted by the Secretary of State and is now granted by Scottish Ministers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119509]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W, by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the potential for conflict of interest when legal aid managers award legal aid to clients of solicitors' firms in which their spouses are partners. [119698]

  Mr. Lock
  Before the establishment of the Legal Services Commission on 1 April 2000, the Legal Aid Board was responsible for granting applications for legal aid. In 1998, the Board introduced a Code of Conduct for its staff. All key members of staff were required to ensure that any possible conflicts of interest were identified at an early stage and that appropriate action was taken to resolve them.

  The requirements under the Staff Code of Conduct continue to apply to all staff of the Legal Services Commission, which is the successor to the Legal Aid Board. Where a conflict of interest is reported, the Senior Manager will make arrangements to ensure that the staff member concerned is not involved in any decision relating to the award or management of legal aid, or funding under the Access to Justice Act 1999, to the firm or organisation in which he or she has an interest.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost of(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland in each year since 1990. [119696]

  Mr. Lock
  Net expenditure in relation to civil legal aid, advice by way of representation, legal advice and assistance and criminal legal aid in Northern Ireland since 1990–91 is as follows:
  629W

  £ million

  Civil

  ABWOR

  LAA

  Criminal

  Total

  1990–91

  2.89

  1.30

  2.20

  5.80

  12.19

  1991–92

  3.45

  1.37

  2.83

  7.17

  14.82

  1992–93

  3.73

  1.64

  4.93

  9.61

  19.91

  1993–94

  3.62

  1.49

  5.21

  6.68

  17.00

  1994–95

  4.38

  1.29

  4.67

  9.59

  19.93

  1995–96

  4.64

  1.28

  5.68

  14.18

  25.78

  1996–97

  5.68

  1.46

  4.60

  14.33

  26.07

  1997–98

  5.75

  1.87

  3.68

  17.55

  28.85

  1998–99

  6.47

  1.45

  6.24

  15.93

  30.09

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the firms of solicitors in Northern Ireland with clients who have received(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid each year since 1990; and how much (i) civil and (ii) criminal legal aid they received. [119697]

  Mr. Lock
  The administration of the legal aid scheme in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Law Society of Northern Ireland under the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This function is exercised through the Legal Aid Committee which is a Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Legal Aid Department which is a Department of the Law Society. The Legal Aid Department is also responsible for the administration of criminal legal aid on the Lord Chancellor's behalf.

  The number of firms of solicitors in Northern Ireland with clients who have received civil legal aid since 1997, excluding advice by way of representation and legal advice and assistance, is 484. For the same period the number of firms of solicitors in Northern Ireland with clients who have received criminal legal aid is 452. Copies of the lists have been laid in the Library of the House of Commons.

  The amounts received by these firms of solicitors for civil legal aid and criminal legal aid in 1997–98 and 1998–99 were as follows:

  £ million

  Civil

  Criminal

  1997–98

  2.99

  8.10

  1998–99

  3.37

  6.71

  A breakdown of the amount paid to each firm in each year since 1990 could only be determined by undertaking a vast amount of work on the Legal Aid Department's former and now obsolete computer, checking manual records and extracting information of part of a year for the new computer system, which is currently being installed. This work would disrupt the implementation of the new computer system and divert staff from their tasks of processing legal aid applications. Accordingly the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mediation and Reconciliation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was 630W
  spent by governmental departments in (a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 on mediation and reconciliation schemes to support marriages. [119766]

  Jane Kennedy
  The figures for 1970 and 1980 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the financial year 1999–2000 the Lord Chancellor's Department spent £3.2 million on marriage and relationship support. In line with Sir Graham Hart's recommendations in his report on Marriage Support Funding (November 1999), the allocation is being increased to £4 million in 2000–01; £4.5 million in 2002–02; and to £5 million in 2002–03.

  Divorce Cases
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the Legal Aid Fund was spent on divorce cases in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999; and how much was spent in each of those years in 1999 prices. [119764]

  Mr. Lock
  Legal Aid is not normally available for divorce proceedings. It is available however for matters ancillary to divorce, such as spousal maintenance and property issues, and for residence and contact matters relating to children.

  In 1979–80 and 1998–99, expenditure on all proceedings relating to divorce and ancillary matters represented 30 per cent. and 18 per cent. of the total Legal Aid Fund respectively.

  At 1999 prices, the amounts spent on matrimonial proceedings were:

  1999: £175.5 million

  1980: £65.0 million

  Comparable figures for the year 1969–70 are not available.

  Libel Actions (Financial Backers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many failed libel actions brought since 1995 the litigant has refused to disclose to the court the identities of those who helped finance the action so that costs could be recovered; what steps the court took in each case; and if he will make a statement. [120002]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not keep statistics of libel cases which fail and in which the litigant has refused to disclose to the court the source of those who helped to finance the action. It is not possible to keep records of the costs outcomes of libel cases because many cases do not reach trial but are settled by agreement. In settled cases the court will not be privy to the arrangement on costs.

  The question of financial support for defamation proceedings will be addressed in a consultation paper to be issued by my Department in the near future.

  Public Records
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on
  631W
  progress made since March 1999 on allowing access to documents over 30 years old to which s.3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 applies. [119835]

  Mr. Lock
  It is now normal procedure, when government departments and agencies make applications for the Lord Chancellor's permission to retain records over 30 years old, for officers of the Public Record Office to encourage them to allow public access. Such applications are further scrutinised by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records. The Advisory Council may request access for the public as a condition of an application proceeding to receive the Lord Chancellor's approval.

  As a result, the public will be granted access to the great majority of the records retained under s.3(4) since March 1999. The commonest reason for access to be refused is that the retained records remain sensitive. In such cases access would undermine the reason for retention.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications for judicial appointment procedures in England and Wales of the proposals for judicial appointments commissions for Scotland and for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [119803]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor is aware of the proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland. He has decided to appoint a Commissioner for Judicial Appointments in England and Wales as recommended by Sir Leonard Peach following his scrutiny of the appointments procedures and to take forward his other recommendations for change. The Commissioner, as recommended by Sir Leonard, will give the Lord Chancellor independent and impartial advice on the full range of appointments matters. Further reform is not ruled out for the future, but not immediately planned, now that the existing system has been investigated and endorsed subject to certain changes which will be implemented and evaluated.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Queen's Counsel are from ethnic minority communities, broken down between(a) men and (b) women. [120082]

  Mr. Lock
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Before 1989, applicants for appointment as Queen's Counsel were not invited to declare their ethnic origin. Since that year, applicants have been invited to declare their ethnic origin, but they are not obliged to do so. There is, therefore, no definitive record of the number of Queen's Counsel of ethnic minority origin.

  Sine 1989 (and including this year), 22 applicants who chose to declare an ethnic minority origin have been appointed as Queen's Counsel; of these, 19 are men and 3 are women.
  632W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the Queen's Counsel to be appointed on Maundy Thursday are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minority backgrounds, (c) solicitors and (d) (i) below the age of 45 and (ii) above the age of 60 years; and what was the (A) highest, (B) lowest, (C) average and (D) mean declared fee income of (x) successful and (y) unsuccessful candidates. [119819]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's press notice number 134/00, issued for publication on Maundy Thursday, announces the names of those to be appointed Queen's Counsel on Wednesday 3 May, and I refer my hon. Friend to that notice.

  That press notice includes, as it has in previous years, statistical information on the numbers of female, ethnic minority and solicitor applicants and successful applicants. Following a recommendation in Sir Leonard Peach's report into the appointment processes of judges and Queen's Counsel, it also includes for the first time a table indicating the averages and quartile distributions of the average declared fees for all applicants, unsuccessful applicants and successful applicants.

  The additional information requested by my hon. Friend is that 41 of the successful applicants are under 45; and none is over 60 years of age.

  Regeneration-related Initiatives
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number and value of(a) bids for and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible. [119797]

  Mr. Lock
  This Department has not received any bids or made grants for area-based or other regeneration-related initiatives in any of the last three financial years.

TREASURY

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of households which will lose entitlement to married couple's allowance in 2001–02 who will not become entitled to the children's tax credit; and what(a) the average loss per household will be in such cases and (b) the total saving will be for the Treasury from this group. [116577]

  Dawn Primarolo

  [holding answer 28 March 2000]We are replacing the married couple's allowance with the children's tax credit, which is worth more than twice as much and is better targeted on the families who most need support—those with growing children. As a result of the measures we have taken, including the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit and record increases in Child Benefit, families with children will be on average £850 a year better off from April 2001. Estimates of the
  633W
  total expected cost and yield of the abolition of MCA and the introduction of children's tax credit have been published in Table A2.1 of the FSBR.

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of money he estimates the increased tobacco taxation will raise for expenditure on the NHS; and if the expenditure projections for the NHS will be sustained irrespective of the yield from tobacco taxation. [117036]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The projected exchequer yield from the increased tobacco duty of £235 million in the full year, as set out in Table A 13 in the FSBR, is taken into account in the commitment of the extra £2 billion to the NHS in 2000–01, which we are guaranteeing to meet.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119507]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer to my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Departments have submitted environmental appraisals with their draft public service agreements for the second comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [118859]

  Mr. Andrew Smith

  [holding answer 17 April 2000]It was a requirement that the analysis submitted by all Departments to inform the spending review include consideration of the impact of their proposals and programmes on sustainable development.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the objectives of the second comprehensive spending review. [118860]

  Mr. Andrew Smith

  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: The aim of the 2000 spending review is to determine how best Departments' programmes can contribute to the achievement of the Government's objectives, in particular their aims of:

  opportunity for everyone to fulfil their potential through education and employment:

  a fair and inclusive society in which communities are healthy and secure;

  higher productivity, sustainable growth and effective co-operation with our European and international partners.

  The review will entail a rigorous scrutiny of Departments' performance in delivering effective and responsive services, improving efficiency and managing assets and other resources. It will also consider a range of issues which cross departmental boundaries.
  634W
  The review will set new departmental spending plans within the firm overall limits for public spending announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations his Department received in relation to this year's comprehensive spending review before 31 March; and if he will continue to accept representations from both public and private sector bodies. [119584]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No formal count is made, but the Treasury had received a number of representations in relation to the 2000 spending review by 31 March. Treasury Ministers will continue to accept representations from both public and private bodies while the review continues, either directly or through our colleagues in other Departments.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional cost to his Department's salary bill if the minimum wage for all age groups was raised to(a) £4, (b) £4.20 and (c) £4.50 an hour. [119973]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There would be no additional cost to the Treasury's salary bill under any of the scenarios.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional personal tax revenue if the minimum wage was set for all age groups at(a) £4, (b) £4.20 and (c) £4.50 per hour in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [119972]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to estimate the potential impact of raising the minimum wage on the labour market, so an accurate costing is not possible.

  Inflation Figures
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has estimated that the inflation rate will be 3.4 per cent. in September 2000. [119994]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The basis for the projection that inflation will be 3.4 per cent. in September 2000 is set out in appendix Al of the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the inflation rate he has assumed for September 2000 differs from the target inflation rate he has set for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. [119993]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The forecast of inflation in September 2000 referred to in the Budget is a forecast of the annual increase in the retail prices index (BPI), whereas the target inflation rate for the Monetary Policy Committee is the annual increase in retail prices excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX).

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the forecast additional spending on Working Families Tax Credit will be spent on recipients who would
  635W
  have (a) been entitled and (b) not been entitled to Family Credit in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [119947]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for the projected expenditure on the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Person's Tax Credit are given in Table C12 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report. In 1998–99, the last full year for Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance, the outturn expenditure on these was £2.6 billion.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent to date on the childcare tax credit of the Working Families Tax Credit; and what is his latest estimate of expenditure in(a) this financial year and (b) in each of the next two financial years. [108761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [pursuant to her reply, 10 March 2000, c. 852W]The extra amounts of Working Families Tax Credit arising from the childcare tax credit in awards made by the end of January 2000 will result in expenditure of about £60 million during the 26-week period of award. It is estimated that for 2000–01, the first full year of the credit, the extra expenditure due to the childcare tax credits will be about £200 million. I very much regret that the figures given in my earlier reply were based on the average amounts of eligible child care costs, rather than the average extra award received as a result of the childcare tax credit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parents are claiming the childcare tax credit in respect of children(a) aged under eight years and (b) over eight years; and what is the average payment per (i) family and (ii) child. [108760]

  Dawn Primarolo

  [pursuant to her reply, 10 March 2000, c. 853W]Families in receipt of the childcare tax credit received on average an extra £31 per week as a result of this credit, or £25 per week per child receiving the child care. I very much regret that the figures given in my earlier reply were the average amounts of eligible child care costs.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls have been made to the WFTC helpline in each month since it was established. [119946]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Monthly figures on the number of calls handled by working families' tax credit helpline and response line are given in the table:

  Month

  Helpline1

  Response Line2

  September3

  389,300

  316,800

  October

  449,300

  322,700

  November

  384,900

  141,500

  December

  242,400

  42,900

  January

  406,800

  15,400

  February

  387,400

  —

  March

  502,800

  —

  1 The helpline has been in operation since the campaign launch of WFTC on the 8 September 1999.

  2 The response line has only been in operation during the first advertising campaign.

  3 The helpline and the response line were made operational on the 8 September 1999.

  Combined Heat and Power Plant
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken as a result of the study by property advisers to the Civil Estate concerning the case for installation of a combined heat and power plant for central Government Departments. [120024]

  Mr. Timms
  A combined heat and power plant was installed in 1997–98 as part of the replacement of the central plant of the Whitehall district heating system. Generation of electricity commenced in July 1998.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which aspects of the Cologne G7 Summit agreement on debt relief have not been implemented by(a) the IMF, (b) the World bank and (c) individual countries. [118982]

  Mr. Timms
  The World bank, the IMF and all individual creditor countries signed up to implementation of the enhanced HIPC Initiative at the IMF/World bank annual meetings last September.

  Some individual countries, including the UK, have now gone further than last September's agreement, by committing to provide 100 per cent. relief on the commercial debts of countries qualifying under the HIPC initiative. The UK Government welcome these developments as a further step along the road to providing faster, wider and deeper debt relief, and encourages other countries to follow suit.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on establishing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Trust Fund; and what contributions have been made by(a) national and (b) international donors. [118983]

  Mr. Timms
  The HIPC Trust Fund was set up last year to assist multilateral creditors meet the cost falling to them from the enhanced HIPC framework.

  The total amounts pledged and contributed to the Trust Fund are equal to roughly $2.4 billion. (Australia has pledged $12 million; Austria $19 million; Belgium $40 million; Canada $104 million; Denmark $42 million; Finland $25 million; France $199 million; Germany $252 million; Greece $10 million; Ireland $20 million; Italy $162 million; Japan $200 million; Luxembourg $3 million; Netherlands $169 million; Norway $41 million; Portugal $22 million; Spain $128 million; Sweden $49 million; Switzerland $28 million; United Kingdom $359 million; US $600 million.)

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which countries have already received debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 2 programme; how much they have received; what progress is being made to relieve debt; and when the debt relief will be received; [118981]

  (2) what proposals he has for improving the speed and performance of the IMF implementation process of the heavily indebted poor countries initiatives. [118984]

  Mr. Timms
  Bolivia, Mauritania, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique have all reached their decision points under the enhanced HIPC initiative and are receiving debt relief. Bolivia will receive over $2 billion in relief: a
  637W
  30 per cent. reduction in the net present value of its debt (additional to the relief already granted under the first HIPC initiative); Mauritania will receive $1.2 billion debt relief: a 50 per cent. reduction; Uganda $4.4 billion, or a 72 per cent. reduction; Tanzania $3 billion, or a reduction of 54 per cent.; and Mozambique £2 billion in debt relief, or a 40 per cent. reduction.

  The UK was disappointed that, to date, only these five countries have started to receive relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative. In Washington, at the spring meetings of the IMF and World bank, shareholders re-affirmed their wish to see countries coming forward to decision point quickly.

  The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development recently wrote to the Acting Managing Director of the IMF and Chairman of the World bank, setting out their concerns over progress and urging them to consider the introduction of a HIPC Implementation Unit. The UK therefore welcomed the announcement by the Bank and Fund that they will be setting up a joint committee on HIPC implementation, as well as providing monthly briefing sessions to both Boards on the progress of individual countries under the initiative.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to the UK from(a) raising the ceiling on national insurance for employers to £1,000 a week and (b) charging national insurance at a rate of 5 per cent. for earnings over this level. [119969]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no ceiling for employer national insurance contributions.

  UK Debt Management Office
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the UK Debt Management Office's targets for 2000–01. [120349]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The DMO's targets for 2000–01 are set out as follows, together with the outturn against the equivalent targets for 1999–2000. The range of targets has been extended somewhat to reflect the taking over of responsibility by the DMO for Exchequer cash management on 3 April 2000. The DMO is today also publishing its Business Plan for 2000–01. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Targets for the Debt Management Office 2000–01

  1. To ensure full compliance with the Government's remit for the DMO as set out in the Debt Management Report, within the tolerances and subject to the review triggers notified separately to the Office and consistently with the objectives of monetary policy. [Target fully met in 1999–2000]

  2. To ensure that the maximum time taken to issue the results of gilt auctions and structured Treasury Bill tenders does not exceed 40 minutes while achieving complete accuracy. [Target met in 1999–2000, with the exception of the auction in May 1999 when there was an unusually high number of bids]

  3. To ensure that the maximum time taken to issue the results of ad hoc Treasury Bill or other tenders does not exceed 15 minutes. [New target]

  4. To achieve complete accuracy, within agreed accounting tolerances, in the recording and reporting of transactions through the Debt Management Account, and in delivering
  638W
  money (and reconciling payments) to the NLF. [The DMA came into operation in November 1999 since when the targeted requirements have been met]

  5. To acknowledge all letters and e-mail inquiries from the public within eight working days and for at least 95 per cent. to be sent a substantive reply within three weeks. [Equivalent target in 1999–2000 fully met]

  6. To achieve less than 10 breaches of the Operational Market Notices (excluding any breaches that the Treasury accept were beyond control of the Office). [There was one breach of the gilts Operational Notice in 1999–2000]

  7. To ensure that the qualifications that the NAO have made in respect of the GOOA are satisfactorily addressed in the running and presentation of the DMA. [See target 4—The first DMA accounts will not be available until 2001–02]

  8. To ensure that the statutory constraint on DMO market borrowing (not to exceed its deposits with the NLF and Bank of England) is always met. [New target]

  9. To ensure that, where there is a late change in the forecast, any necessary use of end of day borrowing or lending facilities is notified by the due time. [New target]

  10. To achieve a minimum of 99 per cent. (by value) successful settlement of agreed trades on the due date. [New target]

  11. To achieve a minimum of 99 per cent. (by value) successful settlement of agreed trades on the due date. [New target]

  Central Government Audit
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in taking forward the review of central Government audit announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 28 February. [120482]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that Lord Sharman, a former senior partner at KPMG International, has agreed to lead this review. Lord Sharman will report to (as well as being a member of) a Steering Group chaired by the Chief Secretary. Arrangements are being made to provide him with appropriate support. The full membership of the Steering Group will be announced in due course.

  Fuel Duty
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he raised fuel duty by 3.4 per cent. in his recent budget. [119992]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 5 April 2000,Official Report, column 497W.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the increase in the overall running costs of Government departments. [119962]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The recently published figures for the running costs of Government Departments show that the final spend for 1998–99, the latest year for which final data are available, is £110 million less in cash terms than the previously published estimated outturn for that year.

  Spending plans published by the previous Administration were higher overall for the three years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 than this Government have achieved.
  639W
  In real terms, administrative expenditure totalled £15,014 million in 1994–95, £14,737 million in 1995–96 and £14,323 million in 1996–97. This Government spent £13,725 million in 1997–98 and £14,003 million in 1998–99—the last year for which final figures are available.

DEFENCE

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will let the contracts for the two new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships; what is his estimate of the cost of the contracts; and if he will make a statement; [118061]

  (2) which British yards have tendered for the contract to build (a) one and (b) both of the new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships; and if he will make a statement. [118058]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Warmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 20 April 2000:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procurement of two new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. I assume that you are referring to the Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSL) Programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of Defence Procurement Agency.
  Five UK shipyards have expressed an interest in the ALSL project and each is being invited to tender for their design and build. The five companies are:

  Appledore Shipbuilders Ltd.

  BAE SYSTEMS Marine Ltd.

  Cammell Laird Shipyard

  Harland and Wolff Shipbuilding and Heavy Industries Ltd.

  Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Ltd.

  The contract will be awarded to the shipyard that offers the best whole life value for money.
  An invitation to tender (ITT) was issued on 14 April. Contract placement for the design and build of two new ALSLs is planned to occur in late 2000. The estimated cost for the construction of the two vessels is £138M.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what foreign yards his Department has contacted with regard to the construction of the two new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships; and if he will make a statement. [118660]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Warmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 20 April 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procurement of two new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. I assume that you are referring to the Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSLs) Programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  No foreign yards have been contacted about the construction of the two ALSLs.
  640W
  ALSLs are classed as "warlike" and will be built in the UK. Five UK shipyards have expressed an interest in the ALSL project and have been invited to tender for design and build.

  Naval Procurement (Roll on/Roll off Ferries)
  Mr. Quentin Davies

  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to finance the Royal Navy's requirement for roll on/roll off ferries by means of a public private partnership, on the protection of the relevant contracts from the Public Procurement Directive available to military procurement contracts under the Treaty of European Union. [118663]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's requirement for a strategic sealift capability is defined as non-warlike and ships providing the service will not be warships. Rather, they will be commercial standard ro/ros. The competition for the requirement has, therefore, to be conducted under European Community and World Trade Organisation public procurement rules. In such circumstances, a MOD requirement that stipulates that service providers or suppliers provide British built ships would be contrary to our EC obligations prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

  The requirement to compete in this way is not, therefore, influenced by whether the service is provided through PFI or more traditional procurement methods. We are, of course, doing all we can within the bounds of fair competition to give UK industry the best opportunity to participate in the programme.

  Sandown-class Minehunters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contract for the last two of the Sandown-class minehunters will be completed. [118903]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 20 April 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the contract for the last two of the Sandown Class Mine Hunters will be completed. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  HMS Blythe is due to be delivered to the Ministry of Defence on 3I March 2001.
  HMS Shoreland is due to be delivered to the Ministry of Defence on 31 December 2001.
  The contract also covers a 2 year warranty period for the completion of any outstanding work or defects after the delivery of each ship.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with bringing into service the two new aircraft carriers; whether the target set in the Strategic Defence Review has been adhered to; and if he will make a statement. [119168]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 678-80.

  Online Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the services which(a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies responsible to his Department (i) provide online and (ii) expect to be deliverable online by 2002. [119444]

  Dr. Moonie
  So that the Cabinet Office can publish the spring 2000 report monitoring progress towards delivery of all Government services electronically by 2005, we are currently collecting data which will include our progress on delivering 25 per cent. of Government services electronically by 2002. I do not want to pre-empt that report, but I can say that we currently provide a range of services electronically that include receiving recruitment applications and providing general and specialist information.

  British Meat (Armed Services)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of(a) lamb, (b) pork, (c) chicken and (d) turkey purchased for the armed services was of British origin in the last 12 months. [119702]

  Dr. Moonie
  The supply of food to the armed forces is contracted out to 3663. Our policy is aimed at sourcing British products wherever these are competitively priced. Our contractor advises that over the last 12 months the following percentages of meat were sourced in the UK—2 per cent. lamb; 100 per cent. pork; 50 per cent. bacon and gammon; and 30 per cent. chicken. No turkey was sourced in the UK.

  Meteorological Office
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Meteorological Office for 2000–01. [120296]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and general public. It also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate. During 2000–01, the Meteorological Office will be set the following challenging targets:

  Key Target 1:
  To achieve a value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index of at least 101.6 index points on 31 March 2001, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 2000;

  Key Target 2:
  To achieve a value for the Service Quality Index of at least 107.1 index points on 31 March 2001, from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997, in line with customer requirements. The Index covers representative services and products for defence, civil aviation, public and business customers;

  Key Target 3:
  To achieve a value for the Efficiency Index of at least 103.7 index points on 31 March 2001, from a baseline of 100.00 on 31 March 2000;

  Key Target 4:
  To achieve an overall return on capital employed in 2000–01 of not less than 0 per cent., while returning an operating profit of at least £13.7 million before strategic investments;
  642W
  Key Target 5:
  To achieve strategic investments in 2000–01 of at least £13.5 million.

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve a total contribution from commercial activities in 2000–01 of not less than £3.575 million.

  In addition, a new Staff Skills Index will be developed during 2000–01. The aim will be to establish a baseline of staff competency levels, derived from the Meteorological Office's new competency-based method of staff appraisal, so that sensible targets can be set and announced for subsequent years.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take in respect of(a) British military personnel serving in Zimbabwe and (b) Zimbabwean military personnel receiving training in the UK. [119866]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans to change the position of British military personnel based in Zimbabwe or Zimbabwean military personnel currently receiving training in the UK. Nevertheless, we continue to keep the situation under review.

  DERA
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many posts at the DERA establishment in Aberporth, Ceredigion will(a) transfer to NewDERA and (b) be retained within his Department as a result of his proposals in the public/private partnership consultation document. [119984]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 366-67W, which outlined our proposals for the DERA public-private partnership. These are described in more detail in the consultation document, a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House, and on the Internet at www.mod.uk/commercial/ppp/dera/.

  Under our current proposals, we envisage that the capabilities provided by Aberporth will form part of the NewDERA company. It is, therefore, likely that posts at Aberporth would transfer. However, no final decisions will be taken until the current consultation exercise comes to an end. We will of course listen carefully to views and comments received during this process.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 413W, if he will list the meetings between Lord Levy and (a) ministers and (b) officials within his Department on Government business other than in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy delivering messages in the Middle East. [117782]

  Mr. Byers
  Neither I nor any of my Ministers has met Lord Levy on Government business.

  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the annual amount spent by the average consumer on(a) gas and (b) electricity where payment is by (i) a pre-payment meter and (ii) direct debit. [118913]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Provisional estimates of average domestic gas and electricity bills for domestic consumers in 1999 are as follows:

  Average UK domestic fuel bills1—1999 provisional estimatesa

  £

  Payment method

  Standard Quarterly credit

  Monthly direct debit

  Pre-payment meter

  Gas2

  305

  267

  318

  Electricity3

  265

  256

  282

  1 Averages weighted by customer numbers

  2 An annual consumption level of 18,000kWh has been assumed

  3 An annual consumption level of 3,300kWh has been assumed. Customers with electric central heating are likely to consume considerably more electricity

  These figures are published annually in the Department's annual "Digest of UK Energy Statistics" and in the "Energy Report".

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a calculation was made of the total amount of the increase of emissions which would result from the moratorium on gas-fired power stations; and what it was. [119286]

  Mr. Byers
  Our White Paper, "Conclusions of The Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee", Cm 4071, stated that it was not possible to quantify the impact of the new energy framework on emissions. This is because the aim of the policy is not to achieve any particular outcome in terms of fuel mix in generation but to create a level playing field so that all forms of generation can compete equally and as a temporary precautionary measure to ensure the artificial encouragement for new gas plant that has arisen from distortions to the electricity market does not artificially undermine security and diversity of supply.

  I announced on Monday 17 April that I would be lifting the stricter consents policy in October 2000 as soon as the new electricity trading arrangements were in place. The Government are determined to meet the UK commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 121/2 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2008–12. The stricter consents policy and the timetable for its lifting is entirely consistent with meeting that target, and with moving towards our goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use his Department, its agencies and public bodies will make of the powers relating to the authorised 644W
  obtaining of communications data in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill once the Bill is enacted. [119517]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 April 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria the Towers Consortium need to fulfil to be eligible for regional selective assistance. [120094]

  Mr. Byers
  The criteria are set out in the booklet on the scheme, which is freely available. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Rover
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how quickly he could pay regional selective assistance to Rover following receipt of a valid application. [120093]

  Mr. Byers
  No such application has been received.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress the Steering Group on Electricity Security and Stability Issues has made in following up the recommendations made by the Consultants Merz and McLellan in the White Paper, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government Response to the fourth and fifth reports of the Trade and Industry Committee (Cm 4071), published in October 1998. [120544]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the White Paper, the Government proposed a two-tier approach: an open consultancy group open to all interested parties, and a smaller steering group which would carry out most of the detailed work. The Steering Group, chaired by my Department, has published its findings today in the form of a consultation document. The group has concluded that the further work recommended by Merz and McLellan has been undertaken or is in hand and that there do not appear to be any immediate problems for the security and stability of the electricity grid system arising from the possible high levels of gas-fired generation. They have recommended that the Regulator should keep system security under review since the industry is undergoing a period of enormous change. The consultation document also addresses the individual recommendations by Merz and McLellan. Comments have been invited by Friday 16 June.

  Copies of the consultation report are being circulated, in the first instance, to all those who responded to the consultation document on the Review of Energy Sources (listed in Annex G of Cm 4071). I am placing copies in the Libraries of the House. The document is also available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ and on request from Natalia Hill, EPTAC1b, DTI, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET (Phone: 020 7215 6488).

  Regeneration
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number and value of(a) bids for and (b) grants made in each of the last three financial years for which figures are available, for each (i) area-based and (ii) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible. [119800]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the Annual report presented to Parliament pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 and published on 26 July 1999.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each(a) area-based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which his Department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative. [119790]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to my Department's expenditure plans, Command 4611, published earlier this month.

  Homeowner Compensation (Mining Areas)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what compensation has been paid to homeowners whose properties(a) are rendered unsaleable and (b) have suffered undue financial loss in value due to their proximity to disused mineshafts in the last five years. [119782]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No compensation has been paid in these circumstances.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 2000–01. [120543]
  646W
  Mr. Byers
  I have set the Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 2000–01 in respect of its licensing and enforcement activities and correspondence. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of five per cent. over 1999–2000.

  Licensing Targets

  Category A
  Licences that involve no frequency assignment site clearance or international co-ordination: 100 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within five working days.

  Category B
  Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 15 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 25 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.

  Category C
  Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination: 90 per cent. of applications for new or varied services to be awarded or rejected (with explanation) within 40 working days; the remainder to be awarded or rejected within 60 working days or an explanation of the delay to be given.

  Enforcement

  100 per cent. of safety of life services reports of interference to be investigated within 24 hours.

  98 per cent. of business customers reports of interference to be investigated within five working days; the remainder within a further five days.

  98 per cent. of domestic customers reports of interference to be investigated within one month; the remainder within a further month.

  Correspondence
  I also expect all correspondence from hon. Members delegated to the Chief Executive by Ministers or otherwise for reply, and all written complaints addressed to him about agency services, to be answered within 10 working days of receipt; the agency's inquiry point to respond to 95 per cent. of calls within 30 seconds; and 100 per cent. of valid invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt (or as agreed with the supplier).

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be on an official visit to Slovakia on Tuesday 2nd May and hosting a luncheon in London on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for Nelson Mandela on Wednesday 3rd May 2000, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Energy Audits: Mortgage Surveys
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make it a requirement that home surveys for mortgage purposes shall include energy efficiency audits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government's recent housing Green Paper describes our proposals for reform to the home-buying and selling process in England and Wales. Under these proposals, people marketing homes for sale would provide a pack of standard information for potential buyers, including an energy efficiency survey. We have also given our support to a Private Members' Bill sponsored by the honourable Member for Eltham, Clive Efford. That Bill includes a requirement for mortgage lenders to provide borrowers with information on energy efficiency, and on possible measures for improvement, as part of the inspections they carry out for mortgage valuation purposes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that constructive response to my Question. May I remind him that it was back in 1996 that I introduced a Bill in this House to include energy audits in mortgage surveys and that, subsequently, Bills were introduced in the other place, notably by my honourable friend John Burnett and then, as the Minister mentioned, taken up by Mr Clive Efford? However, these Private Members' Bills have been running into considerable difficulties. Therefore, if Mr Efford's Bill does not get through, can the noble Lord say whether the Government would contemplate introducing such a measure in legislation of their own?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern that Private Members' initiatives on this front have run into the sand and, in most cases, the rather specific sand of objections of two Members of Her Majesty's Opposition in another place. If Clive Efford's Bill does not proceed, clearly we would contemplate similar measures for inclusion in any future housing legislation, which will be required by the Green Paper in any event. I cannot pre-empt the Queen's Speech, but we would certainly consider this for inclusion.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, to the best of my knowledge, it is mandatory in Denmark to have such energy efficiency surveys and results, and that it has made a marked difference—indeed, an improvement—in the efficiency of houses in Denmark and, therefore, a significant reduction in the consumption of energy?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. We are aware of the Danish procedure in this respect. The procedure that is now being proposed would, to some extent, follow it. At present, we are piloting this idea with home buyers in the Bristol area to see how they would respond to suggestions for improving home efficiency that are included in such surveys. The exact form of any legislation would obviously need to take that into account. It is most important because domestic emissions of carbon account for about one-quarter of total emissions, and we need to tackle this problem through a variety of home efficiency measures.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say who will carry out these energy efficiency audits and how much they will cost the average home buyer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one would need to employ a surveyor. Whether or not the responsibility rests on the vendor or on the borrower, figures for the actual carrying out of the surveys would be worked out by surveyors who would then apply their findings through systems developed by the four designated companies which provide such information and which are recognised and accredited by the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say in what form these energy results will be published? Further, is the noble Lord aware that appliances such as refrigerators are designated A, B or D, but there is no indication as to which is the better category? Unless there is a straight percentage for energy efficiency, will the Minister ensure that some indication of the meaning of each code is also published?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my experience white goods are labelled fairly clearly. Indeed, this is one of the success stories. However, I suppose that some consumers will require a little explanation even for that straightforward information. It is, of course, more complicated in relation to housing because so many different aspects have to be taken into account. But the

815
survey will produce a points system that will need explanation. It will also include an indication of the return—the number of years in which your money would be "paid back"—for each of the individual items that the surveyor identifies. I should say here that it is possible that I missed one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in this respect. I am saying that this will be part of the normal survey that will be carried out as part of any house purchase.

Serbia: Effect of Sanctions
11.11 a.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that current sanctions are harming the population of Serbia while strengthening the Milosevic government; and, if so, what modifications they would propose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the European Union sanctions regime aims to target the Milosevic government and their supporters, while minimising the impact on the civilian population. We are content that the current regime is achieving those aims.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is it not a fact that the general standard of living in Serbia has been reduced to below the level of even Albania? If that is so, can the noble Baroness say how the Government defend their policy of not targeting the civilian population? Can sanctions be refocused so as to bear on the government and the state institutions? If that can be done, or if such an attempt can be made, will not the Government find themselves in agreement with both the French and the German governments?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straight away that Her Majesty's Government are sensitive to the need to focus the sanctions on Milosevic's regime as opposed to the people of Serbia. Obviously, no wholesale sanctions relief can be implemented until democracy and reform are established in Belgrade. The European Union is in contact with the democratic opposition in Serbia and has demonstrated that it is prepared to think flexibly on sanctions by responding to calls by the Serbian opposition to suspend the flight ban by making exemptions for Kosovo and Montenegro. However, we need to relate the evolution of sanctions policy to the political developments and situation on the ground in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, why does the European Union support the United States in the case of sanctions against Serbia but disagree with the United States in the case of sanctions against Cuba?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will take a view depending on the circumstances that prevail in relation to each situation. We make an informed judgment; we have made an informed judgment in this case; and we shall make an informed judgment in every other case.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, remembering that Milosevic's brother is Serbia's ambassador to Moscow, to what extent did the Prime Minister press Mr Putin on Russia's observation of sanctions on Serbia? The Minister mentioned supporters. Is Russia classed as a supporter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not in a position to assist the noble Baroness as to the precise nature of the discussion that took place between Mr Putin and the Prime Minister on this issue. As the noble Baroness will know, the Prime Minister had an extensive discussion on a number of issues which are directly pertinent to Russia, not least of which is Chechnya.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's general reply, but does she agree that in a situation where indicted war criminals are still walking free, particularly in the Republika Srpska, sanctions are perceived as hitting the civilian population? Some of the leading figures in the previous government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are still able to move around without any sanctions imposed upon them despite the fact that they have been indicted by the criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the import of what the noble Baroness says. Of course, that situation presents a difficulty; the realities of arresting and dealing with those war criminals are self-evident. We have tried to target the regime itself. We understand that the new sanctions are biting. The information we have on the ground is that people understand that we are trying to target the regime, Milosevic and his henchmen, and not the people of Serbia. The Serbian opposition understand and support that view.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the Government's assessment of the recent report on sanctions by the Select Committee on International Development?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is clear that sanctions can be a blunt instrument. As I have already said, we are anxious to make sure that the sanctions are targeted. They are being targeted appropriately now. What have been described as "smart" sanctions are more effective.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
11.16 a.m.
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the future role of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the role of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is defined by statute in Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952, which was inserted by Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to alter the Chief Inspector's statutory role.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is not his intention to combine the prisons and probation inspectorates? It may help to promote joint work. But does he accept that we do not require a seamless, joined-up approach to inspectorates in the criminal justice system? Does he also accept that the high profile of prison inspectorates under successive governments has played a vital role in pressing the need for prison reforms and that any change in this matter would adversely affect public confidence? Does he further accept that any changes in such an inspectorate ought to be based on the merits of the argument and not on making Ministers' lives easier by getting rid of highly effective and outspoken chief inspectors?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government are committed to exposing public services to vigorous scrutiny to ensure that high standards are achieved and maintained. As part of the wider context of our determination to reduce crime it is well known that we are looking at closer working between the Prison and Probation Services. This will be important for the relevant inspectorates, but no decisions have yet been taken as to the nature of changes that may be necessary. It is appreciated that the role of Chief inspector of Prisons is an independent and valued one.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister identify for the benefit of the House those major recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspector which the Government have failed to carry out to date?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to give an exact answer to the noble and learned Lord's question. However, it is perhaps worth remembering that the inspector has made a large number of good reports on various prison establishments and that those outweigh the reports which are not so good. In recent months Pentonville, Werrington, Ashwell, Brockhill and Feltham have received largely positive reports. There is every reason to hope that Altcourse, Lowdham Grange and Buckley Hall will follow that positive trend. In that same period only three bad reports were published: on Dorchester, Rochester and Portland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the leak on Tuesday which
818
suggested that the chief inspector's title was going to be changed to an appalling one such as "Inspector of Corrections" is rubbish, as is the leak that he seemed to be foreshadowing in his Answer on Monday?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think I was foreshadowing any leak in the Answer that I gave on Monday. As part of the wider context of our determination to reduce crime, we are looking at closer working relations between the Prison and the Probation Services. No decisions—I repeat, no decisions—have yet been taken as to how this will be reflected in the structure and working of the inspectorate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us would welcome closer relations between the Prison and the Probation Services? Notwithstanding that, however, is he further aware that there would be fierce opposition to any attempt by Ministers to downgrade the independence of the Chief Inspector of Prisons? We value his independent reports and there would be very strong opposition in the House if any attempt was to be made in the future to change the character of that appointment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, like the noble Lord, the Government see a robust, independent inspectorate as having an essential role in identifying bad practice and in promoting good, constructive work in prisons.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the persistent criticisms made by the chief inspector relates to the short average term in office of prison governors and area managers? I believe that the figure is about two years. The chief inspector and many others feel that a more desirable average would be between five and seven years? Do the Government have plans to improve this situation?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I attempted to answer this question on Monday. Yes, we do see a problem in terms of governors moving on. In some cases that cannot be avoided, but we are doing our best to ensure that it does not happen on quite such a regular basis.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise to the House for coming back to this matter. I thought that the noble Lord said in answer to the original Question that there was no intention to change the role of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, or for that matter of the Probation Service, but subsequently he seemed to say that no decisions had yet been taken. That is a different emphasis. Can the noble Lord help the House on this matter?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. There are no plans to alter the chief inspector's statutory role. At the same time—this is not inconsistent—I am informing the House of

819
something that it already knows: that we are sensibly looking at closer working relations between the Prison and the Probation Services.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the current Chief Inspector of Prisons is not only robust and independent but has done a very fine job indeed?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is an absolute delight to answer that question from my noble friend. The answer is yes.

Chechnya: Prime Minister's Discussions with Mr Putin
11.23 a.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions the Prime Minister has had with Mr Putin about Chechnya.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Prime Minister has had regular discussions with Mr Putin on Chechnya. It was discussed at length when Mr Putin visited London earlier this week. Prior to that it was discussed on 27th March in a telephone conversation following Mr Putin's victory in the Russian presidential election. Chechnya was also discussed during the Prime Minister's visit to St Petersburg on 11th March.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is encouraging that the Prime Minister has made these representations. But what fundamentally is the difference between the allegations against the Russian forces in Chechnya under Mr Putin and those against the Chilean forces under General Pinochet?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the distinction is clear, but let me explain it to the noble Lord. So far as the allegations made in regard to Chechnya, they are the subject of investigation. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that Mr Putin has agreed that there should be a commission to investigate the allegations made in relation to atrocities and that that commission will have within it an independent element. So we will be able, it is to be hoped, to see in a very clear way what has happened and to make an assessment of what actions were taken, by whom and when.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what benefits are envisaged from the Government's policy of critical engagement with Russia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we believe that Her Majesty's Government's policy has had many
820
advantages. The international community cannot of course solve the complex situation easily, but the pressure that has been applied has led to positive results. I have mentioned one already; that is, for Russia to set up an independent commission to investigate human rights abuses. There will be an attachment of three Council of Europe experts to the Russian ombudsman for human rights; the terms are now agreed and that should happen soon. Russia will allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to all detainees; Russia will allow the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe assistance group to return to Chechnya in May; Russia has started a dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson—as noble Lords will remember, she visited the region earlier this month between 1st and 4th April—who has been invited to return in two or three months' time; and discussions at the United Nations Commission for Human Rights in Geneva are on-going. All of this has happened as a result of our critical engagement—and I emphasise the word "critical".
Lord Renton: My Lords, what is the Government's attitude towards Mr Putin's statement that Russia had to attack the Muslims in Chechnya because of its fear of fundamentalist Muslim attacks elsewhere?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is important to remember the history, which, although there are sensitivities, from the Russian perspective is quite complex. Chechnya has a long history of conflict. It fought unsuccessfully for its independence from Russia between 1994 to 1996. Since that war, Chechnya has seen a rise in Islamic militancy and numerous kidnappings, including that of five Britons, three of whom, as your Lordships will remember, were beheaded in December 1998. I understand that that is the history on which Mr Putin relies and expresses anxiety.
We know that that anxiety is not shared by our international partners with the same intensity. That issue has been part of the critical dialogue. We are trying to help Russia to realise that, although we understand that history, this is not the most appropriate way of dealing with the issue. As Russia admitted as long ago as August, the only way to resolve this issue will be through political dialogue and a political solution, not a military one. The Russians have stated that they understand that. We are obviously pushing them to make it a reality.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the war in Chechnya was the original invasion of Daghestan by some of the Chechen irregular fighters—a very different situation from that which applied in Chile? The Minister spoke about a political solution. Does she further agree that there was something close to a lasting solution involving the acceptance of a good deal of autonomy for Chechnya on the basis that it remained legally a part of the Russian Federation? Can she say whether Mr Putin will move in the

821
direction of trying to resume talks as soon as he has identified people who can genuinely represent the population of Chechnya.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is certainly our hope and expectation. As I told the House as long ago as August 1999, there was an acceptance by the Russian authorities that this political solution would be the only lasting way forward. We all know that things have deteriorated very badly since then. However, the thrust of the encouragement that we have given remains the same: we have to get back to a situation where there can be a resolution between the Russian and Chechen parties.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, although Russia's Defence Minister yesterday denied that reinforcements are being sent to Chechnya, what information has the Minister received in regard to the latest reports from the Russian news agencies that as many as 3,000 paratroopers, motorised infantry troops and special police agents poured into the battle-torn Shatoi region of Chechnya? Despite all that the Minister has told us about the international commission and critical engagement, and bearing in mind my question, can we really trust them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny the matters outlined by the noble Baroness. They are not within my knowledge. But what I can say is that we have to face the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves. Russia cannot and should not be isolated. An isolated Russia is a far more dangerous entity than one which is engaged. We have discovered that by having this critical engagement with Russia we have been able to achieve positive results. We will continue to drive Russia in the most productive direction.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, in the context of critical engagement, has there yet been time for any discussion with Mr Putin on the dilapidation of nuclear power stations in all parts of the Russian Federation which pose a threat to those well outside its borders?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Lord details in relation to that issue. But I do know that the Russian situation was fully discussed with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We know that there are some challenges in relation to their anxieties about NMD and that that was also part of their discussion. I am confident that the broad issues in terms of national and international security would have been canvassed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr Putin on behalf of Russia.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to present what is essentially a nationalist threat from Chechnya as a world-wide Islamic threat carries the risk of misrepresenting Islam in the way which, distressingly, a former Secretary-General of NATO, Mr Willy Claes, did when he said that Islam was taking the place of communism as the greatest threat to Western civilisation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The Chechens have a particular difficulty with the Russians and a number of them are of the Muslim faith. But that is not a main issue and I absolutely agree that it should not be used to heat a view that somehow there will be an Islamic threat against us all.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am puzzled. What kind of ethical foreign policy is it when you bomb the living daylights out of a country like Serbia which cannot bomb you back and court a country which can?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are not courting a country which can. I am sometimes disturbed by the shortness of memory in this House. Milosevic's actions were vile. This country, together with many others, did everything we could to bring him to the table and to make him recognise that he should change. He would not. I remember, if other noble Lords do not, the frisson that went through the House when the decision was made that we had no choice but to go into military mode against him. I shall never forget that day and I would hope that no one else in the House will either.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, did President Putin elaborate on future Russian policy towards the CIS and were "pipeline" politics specifically discussed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to answer that question either. I wish I had been there at the meeting because I would then be able to tell your Lordships precisely what took place. All I can say is that it was a very broad and in-depth discussion on all matters pertaining to our relations with our Russian colleagues.

Utilities Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
Lord Bach: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

823
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 29,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 30 to 45,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 46 to 58,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 59 to 66,

Schedule 6,

Clause 67,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 68 to 74,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 75 to 89,

Schedule 9,

Clause 90,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 91 to 105,

Schedule 11,

Clause 106,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 107 to 113,

Schedule 13,

Clause 114,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 115 to 125,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 126 to 130,

Schedule 16,

Clause 131,

Schedule 17,

Clause 132,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 133 to 140,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 141 to 151,

Schedules 20 and 21.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information Bill
11.33 a.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Freedom of Information Bill creates a right of access to information held by almost all public sector organisations. It builds on existing rights. The right of access to personal information about yourself—subject access—was created in respect of computerised information in the Data Protection Act 1984. It was extended to structured paper records by the Data Protection Act 1998. This Bill will extend that right even further to unstructured paper records.
824
But the Bill goes much further than that. All information held by any public authority will fall into the scope of the Bill and will be available on request, unless an exemption applies. And even if an exemption applies, in almost all cases the authority must disclose the information where the wider public interest outweighs the need to maintain the exemption.
The Bill creates an information commissioner who will have the task of enforcing its provisions. So people will not have to take expensive court action to enforce their rights. The commissioner will do that and access to the commissioner will be free of charge.
This Bill is the result of extensive consultation and scrutiny. The Government published a White Paper on 17th December 1997, which was followed by a public consultation exercise. A draft Bill was then published on 24th May 1999. The draft Bill was the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny by committees of both Houses of Parliament and a further public consultation exercise. Perhaps I may take the opportunity, at this point, to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and the other noble Lords who served on the ad hoc committee which scrutinised the draft Bill last year. I described the scrutiny of the draft Bill as extensive—I should add rigorous and thought provoking as respects the work of that committee. The Government have been able to accept many of the recommendations of the committee, including, for example, amending the Long Title of the Bill. Where we were unable to accept the committee's proposals we explained that in our detailed response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
There has been a great deal of comment and criticism of the Government's proposals on freedom of information. The Government have listened carefully to that criticism and where it has been constructive and the ideas put forward have been sensible, the Government have responded. The Government intend to bring forward further amendments at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House and I shall comment further on that in a few moments. Some of the criticism of the Bill has been mischievous and misleading. How many times has it been said that the Bill will create blanket bans on the disclosure of information? The Bill creates no bans, blanket or otherwise—quite the reverse. Clause 76 ensures that nothing in the Bill is to be taken to limit the power of a public authority to disclose information.
There have been assertions that this Bill is in some way not as good as the code of practice on access to government information. That is not right. The code of practice creates no rights whatever. Under the code of practice, all information is released solely at the Government's discretion. One of the criticisms of the Bill, which the Government have addressed, is that too much information was covered by discretionary provisions. I do not know how anyone can make that comment and then go on to say that a wholly discretionary code is better.
I wish to make two further points on the issue. First, the Bill covers a much wider range of authorities— virtually all public sector bodies—whereas the code is

825
restricted to central government and a limited range of quangos. Secondly, under the Bill, the information commissioner can be accessed directly by an applicant and her decisions are enforceable. The ombudsman, however, in respect of the code, can be approached only through Members of Parliament, and his findings are merely recommendations to the Government, albeit powerful ones. So I hope it can be seen that if one looks at the principle the code is not at all preferable to the Bill. But the Government's mind is not closed. If your Lordships propose further amendments which improve the Bill without undermining its underlying principles, or the necessary safeguards for sensitive information, or effective and efficient government, we will give them a fair hearing. But the Bill creates a delicate balance of rights, balancing the right to know against the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality. We must ensure that we do not upset that balance.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships through the main provisions of the Bill. Part I, dealing with access to information held by public authorities, sets out the key provisions covering the right of access. Clause 1 states with absolute clarity the public's entitlement,
"to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request and … if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him".
That is a clear right. There are, of course, conditions attached to that right, although no more than are sensible.
The public authority must be supplied with sufficient information as it may reasonably require to identify and locate the information. That does not mean that an applicant will have to supply information he or she cannot reasonably be expected to possess—file numbers, for example—but the request must be sufficiently well described for the authority to know what it is looking for.
Clause 2 defines the term "public authority" for the purposes of the Bill. Clause 3 creates a power to amend Schedule 1, the list of public authorities, by order. Clause 4 allows other public authorities, or private organisations carrying out public functions, to be brought within the scope of the Bill, by order. We are minded to consult organisations such as those running prisons under contract, or the British Board of Film Classification, for example, about designation under Clause 4.
Clause 7 of the Bill requires that a request for information should be in writing and state the name and address for correspondence purposes and describe the information sought. Requests made by electronic means will be treated as being made in writing if they are capable of being used for subsequent reference.
Authorities will be able to charge a fee for responding to a request for information, but under Clause 8 of the Bill that fee must be determined in accordance with regulations. Authorities will not be obliged to charge anything if they do not want to. A working draft of the regulations has been published.
Under Clause 9, authorities will have to reply within 20 working days of receipt of the request. Applicants will be able to choose the method of receiving the
826
information under the provisions of Clause 10. The authority will have to reply in that way unless it is not reasonably practicable for it to do so.
Clause 13 sets out the public interest disclosure provisions of the Bill. Even where an exemption applies, an authority must disclose information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. This is a key provision. We have been criticised for having too many class exemptions in the Bill. But most exemptions are subject to the public interest test in Clause 13. The test is: where is the balance of the public interest. If it lies in favour of disclosure, even though there may be an exemption, then the information will be disclosed.
Clause 15 requires an authority to give reasons for not disclosing information, whether under Clause 1 or Clause 13, unless to do so would result in the disclosure of exempt information.
Clause 16 creates the information commissioner and tribunal. Initially, the commissioner will be Mrs Elizabeth France, the present Data Protection Commissioner. An open competition will be held within two years of the Bill's passage through Parliament to fill the position full time.
Clauses 17 and 18 deal with publication schemes. These provisions have had somewhat of a Cinderella status during the scrutiny process. Yet the requirement for all public authorities to apply a scheme for publication—in effect to say what, when and how information will be published—is probably the most powerful push to openness in the Bill. Authorities will not be able to get away with weak or self-serving publication schemes. They will all have to be approved by the commissioner and she will ensure that they are strong and meaningful.
Part II of the Bill deals with exempt information. There has been much comment that there are 25 clauses dealing with exempt information in the Bill, whereas there were only seven exemptions in the White Paper. The exemptions in the Bill deal with some issues which were called exclusions in the White Paper and others which were called gateway provisions. So the comparison is not a fair one. What it is necessary to do is to compare the scope of the exemptions with those in the White Paper. The Bill does not range more widely in the scope of its exemptions than the White Paper except where necessary because of the greater range of bodies covered by the Bill. For example, the Bill covers Parliament and, therefore, Clause 32, exempting the disclosure of information which would constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege is necessary, and I am certain that your Lordships would agree with that. I do not propose to go through all the exemptions in detail, but simply to highlight a few where there has been debate.
Clause 28 creates a class exemption for information held for the purposes of a criminal investigation. The Government believe that a class exemption is necessary in relation to this kind of information in order to ensure that criminal proceedings are not jeopardised by the premature disclosure of

827
information and to preserve the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt. The existence of this exemption will not prevent the disclosure of information where it is in the public interest for such disclosure to be made. The provisions of Clause 13 will apply. I should also point out that information about the conduct of investigations in general is not covered by this exemption.
Clause 33 provides a class exemption for the formulation and development of government policy. It is acknowledged that government must have time and space to evaluate policy options and that the premature disclosure of information of this kind can hamper the effective conduct of government. Nonetheless, a great deal of information is made available already to the public and will continue to be made available. The public interest disclosure provisions in Clause 13 will apply to this exemption and ensure that information will be disclosed where it is in the public interest to do so.
There has also been discussion as to whether factual and background information used in the decision-making process should be available as of right. No one disagrees that good government can only be achieved if there can be a full and frank exchange of views between Ministers, and between Ministers and their advisers. No one disagrees either that, wherever possible, factual information which is used to provide an informed background to decision-taking should be made available. But the dividing line between facts and opinions, or advice, is simply not that clear. Of course there will be many instances where facts, such as statistics, or research papers, will be freely available—and indeed may already be published documents. But there will be occasions where "facts" are part of the discussion or argumentation about options under consideration and where it will not be possible to disentangle facts from opinion or advice. On these occasions the disclosure of such information would, of itself, affect the decision-taking process. Thus there will be a need to withhold such information on a few occasions. To deal with that point, the Government have left the disclosure of factual information relating to policy decisions to Clause 13, albeit with a strong steer towards disclosure set out in that clause.
Finally, on the subject of exemptions, I want to emphasise the strength of the prejudice test. Prejudice is a term used in other legislation relating to the disclosure of information. It is a term well understood by the courts and the public. It is not a weak test. The commissioner will have the power to overrule an authority if she feels that any prejudice caused by a disclosure would be trivial or insignificant. She will ensure that an authority must point to prejudice which is "real, actual or of substance". We do not think that reliance on undefined terms such as "substantial" or "significant" is a sensible way forward. We do not know how they will be interpreted by the commissioner or the courts. We can never deliver absolute certainty, but we can avoid making uncertainty worse by adding ill-defined terminology into the Bill.
828
Part III of the Bill deals with the general functions of the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor and the information commissioner. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the commissioner, will be required to lay before Parliament a code of practice in connection with the discharge of authorities' functions under Part I of the Bill.
The code of practice cannot be finalised until there is a commissioner in place with formal powers to consider any draft. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has placed copies of a draft of the code which represents work in progress in the Library of the House. I am aware that shortly the Lord Chancellor hopes to do the same with his code dealing with the keeping, management and destruction of records.
Clause 46 of the Bill gives the commissioner extensive powers to promote good practice in relation to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 47 permits the commissioner to issue recommendations as to good practice. Clause 48 requires the commissioner to lay a report before each House of Parliament annually. It also gives the commissioner power to lay further reports before Parliament as she sees fit.
Part IV of the Bill deals with enforcement. The commissioner must, subject to certain limited exceptions, reach a decision on any complaint made to her about the failure of an authority to comply with Part I of the legislation. The commissioner may also investigate an authority on her own initiative under Clause 51 and issue an enforcement notice if she finds an authority in breach of its obligations. Under Clause 50 she can issue an information notice to force an authority to provide the information necessary for her to reach a decision in a case. Public authorities must comply with notices issued by the commissioner. A failure to comply may be reported to the court under the provisions of Clause 53 and that failure may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
There are appeal mechanisms for both public authorities and applicants against the decisions of the commissioner. The appeal is to the tribunal under Clause 59 of the Bill.
Clause 52 sets out the exception to the duty to comply with decision or enforcement notices. This is the so-called executive override provision. It is important to note the limitations on this provision and the amendments which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced would be tabled in this House at Committee stage. First, this is not a general override of the commissioner's decisions; it applies only to decisions taken under Clause 13. Secondly, the Minister must explain publicly why he has chosen to disagree with the commissioner. Thirdly, the decision is subject to judicial review and the commissioner will have the locus to seek such a review. Thus, this is not an easy provision for Ministers to use. Moreover, we are committed to tabling an amendment at Committee to restrict the use of the override to Cabinet Ministers or the Attorney General and to explore ways to reflect on the face of the Bill that the decision to use the

829
executive override will be taken collectively. We are also looking at how the provision relates to local authorities.
This provision and the amendments, and the further consideration offered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, were welcomed in the other place. I hope that your Lordships will also welcome the Government's willingness to listen and, in due course, will welcome the consequent amendments.
Part VI of the Bill ensures that the disclosure regimes under the Freedom of Information Bill and the Public Records Acts are consistent with each other; in particular, it disapplies many of the exemptions at the 30-year point.
Part VII of the Bill amends the Data Protection Act 1998. Clauses 67 and 68 extend the right of subject access in relation to public authorities to non-structured manual files, thus giving a much wider right of subject access than currently applies.
Part VIII of the Bill deals with miscellaneous and supplemental provisions. Clause 73 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information. These regulations will replace the existing Environmental Access Regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972. The new regulations will provide wider access than under the current system. We have taken the decision not to integrate the provisions of the convention into the Bill itself. However, the Bill's provisions will continue to have an effect on access to environmental information. For example, if information is not available under the new regulations the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill will require disclosure if it is in the public interest.
Clause 74 provides an order-making power to enable statutory provisions which restrict the disclosure of information to be amended or repealed.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the commencement provisions in Clause 84, in particular subsection (3). The provisions of the Bill must be brought into effect within five years of Royal Assent. This is a failsafe provision. It is the Government's intention to bring the legislation into force as quickly as possible. It will take some time to get the commissioner's office up and running. Most of the 50,000 or so public authorities to be covered by the Bill will need time to get systems into place and to train staff. However, I can assure your Lordships that there will be no backsliding. Central government already operate an openness regime. I expect that central government at least will be covered by the Bill's provisions as soon as the commissioner indicates that she is ready to enforce the legislation.
This is a good Bill, and with the amendments proposed by the Government it will be an even better Bill. For the very first time this measure will give the people of this country a right to know. It compares well with overseas legislation. Each country must determine for itself where to draw the line between competing rights, such as the right to know, the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality. Legislation
830
in each state must reflect the legal systems and administrative traditions prevailing in that state. The balance of rights will not be the same everywhere. We have a Bill which is fully retrospective, unlike Ireland, and covers a huge range of organisations including the police, unlike Ireland. The Bill also provides access to a tribunal, unlike the proposals in Scotland. There is free access to the commissioner, whereas in Australia access to the administration tribunal requires the payment of a fee, and strict time limits on response times, unlike Canada where many people have to wait months for the information.
The right to know, while it cannot be unfettered, has long been neglected in this country. The party opposite did nothing to promote a statutory right to know; indeed, it has consistently opposed such a move. At the last election its line was that freedom of information was of interest only to left-wing busybodies. No doubt a different line will be heard this morning from the party opposite. This Bill gives parents the right to know how schools apply their admission criteria, how health authorities determine the health care priorities for their areas and how administrative decisions over a very wide range of issues, such as planning, immigration and the award of grants, are taken. Everyone will benefit from this Bill. It will deliver a more responsive, better informed and accountable public service. I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
11.57 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his explanation of the Bill and the various amendments that he proposes to table as a result of consideration of this measure in the other place, including pressure from his own Back-Benchers who were less than satisfied with it. It is a little ironic that the Government have selected Maundy Thursday for the Second Reading of this Bill, safe in the knowledge that not only will your Lordships' House be a little thin in attendance but newspapers will be a little thin in reporting this matter and even less will be read about it by the citizens of this country who are on holiday over the weekend. I suggest that that is a good start for open government.
The very drafting of the Bill seems designed to put off everyone other than lawyers. We must grasp the nettle of writing Bills in plain English so that they can be understood by the average, intelligent reader.
I am pleased that a number of noble Lords with great interest in this subject are to take part in the Second Reading of this Bill. I single out my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral who introduced the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in 1994. I am also pleased that it is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who deals with this important Bill. With a member of the Government as senior as the noble and learned Lord in charge of this

831
Bill, we can be confident that he will listen to the argument and, if he is convinced by it, that he will have the authority to make changes.
We shall be looking for changes. Indeed, those Members of another place who took part in the debates on the Bill clearly expect us to make changes. No less a person than Tony Benn said:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/2000; col. 1001.]
We need to see whether we can prove to Mr Benn that we are far from shaky.
Perhaps the best piece of advice to your Lordships came on the same day from Robert Maclennan, when he said:
"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".— [Official Report, Commons, 5/4/2000; col. 1012.]
Indeed, the striking thing about the Report stage in the other place on 5th and 6th April was that apart from Government Ministers not a single voice was raised in the Government's support; from all sides came criticism and a demand that the Government should live up to the words of their manifesto and their White Paper. I remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said in his manifesto:
"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions … We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, leading to more open government".
Dr David Clark was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and given the responsibility of translating that election pledge into reality. By December 1997, he had produced a White Paper, but, to put it at its kindest, the mice then got at not only the White Paper but Dr Clark, who was the subject of some disgraceful whispering campaigns up and down Whitehall, orchestrated by those mysterious sources—in reality, that army of political advisers that we have now become so used to. In football parlance, they got a result: exit Dr Clark; enter a draft Bill significantly watering down the proposals in the White Paper and in some aspects watering down the code of practice introduced by the previous Conservative government.
The Bill before us has some of that diluting removed—we have to admit that—but by no means all of it. Indeed, Dr Clark had this to say in another place:
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/2000; col. 1013.]
What should be our guiding principle when we look at the Bill? My honourable friend in another place, Richard Shepherd, has a pedigree on this issue that puts us all, including the Government, to shame. He put the test far better than I can, when he said in the Second Reading debate on 7th December:
832
"The principle of freedom of information—the presumption that information should be available—is fairly simple. All information should be available unless it causes serious harm. The question that follows from that is, how do we weigh that serious harm? People like me have, for a long time, advocated that decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis—not by classes, because those, as has been pointed out by hon. Members from both sides of the House, produce absurdities".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/99; cols. 769–770.]
Dr Clark said on the same day at col. 740:
"The system that I wanted was clear. There were no class exemptions, and although there were some exclusions, access to other information was based on the issue of substantial harm, and that would have been a better way to proceed".
"Serious harm" or "substantial harm" have been diluted not just to "harm" or even to "serious prejudice", but simply to "prejudice". We want to explore that.
I heard the noble and learned Lord pour cold water on these semantics, but it is interesting to quote from the document produced by the Scottish Executive, which I gather is largely manned by the same party as mans the present Government. It said, at paragraph 4.11:
"We propose that the harm test be demanding and that it be whether disclosure would, or would be likely to, substantially prejudice the matter set out in the exemption in question. Our use of 'substantial prejudice' is intended to make clear that information covered by a content-based exemption should be disclosed unless the prejudice caused by disclosure would be real, actual and of significant substance".
We shall want to explore why the Labour Government here and the Labour Government in Scotland are taking a significantly different attitude to these words.
Not only does the Bill make class exemptions, but, despite what the noble and learned Lord said, it makes more of them—24 to be exact—than the Conservative government's code, which had 15; more than the draft Bill, which had 22; and more than the White Paper, which had a mere seven exempt categories. The noble and learned Lord explained why that should be so, but I am sure your Lordships will want to explore further what is the justification for each and every class.
Although we shall be able to agree that in defence, in national security, in crime and in a number of other matters there will always be information that must rightly remain secret, there is much information in every one of those classes that could be easily be made public. The code said:
"The approach to the release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where the disclosure would not be in the public interest".
Your Lordships will want to test the Bill against that kind of approach.
I also look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, because his views will be particularly helpful when it comes to the issue of the formulation of government policy. I start by saying quite clearly that I wholly accept that internal policy documents, advice from civil servants to Ministers, the responses and questions that flow between Ministers and officials, and the discussions between Ministers, should not be released. There is a wealth of

833
background factual material which leads into those policy discussions and decisions which can, and should, be released. Yet the Bill resolutely sets its face against making any distinction between advice and the information on which it is based.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former Cabinet Secretary, in his evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee, said—this is to be found on page 58 of the committee's report on the draft Bill:
"when we were coming up to the 1997 election, knowing what government policy was in this matter, my senior colleagues and I gave some thought to how we could regularly structure submissions 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 lot of training and changing practice to do that, but I think that people could very readily adapt to that".
So a very distinguished former Secretary to the Cabinet thought that it was perfectly possible to distinguish between advice and information, and that a class exemption covering the whole lot was not necessary.
I find it particularly amusing that the Government when they were in opposition were very happy to disclose policy papers that fell into their hands by obscure routes. They did not send them back to us when we were in government, saying, "These are policy papers. They should not be disclosed, and we will keep them secret". No, they waved them about, and many of us bear some of the scars of those disclosures, on which Mr Robin Cook, in particular, was very keen, as I recall. They are not even slow at leaking policy papers in government, except that I think it is called "spin". We hear it almost every morning on the "Today" programme, before decisions are announced to Parliament. We shall want to test their defences on this. Frankly, I do not think that we shall be very impressed. We shall be looking for some movement from the noble and learned Lord. We shall certainly want to judge the other class exemptions, and we shall need a lot of convincing before we agree class exemptions rather than a "harm" test for certain types of information.
I move to the commissioner and his powers and to the question of who can override him. The Government propose to merge the information commissioner's job with that of the Data Protection Registrar. I can understand the argument for doing that, but equally I can understand the argument against having the same person ensure that information is kept private as is asked to ensure that we have a right to know. I understand that it is an issue which has been debated in other countries which have freedom of information Acts, and that different solutions have been arrived at. As your Lordships know, I am not one of those who think that because another country does it, it must inevitably be doing it better, and we should follow. But I certainly think that we ought to discuss in your Lordships' House exactly what is the right way for us to approach this issue. However, who does the job is tied in to the process of appeal, either by a citizen who is refused information or by a government department or other body which does not wish to divulge information.
834
I shall need to be persuaded that the Minister, even the Cabinet Minister, who does not wish to obey the commissioner, should be able to make that decision. Perhaps we should follow New Zealand or, closer to home, Scotland, and insist that decisions should be made by the Cabinet collectively.
In recent weeks your Lordships have been concerned about the assertions by Government Ministers that their Bills are compatible with the convention rights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has done so in the case of this Bill. Yet whenever we probe whether or not that assertion is correct, we are told that it is confidential and that, traditionally, the legal advice to governments is not divulged; in other words, debate is stifled. I think that it is time to question that tradition in the light of the Government's desire for open government.
My last point concerns the purpose clause issue. There was a unanimous call in the other place for such a clause. The call was not heeded by the Government because the silent sheep trooped into the Lobbies to prevent a purpose clause. We have had some constitutional Acts already in this Parliament. In many ways, they have had purpose clauses. The Scotland Act states baldly in Section 1(1):
"There shall be a Scottish Parliament".
That seems a pretty positive purpose clause. Nearer home for your Lordships, although not for myself, the House of Lords Act states in Section 1:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of an hereditary peerage".
There is a purpose clause (if I may call it that) at the beginning of the code. In its report in July 1999, the Public Administration Select Committee recommended one. In her response to the consultation document, Mrs Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Registrar, who, as the Bill stands, is to become the information commissioner, argued that a straightforward purpose statement in the Bill would be helpful to all. I think that your Lordships should consider inserting such a clause.
This Bill has had a long passage from the code introduced by the Conservative government, to the White Paper produced by Dr Clark, to the draft Bill, and now this Bill. Interestingly, despite all these stages it has few friends outside the Government. Some have called it the "Freedom from Information Bill". I would not be quite so unkind. However, in my researches for this debate, and on this issue, I got hold of the Lord Chancellor's Department's guidelines on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, Second Edition 1997; and I wondered whether I should reconsider my charitable position. There are a number of completely blank pages. They could be a printer's error. But—perhaps this is more sinister—some other pages are blank but for a very few words:
"This page deliberately left blank".
I wonder whether that sums up some parts of this Bill. Perhaps I may suggest to your Lordships that we shall have to fill in those pages.
12.12 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I start by welcoming both the tone and tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I feel that we may have much in common in Committee.
I thank the many bodies which have sent briefings for today's debate. Did I see a shiver down the Minister's back? They range from the Campaign for Freedom of Information itself to the CBI, from the Consumers' Association to the Open Space Society. All such briefings are immensely helpful and, if I do not cover all points raised today, I promise those organisations that submit briefings that we shall consider the possibility of raising matters in Committee.
This day seems to have been a long time coming. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, our admiration that the Government have found time to squeeze it in on this Thursday before the Easter Recess.
When the Labour Party won its landslide victory in May 1997, most political observers expected that at long last a quarter-century-old pledge to introduce a freedom of information Act would be quickly redeemed. After all, the pledge had been in every Labour electoral manifesto since 1974. It was a key element in the pre-election Constitutional Committee report drawn up by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and chaired by Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan, a committee on which I sat.
It was always clear on that committee that an effective freedom of information Act was to be the jewel in the crown of successful constitutional reform. The crux of debate today is on Clause 34 of the Bill, "Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs". Where we part from the Government is that they still believe that the effective conduct of public affairs requires too much secrecy. We believe that effective conduct of public affairs comes from accountability and transparency. Ministers may deny it; but a profound change has taken place in the Government's attitude to freedom of information since taking office. We are told on good authority that Mr Alastair Campbell can now describe priority given to constitutional reforms only in terms of obscene expletives. Even Mr Blair has apparently cooled to the freedom of information idea on the advice of his old friend Bill Clinton who has found freedom of information American-style something of a burden.
So where exactly are we now on freedom of information? As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, the Bill has had a rather worrying ancestry. Immediately after the general election, the responsibility for freedom of information was put in the hands of the Cabinet Office and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Clark. He produced a consultation document, Your Right to Know, which was widely acclaimed by all those who had campaigned for a freedom of information Act as a principled and progressive approach to the task at hand. Indeed, so principled and progressive was Dr Clark's approach that he was promptly sacked
836
from the Cabinet. Responsibility for freedom of information was transferred to the Home Office. I predicted at the time that putting the present Home Secretary in charge of freedom of information was like asking Count Dracula to look after a blood bank. That prediction has proved true as the Home Secretary has drained the life blood from the Clark White Paper.
The decision to move freedom of information from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office was strange in any circumstances. At a stroke the task was moved from an office with general oversight over Whitehall and a specialist Minister to one of the most overworked and accident-prone departments of government. The suspicion from the very beginning was that Jack Straw's brief was to recapture the ground which the Clark White Paper had given away. Why this change of heart? It is an interesting Catch-22 situation that, because we have no freedom of information Act, we know the views of the various political parties, interest groups and pressure groups but have no idea what advice has been given to Ministers by the mandarins of Whitehall. Perhaps the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster—a mandarin's mandarin if ever there was one—will enlighten us on that.
All that we know is that between the departure of Clark and the publication of Straw's own discussion document, and the draft Bill in the spring of 1999, the Government did a quick U-turn on the road to Damascus. Instead of being a flagship Bill of new Labour's commitment to open government, it took on more and more the appearance of a damage limitation exercise. Let us hope that the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, here today is a sign that the Cabinet Office is fighting back against the forces of darkness. After all, the Bill before us is redeemable and not without some merit. It recognises for the first time a statutory right to information in place of the previous effective presumption in favour of secrecy. Indeed, it was the breakdown of what many acknowledge as a culture of secrecy, not only in Whitehall but through British government at all levels, which was one of the key motivating factors behind reform.
The public cannot enjoy their full rights; nor can elected representatives bring the executive and bureaucracy to full account without a right to know the information on which decisions are based.
The Bill also extended coverage of public authorities far further than any previous non-statutory code or guidelines. The wide application of the Bill to central and local government activities and public authorities is a major step forward. After all, it is not by selling arms to Iraq that most citizens come into contact with government. It is often the petty injustices and the high handedness of minor bureaucrats which often outrage and alienate Mr and Mrs Joe Public.
I am aware that a Freedom of Information Bill may seem to some no more than an anorak's charter, of interest only to the Guardian leader writers and the Campaign for Freedom of Information. But I do not believe that. The battle lines which are being drawn

837
here today in the House of Lords are at the dividing line between those whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, described as an "elective dictatorship" and accountable, democratic parliamentary government. Thus the Bill before us is an important test of the new House of Lords.
The Government have Whipped this measure through another place against the advice of some of their own best informed supporters. The freedom of information rebels in the Commons from the Government's own Benches know that this Bill fulfils neither their manifesto commitments nor the promise of the Clark White Paper. It is a disappointment in its present form. Given that I have described the Bill as a disappointment, Ministers are entitled to ask, "Well, what would you do about it?". As noble Lords will know, my party's slogan is,
"We are the Liberal Democrats; we are here to help you".
Option A, to be considered, would be a return to the approach and philosophy of the Clark White Paper. Option B would be for the Government to read carefully the consultation document produced by the Scottish Executive—where the Liberal Democrats have some influence—and called An Open Scotland, which is much truer to the spirit of our shared manifesto commitments and to the Clark White Paper than the Bill now before the House.
Option C would be to accept amendments to this Bill, which we shall move in Committee. They will cover the following concerns. It is our view that the Government should be required to release the facts behind policy decisions to improve the quality of debate. For that reason the class exemption for quality information in Clause 13 is unacceptably broad.
First, we would favour allowing the expert analysis of facts and the release of advice from Law Officers subject to a test of simple prejudice. We would also accept the case for the release of different policy options subject to a prejudice test. Advice regarding the options would not be released, but broadly our view is that Ministers and their advisers should not be required to discuss policy in a goldfish bowl, but the basic background information should be made available to the public on request.
Secondly, there is the harm test. In our view the Government's original White Paper was right to propose that information should generally be withheld only if its disclosure would substantially harm specific interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has indicated, I believe that we both shall be returning to that in Committee.
Thirdly, we have considerable concerns about the possible working of Clause 28. I listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on that. There is concern that, for example, the Lawrence family in London or the families of those killed in disasters could be denied information relating to any investigations which looked into the question of whether grounds existed for a prosecution.
838
Finally, Clause 34 is obnoxious. It vitiates against the entire working of the Bill, invoking as it does the
"reasonable opinion of a qualified person",
that person being in most circumstances the Minister, and disclosure of the opinion would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. A decision to conceal information based on the reasonable opinion of such a qualified person would only be open to the very narrow possibility of judicial review; for example, if that opinion were proved to be irrational.
As the Minister indicated during Report stage, Jack Straw proposed to amend the Bill to confine the veto power over the information commissioner's decision to a Cabinet Minister and indicated that the decision-making process would involve collective consideration by Ministers. We believe that the information commissioner should have the last word in judging whether or not the balance of public interest should require disclosure.
If, however, the Government are adamant in refusing the commissioner that power, we should at the very least follow the New Zealand model under which the decision has to be taken collectively by the Cabinet. In practice, in New Zealand when the law allowed a single Minister to block disclosure there were many cases of obstruction, but since the law was amended to require collective approval, I understand that the ministerial veto has rarely been used.
I draw attention to two relevant quotes from Select Committees that looked at this Bill. The first is from our own House of Lords Select Committee, on which I had the honour to sit, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. It said,
"If the ultimate decision whether the information is exempt from such a right of access is made by a Government Minister or public authority rather than by an independent arbiter, the law may he regarded as a statement of good intentions, but is not a Freedom of Information Act as the term is internationally understood".
In the Commons the Public Administration Committee said,
"In this crucial sense the Bill continues the present discretionary system of the code of practice—it is 'open government' and not 'freedom of information'".
The information commissioner must have powers similar to those of his counterparts in Ireland and New Zealand to order disclosure. I know that the Select Committee of this House was most impressed by the evidence we received from the Irish commissioner on this matter and by a related consequence. The Irish commissioner was under no doubt that his having the power to order disclosure made for anticipatory compliance—that is, the bureaucracy knew that the game was up and started to act in a more open way rather than to resist disclosure. The Irish commissioner believed however, that having inherited the culture of secrecy from the British, it was also necessary to train their bureaucracy in the ways of open government.
Disclosure is not just by Act of Parliament; it is also an attitude of mind. It would be nice to believe that the Whitehall Civil Service, government agencies and

839
other public bodies were already putting in place mechanisms to train staff in the culture of open government, rather than combing the Bill like accountants do a Finance Bill for exemptions to be exploited.
We would also urge the Government to consider again a purpose clause. I believe that we can make common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on that matter. Section 4 of the New Zealand Act states the purpose of the Act as being to,
"increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand".
That clause has been useful in helping to ensure that there is usually a presumption in favour of disclosure by the ombudsman and the courts. Again, it is not just a matter of what is in the Act but how the Government behave. I really do not understand why they are hesitating about a purpose clause in the Bill. In introducing the Bill today, the Minister has tried to imply that the Government are the saints not the sinners as regards freedom of information.
In closing, I ask the House to judge their actions against the seven deadly sins test. In December 1997, Mr Justice Kirby, president of the International Commission of Jurists and a senior Australian judge, advised those approaching freedom of information to test government intentions against seven deadly sins. I shall repeat them to the House. He warned against "strangulation at birth". He said,
"Do not underestimate the danger to your [freedom of information] proposals. Many a White Paper has come to nothing or emerged into final legislative form a pale shadow of its former self. The longer the delay in the passage of a [freedom of information] Bill the greater the risk that Sir Humphrey will have the last laugh yet again".
We shall hear from Sir Humphrey later.
As regards retaining secrets, the judge said,
"Pretend to support [freedom of information] but provide so many exceptions and derogations from the principle as to endanger the achievement of a real cultural change in public administration".
His third deadly sin is exemptions and,
"surrendering too many requests for exemptions".
The fourth deadly sin relates to costs and fees:
"Rendering access to [freedom of information] so expensive that it is effectively put beyond the reach of ordinary citizens".
I believe we can exempt the Government from that sin. Fifthly, there is decision-making; namely,
"Undermining the essential access to an independent decision maker".
The next sin is interpretation. The judge said,
"the judiciary, and not the politicians, may be answerable".
But remember that,
"judges also grew up in the world of official secrets and bureaucratic elitism".
Finally, there is the changing administrative culture. Beware of believing that,
"the passage of freedom of information legislation is enough of itself to work the necessary revolution in the culture and attitudes of public administration".
840
I ask your Lordships to remember that those warnings were given two years before the Clark White Paper; six months into a Labour Government and not after 1,000 days, as we are today. The Minister has promised to listen and, if convinced, to amend. I believe that that is a great opportunity for the House of Lords. It is the Minister's failure to resist Mr Justice Kirby's seven deadly sins of which he stands accused today. It is the task of this House to save the Government from themselves and return them to the path of righteousness, a duty we shall carry out in Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. Does he agree that with each Bill the mandatory legal advice should be supplied on which the statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act is given?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall ask the Minister to cover that question in his reply.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I intervene in the debate, having spent about 40 years handling information in the public service, ever since as a very young official I received with trepidation my first Prime Minister's personal minute which related, I recall, to a possible bounty on the tails of squirrels.
I welcome the Government's decision, foreshadowed in the manifesto, to present a Freedom of Information Bill and the fact that it has arrived at the starting gate in this House. Over a long period, public authorities in many countries have been hesitant, not to say suspicious, about wide-ranging requirements to make information available, principally because it was thought—in some cases, no doubt rightly—that it would complicate the work of those authorities or of the governments themselves, or be likely to generate pressure before the arguments for or against a decision had been fully explored within the public service.
The Bill is therefore a step forward, creating a system under law by which a lot of information in the possession of public authorities will be available to those who seek it. I want to stress that point because there are also important points on which I hope the Bill will be improved during its passage through Parliament, in particular through your Lordships' House.
Despite my career as a civil servant—or, worse still, a faceless bureaucrat—my own views go very far in the direction of greater openness in the availability of information. So far, indeed, that I fear that it may be at least 2025, when perhaps newer than new Labour will be gracing the Front Bench here, before I see them implemented. I go even further than The Times in its editorial entitled "Mournful ghost". I am more transparent than the ghost! But I shall be content if there is some modest further improvement in this direction during the course of the passage of the Bill, and I shall come on to those principal points.

841
First, however, I want to stress that the Bill is complex and the scope of some of the exemptions is not always easy to follow or to assess. Since its purpose is to provide for the disclosure, for the benefit of the citizen, of information held by public authorities, there is a particular importance in reducing as far as possible the complexity and in making the Bill as far as possible intelligible to the citizen. It would be a sad day if, when a citizen wished to take benefit from this citizen's Bill, when enacted, he had first to take legal advice in order to understand the text and the scope of the exemptions. For example, if we asked the public whether they understood Clause 13(1)—and the Minister stressed the importance of Clause 13—on disclosure in the public interest, we would surely get a 99 per cent "No" vote. The noble and learned Lord the Minister would be in the 1 per cent, so he does not count!
I realise that the codes of practice provided for in Clauses 44 and 45 and the general duty on the information commissioner to promote the following of good practice by public authorities will help. But it is none the less important that the legislation should be as clear as possible because the Bill presents a heavy legal system: inter alia through a possible application by a complainant to the commissioner for a decision; the notification of the decision to the public authority; the serving of an information notice by the commissioner, followed by an enforcement notice, with the possibility of appeals to a tribunal against a decision notice, an information notice or an enforcement notice; and the possibility for any party to an appeal to the tribunal to appeal to a court on a point of law.
I turn to the exemptions. I recognise that disclosure cannot be required for information relating to security, national security, defence and international relations; nor for personal information or information provided in confidence, in particular in commercial confidence. I am fully content with Clauses 21 to 25 and Clauses 38 to 41, which cover those exemptions.
I also accept that information which might prejudice actual or expected court cases should not be disclosed, but Clause 28, to which reference has been made, goes much wider than that, in particular because it refers to information which,
"has at any time been held",
by the public authority for investigations and proceedings. I am sure that we shall come back to that point later in the course of the Bill.
We come to the crux of the matter: Clauses 33 and 34 which deal with the non-disclosure of information relating to the formulation or development of government policy and information which might be judged to prejudice, or be likely to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs. I believe that the risk from the disclosure of information held within public authorities in relation to forming and developing government policy is markedly less than is currently supposed and is offset by the broader advantages of transparency in government.
I am also in what appears to be the minority which believes that we do not have to protect the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank
842
exchange of views, by a clause which, potentially at least, could give rise to a complete exemption from disclosure for any information which,
"would be likely to inhibit",
such advice of exchange of views. This text is not a very tough test.
I would be prepared to reverse the situation and to replace Clauses 33 and 34 by a system under which all the information would be open to disclosure unless the Minister certified that disclosure would cause "serious harm"—a phrase which is easily interpretable—to the effective conduct of public affairs. That would be a substantial reversal of the onus of proof and a much stricter test. However, I agree with the Government that such a decision both in the current text and in any amended text would need to be made by the Minister and not by the information commissioner.
It is an advantage for the agreed objective of greater freedom of information for the public that the Bill covers a huge range of information holders, not only in government departments but also in local government, the National Health Service, education and the police. That is much to be welcomed. In addition, there are also in Schedule 1 about 440 other public bodies—quangos or other advisory committees—which are probably doing good work and are correctly included here, but demonstrate how far the process of government by quango has gone. The public may be surprised to find that bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, the British Potato Council, the Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine and the Subsidence Adviser are to be required by Clause 17 to adopt and maintain schemes which relate to the publication of information and to be approved by the information commissioner and to publish those schemes. Of course, that can be simplified to some degree by the use of model publication schemes, but why do not these bodies simply disclose everything, if requested to do so, subject to the exemptions laid down in the Bill?
We must also guard against the risk that, in formalising in law the requirements on the disclosure of information and the exemptions from disclosure, we may create a certain element of defensive caution because those responsible do not want to be blamed for releasing information which may be thought to be covered by the exemptions. The information commissioner will have to pay particular attention to that point.
I speak from personal experience in this matter. When I first had responsibility as a secretary-general in Brussels, there was no formal code and the practice of disclosure of information was almost total. I believe that in my first five years there I never refused a request for information, although there may have been one or two refusals to disclose information of commercial confidence relating to EURATOM or to court proceedings.
However, when a code of practice was introduced which was in some ways similar to the Bill because it was justiciable, the first reaction of officials was to check whether information requested fell within the

843
exemptions and to seek to guard themselves against unauthorised disclosure. As the person who requested information which was refused could appeal to me as secretary-general, I saw that in practical action and on a number of occasions overruled the official decision.
I should add that the record of the European Commission as one of the most open institutions in the world remained, and we calculated that the record of disclosure of information to the public was similar to that of the United States authorities under their legislation.
The Minister will understand why, on the basis of my personal experience, I should like to see the exemptions minimised and clarified to the maximum extent possible.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his very kind remarks. However, I pass them on to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, who, with the then Prime Minister, John Major, was very much the brains and the spearhead behind the publication of the White Paper in 1993 and the code itself in 1994. When I took over as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1994, I and my successor, my noble friend Lord Freeman, did everything that we could to continue to strengthen the code.
I believe that we face a very interesting situation so far as concerns this particular Bill. We have it within our power to rise to the challenge put to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to improve the Bill.
I go back to the code for a moment and say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that, although he was correct in saying that the obligation to produce a freedom of information Bill has been in every Labour Party manifesto since 1974 (when he was still, I believe, a member of the Labour Party), between 1974 and 1979 no Bill appeared. Perhaps I may pay tribute to a particular White Paper produced by that past Labour government in 1979. I believe that its correct title is Cmnd. 7520. It was a White Paper on open government which said that the then Labour government had reached the conclusion that, rather than produce freedom of information legislation, the best way forward lay with the production of a code.
Therefore, I pay tribute to the immediate past Labour government in coming to what I believed was a very sensible conclusion. Indeed, I am proud of the fact that when I was responsible for the code, and then the Civil Service code which I introduced later in 1994 and, indeed, the whole Nolan inquiry, complete emphasis was placed on bringing about the maximum disclosure of information and on giving the public access to all the information that we could possibly disclose.
Through the mouth of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the present Labour Government said that a code is no good because it is only discretionary and one has to rely on the government to disclose. It is an interesting reflection of his lack of faith in his colleagues that he believes that, by continuing a code
844
under a Labour government, quite quickly it will become a worthless document. The previous Conservative government used the code as an opportunity to disclose a great deal of information. The result was interesting: many independent commentators have said that they believe that more information was disclosed under the code than will be the case under the present legislation.
Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had another opportunity in this debate to correct the situation, it was interesting to note that he did not deny that. He did not deny the fact that more information was disclosed under the code than will be disclosed under this Bill. He sought to attack the code as being a purely discretionary mechanism. I should be very interested to hear from him whether he believes that, once the present Bill is enacted, if it remains as it is, it would, as most independent commentators say, result in less information being provided. I believe that to be the case.
In trying to make sure that the public have access to the information that they need, the Government have now decided that there should be a statutory right. It is interesting to reflect for a moment on what my noble friend said should be our attitude from these Benches. We now face the situation of impending legislation on the statute book. Having won the general election in 1997, it is this Government's right to put legislation on to the statute book; but what should our view be? I hope that noble Lords will accept that my attitude—and, I believe, the attitude of these Benches—will be that, if there is to be an Act of Parliament, it must be effective.
Ideally, I would hope, as with the Civil Service code, that we could reach all-party agreement. Whether a party is in government or in opposition, there should be a co-ordinated and consensual approach to what is, after all, an Act of Parliament that will govern a very important and sensitive area; indeed, it will move the arena from Parliament to the courts. That is one reason why I have always been very nervous about a statute that gives freedom of information. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that if one wants to go to the ombudsman, one must go through a Member of Parliament. But I believed that that was always a good safeguard. In addition, it always meant that a government were tested in the Mother of Parliaments as to whether or not they had done the right thing in failing to disclose information or, indeed, in disclosing information.
Now, of course, the arena will move from Parliament to the courts. That is why I am sure that, in trying to improve the Bill, we must make it fair, simple, concise and effective. I hope that noble Lords will not believe that I have changed my mind; I still believe that a code is better. However, being faced now with the fact that there is to be an Act, I believe that we must ensure that it works.
In my experience, the longer a party is in opposition, the greater its hunger for freedom of information. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that that is probably why his Liberal Democrat Party

845
is in a permanent state of hunger. However, I believe that normally in government one quickly comes round to the view that public access to information must be restricted. I hope that the noble Lord will at least accept that, after being in power for some 15 years, the previous government went against tradition and moved towards greater disclosure. However, now we must build on what we achieved before. We must ensure that, by good government, at least as much information is disclosed under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament as was disclosed under the code. I believe that the previous government set an excellent example in that regard.
I should like to make three points. First, in setting out his challenge to us all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that he would "give a fair hearing"—I believe those were his exact words—to amendments which sought to improve the Bill, provided that they were in accordance with the purpose of the Bill. But then the purpose, as he is seeking to define it, is only within the Long Title. I have never known a situation where a government have resorted to explaining the purpose of legislation merely by reference to the Long Title.
That is why I believe that my noble friend is right in saying that we should have a purpose clause. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, say the same. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will listen to that and perhaps, at the conclusion of this debate, indicate that the Government are prepared to sit down with the opposition parties to work out a purpose clause that would be clear and set out the objective of the legislation in terms which would make the matter very simple to everyone. So I hope that we shall have an effective purpose clause.
My second point lies with the second test which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave for accepting amendments; namely, that they should not undermine the ability of government to keep secret sensitive areas of information. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made a very valuable contribution when he gave from his European experience an example of what happens when you move from a code to something more strict and rigid. We must now turn our attention to making sure that we do not extend the exemptions so widely that they catch areas that would have been disclosed under the old code. We must make the test more narrow. My noble friend indicated ways in which that could be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson said, there must be some evidence of "substantial harm" or "serious prejudice". Whichever phrase is used, there must be quite a rigorous test.
As noble Lords will know, I am a solicitor and I have received an excellent brief from the Law Society. There are two areas in which it wants to see exemptions mitigated to allow the greater disclosure of information. The first is in relation to Clause 28 and the second is in making sure that Clause 13 does not become a mechanism for preventing disclosure. In relation to Clause 13, the noble and learned Lord used the phrase that there was a "strong steer" for disclosure. But the courts require a little bit more than
846
a strong steer; they need clear language. I believe that there are ways in which we can improve the Bill from that point of view.
As regards my third point, I look forward to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, because I remember all the excellent briefs that she used to give me when I was a Minister. I hope that she will acknowledge that, whenever possible, I erred on the side of disclosure. I look forward also to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, in that regard.
It is important to recognise that when you are a Minister, any brief you receive, particularly on an important decision, contains a substantial amount of factual background. That factual basis often created a sensible background against which to make the decision. I never understood why there could not be greater disclosure. When I was in the Cabinet, we tried to find ways of publishing that information more widely.
There has crept in a tendency to merge policy advice with factual background. I believe that with this legislation, it is possible that we shall revert to a situation (which Ministers found much more useful) of having the factual information clearly set out in a separate document from the arguments for and against, which, quite often, from a special adviser—although we did not have many of them; there are now many more—set out some examples of the political sensitivity of the decision. I can see that there must be some safeguard in relation to such documents, which are quasi-Civil Service, and I would also include the civil servant's own advice on the pros and cons of the decision from a policy point of view. That is particularly so where embarrassment or serious prejudice or harm may be caused to individuals. When I refer to embarrassment, I mean so long as the re is evidence of serious harm or serious prejudice. In Committee, I hope that we can find a way of ensuring that as much as possible of the advice to Ministers can be disclosed.
My final point is that there is, and has always been, a culture of secrecy around any government, whichever party is in office. That is a fact of life. In this House, we now have an opportunity to change that culture in a clear and emphatic way, as we tried to do with the code. We must make it clear to everyone that this Government, this Opposition, and this House are wedded to a culture of openness. We can demonstrate that by producing, in response to the challenge from the noble and learned Lord, a really effective Freedom of Information Act.
12.55 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in this country we like to think that we live in a mature democracy which has served as a model for other nations. We used to claim that we had a unique and flexible constitution and that we were a shining example of a democratic relationship between people and government. That was, of course, always an exaggeration and we are still one of the most secretive

847
and paternalistic societies in the world. But I had hoped that this Bill would edge us some little distance towards greater openness and equity.
The White Paper raised our hopes and expectations of genuinely greater openness. But this Bill, alas, has much less to offer. Indeed, it is clearly not the offspring of the 1997 White Paper but rather a hybrid of the fears of civil servants and the caution of lawyers.
Politicians of all parties deplore the increasing apathy and lack of interest in politics shown by the public, with the consequent slow but steady diminution in the turn-out at local and even parliamentary elections. It is scarcely surprising when political decisions are made behind closed doors on the basis of facts that cannot be revealed apparently to the public. Therefore, people become cynical about politicians, both local and nationally.
Public assumptions about the secretive power of civil servants and officials are also common currency in this country, as exemplified by the TV series "Yes, Minister", its success being largely due to our knowledge of the ways in which bureaucracies muffle and obscure the truth and partly because it confirmed our worst fears about politicians.
If we wish people in this country to be involved in the processes of democracy and to discuss policy issues with insight and maturity, we must not leave them relying on the half-truths and distortions of the mass media, with their limited attention span and their need for sensation and confrontation. People in this country deserve to be taken into equal partnership with government and to be provided with the facts and background information upon which political decisions are made.
My experience of bureaucracies encompasses not only the Metropolitan Police but many negotiations with the Home Office and also as a student representative at Manchester University. All such organisations are self-protective and they close ranks in the face of anticipated criticism. They conceal and sanitise their proceedings, however innocuous, rather than reveal them to the public gaze.
During my time in the Metropolitan Police, I served under a variety of regimes and observed that, depending on the commissioner, the extent to which the force was willing to talk to the press and the public could be used as a measure, a barometer, of the extent to which we matured and developed. Thus, under Sir Robert Mark not only was police corruption exposed but we were also encouraged to talk to the press and public, which enhanced the status of the force and increased the confidence of individual officers.
Under David McNee, however, we were plunged back into the dark ages of total concealment, frightened to speak to the press. As a Chief Superintendent at Chiswick and Brentford, I was not even allowed to tell my local community how many, or rather how few, police officers I had to patrol the streets of Chiswick. The force stagnated, effectively, for five years.
848
Sir Kenneth Newman had a totally different attitude and dragged us rather reluctantly into the 20th century and the realisation that the public are entitled to know everything about their police service, provided, of course, that it does not hinder the investigation of specific crimes.
The inference I draw from that is that the public are entitled to know almost everything about the processes of government. This disappointing Bill fails to ensure that. If countries as diverse as Ireland, Australia and the United States can provide greater openness for their citizens, I do not understand why this country needs to be more secretive. Even Scotland appears to be moving towards greater openness.
The Bill could be improved in many ways. In particular, I too should like to see the insertion of a purpose clause. Indeed, surprisingly, I had backing on that this morning from the briefing of the CBI. The Bill needs to counteract the impression that it is largely about restricting the flow of information. It has so many negative restrictions and exemptions that it is likely to act more as an inhibitor than as an encourager of openness. Any official worth his salt would be able to find in the Bill a class exemption covering any piece of information that he wished to conceal. A purpose clause would provide a positive context for the rest of the Bill. It might encourage the idea that it is the duty of public servants to reveal rather than conceal information.
More important, and a matter upon which I hope the House will achieve consensus, is the ministerial override or veto. The information commissioner is far more likely to take a balanced and detached view of what constitutes "the public interest" and should therefore have the final say, except on matters of national security.
The exemption for commercial interests also seems too wide. When I was chairing the environment committee of the House and we looked at the European drinking water directive it was disturbing and much to our surprise to find that the analysis of effluent from factories could not be published because it constituted a commercial secret. Matters of public health should override commercial interests. If that had been so in the past, we might have avoided the scandals of asbestos, tobacco, BSE and nuclear discharges.
Finally, as I have already made clear, I believe that the provisions of Clause 34 on the facts and figures underlying the formulation of public policy are wholly wrong and contrary to what is appropriate in a mature democracy. I do not accept that facts and options cannot be untangled from opinion or advice. I hope that the Bill will be greatly improved during its passage through this House and not only by an unholy alliance of the parties opposite.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the speech of the noble Baroness. She combined her practical experience with a

849
commitment to principle. She also gainsaid any suggestion that concern about the Bill is a matter of party politics rather than concern for liberty.
I marvelled at the Minister, as I have before, when he suggested that this was a good Bill and, with his skilful advocacy, suggested that ministerial discretion would be sympathetically exercised in favour of disclosure. On the contrary; rarely, if ever, can a Bill whose title trumpets the cause of freedom have so acutely disappointed so many who care about liberty. It is all the more a cause of concern because over the past century the power of government, and its ever-deeper reach into our lives, has grown inexorably as never before in our history. We are so conditioned to the intrusions of the state and to raft upon raft of controls and regulations that it is hard to believe that the historian A J P Taylor could write that before the First World War,
"a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the State beyond the post office and the policeman".
In the area of law, there has been a direct and counter-veiling response to that accretion of powers. The development of administrative law as a check on executive absolutism, now admirably buttressed by the Human Rights Act, has developed a valuable separation of powers. In the area of politics, the widening of universal suffrage, the grant of voting rights to women and the lowering of the voting age to 18 have all enhanced democracy. But the right to freedom of information has so far been the Cinderella of our democratic rights. The "right to know"—as I believe it is properly called—has been fiercely resisted by politicians and bureaucrats striving to be less accountable to the public they nominally serve by shrouding their work in secrecy.
No profession has witnessed that obsessive struggle to maintain secrecy more vividly than lawyers. When I started at the Bar, all government information, however minor and harmless, was protected from disclosure in litigation by the blanket doctrine of Crown Privilege. Some 30 years ago, that granite-like monolith was chipped away at in the seminal case of Conway v. Rimmer. But for years afterwards civil servants fought like tigers every inch of the way to restrict the impact of that small step towards enlightenment. Fortunately, the late Lord Denning was even more determined to see fair play to our citizens. In the end, slowly, ever so slowly, we arrived at the modern, more civilised doctrine of public interest immunity which applies only if "disclosure will cause real harm". The test is, of course, more stringent than any that will be applied under the Bill.
It has not been obvious that any political party when in office has been over-concerned with the right of the public to know until comparatively recently. They have mostly been content to steer public opinion by selective leaks, whether of Cabinet disagreements or proposed policy. Not only is that nakedly self-serving, but it is all the more pernicious when at the same time the public are denied access to information which
850
government find it inconvenient to reveal. That combination—the light and the dark—makes for a highly concerning distortion of democracy.
So it was welcome, if now ironical, that it was the Labour Party which promised a freedom of information Act if they won the 1992 election. In the years which followed, the current Prime Minister took up the torch in opposition by asserting that,
"the first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information".
But once in government, the seductive lure of secrecy has prevailed and the once proud commitment has been steadily diluted.
Another irony of the Bill is that the principal bastion of our so-called "mature democracy" is meant to be the House of Commons. In 1994, the Conservative's code on openness was introduced. It was welcome, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has described. II was a first good step on the way. None the less, the Select Committee considering the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recommended in 1995 that we should go further and introduce a freedom of information Bill. What do we have now? A Bill, yes, but one which, as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Charter 88 have said, would be weaker than the Conservative code. So perhaps not surprisingly, there was a dramatic lack of enthusiasm for the Bill in the other place. Some 36 Labour MPs voted against it, but it went through when the juggernaut majority prevailed. What do we expect in a democracy where a minority of voters can elect a government with a majority of 180? What can we expect where, as Mr Peter Mandelson put it bluntly soon after the 1997 election,
"Labour members of parliament have been elected in order to carry out the manifesto for which we have received an overwhelming mandate from the public".
In other words, the duty of Members of Parliament is to show the unthinking obedience of the foot-slogging infantrymen. What can we expect when the Government have so far failed to implement their manifesto commitment to a referendum on proportional representation?
With that background, and being encouraged by what the Minister has said, I believe that during the progress of the Bill we shall not hear any ministerial assertion that radical amendments would do other wise than fulfil our role as the guardians of democracy. I hope that no one will tell us that if we stand up for the right to know we shall be going against the will of the democratic House and flexing our muscles too much. The Times was surely right when it said in an editorial:
"it is left to the Lords to breathe some living freedom into this mournful ghost".
If I may continue for a few more minutes, I shall draw attention to a few areas in which, for me, the ghost clanks its chains most gratingly.
I view Clause 25 with some concern. It exempts any information likely to prejudice any aspect of foreign relations or the protection of United Kingdom interests abroad. What about arms to Iraq, or to Indonesia? What about our relations with Zimbabwe?

851
Suppose the information showed that the Government are compromising their commitment to an ethical foreign policy. No doubt it would be pleaded that any disclosure would create a prejudice and that such delicate relationships should be conducted huggermugger. No doubt, the more dubious the conduct, the greater the prejudice.
The same advice applies to Clause 26 which covers relations between the Government of the United Kingdom and our devolved institutions. Would we not be allowed to know whether the Government of the United Kingdom and that of Scotland had crossed swords over, say, whether Scottish Ministers should, as they have promised, introduce a far stronger Freedom of Information Bill?
Others have spoken about Clause 28, a class exemption which includes any information—even, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, relating to past activity—which is held by the police or the Health and Safety Executive. Surely, those are areas that require openness which may be crucial to creating or restoring public confidence. What about information on the impact of BSE or the fall-out from Chernobyl? Why have the Government overridden the clear recommendation of the Macpherson inquiry that said that it saw "no grounds" for a class exemption in that area? How can we deny an increasingly educated, demanding and diverse people information that may affect them or shape the choices that they may be entitled to make about the acceptability of risk?
Others have commented on Clause 33. In my view, it is not acceptable that Ministers should be entitled to deny us information about the facts on which policy is based, and yet they are entitled to refuse to deny or confirm that the facts and the information exist. Whose information is it anyway? Why cannot they tell us the facts?
Recently I saw a list of all those statutes and statutory instruments on which there has been a regulatory impact assessment. Presumably, the contents of the regulatory impact assessment, which have shaped policy, could be exempt from disclosure.
Clause 41, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, merits a mention. That clause allows information to be withheld if it would prejudice any commercial interests. Material about potentially unsafe oil tankers, or about the risks of salmonella or listeria, or about malpractice in the selling of personal pensions could presumably be withheld. Powerful commercial lobbying will seek to persuade Ministers to keep information under wraps.
I had intended to speak about the power to override the information commissioner, but I welcome what the Minister said about potential amendments. I too hope that, as in New Zealand, if there is to be such a ministerial override, it will be a collective Cabinet decision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Helpfully, he gave us a list of his particular concerns about the Bill. He went through a number of the exemptions, in particular that information is exempt,
"if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice,
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State".
I understood him to complain about the extent of that exemption, which is a prejudice-based exemption. I have never heard anybody suggest that there should not be some such exemption in relation to international relations based upon prejudice. I wonder how the noble Lord would put his complaint in relation to that.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I can see a government saying, if they are engaged in a delicate negotiation that may lead to a compromise with another state, that the nature of that negotiation, that compromise, should not be disclosed. I mentioned arms to Iraq, arms to Indonesia, and relations with Zimbabwe. I should have thought that that is, at least, a classic illustration of a "serious harm" test.
I do not remember seeing for some time a Bill that has been widely condemned by opposition parties, by committees of both Houses of Parliament, by groups ranging from the British Safety Council, to the Federation of Small Businesses and the Consumers' Association, and, I believe, by implication almost, by the Prime Minister. In 1996, he said,
"we want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity and make government information available to the public unless there are good reasons not to do so".
The truth is that Whitehall has got at the substance of the original proposals in the Clark White Paper, eaten it away and left only the husk, or, as the Australians would say, they have "white-anted" the Bill.
The Minister and I are from a profession whose leitmotif is the championing of the individual, of fairness, and of openness against an over-mighty state. He too will remember the great jurist—he may even remember the name—who once remarked that,
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant".
I do not know whether the Minister's heart is in the Bill, but I cannot ask him, as under Clause 34 any indication that he is unenthusiastic about the government line would be exempt information.
I hope at least that the Minister will not be too sad if the House does its duty, strikes a blow for democracy, and delivers a Bill that accords with the expectations on which the public were sold the Government's manifesto commitment. In effect, if he invites the House to do so, or accepts it, ironically that will implement the Salisbury/Addison convention because to give effect to the manifesto, something is needed. As The Times said, this is a manifesto commitment which so far has been quietly strangled. I hope that this House will rapidly amend the Bill.
1.18 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, will not mind me saying that in my view this process is about fulfilling the election manifesto. I believe he may have misread the nature of this debate. In his opening remarks, the Minister invited the House to participate in improving and amending the Bill. In my view, that is the process upon which we have now embarked.
In the two years since I joined your Lordships' House, I am sure noble Lords will have realised that I am an enthusiastic supporter of New Labour and the work of the Government. All my life I have been an active supporter of more openness in government. I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have made practical efforts to make their dealings more open. I love the website "opengov.org" and use it all the time. I am enormously impressed by the information that is available from government departments and other public bodies on what they are up to and how that information has improved. The Government are to be congratulated on the already increasing quality and quantity of information available.
Today we are addressing the issue of information which is not readily available and not accessible at the click of my mouse. I would have been amazed and horrified had my party not made a commitment to pass a Freedom of Information Act in our manifesto, and I welcome the introduction of this Bill. Transparency and openness are important ingredients of a democratic and accountable system of public administration. This Bill is the most important consumer and citizen issue that this Parliament will consider.
For too long there has been a regime of Whitehall secrecy and the time has come to begin the process of creating a culture of openness. This Bill is the start of a process to change a culture. The culture of secrecy and changing the habits of civil servants will be a longer job than just the passing of this Bill. I know that many will welcome the change. But there are also those who, like people who are addicted to tobacco, will need support and encouragement for them to change their previous habits. It will be a little like introducing a nicotine patch to help them say yes, rather than say no.
Those entrenched habits and that conditioning of secrecy are why the tone as well as the content of this Bill are so important. The rules and habits which govern the people who have to carry out the content of this Bill are the reason why the Government's intentions and political will must be absolutely clear. It is because I believe the Bill to be just the start of a process that I believe it to be in need of some improvement, despite the changes which have already been made as a result of deliberations in another place—changes on which I congratulate the Government.
I wish the Bill shouted its presumption in favour of the disclosure of information, instead of conveying a message which is about what we may not be told—a list which appears to grow at every turn. Specifically,
854
in the course of its consideration, I shall be helping, I hope, to look for improvements in the Bill in the areas of the blanket exemptions and the ministerial veto. Blanket exemptions still allow information to be withheld regardless of whether or not its disclosure would cause harm. One of the most important of those exemptions is the one referring to in formation relating to,
"the formulation or development of government policy".
It appears that even the facts and figures on which policy formulation is based are exempt. Clause 33(1) is a gigantic class exemption for all information about policy formulation, including the facts. It exempts all information about Ministers' private offices and all references to ministerial communications or the obtaining of law officer's advice; and no harm test would apply.
I am confident that the Ministers in this Government will not use that exemption because I know that they have a genuine commitment to be open and accountable. But we are not here discussing the actions of this Government only; we are also discussing the actions of future governments, whatever their politics. The party opposite, who I hope will not be in government for a long time to come, if ever, has a pretty abysmal record on the accessibility stakes. I am sure therefore that, were the Opposition ever to be back in office, they would use the full powers of this Bill to the detriment of both openness and accountability. And even if they never get back into power, they already run local authorities. I want to be sure that Conservative-led local government, as well as all local government, cannot use other parts of this Bill to wriggle out of their obligations to openness and disclosure.
My second major concern—I know I will be joining with others in this House in asking the Government to reconsider this part—is the provision which allows Ministers and local authorities to override the information commissioner. This undermines one of the fundamental principles of freedom of information; that is, that decisions on disclosure should be free from political interference. I am grateful for the detail in which my noble and learned friend explained the provisions of Clauses 13 and 52 in his opening remarks, and am less concerned now than I was. But I am not convinced that the White Paper of 1997 was incorrect when the Government considered the case for a veto and explicitly rejected it. The White Paper, Your Right to Know, said,
"We have considered this possibility, but decided against it, believing that a government veto would undermine the authority of the Information Commissioner and erode public confidence in the Act".
I do not know why the Government retreated from that position and am sorry for it.
I do not believe that the two changes I have mentioned, which will strengthen the Bill, need upset the balance which my noble and learned friend explained in his opening remarks; a balance which I wholly accept as being essential. I hope that these

855
changes will do what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve when he spoke in 1996 and said,
"Freedom of information is not some isolated constitutional reform but a change that is fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country. It is part of bringing politics up to date, letting politics catch up with the aspirations of people and delivering not just more open but more effective and efficient government for the future".
I agreed with him then and believe that the work that we will undertake in the course of considering this Bill will seek to improve the Bill to match those aspirations.
1.26 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when the Bill was originally introduced last year in another place, it became clear that there was a sharp difference between the impressions that had been given by the Labour Party before the general election and the contents of the Bill.
The pressure groups and other interested organisations who have been pursuing the possibility of a freedom of information measure for many years, have been shocked by the outcome after three years of Labour government. The explanation may be that 18 years out of office led to a temptation to please pressure groups and to an unfamiliarity with the requirements and processes of government. That is an explanation which I generously put forward. But it is not a valid excuse for the difference between the undertakings that were made before the general election and what has since happened.
A feature of the Bill which changes the whole character of what was thought to be the measure that was coming forward, is the series of exemptions, including entire classes of information instead of, as we would have preferred, particular contents. The Government now seem to be attempting to carry out an electoral damage-limitation operation so that they will be able to say, when the next election arrives, "We delivered a Freedom of Information Act"; that item on the list can be ticked.
The word "delivered" is over-used in new Labour's propaganda. Something that was in the manifesto is now "delivered" in name and in some sort of shape. But what matters to the public and to Parliament is whether it works better than the previous arrangements and is effective. The public are not concerned with whether a code is being advocated, as introduced in the 1990s and advocated by the Labour Party in 1979 when they were in government; or whether it be in the form of so-called "rights". They are concerned about the practical effect, and on freedom of information the Government appear to be going backwards. I hope that that is not so, and I am glad to know that important government amendments are coming to this House, as foreshadowed by the Home Secretary and confirmed today by the noble and learned Lord.
The Bill proposes massive exemptions relating to the formulation and development of government policy. This is a difficult area, but the Bill goes too far unnecessarily. There are very good reasons for protecting the processes of Cabinet government, but
856
there is no reason to withhold factual information which simply forms background. Our Cabinet system depends on the principle of collective responsibility. Ministers are expected to agree on policies before they are announced. If a Minister disagrees with a policy of importance, he has the option of resigning; and that has occurred on various occasions over the past few years. It would be impossible to maintain this system if opinions of Ministers, departments and official advisers were made public during the process, or some years later. I feel strongly that these stages of decision making should be protected.
The alternative is to give up collective responsibility and adopt another system. Some people may say, "Let's do away with the present Cabinet system and start something else". I do not favour that course. It would be far too difficult and dangerous. There seems to be no obvious reason that connected factual information should not be made public: indeed it might help the media, Parliament and the public to understand the decisions when they are announced. I understand that the Government claim that it is too difficult to separate factual information from Ministers' views and the advice that they receive, although the Lords' ad hoc committee received an expert opinion that that could be done.
The Government have also claimed in the other place that the term "factual information" could not be defined and so could not be used; but it already appears in the Bill in Clause 13(5). I emphasise that I support the protection of the process of Cabinet and government decision-making, and I speak from my own experience as a Cabinet Minister, as a junior Minister in an earlier government and, more significantly, as an official when for two years I was assigned from the Foreign Office to be Private Secretary to the Secretary of the Cabinet (then Sir Norman Brooke) when Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister. I remember at least one episode when the departmental Minister, who had to make the subsequent announcement in the other place, had been opposing in internal discussions and in the Cabinet the decision that was collectively and finally taken. Of course he had the option of resigning, but he thought it was not such an important subject that he needed to do so even though he was virtually defending in public what he had been opposing behind closed doors.
That is part of our system, and if we change that we must change the system too. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, will be speaking shortly, because he has more experience than I have of these things. It would be virtually impossible for Ministers and officials to function in that way if proceedings at these stages were made public, or were made public in many cases during a subsequent period of a few years. At the same time, I believe that factual information can and should be separated from advice and from the records of meetings.
I turn to a controversial matter: that is the power of the ministerial override in the Bill-override of the commissioner's decisions. We are promised government amendments on this, which is good news, and so I will not pursue that point now. However,

857
I would point out that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill and I look forward to considering the government amendments when we reach Committee stage. I hope it will not be too late to bring back, to what may be called a second life, what The Times described as "a mournful ghost".
1.35 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the consumer issues raised by this Bill. In doing so I must declare an interest. I was the founder 48 years ago of the Consumers' Association and I am now its president. I speak today on behalf of the position taken up by the Consumers' Association on this Bill.
Like so many other noble Lords, I heartily welcomed, as did the association, the publication of the White Paper Your Right to Know in December 1997. We have more recently given at any rate a guarded welcome—not that it goes far enough—to the proposals of the Scottish Executive for a somewhat stronger reform than we are discussing today. For once I am quite pleased that the two governments are divided on this matter. I hope that if they cease to be divided it will be more on the side of the Scottish Executive than on the side of the Government in Whitehall.
That White Paper gave what we reformers have been campaigning for for at least 10 years. Other campaigners along with us hoped that at last there would be an end to the secrecy which has shrouded the British Government for so long and which, if acted upon, would bring us somewhat into line, at any rate in principle, with what has happened in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, as several speakers have already mentioned.
We thought that the commitment in the Labour manifesto was at last to be honoured, for freedom of information is the essential nutrient to the good working of a thriving democracy; and how hard it is that the citizens' right to participate in their own government which is talked about in this Bill can only be properly acknowledged in practice if they have the vital information they need. In this Bill vital information looks as though it is going to be withheld.
It is a mystery to me why the Bill should have appeared so soon before another general election when, at any rate from my point of view, it is a vote-loser on a large scale. It is a "give-and-take-away" Bill. A bow is made towards open access, and that is very welcome, but then the bow is almost wholly negated by class after class of exemptions. As understanding of the Bill spreads, I would expect that votes would be lost left and right. This is perhaps one of the main reasons why no one, apart from the Government, spoke in favour of the Bill in the other place. They left the cause of democracy, almost deliberately in some cases, to the House of Lords—an odd outcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has just said.
I shall just give one illustration of how things could go wrong for the Government if they persist with the Bill in anything like its present form. Our association
858
has been campaigning for many, many years against the way in which motorists are being ripped off by the cartels which fix the prices of cars in Britain so much higher than in the rest of Europe. We have done everything that we could to challenge the car companies and the car dealers. We took a further step a week or so ago when we announced that we ourselves would import cars directly from the continent on behalf of car buyers. On the actual day when that announcement was made, the website of the Consumers' Association had over 1 million hits.
Voters in large numbers care about price fixing, but a little earlier we received not much help from the Government. The report of the Office of Fair Trading on Volvos, one of the companies, was welcome because it showed that it was involved in an anticompetitive car-pricing cartel. But when we asked for more information on a number of important points, our application was rejected. The same thing has happened with many other applications that we have made for access. For instance, when we asked about the policy of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea in selling personal details about motorists to parking enforcement firms that work for the owners of private property used for parking, our request was refused.
We also asked for access to the information held by the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority about the extent to which the Prudential and other companies are paying so much of their so-called "orphan assets" to shareholders and not to policy holders: application denied. It was the same with our attempts to find out more about the mis-selling of unsuitable endowment policies as a means for the repayment of mortgages. It was also the same with the figures for the number of poor people whose electricity supply had been disconnected: application refused.
The Government have almost invariably protected commercial interests and the provisions of this Bill in its present form will do nothing to redress the balance. Some of the same Ministers who have been so unresponsive on so many consumer issues in the past will still be there with the same sweeping powers to deny information when this new Bill finally comes into force.
In view of the situations about which I have been talking, we were not surprised when the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the Consumers' Association were highly critical of the Government: 70 per cent of the public did not trust Ministers to release information; 94 per cent believed that members of the public have a right to know all of the information that might affect their own decisions; 92 per cent agreed with the statement that,
"the government should be more open about how it makes its decisions";
and 85 per cent agreed that,
"the public's right to know should outweigh the commercial interests of companies and public authorities".
From our point of view, freedom of information is the most important consumer issue currently concerning Parliament. It cuts across all areas of

859
consumer and public policy and is a prerequisite for transparency and accountability in the public and private sectors. Through this, it serves to improve the quality of decision-making in government, and in the public and private sectors. In a modern society freedom of information is essential if consumers and their representatives are to engage successfully with vested interests in government, the public sector and industry.
The Bill is fundamentally important to the rights and well-being of consumers and citizens in the United Kingdom. For consumers, the past decade or so will be associated with a series of major corporate scandals, transport disasters and public policy and regulatory failures, the most infamous of these being BSE, and major rail disasters such as happened at Paddington. The direct causes may have been different in each case, but there has been a common theme; namely, that by the time consumers had found out what had gone wrong, or the full extent of the damage had become clear, it was just too late. Consumers and taxpayers have picked up the pieces and paid the price for decisions made behind closed doors. There is a very real need for a decent freedom of information Act.
We at the Consumers' Association believe that the Bill is fundamentally defective. I know that some noble Lords have already spoken about some of these points, but we call attention to four major areas of weakness which affect the consumer interest in particular. The first is policy exemption. Any information held by a government department is exempt if it relates to the formulation and development of government policy. This includes even the facts and figures that are used to formulate policy. That is an incredible exemption—indeed, when one reads it, it is almost impossible to believe—considering all the lessons to be learned from the major consumer scandals of the past.
The desirability of disclosing "advice" may well be debatable, but there is no justification for refusing to give the public a statutory right to know the facts and figures behind policy decisions. Other countries have designed and operated freedom of information regimes which cope perfectly well with this distinction. Indeed, our friends in the Scottish Executive propose that facts and figures should be published as a matter of course.
The second weakness is to do with public authorities and regulators. There are a number of clauses in the Bill that will allow public authorities and regulators to withhold information which might compromise their position and hold them accountable. Investigations into safety or regulatory transgressions may be concealed. Transparency is critical, as these public authorities and regulators are responsible for implementing public policy and are charged specifically with protecting the consumer and public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, spoke about this earlier and I very much agree with what he said.
Thirdly, there is the overprotection of commercial interests. Consumers bear the brunt of corporate scandals and regulatory failure. But the Freedom of
860
Information Bill tilts the balance towards protecting commercial interests still further. Information will be exempt if disclosure would be likely to "prejudice" commercial interests. I have already indicated that this provision will not remedy the thoroughly unsatisfactory position in which we find ourselves.
Finally, there are the limitations on the powers of the information commissioner about which much has already been said and with almost all of which I thoroughly agree. The small concession that has been made on this point is not so far a meaningful concession and compromises one of the fundamental principles of freedom of information legislation-that the only way to ensure that information will be released in the public interest is to have an independent arbiter deciding between vested interests.
Giving real authority to the independent information commissioner to rule on the public interest would at last remove the dilemma of allowing Ministers the final say on disclosure of critical information that compromises the Government's or the Minister's own position. When I spoke about this to policy analysts of the Consumers' Association, they told me that in all the major areas of consumer activity in which the association has an interest a government policy initiative has been or is in the process of being implemented; for example, the Food Standards Agency, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Utilities Bill and the Competition Act. There is also the Transport Bill, with the serious implications for rail safety and air traffic control.
In each of those cases the Consumers' Association has serious reservations about the specific provisions for disclosing information. Disclosure of information collected by the lead regulators, agencies or departments is either prohibited by statute or is at the discretion of the various regulatory heads or Ministers in charge. However, in all this there is no comfort to be gained from the Freedom of Information Bill.
The protection given to commercial interests; the exemptions on accident and regulatory investigations; the exemptions on information relating to policy development; and the restriction on the powers of the information commissioner—all these weaknesses mean that there is little leverage to be gained from the Bill. We greatly hope that important concessions will be made by the Home Secretary and by the Government generally and that the Bill will emerge from this House a much better Bill that can gain support in the other place. We have a great responsibility to do what we can.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I am afraid that I must start by disappointing the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I cannot enlighten him on the reasons why responsibility for these matters was transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office towards the end of 1997. I had been out of the public service for 10 years when that happened and I could be completely elevated and impartial on the subject as before I served as Secretary to the Cabinet, I served briefly as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office.

861
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that I intend to address my remarks primarily to access to information held by the public authorities defined in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill, and particularly by government departments. I am, and have for a long time been, very much in favour of more openness—as much openness as is reasonably possible—in government. Having said that, I am glad that the Bill provides exemption for advice to Ministers and for exchanges between Ministers on the formulation and development of policy because I do not believe that those processes can be conducted in a goldfish bowl. I am afraid that I part company with my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton in thinking it impractical to divide advice into advice which can be disclosed and other advice which cannot. There has to be a class exemption here if there is to be good government, by which I mean integrity of administration, effectiveness in the conduct of public affairs, arid free and frank discussion among Ministers and between Ministers and officials.
I am also glad that the Bill sets out to protect the convention of collective responsibility. Here I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am clear that this convention is not an outmoded tradition but is a necessary condition of coherent and joined-up government. If we did not have the doctrine, we should have to invent it. However, I have for long thought that when a policy decision is announced, or at least a major policy decision of the kind that ought to be announced first in Parliament—but too often is not nowadays—the Minister should disclose as fully as possible the facts, figures and considerations that were taken into account in arriving at the decision. Not only do I believe that as a matter of accountability the Minister owes it to Parliament and to the public to do that, I also believe that the process of decision-making in government will be improved if it is recognised from the outset that that will be done.
I recognise, of course, that it is not generally possible within the constraints and pressures on parliamentary time to give a comprehensive account of the facts, figures and considerations taken into account in the course of an announcement in Parliament. However, that more comprehensive account of the facts and figures and so on should be given in a parliamentary or command paper published as soon as possible after the decision is announced. Ministers should not wait until the information is requested before making it available.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, my successor as Cabinet Secretary, that it would be possible to maintain the distinction between information and advice and to prepare the material on information which was to be disclosed at the end of the day while the discussion of policy was going forward. I believe that such a process would not only benefit parliamentary and public understanding of the reasons why a particular decision has been taken, I believe also that the knowledge from the outset that that would eventually be done would make for more
862
effective, more responsible and more accountable administration in government—what this Bill calls the more
"effective conduct of public affairs".
As I read Clauses 33 and 34 of the Bill, that kind of process is by no means excluded. I do not understand why the clauses are being read in that way. If they are obscure or not clear, we had better clarify them, but they do not appear to me to inhibit Ministers and government departments from proceeding in the way I have suggested.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has said, the code of practice introduced in 1994 went a long way towards achieving that kind of objective, even if it did not go as far as some would have liked. But, like him, I believe that the code of practice route rather than the legislative route would have been the right way to make progress in this field.
I fear that a Freedom of Information Act, with its complex structure of legal rights and duties, exemptions, elaboration of commissioners, appeals and enforcement will not help us much in this context. I share the fear that it would be liable to encourage Ministers and officials to think not about what they should be doing or disclosing, but about what they can get away with not doing or not disclosing. I believe that we should be trying to create a positive climate of opinion in which a government want to do what it is right that they should do, want to disclose in formation to the greatest possible extent, and recognise the benefits to administration and to public understanding which will flow from doing that, and thus voluntarily commit themselves to a code of practice accordingly.
I do not believe that this or any other legislation is likely to make it possible to prise out of government information which they really do not wish or think it right to disclose. Echoing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, I fear that it will always be possible for governments to find means by which they can avoid the disclosure of information which they really do not want or think it right to disclose, without technically failing to comply with the legislation. But I also fear that the resort to such means would tend to impair the integrity of administration and the effective conduct of public affairs. It could create a situation in which information was not properly recorded; a situation in which information would be imparted only by word of mouth or on the backs of envelopes; a situation in which meetings and discussions would tend to be held in holes and corners—in ways and in forms in which they would escape the requirements of the legislation.
The risk is that the result would corrupt the process of administration and would impair the effective conduct of public affairs without yielding improvement in parliamentary and public understanding. None of the benefits which freedom of access to government information is supposed to give would follow. However, I recognise that we shall have a Freedom of Information Act and that no self-respecting modern western democracy can be without its own Freedom of Information Act. In constructing

863
this Bill, the Government seem to me to show that they are aware of the kind of difficulties and dangers to which I have drawn attention, and to have struck a reasonable balance between the needs of integrity, of administration and the effective conduct of public affairs on the one hand, and the duty of responsible and accountable disclosure of information on the other. I am relieved that it should be so. I hope that my lone voice in support of the Minister today will not embarrass him.
I even accept the principle of ministerial override. It seems to me that that is a necessary protection at the end of the day. We may be asked to consider changes to the way in which override should be exercised, but the point surely is that the situation created by the Bill—I refer to the commissioner, for example—would ensure that, as a matter of political reality, no Minister would exercise the override unless he or she had the most cogent reason for doing so. If he or she did not have a cogent reason for doing so, that would very quickly be found out.
It is clear that this Bill will not satisfy the more ardent advocates of freedom of information legislation, or those who want to extract as much information as possible from public authorities—by leak if not by disclosure—almost irrespective of the possible consequences. But probably no legislation which any responsible government could introduce would completely satisfy such people. Whatever information becomes freely accessible, they will always want more; and they are always going to be disappointed.
There may be detailed changes that can be discussed in Committee, but I urge the Government to stick to the general principles of their proposals and to resist the siren voices calling on them to go a good deal further. After all, if we were to go too far, it would in practice be impossible to go into reverse. If, on the other hand, when we have had some experience of the arrangements provided for in this Bill, it seems to be desirable to go further, we should be able to see where further change would be appropriate and desirable and to make further provision accordingly, whether by legislation or by other means, such as a new or revised code of practice.
I am afraid that the House may feel that I am lending rather grudging support to the Bill, but, all things considered, I accept that your Lordships should give the Bill a Second Reading. As I say, I hope that my support for the position taken by the Government and by the noble and learned Lord in his speech will not embarrass him.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I felt almost intimidated from speaking in the debate on freedom of information by the awesome expertise that there is in your Lordships' House—but only "almost". Three main reasons made me overcome my reticence. First, I wanted to say to my noble and learned friend that I suspected that the Government would not have many
864
people praising the Bill today, and I wanted to begin by saying that they had at least made substantial progress in another place in improving the draft Bill. Secondly, I wanted to assert, however, that further modification of the Bill is necessary to make it more acceptable than it is at present. The third reason that led me to overcome my reticence and speak is that, although I fully understand and sympathise with the problems of government business managers, I was not totally convinced that having the Second Reading on Maundy Thursday, immediately before the Recess, was as wise as it was undoubtedly convenient.
My political instincts are not naturally rebellious. They are usually based on a fairly unreserved loyalty to a government of which I remain a proud and loyal supporter. However, there are times—and this is one—when the principles involved are so basic and fundamental that, in the nicest possible way, one needs to say to one's own government, "You have time; use it. You have already improved the draft Bill. Listen to your friends, listen to your supporters, listen to Parliament. Take those extra steps which were quite easy to see in opposition but which have become progressively obscured by office".
Apart from merging the guardian angel of transparency (the information commissioner) with the custodian of privacy (the data protection registrar) —an almost incomprehensibly bizarre decision, albeit for only two years—there are, for me, three areas of the Bill which need fundamental improvement.
First, the sweeping exemptions, both in number and scope, bias the Bill too far against disclosure. I urge my noble and learned friend to undertake to look again seriously at the exemptions, as it is the scope of the exemptions that make me sympathetic towards the demands for a purpose clause. I would not normally be much interested in a purpose clause; I would normally be sympathetic to the view expressed by Mike O'Brien in Standing Committee in another place, that a pro-disclosure purpose clause would make the Bill too unbalanced. However, I believe that it is the sweeping nature of the exemptions that unbalances the Bill. A different approach to exemptions would render a purpose clause unnecessary.
Let me make a brief comment on both the harm test exemptions and the class exemptions. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer mocked the use of words such as "substantial" in the harm test. However, the harm test proposed in the White Paper was that to withhold disclosure the authorities would need to demonstrate that "substantial harm" would result from disclosure. The Bill adopts the much weaker test of "prejudice"—this despite the fact that the Scottish executive, in its own freedom of information proposals, rests on including the word "substantially" to qualify the word "prejudice". I do not share the view that merely mocking the inclusion of the word is a fully adequate response. With the large number of class exemptions, it will mean that in substantial areas of public policy exemptions would apply whether or not the disclosure would cause harm. The result would be unjustified secrecy and could be greater secrecy than even the current openness code.

865
That is the more so when class exemptions include all information which,
"relates to the formulation or development of government policy".
The protection of the advice of the Civil Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, referred, is clearly necessary. The protection of factual information is clearly not necessary as a general rule. To justify a refusal to exclude factual information with a claim that it cannot be defined contradicts both Clause 13(5) of the Bill as well as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in the views which he gave to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and the Select Committee.
Similarly incomprehensible is the scope of Clause 34(2)(c) which gives authorities an unrestricted right to withhold information on the basis of the "reasonable opinion" of a "qualified person" that disclosure would,
"prejudice … the conduct of public affairs".
Improvement is therefore needed in the area of exemptions.
The second part of the Bill which I believe needs substantial re-examination concerns the Data Protection Registrar. Apart from the incongruity of locating the information commissioner's role together with that of the Data Protection Registrar, I am astounded that paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 applies the secrecy clause of the Data Protection Act to the information commissioner. I do not like emotive language about "gagging" clauses, but is that not indeed an apt description of the effect of it? Could we not find ourselves in the somewhat ludicrous position of the information commissioner breaching the secrecy obligation by disclosing that which members of the public could obtain for themselves under the Bill? If that is the case—I believe it to be so—that would be ludicrous indeed.
The third area of the Bill that causes me concern is that of the ministerial veto. In 1997, the Government White Paper explicitly rejected the proposition that the commissioner's power to order disclosure of exempt information where public interest favours disclosure should be subject to such ministerial veto. The case against the veto was compellingly made by the Government themselves in their 1997 White Paper:
"A government veto would undermine the authority of the information commissioner and erode confidence in the Act".
That is far more persuasive than the Home Office Minister in another place defending the veto as if it were some kind of fundamental democratic imperative.
I conclude with a clear expression of view to my noble and learned friend. I want freedom of information legislation. I want to protect government information that should be protected. In this Bill the exemptions are too broad and will allow too much information to be protected, not always for the worthiest of reasons. Amendments can and should be made. I hope that they will be made as I really do want to he able enthusiastically to support my Government in the Lobby at all stages in the passage of the Bill.
2.11 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who made some excellent points. I shall try not to repeat the points that he made.
Like the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I have sat here throughout the debate. I cannot help expressing the opinion that when the House meets at 11 a.m. there may be a case for us having a lunch hour. I make that point because I think that it may be the only one I make today on which I am able to carry the noble and learned Lord with me.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. What is involved here is an issue of culture. As an academic, I inhabit a culture where there is a propensity to openness. Academics do not so much withhold information as rush to publish it. It is appropriate that Parliament gives the Bill the most thorough consideration. In comparative terms, this Parliament is one of the most transparent that there is. The problem we are looking at is not one of Parliament but rather of government where there is a culture of secrecy.
As my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said, the Bill has been subject to extensive criticism by commentators outside the Palace of Westminster as well as by Members of the other place. The Bill has been a long time in coming, and what has emerged is a watered-down version of what was envisaged in the White Paper.
I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating what has been said. I want briefly to identify what I see as the four main failings of the Bill, drawing together some of the points that have been made in this debate and in the course of so doing putting a number of questions to the Minister.
The first failing is that the Bill does not give sufficient power to the information commissioner to require the disclosure of information. The point has been touched on by various speakers. There has been a limited amendment to the Bill, but the general criticism still holds. Clause 52 remains the crucial limitation. Even if the Bill is amended as the Minister has indicated, the veto will be exercised only by Cabinet Ministers acting with their colleagues' support, and the fact remains that Ministers can still have the final say. The justification offered in another place by the Home Office Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien, is that it would "profoundly undemocratic" for the commissioner to have the power to require disclosure.
Given that the topic has been well aired, I shall not refer to it at length. Instead, I simply ask the Minister; are not decisions taken by judges "profoundly undemocratic"; yet have not decision-making powers in other areas been transferred from the Home Secretary to the judges and, indeed, to other bodies? What is it that distinguishes this particular case—that of the commissioner—from the others?
The second failing is that the exemption covering information relating to the formulation and development of public policy is too wide. The point has already been well made in the other place as well

867
as by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; namely, the Bill fails to distinguish between advice given by officials and the factual information on which a decision is made. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between these sources.
The Home Secretary has claimed that the problem is that it is not possible to draw a distinction and to define factual information. In introducing the Bill today, the Minister referred to the problem of "disentangling" the two. The implication is that if a water-tight or usable definition could be produced, factual information could be placed in the public domain.
Does not such a distinction already exist in practice? Do not civil servants appearing before Select Committees have to draw a distinction between policy advice and straightforward information? As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, the distinction appears in the Bill at Clause 13(5). Also, will the Minister confirm that most other freedom of information Acts exclude information from an exempted category?
The third failing is that the test of "prejudice" is too weak. The White Paper proposed the "substantial harm" test, applied against seven specific interests. The Bill represents a massive shift from the proposals embodied in the White Paper. As the secretary for political affairs of the Methodist Church has put it, the term is,
"so feeble as to suggest that information will be suppressed if it simply embarrassing to the government".
One can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer claiming that some fairly minor information about the economy will be prejudicial, under the terms of Clause 27, to the economic interests of the United Kingdom. Clause 27(1)(b) provides even more scope. After all, a great deal of information—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The issue of whether information would be prejudicial to the economy of the country would be a matter on which the information commissioner would have the last word, without any executive override. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I would; however, I still believe that there needs to be a stricter test in terms of more than simple prejudice. It is not so much a matter of who is defining it but of the test that is being applied to it. One can see that with other clauses as well if one approaches the matter simply in terms of prejudice. Indeed, Clause 34 is even more sweeping in its content, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has said. I should be interested to hear from the Minister precisely what is the justification for Clause 34(1)(c).
In replying, will the Minister also confirm that other leading countries, such as the United States, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have laws stipulating a "real harm" test. Incidentally, I noted that in his highly selective reference to freedom of
868
information laws in other countries the Minister omitted any reference to the law in New Zealand, which is often held up as the most effective example of such legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but will he indicate whether New Zealand has any kind of executive override?
Lord Norton of Louth: Yes, my Lords, it does. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That point has been mentioned by other speakers and I am happy to concede it. My point was that the noble and learned Lord made no reference at all to New Zealand. There are other provisions which are relevant in the context of this discussion; the Minister was selectively taking from other countries occasional points to support his case but he did not look at others which conflicted with the provisions of the Bill. The information that I have about New Zealand suggests that one should be looking at it in slightly more rigorous form than has been the case today.
The fourth failing is in respect of the number of exemptions. I have already touched on those that are subject to the test of prejudice. In addition, and more controversial, are the class exemptions. Again, as we have heard, the White Paper did not propose class exemptions. Information is exempt even if its release would not cause any harm at all. As the Minister has stated, in order to obtain such information an applicant would have to show that its release would be in the public interest. The onus is on the applicant, not on the public authority.
The protection of information goes beyond what even some of the bodies concerned regard as reasonable. The Bill is, by comparative standards, excessive in the protection that it accords to information. It is excessive not only in relation to the freedom of information laws in other countries but in relation to the code of practice on access to government information that it supersedes. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already put questions to the Minister on this matter and I do not repeat them. However, given the range of exemptions already on offer, how does the noble and learned Lord justify Clause 43? After all, one must ask what is left given the range of exemptions in the Bill. Following on from what a number of noble Lords have said, can the Minister identify a single Back-Bench Member of the other place who spoke in support of class exemptions when they were discussed at Report stage?
This is a substantial Bill which I fear the Government may get wrong. If we are to have a freedom of information Bill, why not stick to the proposals in the White Paper rather than adopt the prejudices of certain Members of the Government? I have put a number of questions to the Minister. I trust that the answers that I seek do not fall into an exempted category, because the House is entitled to full answers.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am pleased that we are taking some further steps away from a culture of secrecy to more openness in government. Despite the criticisms which have been made of the Bill, I believe that it is another step on the path to openness. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell very much regrets being unable to be here today, but I am sure that he will play an active part in the further stages of this Bill. My noble and learned friend has been committed to this cause for a long time and no doubt will want to be vocal in advocating it as we proceed to the Committee stage.
I have been swamped with information about the Bill, so much so that it is virtually unmanageable. In addition, I find the Bill very complicated and hard to follow, but perhaps that is because I am not a lawyer. I believe that, by and large, the Government are committed to openness despite the criticisms that have been made. But this Bill is not solely about freedom of information as it would be practised by this Government. We might at some future point have a government which was not committed to the cause of openness. Therefore, it is right that we should look at the Bill carefully to see whether it would protect our rights under any government, not just one that is sympathetic to openness.
My noble and learned friend indicated in opening that the Government were open-minded about some of the detailed proposals. He suggested that the Government would themselves table amendments at Committee stage to deal with some of the points raised in another place and today. But my noble and learned friend also indicated that the Government were open to persuasion. I speak as someone who welcomes the Bill but seeks to give the Government a gentle nudge here and there. I trust that the Minister appreciates the positive spirit in which some of us on the Government Benches approach this Bill.
In this morning's newspapers reference is made to the release of certain MI5 files which reveal that Hitler had personally ordered the execution of 50 allied prisoners of war, mainly British, who had escaped and been recaptured. This information comes to light more than 50 years after the event. I cannot for the life of me see what purpose has been served under our public records legislation by keeping such information secret for over 50 years. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication as to whether under this Bill the position will be more relaxed. I interpret Clause 61 as saying that in future such information may be available after 30, not 50, years. I give this example only to point out that there are times when, for reasons not revealed to us, information which could not possibly cause any damage or harm to government or anybody else is kept secret for far too long. I very much hope that the Bill will prevent the kind of secrecy of which I have given an example.
I should like to turn to the question of policy formulation by the Government and the way in which the Bill applies a constraint to information about it. Documents about the development of government
870
policy, documents that cover the options that Ministers have to think about, should clearly be exempt. That would not be in dispute.
I recall that during my time as a Minister in Northern Ireland there were one or two leaks of such documents that were very damaging, because they were used by the opponents of the peace process to undermine it. I was also in my department the victim of one such leak, which the Democratic Unionist Party used to try to embarrass the government, although it was simply a letter that I wrote to a fellow Minister about particular aspects of financing housing. They were sensitive housing matters, because they concerned how we dealt with police officers who had been intimidated out of their homes at the time of Drumcree. The matter took a week to be resolved. In the meantime, the DUP stepped in and tried to embarrass the Government. Clearly, such things should not become public.
There is a distinction between making public policy advice and policy documents which can harm the work of government and the bulk of documents that I saw as a Minister which do not harm government. I followed the discussion about the distinction between facts and policy. It would require civil servants to write different sorts of documents or to separate the facts from policy. In my experience of the submissions I received from civil servants about policy, facts and argument were intertwined. They would have to write the documents differently in order to separate them. What we do not want is an outcome which means that civil servants have to doctor their documents or write them less persuasively for Ministers simply to meet the requirements of legislation like this. Worse still, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, mentioned, one might get verbal rather than written briefings, and that would not be desirable.
However, the noble Lord also referred to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, to our Select Committee that the Civil Service could manage without loss of helpfulness in its documents to separate facts from opinion. I am not sure about that. It is certainly one view.
Another approach might be to apply the test of harm, or substantial harm. That might be an easier path down which to go, because so many ministerial documents are quite innocuous. Some time ago I was approached by some reporters from the Guardian, who said with glee that they were getting from the Irish Government under that government's freedom of information provisions certain documents about meetings I had had with Irish Ministers. That sounded ominous, but it was not at all. It concerned a meeting I had had with an Irish Minister to publicise a joint approach to improving road safety in Northern Ireland and the Republic. After the meeting I had gone on television and announced what the meeting was about as fully as I could, so there was not much that was sensitive in that document. But the freedom of information provisions in Dublin led to the production of a document for the Irish Minister saying "Items which may be raised by Lord Dubs in

871
discussion over lunch". Well, I did raise them; they got that right. Then it included a note of a meeting with me on that date and what we discussed, all of which I announced on television. My point is that there are many such documents which are quite innocuous, and we achieve nothing by keeping them secret.
I should have liked to see some relaxation in the Bill's approach to government documents and advice to Ministers. I have said that some are very sensitive and should under no circumstances be made public, but others are not. Of course, we do not want them to cause damage to the work of government. Reference has been made to the United States freedom of information provisions. I have here a letter written by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister to the US Secretary of Transportation concerning aviation policy. The Americans produced the document. I do not suppose we would go that far. I should like to quote briefly from the letter, as follows:
"The essential point, put plainly, is that the law is unacceptable to the UK Government: it is an infringement of UK sovereignty and would cause severe economic consequences for the UK aviation industry".
That is pretty robust language. The letter continues:
"In our submission we urge the FAA [Federal Aviation Authority] to revert to Congress to explain that this legislation is fundamentally flawed and ultimately unworkable".
It states finally:
"I believe the only right course is for the Hatch Amendment to be repealed and I hope the Administration will take action to achieve this end".
That is a pretty robust letter, critical of the American legislation which the American freedom of information legislation itself produced. I mention it only to demonstrate that the American Government are willing to withstand publication of letters of that kind.
I understand that under the Bill's provisions government policy advice would be kept for 30 years. I have argued that perhaps a different test might release some of the information earlier. I believe that 30 years is a rather long time. After all, in Britain we have the publication of minutes of meetings between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, and of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee. Those are highly sensitive issues and yet they are published. In my experience as a Minister, almost invariably the "line to take" document for meetings with outsiders was one which I could have handed to them at the beginning of the meeting.
I welcome the New Zealand practice of publishing advice to incoming governments. I believe that we call them first day briefs. We could do that fairly easily in this country. My experience of first day briefs—apart from the fact that they are voluminous—is that they present good background information but nothing sensitive.
I welcome the Minister's comments on this point. Other governments have freedom of information legislation; and some of the devolved administrations within the UK are going to move in that direction.
872
Would there be a difficulty if different approaches produced documentation about the same event in different degrees of detail? In one case there might be no documentation but in the other some.
Finally, I refer to the protection of consumers under commercial confidentiality and provisions about investigations. I do not think that the Bill has got it right. We need to do more to ensure that consumers are given information about their own health and safety. I fear that the provisions of the Bill as drafted would deny us information which should be in the public domain. After all, information belongs not to the Government but to ordinary people. In their capacity as consumers, people should have the right to some of that information and I hope that we can amend the Bill accordingly.
2.32 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have concentrated today mainly on the governmental aspect of the Bill, but it is also notable that it is destined to encompass local authorities. I speak today as a member of one of those local authorities.
For years there has been steady pressure on local authorities to be open and transparent in the conduct of their business, their openness of meetings, availability of material and their dealings with the public. Some local authorities have been compliant with that and others, it has to be acknowledged—not my local authority—have been somewhat noncompliant.
However, the expectations and the legislation have been there. For example, information held on any individual client has been available to that client under the Data Protection Act 1984. That Act introduced a statutory right of access to files and records. These rights were extended by the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and by the further Data Protection Act 1998.
On access to details behind policy and background information, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 provided that that information has to be given on request. It was, therefore, within local government that the initial requirements for freedom of information were directed. It is somewhat ironic that the enactments brought under various Conservative governments are only now being brought to bear on other public bodies.
There is a further irony in that the Home Office is bringing forward this legislation while the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is undermining it in two recent pieces of legislation. Your Lordships will recall that in the Local Government Bill, which is still being considered in the other place, new executive structures will be permitted to consist of members of just one party and that their decisions will be able to be made in private. There will be fruitful ground here for those seeking access to the rationale behind those decisions to seek remedy from the commissioner.
Under the Greater London Authority Act, the mayor will be able to prevent any advice and information given to him or her being brought into the

873
open because that advice, as with ministerial advice, is specifically exempted. Is it proposed to align these two aspects of legislation with the Freedom of Information Bill? The potential for the new commissioner to be overwhelmed with requests for information from these two sources alone is very real.
However, I turn to the role of the commissioner in the local government context and ask for an explanation of the process which would enable those who feel aggrieved to take matters straight to her. At present in local government, those seeking information which has so far been denied them have recourse to the chief executive of the local authority; the director of legal services and/or the monitoring officer, if not the same person; their local councillor and the ombudsman. In that context, what aspect or role will the ombudsman play in future because at present the ombudsman has the right to insist on information being provided? Will there be a direct relationship between local government ombudsmen and the commissioner? As has already been stated, the applicant will have rights to go to court.
Is it the intention that these routes and roles should he abolished and that recourse should be only to the commissioner, or is there to be a right of arbitration from, say, a scrutiny committee, with potentially a ministerial veto in local government provided, for example, by local councillors? How will we prevent the commissioner having "fishing expeditions" put on her through information given and then having to find out a great deal about it from local authorities?
As regards decisions made within the new local authority executive structures, will they be capable of implementation if access to information behind those decisions is being challenged? For how long will they be held up if they are challenged by reference to the commissioner? Indeed, will there be any reason for the matters to go forward while the challenge is taking place?
As regards the costs of the commission, the Bill allows local authorities to make charges for providing information, but the expectation is that all other costs will be absorbed. In opening, the Minister said that there will be no costs for application to the commissioner, but will there be costs to those who provide information? Will there be an expectation that those will be absorbed within the council tax?
Even in terms of local government, a distinction is to be made between advice that is given to the ruling party and the information behind that guidance. It is my experience that practically always the background papers and reasons can be made public—and they should be—but that sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said earlier, advice should be given in private. That is an aspect of the Bill which will have to be clarified as we go through it if we are not to finish up with people in very considerable confusion in future.
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill's assertion of the public right to official
874
information. It is an important step forward. I also welcome the most useful legal definition, captured in Clause 13(5), of,
"factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking",
together with a statutory validation of public interest in communicating such information. I want to say a few words about factual information. I hope to complement rather than duplicate what has been eloquently said.
This is not a new idea. We in the civil service prepared for it many years ago, incidentally, with the backing of the First Division Association, our trade union. But the government of the day did riot eventually bring forward a law of that kind, although, if I may respectfully say so, I readily acknowledge that the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, seemed to be in the right place. It is welcome to see a reference in law at last.
The idea of a public right to the factual information which informs the decisions of public authorities is not, I suggest, given proper weight in the Bill. I hope that improvements can be made in that and in other areas. The Bill provides that the only time a member of the public could have access to factual information related to the formulation and development of policy, would be if the authority which owned it chose to disclose it, although it must have regard to the public interest in disclosure. That does not constitute a real right to the factual basis of political decisions.
I do not see how anyone who has seen the processes of government can object to keeping back the policy discussions. That and the justifications of other exemptions have already been described in the debate.
But some classes of information in the Bill give pause for thought. Clause 26(1) exempts information which,
"would be likely to prejudice relations between any administration in the United Kingdom".
Does that mean that official surveys of harmful industrial pollution moving from one to another of the UK nations—a factual matter—can be kept secret? And what about possible radioactive discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea, also a factual matter? Does the clause which exempts the disclosure of information likely to prejudice relations between the UK and any other state mean that the Irish Government may not know what BNFL discharges? Might disclosure of these matters be held by the public authority to,
"prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs",
to quote another of the Bill's restrictions?
And I am really puzzled by the exempt class of information which may prejudice,
"the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work",
or that which may prejudice,
"the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work [the public] against risk to health and safety arising out of work activities".
I am concerned about those as examples because, having worked in the Health and Safety Executive for several years, apart from the need to safeguard

875
commercial confidence or, if necessary, larger national interests, we saw every advantage in communicating the relevant factual information. Those who drafted the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act must have agreed because it is studded with open-government provisions, preserved, I hope, by Clause 76 of the Bill.
It will not surprise your Lordships that I do not share all the strictures against civil servants that I have heard today. We took the view that the public should be in a position to understand judgments and decisions about the nature of risk from, or the costs and benefits of, for instance, nuclear or industrial chemical activities, and that it needed to be informed in order to provide that degree of consent on which democratic governments must rely in resolving conflicts of interest, as my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon has said. Ignorance was often a condition of scaremongering—harmful to industry and safety alike. That may be why the CBI also supports a right to the release of factual information.
Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister can refine the text of the Bill to enable a clearer right to the evidence on which decisions are taken. At bottom, the arguments seem simple. Money is spent in people's names; decisions are taken on their behalf; and risks are taken with their interests. Do they not have a right to know the factual basis of decisions? I look forward to hearing how the Bill can accommodate that straightforward entitlement.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the Prime Minister said, a freedom of information Act is intended to mark a change in the contract between government and the governed; to institute a culture shift in public authorities towards the provision of information to the public. Therefore, the first question that we must ask of this Bill is: does it achieve that? Is this a true freedom of information Bill?
As the Bill comes before us today, it is not. It has a structure with an enormous number of exemptions from the basic right to information. I believe that that is liveable with. I listened to many of the arguments in the course of our examination of the draft Bill, and I can see that we could live with a structure like that. In certain circumstances, it allows for the information commissioner to be overruled by politicians. I believe that we can live with that, provided that it is done in a way which makes it difficult for the politicians to act in such a way because it will be unusual and out in public. In most cases, it provides for public interest to be taken into account. I hope that there may be opportunities to widen the cases which are taken into account under Clause 13. That is crucial.
However, the whole essence of the Bill is killed by Clauses 52 and 34. They prevent the information commissioner from taking a role in decisions under Clause 13. They mean that a whole range of minor officials and functionaries of one-party-state local governments have the right to say, "No, the balance of public interest is against its release", and the
876
information cannot then be released. Under Clause 34 they have a right to create exemptions out of thin air. That clause is so widely drawn that again the whole myriad of public officials can create an exemption under Clause 34 and then use Clause 52 to deny the information commissioner the right to examine it under Clause 13.
The way in which the Bill is now written means that it is not a freedom of information Bill; it does not fulfil the Government's promise in their manifesto, and I believe that we are entitled to treat it with great roughness. Therefore, I await with considerable interest the Government's proposed amendments to Clause 52. I understand what they are doing at government level to make that a collective Cabinet decision. That would satisfy me if it could be written into the Bill in that way. But what will happen to all those lesser functionaries who occupy two-thirds of the clauses? There are all those little bits and pieces which are done in local government and the ability to delegate that power to issue certificates to all and sundry down the chain. That seems to me to be extremely dangerous. If the Government recognise that decisions under Clause 52 must be taken in the full glare of publicity so that they are taken rarely and only when they are really justified, we cannot have that proliferation of people who are allowed to issue those certificates under Clause 52.
Similarly, as regards Clause 34, there must be similar restrictions on the people who are allowed to create exemptions. It is such a widely drawn clause that it can be used to apply to almost anything that public authorities do. There must be a considerable limitation on those who are allowed to do that. If it is so widely drawn, as it is in the Bill at present, it becomes extremely difficult to hold anybody to account because the resources and mechanisms for doing that just do not exist.
But I am encouraged by what the Minister said. I hope that he will produce his amendments in time for us to produce amendments to his amendments. That will be essential if we are not to ask for re-committal, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not wish to take up time in that way. I hope to see his amendments at least a couple of days before-and my noble friend would like to see them before that. I know the pressure that we found ourselves under in those circumstances, but I shall certainly want to be able to table amendments to the government amendments on Clause 52.
Many noble Lords have raised great issues of principle in their speeches. I hope that they will follow that through and that they will table their own amendments for the Committee stage. It is no good relying on an over-worked Front Bench and the odd inspiration from Back-Benchers to produce a proper set of amendments on a Bill such as this. We must all pursue our own individual inspirations so that the Government may have the benefit of as many ideas as possible as regards how the Bill might be improved.
I have started out on that road with a fine heart. I have tabled 63 amendments today which mostly cover little points which have not yet been raised and I shall

877
now deal with one or two of them. First, the Bill does not recognise the existence of the Internet. There are two main problems when it comes to that form of availability of information. First, under this Bill it is still permissible to provide information in a form which does not constitute accessibility over the Internet and to say then that that information is freely available. These days, that is just not acceptable.
Secondly, there is the problem of Crown copyright. A lot of information is "produced" to the public but remains under Crown copyright. I believe that it must be for a person who obtains information under the Bill to publish it on the Internet so that is made available to other people through the medium which is now commonly used to disseminate that information. This Bill must recognise that that is the way that things should be done. We must make the necessary provisions and changes for regulations and fees, if that is what it takes, so that we can use a modern means for communicating the information which we get under the Bill.
I have had a little difficulty which may illustrate the problem. I have been trying to obtain permission to publish on my website the list of schools which Ofsted published in 1998 as being worthy of special attention. Ofsted claims that it does not have that document in electronic form; it is not available over the Internet; and under Crown copyright it has, as yet, two months after the request, failed to give me permission to publish it, even though that list was issued to newspapers and has been widely reproduced in them. We should not allow that sort of practice to continue under this Bill.
Secondly, I wish to examine in considerable depth the question of there being no compulsion to confirm or deny the existence of information. As the Bill is currently drafted, if there is information of the type that does not have to be confirmed or denied, then the authority must say that there is information of this type. If there is not information of this type, then it does not have to say that there is information of this type. In other words, the Bill is so set that the ability not to confirm or deny that information exists is actually negated by the fact that the public authority has always to state that there is information that it is not confirming or denying exists. When there is not such information, it does not make that clear.
It is difficult to see how that will work in practice; whether the Government actually mean that in any case where there could be such information there would have to be a statement to the effect, "By the way, there might be information that we're not telling you, but we don't have to tell you", in which case, everyone will have to go to the information commissioner and ask, "Is there such information?"; or whether they have put themselves in a position where the whole system is unnecessary because it is only when there is information that they are hiding that they have to say that there is information that they may be hiding, by which it becomes clear that they are hiding information.
878
I am confused as to how that process will work and I am uncertain as to why it should appear in so many clauses. It seems that it has just been stuck in there as a bit of sticking plaster in case there might possibly be information of that kind. I shall look to Committee stage to examine individually the occasions where that provision appears and to seek from the Government examples and justification as to why that should be so.
I share also the concern of many noble Lords on the question of confidentiality, which appears in several guises in several clauses. It seems essential that public authorities should be under a duty at least to ask whomever it is who holds that confidentiality in his gift whether he is prepared for the public authority to disclose that information. Again, perhaps I may draw on a recent example. I asked in this House what was the genetic make-up of a particular patient who appears to have NV CJD. I was told by the Minister that that could not be revealed because of patient confidentiality.
I have talked to the person who is guardian of that confidentiality, who has told me the answer. The fact that the Government refuse to talk to that person and refuse therefore to obtain permission for themselves so that they cannot publicly state the information means that we cannot have the debate on the crucial consequences of the answer. The answer reveals something which should lead to public debate and should be open to us to pursue in detail. I quite understand that confidentiality must be respected in many cases, but to be able to rely on it by refusing to ask permission to break it is quite extraordinary. That is something which again we must not allow to continue.
We must also be careful to ensure that in those circumstances where partial information would be enough, that partial information is provided. If there is some information in the answer to a question which should remain secret, the Government should make efforts to anonymise the information or to render it in other ways publishable. I have seen that clone many times; for example, with exam information, where clearly one does not want to distribute the names of individual pupils in schools as to how well they have done. That is private information, but distributing examination information about schools should be something which can be done publicly. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no obligation to disclose the partial information because disclosing the full information would clearly be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
We must seek to remedy that. Indeed, we should go further and place a general duty on public authorities to assist those who seek information and to do their best to help such people obtain what information can sensibly be obtained, rather than just duplicating the game we play with Written Questions at present whereby officials try to not-quite-answer the Question asked and not quite to provide the information one would have asked for if one had asked the Question in a slightly different way. An attitude of helpfulness, having experienced many years of the other attitude from both sides, would be enormously appreciated by

879
the ordinary member of the public who does not believe that playing such games is really what life should be about.
Many times I have stated my support for a purpose clause and this Bill would support such a clause. It would inform all decisions taken under the Bill. The clause would not need to be complicated, but it could be a simple statement of what the Bill is about. For those many hundreds of thousands of people who, as part of their working lives, will have to take decisions under this Bill, life would be made easier if there were a clause at the front of the Bill stating what it is about. If that were so, they would not have to rely on their own interpretations of the rather obscure meaning of the difficult wording in many parts of the Bill.
2.59 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I believe that it is rather unfair to criticise the Government for tabling a Second Reading today. For starters, one can imagine the reception that whipped business would have. As regards legislation, there is a strict code of practice about the time given between various stages of a Bill and the way in which business has to be dealt with. I would write off that criticism as an Oxford Union debating point.
From time to time, when I was Opposition Chief Whip, I must confess that I did suppress information because sometimes one of my Front Bench speakers would rush to me with a leak that I would not allow them to use. I would say, "You think that you are going to be in Opposition permanently, but apart from the ethical side of it, you are not going to do it".
I do not pretend any great morality or standards, because the Conservative Chief Whips treated me in the same way. From time to time they would hand me a piece of paper, often without comment, or they might say something like, "This was left in a photocopier", when in fact they had snaffled it from one of their Members who was about to exploit it and get it back to me. A number of things were done rather differently in those days.
Listening to my noble friends on the Front Bench, I feel some sympathy for them. Perhaps we should be searching for a new procedural phrase such as, "I beg to move the Second Reading and give notice of substantial amendments to follow". We seem to be getting into that habit.
As a son of a Congregational minister, early in life I became familiar with the famous saying by Pasteur Martin Niemoeller about how, as the Germans came for successive groups of people—the Communists, the Jews, the trade unionists, the Catholics—he spoke about nothing that did not concern him, but when they came for him there was nobody to speak up for him.
My speech will not deal with the minutiae of the Bill, but I want to treat this as another major piece of constitutional legislation. We have had a great deal of constitutional legislation from this Government and it is about time that we took stock of what is happening and gave it time to bed in. I am not against it, because
880
in the 1970s I drove through Bills in relation to Scotland and Wales and the Bill on direct elections for the European Parliament. At that time we were not able to satisfy the Liberal requests, but that was not for want of me trying.
I am not against the Bill per se but, if we are honest with ourselves, we must recognise that a great deal of this constitutional change has arisen through the activities of highly organised, highly professional pressure groups. I feel that my own party has been bounced into accepting much of this. I have only one quotation to illustrate that matter. According to Hansard:
"At the Labour Party conference of 1994 the delegate for Bristol, South … reported back that on Thursday afternoon, 'The debate was headed "A Modern Democracy" and was a quick romp through Local Government, Constitutional Reform, Electoral Reform, "Equalities", Law and Criminal Justice and democratisation of Quangos"'. —[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. 1296.]
I believe that that is almost a full house.
This matter has been pursued by highly specialist people and there is no great groundswell behind it. I am not against the Bill but I object to the fact that as a justification there has been a constant belittling of this country as though it were a second-class state. Sometimes it is almost suggested that it is a police state. That is absolute nonsense. As I do not wish to detain the House, I shall give just one example.
On 28th February 1994 in the other place, the Member for Nottingham North, Mr Allen, said:
"The idea of democracy as a system of government by the people, for the people and of the people is an increasingly laughable characterisation of the over centralised, unaccountable and Executive-dominated system that passes for a democracy in this country".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/94; col. 682.]
It is not good enough to have to sustain one's argument by that sort of hyperbole—a word I have not used since sixth form. It is unfair to the ordinary people of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, will know Mr Graham Allen; he is on the Constitution Unit Council. I believe his name appears underneath that of the noble Lord's.
The knocking of this country is extremely unfair. The other day the 190-odd of the 300 Battle of Britain pilots who are still alive held a reunion. We have to be proud of them and proud of what this country has done. We must have had something worth while because, when we were in trouble, people in the Commonwealth came from all over the world to help us out. They did not continually point out that we did not have a written constitution and no freedom of information Act. When we were in trouble they came and helped.
I asked the Imperial War Museum about that. I was told that the total dead from the Commonwealth in the First World War was 203,568—they did not quibble when we needed them—59,000 were killed from Australia alone. In the Second World War, the Commonwealth lost 108,929 people. They had again come to our aid when we needed them. India had 2.5 million serving in the Indian Army by 1945 and suffered 200,000 casualties. It was the largest volunteer army there has ever been.

881
So there really is something about this country we need to treasure. When we are talking about improvements, we need to bear those factors in mind. If we had not received that help, this country would have gone under and the people abroad who now lecture us about our failings in human rights and so forth would still be under an extremely unpleasant tyranny.
We should also remember the people who came from the Caribbean: there were some 6,000 Caribbean Commonwealth members in the RAF. I always try to remember that point when we are talking about the banana regime and the efforts of the American multinationals to do them out of business in their monoculture regime. We need to call that to mind also.
I do not suggest that we do not proceed with this Bill; it is a good Bill—if I can cast aside my old reincarnation! But we need to pause; to take stock; and to see how these things start to work out. As soon as we have introduced this Bill, there will be further demands for other changes. Earlier this week in the other place Dr Vincent Cable, the Member for Twickenham, asked a Question in relation to the investigation of the personal conduct of judges. One of our Back-Benchers asked whether there was a,
"truly independent evaluation and monitoring of judges".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/00; col. 822.]
The demands will go on and on. The Charter 88 briefing which we received this morning gave this Bill a good panning. It said:
"Only then [when all the changes they want have been made] will we begin to build a society which delivers better public services and a great sense of trust in our elected politicians".
It simply will not do continually to knock what is a fine country. Noble Lords may recall the efforts of police when they were trying to get an old lady out of her house when a bomb was discovered in the East End of London. She said, "I was hit twice and I'm not shifting". We are a marvellous country. We should remember that sometimes. And when we are making these necessary improvements, we should not let others use them as an excuse for running us down.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in his list of honour would he be prepared to include the Bangladeshi seamen and stokers in the British Merchant Navy, who also did us a great service in the war and who number many tens of thousands?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I would certainly pay tribute to them. I had a great deal more material from the Imperial War Museum, but I did not wish to try the patience of your Lordships too much. However I take my noble friend's point.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I will not pursue very far what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has said, beyond saying that one of the great glories of this country has been an ability to change incrementally and without revolution. It was, I
882
think, the great historian Lord Macaulay, whose thoughts were captured by Tennyson in his marvellous remark about,
"broadening down from precedent to precedent".
What we are today debating, the Freedom of Information Bill, is very directly related to how far this country can move with the times of a new post-Industrial Revolution—the information revolution—in a way that will enable us not only to retain but to broaden and enrich our democracy by accepting that today an educated and much more sophisticated electorate wishes to be part of its own government by broadening out the process of consultation. In my view, at least in part, that is what this Bill was intended to bring about. That is why this has been a remarkable and indeed illustrious debate, conferring great credit on the House of Lords.
One of the things one feels from time to time in this House is that occasionally Ministers and other Front Bench spokesmen become aware that there is a need to alter Bills in order to meet what is a very broad and reasoned set of objections. It was the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who referred to "siren voices". It is of course possible that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and Lady Thornton, could be so described, although I rather doubt it. However, when one gets the noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weedon, Lord Lucas, Lord Tomlinson, Lord Young, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to mention only some of those who have spoken, all hewing to exactly the same line of criticism and arguing, if I may say so, eloquently and effectively, one then has to ask whether Ministers should not listen and make the changes that are necessary to make this Bill what it could well be: a pillar of our democracy, rather than an obstacle to change.
I think that would be very much in the spirit of what the Prime Minister said recently not only in another place—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to his remarks—but only a month and a half ago, when he opened a conference called Knowledge 2000. He said:
"Our job is to make sure it is not the preserve of an elite—but an Internet for the people.
"We have to democratise the new economy. We must ensure that it is open to all".
I believe that what the Prime Minister then said must be borne out in the terms, thrust and meaning of this Bill. We stand on the edge of a very different world—something that, in talking about modernisation, this Government have emphasised again and again. The experience of other countries like Scandinavia, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia and Canada—this is not to cast aspersions upon our own country—has been that once one opens up the doors of information, more and more intelligent and informed citizens are about to contribute to the process of making laws.
Today in the United States laws are put on the Internet, and almost immediately large numbers of citizens try to take part by suggesting amendments, drafting proposals, indicating comments and

883
suggesting ways in which clauses can be improved. I believe that our own intelligent and responsible citizenry could make a similar contribution.
I do not believe that this Bill, as it currently stands, with these huge areas of exemption from its purpose, with the substantial requirements which must be met in order to allow public interest to take precedence over what is called the effective conduct of government, is yet in a position to encourage that new development. If we do not change the Bill in a way that I shall later suggest the noble and learned Lord is in a very strong position to do, what troubles me is that we shall simply find ourselves like so many Canutes sitting on a wet beach telling the rest of the information revolution to, "Go away".
Bluntly, as implied by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, in what he said about the European Union, if one wants to get fuller information one turns at the present time to the EU websites in many areas. They are far more open and contain much fuller information than anything that is available in this country on, for example, a large range of economic and financial matters. However, in order not to trouble noble Lords who do not care for the European Union, perhaps I may give the example of the United States where many of our newspapers have gone for information under the Freedom of Information Act on such matters as thalidomide and, more recently, on BSE—information that they could not get from British Government departments.
During the next year or two, I suspect that many of us will have a lot of fun and run up very large telephone bills ringing Scotland in order to obtain information that is barred in Britain, or, more precisely, in England and Wales. That is hardly an encouraging priority for successful devolution of power. It will simply make Westminster look old-fashioned, out of date and obsolete in comparison with Edinburgh, let alone other countries in the world. I believe that we will sit here looking foolish if most information can be acquired from other sources.
There is also another crucial aspect here to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred. All of us are well aware, both in government and outside, of the extensive scale of leaking of government information. Indeed, it has become the case that if you want to know what is going on, you read the more irresponsible newspapers rather than turning to government. In my view, that is in part a cause of the profoundly disturbing poll results that show distrust in governments of all parties.
By making more information available, Ministers will actually find themselves getting very much better coverage and discussion on their policy proposals because they will not be relying on leaks, many of which are heavily distorted by the political ambitions of the leaker. Those of us who have been Ministers are well aware that there are a few people in every government who like to engage in the process of being opportunistic at the expense of their colleagues by being readily available for the more irresponsible journalists with information about those colleagues
884
which is not intended to be helpful to them. Therefore, for those reasons, quite apart from those that have already been very effectively argued in this House, I believe that this Bill will find itself bypassed if it is not fundamentally changed.
I would be wasting the time of the House if I went through yet again the major points made so effectively by other Members of this House. However, there is the extent of the Bill's exemptions, which go far beyond what I believe is really essential to protect what one might describe as the "crucial secrets" of government. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, went further than most of us by referring to Clauses 25 and 26 which protect the communications between governments. But in a globalising world deeply concerned with human rights legislation which goes beyond borders, one cannot have total protection for communications between governments. There was a good example of that in the House earlier today when many questions were raised about the communications between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Russia. That kind of question will not go away.
Many noble Lords referred to another aspect of the Bill; namely, the weakness of the test that needs to be met as regards deciding to refuse to release information. Many of us wanted "substantial harm" or "substantial prejudice" to be included in the terms of meeting that test. With great respect, I believe that the noble and learned Lord too easily dismissed the concern that many of us have and which was so eloquently expressed by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who sit on his own Benches. The test appears to be relatively weak and means that a "qualified person", who may be no more than a middle-ranking official, will be in a position to say that information to a citizen shall not be made available.
I refer in passing to the weakness of the commissioner. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the commissioner will have adequate resources. I hope that he will look again at the position of the commissioner and give her the ability to make the final judgment in all but the most extreme cases.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is widely recognised to be a man of great ability and, if I may say so, also of great influence. I hope that the Cabinet will listen to him and to the views expressed in this debate rather than to what one might describe as the somewhat tainted advice—if this is true; it may be just gossip—of one of only two Presidents of the United States this century to be charged with impeachment. That is not, surely, the best possible source of advice on issues concerning freedom of information.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has the position, the power and the influence to be able to turn this Bill into an effective weapon of modernising government and to make government more open, responsible and accountable to citizens. I very much hope that he will attempt to do that because this is one of the few occasions when almost the whole House—I exclude the noble Lord,

885
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, for reasons that he gave powerfully, but which I do not believe in the end carry sufficient credibility—speaks with a single, powerful and effective voice in the name of wider democracy. I trust that the Minister will listen carefully to what has been said.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, in February 1996 the Prime Minister stated that,
"The first right of a citizen in a mature democracy should be the right to information".
In July 1998 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Clark, said in the other place,
"This Government are committed to freedom of information legislation. We have the declaration in our manifesto and we shall deliver on that manifesto commitment".
Therefore we on this side of the House were not surprised when the Bill was produced. However, when we look at it in more detail, as with so much of what New Labour produces, we find that it is not what it appeared at first to be. We can only concur with Maurice Frankel, director of Freedom of Information, that
"In key areas the Bill is weaker than the openness code introduced by the Conservatives in 1994".
In a powerful speech my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral confirmed that.
We on this side of the House have four main objections to the Bill. First, it could keep more information secret than is currently the case under the code of practice due to an increasing number of exemptions, more class exemptions and replacement of the "harm" test with the tighter test of "prejudice" on the release of information. Secondly, Ministers and officials would continue to make decisions rather than an enforcement body. Thirdly, there is no role for Parliament which should have the final say in matters of public interest. Fourthly, the process of application to the courts is cumbersome for members of the public.
Clearly we are not the only party worried by the proposals. Almost all speakers were concerned about aspects of them. The Minister had to rely, albeit grudgingly, on the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster—described by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as a Mandarin's Mandarin—for the sole voice in support of the Bill as it stands.
In the other place up to 36 Labour Back-Benchers voted unsuccessfully for amendments to be made to the Bill. We on this side of the House will explore the detailed proposals. First, we question the class exemptions which extend beyond the scope of the code of practice, such as the exemption relating to investigations into accidents. Secondly, we shall want to explore the test for disclosure, as my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said, exploring "prejudice", "serious prejudice" and "serious harm".
Thirdly, we would amend arid strengthen the enforcement procedures, replacing, the commissioner and tribunal with a more powerful information ombudsman and a parliamentary information committee. This change would bring the decisions
886
made on freedom of information under democratic parliamentary control. The new committee would be modelled on the Public Accounts Select Committee. The route of appeal would he restricted to the applicant, giving authorities no right of appeal against decisions of the ombudsman. The role of the data protection registrar would not be merged with that of the ombudsman, thus separating the role of creating openness from the role of protection and secrecy.
As many noble Lords have said—including the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon—there should be a purpose clause. This was strongly recommended by all sides in the other place at Report stage. For instance, Dr Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, said:
"A purpose clause would set a genuine tone arid represent a culture".
He considered it a mystery why the Government was reluctant to endorse such a clause.
A purpose clause is also favoured by the CBI, which, in a parliamentary brief in February, stated that such a clause would send a clear message to public authorities and the public at large that a cultural change in favour of open government is expected.
Perhaps I may briefly mention other CBI worries about the Bill. It is worried about too much disclosure being necessary by public authorities, where it considers that public interests in disclosing override the commercial exemption of not doing so due to it constituting a trade secret or prejudicing commercial interests.
In addition, the CBI is concerned—as are many noble Lords and MPs in the other place—about Clause 33. In a nutshell, it feels that the scope of the exemption is too broad. By excluding information relating to the formulation or development of government policy, it feels that less sensitive information—such as factual information and background papers that inform policy considerations—should normally be available at least once a policy decision has been made.
In summary, we find that this Bill should really be called "The Restriction of Information Bill". Following the severe criticism of the Bill from all sides of this House and in the other place, I am sure that it will require careful revision here.
The Press agree. In a leader on 5th April, The Times expressed the hope that the Lords would give the Bill,
"The rough ride it deserves"—
and,
"Breathe some living freedom into this mournful ghost".
We plan to do exactly that in our scrutiny of it at the Committee stage.
Clearly the Government will have a fair number of amendments. I hope that they will table them quickly, as stated by my noble friend Lord Lucas. If they make any substantial changes to a clause, may I suggest that they delete the old clause and insert a new one in order that we may easily read the amended clause.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has been an extremely interesting and stimulating debate. Perhaps I may deal with the main themes that have run through it. A large number of points have been raised—many of which we shall get an opportunity to explore in Committee.
It is worth pointing out that I do not share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Various points have been made and, as one would expect in a Second Reading debate, many noble Lords raised concerns about the Bill. But there was a wide range of different concerns; many noble Lords would support one part of the Bill but not another.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, shakes his head. I am happy to say that he is the one who, two minutes ago, went so far as to say that the Bill provides for too much information to be disclosed. That is rather out of tune with what a number of other noble Lords are saying.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I heard the Minister make similar comments from a sedentary position. I really do think that he has misheard the debate if he does not see that some very solid, common criticisms were made in a range of contributions. He really must take on board those common criticisms. If he did not take them on board while he was listening to the debate, I suggest that he reads Hansard and they will become very apparent to him.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was listening very closely. I shall go through the main areas and explain the nature of the criticisms and where there were differences. But perhaps I may start with a number of points of principle.
First, we as a government are committed to introducing a legally enforceable right for the citizen to obtain information from the Government. Contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, whose personal commitment to disclosure I do not for one moment doubt, and contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, this cannot be done by a code of practice; it must be done by a legal right. We are the first government who have ever undertaken that burden. It is not without irony that we are criticised by the main Opposition party across the Dispatch Box for doing it in a particular way when it had 18 years in which to introduce such a Bill and never for one moment thought of doing so.
I cannot help but mention the irony of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, a man of influence in the 1974–79 government who concluded, after five years in power, that, if there was time, they thought they might introduce a code of practice. Sitting beside the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is a member of the Cabinet of that same government who has just delivered—the opportunity having passed by approximately 21 years ago to have made a difference about it—criticisms of our introduction of a legal right for people to have
888
information from the Government. I shall of course listen to the detailed criticisms, but it is impossible to resist the observation, "It's a bit rich!"
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble and learned Lord very briefly. First, he may remember something called the Croham directive, introduced in 1977, which produced a very substantial reduction in the amount of protected information. Secondly, perhaps I may say—because it has appeared in public in a book—that I was one of three Ministers in the 1976–79 Cabinet who supported a Freedom of Information Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very interested to hear that.
It is important to recognise that we are a government who have not heard any siren voice to distract us from the proposition that there must be a legally enforceable right.
Secondly, I accept all of the points made in relation to the fact that a Bill such as this should be as clear as possible in what it is trying to achieve. If any amendments assist in relation to clarity, we shall hear them with a very sympathetic ear and make changes to give effect to that principle of clarity. No one could disagree with that.
Thirdly, as I said at the outset, we shall equally remain open-minded about any proposals in relation to the Bill that could improve it in the context of the balance which the Bill seeks to strike. Whatever the detailed criticisms may have been, there appears to be broad consensus in the House that a number of interests have to be balanced. This is a Bill to compel disclosure of information. That compulsion, however, must be seen in the context of not damaging badly collective responsibility, and of giving government the freedom within which to make policy decisions. It should not unrealistically intrude on people's privacy and it should not trample over appropriate confidentiality. No one would disagree with those principles. The question is the extent to which we have the balance right; and, if we have the balance right, whether the drafting of the Bill is appropriate to give effect to that balance.
The difficulty in relation to the whole debate on the Bill is that, in expressing criticisms and concerns, people refer to different parts without looking at the balance as a whole. With a few exceptions, people have not stepped back and asked: is the balance about right? We believe that we have got the balance about right. If one moves the balance one way or another, it becomes difficult to have a Bill that achieves the necessary freedom to disclose information while also preserving people's individual rights and good government.
Several speakers referred to the number of exceptions; quantity was a real concern. They referred to the term "exemptions", claiming that it meant all the various provisions in the Bill which step back from a full obligation to disclose: that included not merely what may be termed class exemptions, but also those depending on a prejudice test.

889
Criticism having been expressed in regard to the number of exemptions, not one speaker suggested that any of the areas covered by them should not be covered in some way or another. No one, for example, said that there should not be some exemption in relation to policy, international relations or criminal investigation. So, having accepted that there must be some dilution in relation to the areas covered by what may loosely be described as "exemptions", whether class or prejudice, no one indicated that their number should be reduced, despite constant reference by a number of noble Lords to the number being too high.
I wonder whether that is a hangover from the comparison between the wording of the White Paper and the terms of the Bill. Although the wording of the White Paper was in many respects different from that of the Bill as originally drafted, the areas in which there is dilution are not substantially different from the proposals in the White Paper. So, although we shall have to explore this area again in Committee, I wonder whether the reference to complaints about numbers was properly thought out.
There were also complaints about the "harm" test. A number of noble Lords said that the reference should be to "substantial harm". That was the kind of test they were looking for. The word that was chosen where we are dealing with a harm test is "prejudice". To all lawyers present—there are depressingly few— "prejudice" will mean some real harm to government, or whatever the reference is in a particular part of the Bill. It is something real, and it is harm. Should it be "substantial harm", or should it be "prejudice"? That sounds like the kind of discussion that a lawyer would like to enter into, but it does not cut to the heart of the debate. It sounds much more theological, if I may use that word in this context, rather than cutting to the fundament of the Bill.
I noted that much of the rhetoric in the debate was "high octane". But when it comes to the issues, that which divides us does not necessarily prove to be quite that great.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If it does not make that much difference, why will the Government not accept the change to "substantial prejudice", and be on all fours with the Scottish Executive?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the word "prejudice" is more precise legally. I do not think it right to add into statute unnecessary wordage. The matter should be focused exactly where one thinks it should be, and it should be accurate.
There have been complaints that there are blanket exemptions; for example, that under Clause 33, in respect of which there has been substantial debate, all information relating to the formulation or development of government policy is exempt; and it is asked why we do not simply provide that kind of exemption on a harm basis as well, rather than on a class basis.
890
I take Clause 33 as an example to indicate how the Bill works. The provision demonstrates that what applies to the class exemption in that clause applies also to every other substantive class exemption. It must be determined whether the information relates to the formulation or development of government policy; if so, it is exempt as a class. However, under Clause 13 the Minister is obliged to consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is out weighed by the public interest in disclosing information which would otherwise be exempt. The exemption having been established, the Minister is nevertheless obliged to consider whether the public interest it disclosure outweighs the existence of the exemption.
In relation to Clause 33, much reference has been made to the fact that when a Minister makes a policy decision there will be a good deal of factual background material, the disclosure of which will cause absolutely no harm but will assist the citizen in seeing how government operate. Indeed, there will be. Under Clause 13(5) it is specifically provided that in making any decision under subsection (3) or (4) in a case where the information is exempt, the Minister must have regard to the public interest in communicating to the applicant the factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking.
Therefore, in relation to the Clause 33 exemption, the Minister must consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the exemption. He is specifically directed by the terms of Clause 13 to the public interest in disclosing the factual background that is relevant to the decision-taking. Many noble Lords have said that that should be done. Noble Lords have accepted that Ministers should be given space within which to take decisions. Collective responsibility requires that one should not be able to disclose what one Minister said to another, which it might be appropriate for a Cabinet Minister to say 21 years later.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that Clause 13(5) does not give a right to factual information?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the provision places on the Minister a legal obligation to exercise his or her discretion in this respect. If he or she decides not to disclose the information, the applicant can appeal to the information commissioner. If the information commissioner rules against the Minister, under Clause 52 the Minister is entitled to override it. In another place my right honourable friend said that if possible he would introduce amendments to ensure that, as far as concerned central government, only a Cabinet Minister could override the decision of the information commissioner after a collective process had taken place.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend believe that a politician is the

891
appropriate person to judge objectively public interest questions in relation to information within his own department?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, an objective conclusion is reached by the information commissioner who has to rule on whether the Minister is right in that respect. If the Minister overrides what is said by the information commissioner, he or she must explain why. The Minister must have the support of Cabinet colleagues and his or her decision is subject to judicial review. It is for this House to decide whether or not Cabinet Ministers would regularly overrule the information commissioner and persuade all their Cabinet colleagues to take a political risk in relation to this matter. I should have thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in relation to the way in which central government behaved—I appreciate that he had great concerns about other arms of government—that looked a pretty effective way of ensuring that it would be very rare indeed that a Cabinet Minister would reach that stage. I ask noble Lords to consider carefully whether that procedure is quite a good safeguard.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the tortuous procedure that he has just outlined is only the procedure to gain access to factual information, which our honourable friend in another place said could not be separated out? Does he not realise that the tortuous nature of this argument is exactly what is causing concern among his friends, who long to support him?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would not have thought it was tortuous—
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, it might not be tortuous, but it is difficult for a citizen.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all that the citizen has to do is to make the application. If it is refused, he applies to the information commissioner. That does not look particularly tortuous to me. It is done in this way because in the process of making a decision a Minister will talk to other Ministers and take advice from officials, and perhaps from people outside, and this will frequently involve discussion of a mixture of fact and opinion, totally tangled up. It would be ridiculous that advice should be given in a way not designed best to assist the Minister, but designed to deal with a freedom of information regime. When taking decisions, one wants security that there can be a full and frank exchange of views and that collective responsibility will not be undermined.
At the same time, we want a sensible and clear procedure whereby after a decision is made any material which it would not cause harm to disclose will be disclosed. That is the effect of Clause 13. That is what noble Lords have said throughout this debate that they want: the protection of collective responsibility, the ability for there to be a full and
892
frank exchange of views between Ministers and advisers, and at the same time disclosure of all material that would not cause harm. That is what the Bill has earnestly tried to do.
Before noble Lords attack the process, they should recognise that the balance that we are seeking to strike is precisely that which I sense the House wants. I earnestly ask noble Lords to think whether we have got it right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may be helpful to the noble and learned Lord. If the problem is that every Member of the House except his good self is, because he or she is so tired after a long Session, or for whatever other reason, unable to follow this simple matter, would it not be sensible to send the draftsman on a quick course in writing simple legislation, and then let us see it in its simple form, which, if the Minister is right, we would then all understand and applaud?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully understand that noble Lords can often see better ways of doing something than has the draftsman in the Bill; equally, I can see that in a Bill such as this, which covers a wide range of matters, its meaning does not immediately leap out of the page. But once one has gone through it, one can see what it is trying to achieve, although, as I have said, if anyone can come forward with ways to make it clearer, we on the government side will consider them.
I hope that I have described what the Bill's processes are, and that upon reflection the House will see that it tries to achieve that which noble Lords, in the various points they have made, have sought to achieve. I do not think that we are as far apart in respect of the policy issue or the blanket exemptions as the House may think.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the Bill covers a very wide range of authorities? Is he suggesting that a similar system could be replicated within those authorities? As I said earlier, I am speaking particularly of local authorities, where for "the Minister" one must read "the leader and the cabinet". Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that that arrangement should be available to a local authority as well?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend in another place indicated that he would consider how he would insert "Cabinet Minister" in the Bill; and how he would ensure that there would be collective responsibility. He said that he would actively consider the position as regards local authorities. The material I have described in relation to the Cabinet Minister and collective responsibility may not be so easy to replicate in relation to local authorities. However, my right honourable friend in another place said that he would actively consider the position in relation to local authorities.

893
A number of noble Lords supported a purpose clause. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had subscribed unanimously to a conclusion of the ad hoc committee set up to consider the issue that there should not be a purpose clause. They had subscribed unanimously to the conclusion that there should be an extension to the Long Title. We accepted the advice of that same committee and changed the Long Title. If those noble Lords have now changed their views, they might indicate why that is and how it would help in relation to the balance of the Bill, having regard to their acceptance that the interests of disclosure, confidentiality and good government have also to be considered. That may be a rhetorical question for me to ask at another stage.
It is asked why the person who is the guardian of the data protection regime—in effect, that person is the guardian of people's privacy—should also be the information commissioner, the guardian of disclosure by the Government. As I think everyone recognises, from time to time a clash between an individual's privacy and the obligation to disclose will have to be resolved. One does not avoid that clash by separating the people who have to make the decision. One has to set up structures which ultimately involve someone balancing privacy against disclosure. An individual involved in both regimes' namely, Mrs France—I believe that she commands the respect of all sides of this House and another place—is a sensible person to do that.
We can explore many points in Committee. However, I believe that we have got the balance right. The basic interests that we believe must be satisfied in the Bill do not seem different from those to which noble Lords have referred during the debate. The question is: how can we make the provision clearer? If we can do so, we shall. How can we give better effect to the balance which has been struck? We shall listen with an open mind; but I believe that we have the balance right. Far from it being a matter of criticism, it is a matter for congratulation that the Government have introduced a legally enforceable right for the citizen to find out what his Government are up to. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of' the Whole House.

Asylum Support Regulations 2000
3.53 p.m.
Lord Dholakiarose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 13th March, be annulled (S.I. 2000/704).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a dangerous schizophrenia at the core of asylum matters. During the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill Members of your Lordships' House were fortunate that the debate was handled with the utmost care and concern, and credit must go to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his team, the
894
Bishops' Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I hope that, by mentioning his name, I am not blocking his opportunities for promotion. I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate here when, particularly at this time of the year, he will have other pressing engagements.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government's effort to tackle institutional racism, but the same Ministers are just as vigorously promoting asylum policies under the banner of fairer, faster and firmer policies, which are actually inciting hatred towards gypsies, eastern European refugees and others seeking shelter here. We are encouraging a policy of sweeping beggars from the streets and zero tolerance to so-called "quality of life" crimes. Where will they be swept to and why? What will it solve? In the public mind organised gangs begging on the streets of London have become synonymous with bogus refugee asylum seekers, the homeless, the dispossessed and anyone who seems to be foreign or different.
Perhaps I may just quote one matter. The barometer of racism can best be understood by the effect of hostile pronouncements. It is not to deny the right to free speech, but to understand the fear that it generates in minorities. It is no different from fears and hostilities faced by white Zimbabweans, by east Europeans or black and Asian minorities in this country. I do not argue with the need for a fair and firm immigration and asylum system. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said this week, a system that worked efficiently and swiftly would be great progress. The present over-burdened and chaotic system brings misery and dislocation to the family life of those concerned. Those detained are treated like criminals; those subsisting on vouchers are at the mercy of anyone ready to exploit them, and we foot the bill for all that misery.
I quote from The Times editorial of 11th April which stated:
"There is little doubt that last year's surge in asylum applications—of which the forced expulsion of Kosovan Albanians by Serb forces was a significant element—almost overwhelmed the Home Office. But at no point can it be fairly said then or, especially now, that the system was really 'out of control'. In proportion to the population, Britain ranks but ninth in European terms of asylum-seekers. The social security allowances available are not attractive by continental standards. Under the new regime introduced this month, an applicant is entitled to the equivalent of 70 per cent of income support, mostly in vouchers rather than cash. It is not pots of gold that tempt bogus claims but the languid pace at which the forms are processed".
There is some evidence that the backlog is at last shrinking. The time taken to decide whether to award asylum has been reduced by seven months and record numbers of claims are being processed. A vast expansion in the provision of full-time adjudicators and the creation of a new tribunal centre with 12 courts should further cut the backlog.
Why then is it necessary to generate such emotion? I have had a flood of calls from black and Asian people who are being abused on our streets. I do not have to search for an answer. "Why", I say, "I went through the same process during Enoch Powell's 'river of blood' speech".

895
It is not good enough for the Government to be content with reflecting the confusion now prevailing in their asylum policies. The Government must lead, show vigour and take risks, which is the same vision as the Heath government took when admitting 28,000 Ugandan Asians to Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, told me that it took only five minutes for the Cabinet to reach a decision to admit them to this country. There was the same hostility in the media and at the Conservative Party conference then, but that was leadership at its best.
We now have a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition that all new asylum seekers should be detained in reception centres, probably former army camps. Is that how we intend to treat 20,000 or so asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Do we have to hold them in such camps until their patriality is proved?
I assure your Lordships' House that I decided to pray against the Asylum Support Regulations well before the criticism voiced by Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Bishop of Croydon, the right reverend Wilfred Wood. I was moved by the position taken by Oxfam which has a long-standing record of work in relation to humanitarian protection. Its views ought to be taken into serious consideration because it has been developing work with asylum seekers and refugees since the setting up of the UK poverty programme in 1995.
On 3rd April, when the Government's new voucher scheme came into operation, Oxfam made a decision not to participate unless its shops were able to give change to asylum seekers using vouchers. That position is now publicly supported by a range of UK charities, including Save the Children Fund, Shelter and Marie Curie Cancer Care. Those key organisations believe that by refusing retailers permission to provide change when asylum seekers shop with them is unreasonable and unfair and discriminates against those people at a time when they are most vulnerable.
Asylum seekers are among the poorest people in our country. At present, the vouchers amount to 70 or 80 per cent of the basic income support offered to UK citizens. That is already well below the subsistence level. The £120 cash element is clearly insufficient to meet the additional needs of asylum seekers; for example, stamps, telephone calls, transport costs and so forth.
Given that the Government are not committed to uprating the level of voucher support, the related impoverishment and exclusion of asylum seekers will worsen over time. That is especially likely as the asylum support regulations specifically prevent charities, churches and individuals from topping up inadequate state provisions. If they do so, government support will be reduced. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we made clear our opposition to the voucher scheme. Vouchers are more expensive to administer than cash, but, more importantly, the separate support system will be inefficient to meet basic human needs.
Let me spell out my concern about the detail of some of the regulations. To a great extent, I am guided by the correspondence of the Medical Foundation for the
896
Care of Victims of Torture with the Home Office. I shall deal first with Regulation No. 9(4)(e) which deals with toys and then Regulations Nos. 6 and 12. Is this a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and interference with the principle of freedom of charitable giving? Let me quote the text of the Home Office letter to the medical foundation dated 30th April 2000.
"The regulations do indeed point out that toys are not to be treated as essential living needs. The purpose of that provision is to ensure that families are not regarded as destitute simply because they cannot afford toys for their children. You will recall that the value of vouchers in respect of children of asylum seekers are set at the same level as social security benefits payable in respect of children for whom there is equally no special provision made for toys".
It does not mean that the provider of accommodation to asylum seeker families is forbidden from making toys available to them any more than the provider is prevented from providing a range of additional services which are not strictly defined as essential living needs. Nor does it prevent asylum seekers purchasing toys with the vouchers or cash. It certainly does not prevent voluntary and community organisations from providing toys to children of asylum seekers. Many of the youngsters with whom we are dealing as asylum seekers have lost their childhood. How on earth could we deny them the little joy that possessing toys could bring to them?
Let me explain the difference in the response. The value of vouchers for children is set at the same value as social security benefits. The value of vouchers for their parents is not. Leaving aside the Minister's comments about the level of income support, a UK family with two children will, from this April, receive £149.40 a week in income support. But a similar asylum seeker's family will receive only £110.57 a week overall. That is a significant difference of £33.80 every week. Moreover, the majority of the support is provided in vouchers. That limits the purchasing power of the family which, unlike other poor people, cannot shop in the cheapest outlets.
As I said, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, Barnardos and a number of other charities running retail outlets have decided not to take the vouchers. The problem is increased by the decision not to provide change for vouchers, reducing the sums available to the families still further. The National Asylum Support Service told the Refugee Council that, leaving aside the £10 cash vouchers, the other denominations are £5, £1, 50p and a final voucher for odd pence. No further guidance has been given on that particular point.
It is inaccurate to speak of no special provision being made available for toys in respect of families on income support. With regard to the asylum support regulations, toys are expressly excluded. That is not the case with income support. Given that Regulation 9(4)(e) expressly provides that toys are excluded from essential living needs, asylum-seeking families will need their vouchers for cash to purchase baby food and toiletries. If they spend their vouchers on toys, they will have to go without those essentials.

897
There is a ray of hope in that the Home Office has now accepted that voluntary and community organisations are certainly not prevented from providing toys for the children of asylum seekers. However, charities will have other important priorities, and the National Asylum Support Service cannot duck this particular issue. My noble friend Lady Williams will have more to say on this point and its relationship with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I turn to other issues of concern in the regulations. Regulation 2(2) provides for a period of only 14 days' support following a final decision, positive or negative, despite the clear evidence given to NASS that it takes more than 14 days for successful asylum seekers to access alternative support while on state benefits. Thus, we shall see clients who are recognised as refugees finding themselves deprived of shelter and food. Nor does the regulation address the situation of those who are given a negative decision but are pursuing judicial reviews or further representation to the Home Office.
NASS has made it clear that the proposed hard-cases fund is designed only to support exceptional cases. It has not stated how big that fund is. It is clear that there will be a group of people left without rights to food and shelter. Are we, by our denials, encouraging begging? That, after all, would be the effect of this regulation.
I am particularly concerned to see recent letters from the Home Office telling asylum seekers that their application has been refused and that they will lose all support in 14 days unless they appeal. However, the letters do not give reasons for refusing the asylum claims and state that a decision, together with appeal forms, will be sent under separate cover. There is a clear risk that if a second letter is not sent within 14 days, the asylum seeker will lose all support, despite the fact that he may have perfectly valid grounds for appeal. The first letter appears to be a refusal for the sole purpose of terminating support. That breaches the rule of natural justice and it is in contravention of the convention on human rights.
Regulation 4 concerns interim arrangements. The NASS scheme was intended to replace the interim scheme from 1st April 2000. It is now the case that NASS will only deal with port applicants, those immigrants from Oakington and applicants from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The NASS and the interim schemes will run in tandem for a considerable period. That gives rise to considerable anomalies which have nowhere been addressed; for example, under this regulation a limited amount of cash must be given, but under the interim scheme there is no obligation at all to give cash. Under these regulations, support for essential living can be provided without accommodation. Under the interim scheme, support for essential living needs can be given only to those accommodated under the scheme. Those in the NASS scheme have a right of appeal to an asylum support adjudicator against refusal of support. Those in the interim scheme must challenge refusals on judicial review. The different entitlements for those in the two
898
schemes are illogical, anomalous and unfair. They are a recipe for administrative chaos and the regulations are defective in not addressing them.
Regulation 8, relating to adequate accommodation, provides that accommodation is not adequate if an asylum seeker is at risk of domestic violence. Where does it deal with harassment, particularly of a racial nature? The regulations fail to reflect ministerial assurances that survivors of torture will be located adjacent to London; nor do they reflect ministerial assurances that those who have settled in a particular area in which they have formed links will not be dispersed, and that families will not be brought into the support system until time targets are met. The regulations should also reflect those assurances.
Regulation 9 deals with essential living needs. Essential living needs take no account of personal preferences. What about preferences arising out of the need to follow religious or personal practices? Regulation 9(4)(d) excludes from the definition of essential living needs travel expenses other than the initial journey to a dispersal location. No provision is made for other travel. The regulations are defective in that they fail to reflect the assurances giver during the passage of the Bill that travel to the medical foundation will be paid.
We are concerned also that no provision is made for travel to legal representatives. The effect of that is to deny asylum seekers the ability to travel to see their legal representatives either in the dispersal locations or at a distance from them. Where there are no legal representatives in the area, the problem is further compounded. If such expenses are not met, the asylum seeker will be denied the possibility effectively to pursue the application.
Regulation 10 is concerned with the provision of support to those with special needs. Again, it is left wholly unclear in the regulations whether essential living needs are addressed by reference to individual circumstances or whether it is intended as a one core set of essential living needs which are regarded over and above that as exceptional circumstances.
Regulation 11 deals with the additional single payment. It is derisory to pay £50 after six months. It will not purchase a winter coat and a pair of shoes, let alone a pushchair and other items mooted in Parliament during the debate on the Bill. However, we are further concerned, under Regulation 11, that the payment will not be made automatically. The asylum seeker must apply for it. That seems to be designed to decrease the uptake of essential payments.
Regulation 14 is concerned with education and development. The regulation states that education, including English language lessons and sporting and other development activities, may be provided as support to asylum seekers only for the purpose of maintaining good order among such persons. That is the aim behind it. Does it appear that English lessons cannot be provided for the asylum seeker who wishes to be able to make his own way in integrating into society.

899
That places extremely onerous requirements all the time on asylum seekers with regard to notification and matters relating to changes in circumstances. No provision is made for that to be explained to the asylum seekers in a language they can understand. It is perhaps a measure of the extent to which reality has failed to impinge on these regulations that Regulation 15(2)(i) obliges the asylum seeker to notify the National Asylum Support Service if he or she dies. I may be good at revealing the secrets of the Indian rope trick but I cannot see how a dead asylum seeker can meet that particular provision!
There are other issues of concern with which I shall deal very briefly. The application form for support appended to the regulations demands that it be completed in full and in English. That will cause problems. No obligations are placed on the national asylum support services to be able to assist in that exercise.
On the inclusion of utilities under the provision of fully furnished accommodation, we should have expected to see the NASS placed under an obligation in that regard. No provision is made in relation to NASS's obligation adequately to assess the needs of the individual and to respond to them.
In conclusion, assurances were given throughout the passage of the Bill as to how the support system would operate in practice. Those are not reflected in the regulations. The medical foundation submitted 10 pages of detailed comment in response to the consultation and it was not the only organisation to do so. Requests were made for clarification and an indication as to measures which were wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. They do not appear to have been taken into account in the drafting of these regulations.
It is right that we should go back to the drawing board and look at these concerns. I plead with the Minister, with whom I have shared a platform a number of times, on television and in audiences, who has a decent grasp of this subject, to consult widely with the key organisations and submit suitable regulations in due course.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 13th March, be annulled (S.I. 2000/704).—(Lord Dholakia.)
4.14 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, not for the first time I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for having taken this initiative and to support warmly much of what he has said. At the outset of my remarks I should declare an interest in the sense that I am a member of the association of Oxfam and I am also national president of the YMCA. Both organisations are greatly involved in work with asylum seekers.
If there were no other reason for the initiative this afternoon, the issue of vouchers would be enough. I say only that there is deep concern among all those working with asylum seekers in the voluntary sector. It
900
has been said that we should recognise that the vouchers are not all of the same denomination; that some are for only 50p. But for people living at that level 50p is quite a lot of money. The change from 50p, which they are not entitled to claim in the stores in which they are allowed to exchange the vouchers, can add up to extremely significant amounts for people living at that level. Furthermore, it is absolutely absurd that people living in such straits should be denied the opportunity to shop where it is most economical; for example, in the street market.
Perhaps most important of all is the issue of stigma. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a stigma attached to being compelled to make essential purchases with vouchers. There is already evidence that abuse is mounting towards asylum seekers when they are identified in that way.
To evaluate the regulations we must be honest about their purpose. Are they designed to ensure that those who have suffered intolerable oppression and persecution and who are at risk are welcomed, accorded full dignity and enabled to feel secure and confident; or are they designed as a disincentive, which, together with all the other travel and administrative hurdles, is intended to deter? Put another way, are they primarily about fulfilling our longstanding moral and legal commitments to the rights of the asylum seeker or are they above all about deterring those who, however dismal their plight, will not qualify as asylum seekers?
If, as it should be, they are about the rights of asylum seekers, how do we know until a case has been reviewed and appeals have been heard whether the applicant will qualify? By the regulations, what kind of indignity, further suffering and uncertainty may we be heaping on those who will qualify and who have already suffered too much? Is it not a travesty to suggest that an overwhelming majority of applicants will not qualify? Is it not a fact that a significant proportion do in the end qualify? How can we justify a policy that prolongs the indignity of those who will be accorded asylum?
In that context, is it not the case that, for example, in proportion to population, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark all take considerably more asylum seekers than we do ourselves; and that in other parts of the world the number of refugees taken by some of the poorest countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Tanzania puts our problem, as a wealthy, successful nation, in the shade?
Why do we not hear more about those realities? Why do we not see the highly professional communication expertise at our disposal deployed to concentrate on explaining the grim realities of war and tyranny from which refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing? Why have we not concentrated our debate on the causes of refugee movements rather than allowing it to become neurotically and totally preoccupied with the consequences? Indeed, the flow that preoccupies us today and to which the regulations refer will become even more pressing if we fail to tackle the effect of insensitive liberalisation of the global economy and of

901
global warming and climate change on the already impoverished world. We advocate the global market economy but set our faces against the free movement of labour. That is a contradiction which I fervently hope has been addressed at this week's meetings in Washington.
We speak a good deal about our leadership role in the world. But do we really accept, as we should, the responsibilities of leadership? Will history see us as determined to strengthen the cultural and value base of our society, or will it see us, because of some inexplicable lack of self-confidence, playing into the hands of the myopic, the racist, the little minds and the mean?
A multicultural society cannot be built by law alone. It requires unequivocal, courageous leadership and a vocabulary of decency, concern, tolerance, vision and courage. For too long our talk has been of bogus asylum seekers and of how many applicants have been sent home. In talking about the rights of asylum seekers there have been too many "howevers" and "buts".
No responsible person suggests that an open-door policy is possible or that there has not been wicked and cynical exploitation of the poor and vulnerable, exploitation that should be dealt with severely. But, forgive me, this is Easter week. Tomorrow is Good Friday, which brings with it lessons of betrayal and of supreme sacrifice for principle.
These regulations are unworthy. Even at the eleventh hour why cannot we think again? Why cannot we say, for the whole world to hear, that our overriding commitment is to the human psychological and physical needs of the oppressed and that everything that we do will be demonstrably about exactly that, rather than repeatedly seeming to say, "Yes, of course, we have an obligation in relation to asylum seekers, but our overriding concern is with abusers and those who exploit the system".
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I do not intend to make a long speech because I feel that he has spoken comprehensively and has taken note of the concerns held by many people. I have two points to make.
First, it is a long time since I was involved in arguments that were about the deserving and the undeserving poor. That seems to have gone out of the window and we regard poverty as poverty, however it has been caused. However, I believe that when we talk about those who seek asylum, that kind of understanding is returning to our language.
Whether there are valid reasons for those people being in our country, whether they will be given the right to live here long term, they are in need now. Their needs are similar and must be addressed with dignity. As a country with the resources to meet those needs, it is a great shame that we are not able to do so.
902
Secondly, we have had reason to feel good about the kind of partnerships that there are between government provisions and those good-minded people who are willing to work alongside in partnership. The churches and other agencies have done, and are willing to do, a great deal, but they are being deterred from that course by the provision that their work is not to be considered as an add-on or as filling in the gaps. I believe that we are losing some understanding of what is the most needed resource—friendship. Churches find it hard to offer friendship if they cannot also offer practical support which may be used against the provision made for asylum seekers.
I had to ask what "Prayer to Annul" means. I was told that it may not make much difference but that it is a way of stamping one's feet. I am stamping my feet very loudly although noble Lords cannot hear me. I stamp my feet along with a great number of people up and down the country who feel that these provisions are unworthy of a country that can afford to support, and ought to be willing to be more generous towards, those among us who are in need.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we conduct this debate in a difficult atmosphere. The media has focused national attention on aspects of the asylum-seeking problem which quite rightly give the public great anxiety. The numbers are alarming; the cost is considerable; and we are led to believe that a large number of those coming here are not entitled to stay.
I should like to question the criteria on which the judgment of entitlement to stay is made. As I said in a debate which I initiated on 1st March on the need for effective and humane treatment of asylum seekers, we are applying criteria devised at the end of the last World War to cope with the disturbance of populations that resulted from it; we are applying them unaltered except that they have been narrowed in various conventions; and we are applying them as though they were moral imperatives. But in the narrow confines of a prayer to annul regulations, one cannot go beyond the terms of the regulations and the situation that we find.
Within those terms, we still ought to look for something which is both effective and humane. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what I said in opening the debate on 1st March:
"Efficiency means swift decisions"—
that is not what we are looking at today;
"and humanity means right decisions and good treatment".—[Official Report, 1/3/00; col. 557.]
I join the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, in asking whether what we are giving is good treatment. After such a complete statement as that used by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to introduce this debate, I can only say that I support almost every word he said.
Turning to the regulations themselves, in subparagraph (3) of Regulation 3, we find that the application for asylum must be made,

903
"by completing in full and in English the form for the time being issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose".
Let us for a moment try and dismiss from our minds the threatening horde of asylum seekers that we are asked to look at as though they were collective, typical, all the same and had no right to live here; let us look at a family of two or three who come into this country genuinely in fear of their lives, genuinely without other resources and find themselves in the midst of that "threatening horde", if that indeed is what it is. It is to them as well as to the others that these regulations are addressed.
I hope that anybody outside this Chamber who is listening to this debate will not think that we have forgotten the problem of the vast numbers. The Government should be supported in their humane efforts to control it and to return whence they came those who have no entitlement—in many cases with a heavy heart.
I should like to change the confines of this debate; I should like to question the criteria that the Government are enforcing. But that is the law; we accepted it; and the Government should be supported in upholding it. I believe that those on these Benches are prepared to do that.
However, we should also look at how we treat those who are being "sorted out"; the process of separating those who are entitled from those who are not. Can they, in the state of anxiety, fatigue, confusion and poverty in which many of the genuine cases arrive, be expected immediately to put a full and sufficient case, which can be referred to on appeal as the basis of appeal, in good English? That is not a requirement which can be easily met unless there is also a requirement on the authority to provide them with a means of doing it when English is not their first language.
To take a quite different point which I raised in the earlier debate, having noticed something said by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It seems to me to be elementary that people coming to this country for asylum should be told what their entitlements are. These are small enough, and if they do not get them all they will not survive. It was suggested that every asylum seeker should be given a statement in his or her language stating his or her entitlements.
Only this afternoon I received a copy of a letter from the Minister, Barbara Roche, to David Harker of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and I am grateful for that. It starts off by appearing to be a rebuttal of the idea that all 16 million non-British EEA passengers and 11.5 million non-British non-EEA passengers subject to control should be issued with the literature in question. That is an absurd idea. What I was suggesting, and what I still suggest, is that when somebody claims asylum it is clearly the duty of the host country to advise him of his rights in a language he can understand.
The Government have now instituted a process of dispersal. That has implications of the same sort, because nobody who knows our system can expect
904
anybody else to understand it without legal advice, and to get legal advice one has to go to a lawyer. But if someone is dispersed to Hull, I am advised that that person now has to go to, I think, Leeds or Sheffield—I will save your Lordships the time it would take me to look that up—to get the advice, and that because the solicitors there are so overloaded there is a waiting list.
Regrettably, travel, except for travel to the dispersal point itself, is not accepted under these regulations as being necessary expenditure and so the money for that must be found from outside the small amount of money given to asylum seekers for maintaining their lives here. Is that good treatment? If, for good but disputed reason, an asylum seeker declines to be dispersed—perhaps because there is a relative from whom he does not wish to be separated who lives
Elsewhere—he would forfeit the right to the benefits in vouchers and to £10 in cash—I would put it another way: he forfeits the right to accommodation. That is as I understand it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I cannot find that in the regulations, but we have been told about it and I think the Minister gave us an assurance during the debate on the 1st March. In such cases asylum seekers will have to find the cost of accommodation out of their voucher and cash allowance. And then we are surprised if they come to begging! But how else can they support themselves?
I hope I am wrong in this, but it seems to me to be a totally unjust and uncharitable treatment of people, some of whom are in dire need and have every claim on our charity. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, this is not a bad time to think about those things. Therefore, I am distressed, first, by the criteria which we are forced to apply because we are observing a treaty as if it were a moral duty; and, secondly, because we only consider people who are in fear of their lives due to tyranny and not because of a famine. As I have said before, we need another debate about striving for a world in which we cannot have a surplus in one part and starvation in another without moving the population to the surplus.
I am unhappy about these regulations. I have drawn attention to two aspects on which I hope to be enlightened, but I feel that we are being churlish to those who deserve our charity as well as to those who seek to exploit it.
4.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am very grateful, as are others, to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for raising this crucial issue. First of all, I recognise that the Government are faced with a very real dilemma in trying to adjudicate fairly and speedily between well-founded claims and those that are not well founded, particularly given the very large backlog of cases.
Secondly, as I am sure is the case with everyone, I strongly support what the Prime Minister recently said about the need to take very great care in the language that we use. This week reminds us how easy it is to inflame mob violence. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned a notorious speech. I, too,

905
remember that speech. I was running an open youth club in north London, and for days and weeks afterwards young people used to arrive at the club chanting a particular name repeatedly. We need to be very careful in the way that we speak and write about this issue.
I should like briefly to mention Regulation 2(2), which provides that once a decision has been made, a person loses all support after 14 days. This presents difficulties both for those who are accorded refugee status and for those whose applications are refused. Those who have been accorded refugee status have only 14 days in which to find an alternative means of support. Most people who know the system recognise that it usually takes more than 14 days to make the system work and to obtain that support.
Many of those whose applications have been refused will want to appeal. Contrary to popular opinion, quite a few applications on appeal are successful. Indeed, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has referred to the fact that in 1998—the last year for which figures are available—47 per cent of appeals from Sri Lankans were successful, as were 38 per cent of appeals from Turkish people.
People may be allowed to appeal, but it is likely to take a good deal more than 14 days for all the bureaucratic machinery to work to enable them to lodge their appeals. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at the fine tuning of what is proposed because that 14-day clamp-down may very well work harshly both on people who are successful and on those who are unsuccessful in their first application.
I must echo what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said so powerfully. All voluntary organisations are very uneasy indeed about the voucher system. You only have to imagine yourself shuffling forward towards a check-out point in a supermarket. Your basket is full but you notice that the basket of the person in front of you seems to be strangely empty, with very few items in it. When the person reaches the check-out point, he or she brings out something that you have difficulty in recognising, as does the girl at the till. It turns out to be a voucher, but by this time all eyes in the queue are on that person. Given the inflammatory nature of so much language in the public debate at present, it is highly likely that people will immediately be thinking suspicious thoughts about that person; for example, is he or she a genuine refugee?
Quite simply, the voucher system is demeaning to people. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked: what is the purpose of it? If the purpose is deterrence, I suggest that it has no hope at all of working. Will people in countries all over the world suddenly get the message that we are operating a voucher system in the UK that will work to their disadvantage? I do not believe for one moment that it will work as a deterrent. If we are serious about deterring economic migrants as opposed to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, the only adequate deterrent, presumably, would be that those whose claims are unfounded would be recognised fairly quickly and speedily returned home. That is the only form of deterrence that will work;
906
vouchers will not work as a deterrent. Moreover, they are having a stigmatising and demeaning effect on all refugee applicants in the country at present.
I suggest that from a humane point of view, as well as from a cost point of view and every other point of view, asylum seekers should simply use the other voucher system that we all use, which is called money. Bank notes in denominations of £5 and £10 are the vouchers that we use; let the asylum seekers also use those vouchers.
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I support the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Although there are few of us present we must remember that the measure represents the views of many organisations outside this House. The Minister and others may not remember my amendment on the subject of charities to Clause 93 of the then Immigration and Asylum Bill last summer which stated that the Secretary of State must take into account,
"any other support which is available … or might reasonably be expected to be available".
That amendment was taken to a Division. Somewhat to my surprise, it was not carried because the Conservatives, led by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, were in full support of it. I believe that it was an all-party amendment, but perhaps we discussed it rather late in the evening. Unfortunately, the measure I sought to amend passed into legislation and is now echoed by Regulations 6 and 12.
Charities and organisations which assist refugees are still concerned about the measure. To an extent they feel let down by a Labour Government who in so many other ways demonstrate their support for voluntary organisations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, will not mind if I quote what he said when we discussed the amendment. He said,
"I can think of no other instance where, if a charity gives money to a deserving person, that person then has their social security or other benefit taken away from them. But that is contemplated here".—[Official Report, 20/10/99; col. 1196.]
This is not firmly enshrined in law, but I think that noble Lords may agree that it is still contemplated in the terms of the regulations.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that he saw no difficulty here. In January, the Home Office Minister, Barbara Roche, said,
"It would be wrong to ignore what support an asylum seeker might receive".
I can understand that it would be wrong to ignore other support if it is the kind of regular support given by some charities which are in a quasi-statutory role of service providers to a given local authority or government department. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord had that in mind. It is true that over the past 10 to 15 years the more recognised and consistent charitable support has been, the more likely it was to be taken up by government in areas or sectors where government services may be weak or have failed. That has been a trend, but it is not true of the mainstream of charitable work.

907
It would be quite wrong for the Government to insist on a strict interpretation of the clause or regulation because much of the support given to asylum seekers is unpredictable and dependent on a charity's funding. It is unimaginable that the valuable work done by the refugee communities themselves in providing spontaneous support or collecting materials for refugees could count against support. I seek some reassurance on that point.
I have other concerns with regard to vouchers and other matters that have been mentioned. However, I mention just one other point under Regulation 9(4) on information in support of claims. I believe that I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said in this regard. To exempt the cost of copying facilities and travel expenses for legal appointments will, in effect, remove the right of asylum seekers to legal representation and a fair hearing. I have written to Home Office Ministers on this point in respect of detained asylum seekers, but I had not expected these expenses not to be treated as essential living needs of asylum seekers being met by the NASS. I should like some assurance on that point. There is no way that the living allowance will cover those costs. I urge the Government to think again and to reflect that these regulations, in these and many other ways, deny genuine asylum seekers—in the present climate we must be talking about genuine asylum seekers—no less than a means of survival.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and other speakers have said everything that I intended to say in relation to these regulations. As chair of Oxfam, I wish to make only one point. On the one side we have the hysteria being created by the media and by certain right-wing groupings; on the other side there is a large body of caring people who are disillusioned and despondent that this Government could frame regulations which harass and humiliate refugees who come to this country seeking political asylum. Some of them will be granted political asylum, and they will think back on the welcome that they received when they arrived in this country.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may add another voice to the debate. Like many noble Lords who have spoken, I am profoundly concerned about the nature of these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the fact that today was Maundy Thursday. Having listened to the words which have come down to us over the centuries from the person we are recognising over the next few days—who suffered the greatest sacrifice of all—we have to accept that we are in no way living up to that teaching.
Nor are we on a more secular level living up to the words of the many treaties that we have signed. Those treaties enjoin us—we signed some only as recently as
908
last year—to respect the human rights of other people; to respect the rights of the child; to respect the rights of refugees; and to accept our obligations as a wealthy and civilised country. One of the things that most feeds cynicism among the citizens of the world is to see the signatories of treaties themselves bending and changing the meaning of those treaties.
It is almost impossible to find compatibility between these regulations and the provisions of the treaty of the United Nations, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred. It is also difficult to see how the regulations can be squared with the European Convention on Human Rights, which we signed as recently as last year. That specifically indicates that the detention of someone who is not known to have committed any crime is against the terms of the convention.
That is my first point: we cannot joyfully go on signing and taking credit for our support for international and European conventions without accepting that that carries with it a very heavy obligation in law.
My second concern is that we are all flying much too easily before the terrible words that Britain is "a soft touch"—words which have been used throughout the media to damn almost anyone who tries to speak up for compassionate and reasonable behaviour towards asylum seekers and refugees.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, we all recognise that there are those who arrive in this country as a result of the operations of extremely sophisticated and extremely wicked organisations which trade in human beings, in human hopes and in human fears. None of us for one moment condone that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, so eloquently said, the strange thing about these regulations is that they make it even harder for the genuine asylum seeker or refugee to prove his case, and thereby throw people more and more back on those sophisticated agents, who are seen by some of them to be the only resort they have.
Let me take two examples, one of which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is perhaps a trivial example if one has enough money; a desperately significant example if one does not. Stamps, faxes, telephone calls will none of them count as essential needs. But how does the asylum seeker arriving in this country who is not part of some scheme ever have a chance to prove his or her case if they are not even able to communicate with the officials who will make decisions on their case? Coming from Algeria or Ethiopia or Kosovo, how can they possibly hope to make their case if they have no legal help at all?
Frankly, they cannot get that legal help in many of the parts of the country to which they have been dispersed, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. It is even more cruel that they cannot hope to get support for travel to the nearest legal centre able to assist them. Again, that would appear to have to come out of their own meagre means of support. To put it bluntly, they may have to choose between a meal for their child and the chance to make out their case properly and legally via the correct channels.

909
The third thing that troubles me is that many of the assurances made to this House by Ministers whom we trusted and believed are not reflected in any way in the regulations. I shall give the House a couple of examples. It was specifically said that the new support arrangements would apply only in the event that refugees were here for a short period of time. Ministers said that they hoped to deal with their cases within two months or, at most, six months. That was the basis on which the beggary provision was offered as acceptable. All of us know that those figures will not be met and that many refugees will be in fact trying to live on NASS for much longer than a couple of months.
We were given specific assurances that those who were dispersed would have access to lawyers. Barbara Roche, the Minister, repeated that on a "Newsnight" programme in the autumn of last year. There is nothing in the regulations to indicate that there will be means to enable people to reach lawyers if they do not have one in the area to which they have been dispersed. The Minister said that people would be dispersed to areas where there would be people of their own kind—in other words, diversity would be taken into account in dispersal. That, too, appears to have disappeared, laying many asylum seekers at great risk of racial attacks in some parts of the country.
Ministers assured us that victims of torture would have support to reach medical help—it has to be specialised medical help—in order to establish their claim to have been tortured; the most persecuted refugees of all. That, too, appears nowhere in the regulations. I hope that it is still being sustained. I recall still the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, specifically thanking the Government for the way in which they accepted commitments to victims of torture.
Finally—I could continue for a good deal longer but I will not—I recall the words of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I shall quote them because they are worth quoting. I certainly took them very seriously. He said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, specifically asked me whether persons would he forced to rely on charities. I hope that I reassured him in my preceding answers that that is not the case".—[Official Report, 20/10/99 col. 1200.]
It is not just where persons rely on charities. But where charities help them, that figure is to be taken into account in whatever level of support they are granted.
I shall conclude with that because in many ways those seem to be the saddest regulations of all—regulations 6 and 12. Those people who give to charity do so after having paid their taxes, the taxes out of which public funding comes. It is one of the most splendid instincts of human beings that some of them at least are willing to be altruistic, to help their neighbours and to enable those who are down on their luck to have a new opportunity and a new chance. Specifically to say that charitable help will be taken into account is to discourage charitable giving. Which of us is going to give to a refugee fund if we know that that will simply come off the levels of support?
910
Let us suppose that the Government said that the money we give to Action for the Blind should be deducted from benefits for the blind. Let us suppose that the Government said that the money we give to Age Concern should be deducted from the pension. I promise noble Lords that every last tabloid in the country would be marching upon Westminster. Unless I misunderstand, that is what the Government are proposing for asylum seekers and refugees. I very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us today that we do misunderstand this and that it is not so. I hope that they can give us that assurance.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is an accident of the arrangement of business in this House, but it is not at all inappropriate, that we should be discussing this matter on Maundy Thursday, and that it should take the form of an humble Address to Her Majesty, who has today been distributing Maundy Money. Nor is it inappropriate that this element of our proceedings should be designated as a Prayer. We all want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for introducing the debate. I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my efforts earlier. I shall sustain any damage with equanimity!
The noble Lord and other speakers have raised important points. I do not propose to go over all of them. I did not intend to discuss the general questions of asylum today, as we have done so at length on various occasions. But we all believe that Britain has a legal and moral duty to help people who are fleeing for their lives.
However, the present position is that public support has been eroded by a perception that our traditional national hospitality is at present being abused. It is not a wholly inaccurate perception, although the balance of it may be wrong. It is common ground that rackets have grown up, providing for would-be economic migrants to pay large sums to be helped to claim asylum to which they are not entitled. I agree with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that this is "wicked and cynical exploitation" and should he dealt with severely. I may have a little more sympathy than some noble Lords with the Government's efforts and with their difficulty in trying to distinguish between genuine cases and those who should not be allowed asylum. I believe that the Government inherited a difficult situation with regard to asylum, but they have made it worse.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he has interpreted my remarks correctly. However, perhaps I may emphasise that I was not referring to asylum seekers as wicked and exploitative; I was referring to those who cruelly exploit the plight of poor people desperately looking for a better life and who lead them into terrible straits.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hope that nothing I have said implies anything different from that. I was referring to the victims of the rackets to which I drew attention.

911
We are discussing the detailed regulations for asylum support. At the end of our discussions on the Bill, now an Act, on which this Motion is based, I expressed foreboding in regard to how the detailed regulations would work in practice, and I have not so far been reassured.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the greater use of reception centres which is advocated by my party. I do not think that that should be seen as an inhumane approach by comparison with this approach. We can be certain, after all, if we follow the example of the French and the Germans in going down that route, that the people concerned will be adequately housed and supported during the process of having their claims decided, and that they will also have the necessary legal and medical support, without the need to resort to this type of voucher system with the disadvantages that we are discussing. I do not want to start a general discussion, but I thought it worth making that point in passing.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall not detain him more than a moment. I checked with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and I understand that, in Germany, most refugees are not detained in detention centres and that they are now able to start work within a month or two of arriving in the country.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not want to go into the detail. The problem with the German system is that the position depends a good deal on the Länder and varies in different parts of the country. The matter also gives rise to a good deal of legal difficulty in the German courts. In any case, that is secondary to the Motion before us this evening.
To return to the regulations now being considered, it would be of assistance if the Minister who is to respond could provide the latest figures on those who are likely to be involved in the support system and how it is intended that that should be extended. It starts with limited categories of asylum seekers and is intended to be extended at some point in the future. In particular, it would be helpful to have the figures showing how the exercise to clear the backlog is proceeding. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to have those figures at his fingertips at the end of a debate of this character. If he prefers to provide that information in writing, I shall be entirely content.
Some detailed points have arisen on the regulations themselves. Several noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, referred to the 14-day period. Although I believe that that requires some explanation, I do not need to dwell on it. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the position of charities, which is extremely important. However, it has already been dealt with and I do not need to repeat it.
I am not quite clear about the position in relation to legal expenses, which are certainly not covered by the regulations. From memory, I believe that they are
912
dealt with separately. It is important that not only the actual costs of those who give legal advice but travelling expenses are covered. One of the features of the system that we are pursuing is that asylum seekers are widely dispersed across the country and that legal advice and assistance, particularly in their own language, will not be available locally. Either lawyers or asylum seekers themselves—I suspect that often it will be the latter—will be involved in travelling.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Elton drew attention to Regulation 3(3) which deals with the application form that is required to be completed in full and in English. I, too, looked at that form. The first thing to face a person who arrives in this country, particularly if he or she has suffered persecution in other countries, is a 12-page form containing 11 pages of finely-printed notes on how to complete the form. One wonders whether the Inland Revenue, which has designed the self-assessment form, should be consulted. I do not believe that the self-assessment form is all that bad, given the complexity of what the Inland Revenue seeks to deal with. However, the Inland Revenue does not often hesitate to put burdens on legitimate activity while it tries to catch those who evade tax, which to an extent is what takes place here.
Perhaps I may draw attention to note 14 of the form, which states:
"If someone helped you fill in the form"—
that is extremely likely
"Someone may have helped you to fill in the form …
If so, you should give the details of the person or the organisation that has helped you in section 14".
It is likely that a good number of people will require a considerable amount of help to find their way through the form satisfactorily. That in a sense encapsulates part of the difficulty of trying to operate the support system by means of the introduction of vouchers. It is important that we do not make it impossible, or extremely difficult, for genuine asylum seekers to claim the support that they need, and that we all want them to have, in the course of trying to stop the admission to this country of those who are the victims of rackets. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done us a service in raising this matter, and I look forward to the response of the Minister.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, no one who has listened to the debate can fail to be impressed by the quality of the speakers. I do not refer just to the quality of their speeches but to the breadth of experience, expertise and pure humanity that they have demonstrated over many years. Their reputations truly go before them. What they have said will be read carefully and listened to.
I must remind noble Lords that this scheme came into effect following the passing of an Act of Parliament by both Houses. It has been in effect since 3rd April, and to judge it too harshly, or at all, at this stage seems rather too soon. Whatever criticisms there

913
may be—and many were expressed today—to come to a final judgment as to whether our scheme will work seems too early.
I hope to respond to some of the points raised in a fairly limited period of time. If I were to attempt to answer every point we should be here for a long time. First, I seek to describe the broad purpose and content of the regulations. These regulations make provisions supplementing Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and provide a statutory framework for the new national asylum support scheme. Under their provisions, support is to be available to asylum seekers and their dependants who apply in accordance with the regulations and appear to be destitute, or likely to become destitute, within 14 days of the application being considered.
The regulations define who is a dependant of an asylum seeker for these purposes and set out the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a person or family group is destitute. They also set out what support can be expected to be provided to a successful applicant. This will generally take the form of accommodation, provision for other essential living needs or both accommodation and such provision. The provision for essential living needs, as noble Lords will know, will be in the form of vouchers.
That was a matter of a great deal of debate and discussion involving a large number of people who are present in the House today, some of whom spoke and some did not. However, that was the decision taken by Parliament. The vouchers are redeemable for goods or services and not more than 10 cash per person per week.
The regulations make provision for the notification of the Secretary of State when changes of circumstances occur that may affect the support to be provided. They enable the Secretary of State to require contributions towards the cost of providing support in those cases where an applicant has some income and assets and to recover sums of money spent on supporting an asylum seeker where the asylum seeker has assets which have become realisable since the original application for support.
The regulations prescribe the case in which support can be suspended or discontinued and make provision for bringing to an end tenancies or licences to occupy accommodation given to people being provided with accommodation under the scheme. In addition, they make provision whereby "destitute" in certain related legislation has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of asylum support.
That rather dry account of what the regulations provide involves the sort of remarks made by a Minister when moving an order in the normal course of events. It is important to remember that we are discussing today these orders. Using his ingenious qualities, which we often see in this House—that is a compliment—the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has prayed against the regulations and so we have had a full and wide-ranging discussion going somewhat into detail beyond the regulations, but perhaps all the better for that
914
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we believe that the system, which has not yet been tried, is infinitely to be preferred to one where—whether one calls them reception centres or detention centres—every single asylum seeker, man, woman or child, would be effectively locked up until a decision was made about the particular case. Whatever justified criticisms noble Lords have, I hope that the majority, including perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elton, feel that I am right in what I say. One cannot help but believe that the idea of locking up all asylum seekers for the necessary length of time is a policy Rat forward in the hope of garnering a few votes in a few weeks' time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord appeared to be trying to tempt me to my feet to answer his point. To describe what my noble friend alluded to as "locking up" is to make a very large assumption. The Liberal Democrat Party has also suggested that people should reside in places where they can be easily accessed for rapid treatment. Simon Hughes, in referring to the matter, twice used the word "escape", which made me think that that party is more keen on locking up than we are. It seems to me that if one can house people humanely and comfortably and provide for them to have a reasonable quality of life for a few weeks, that is very much better than dispersing them around the country, with all the penalties that we have heard described, and keeping them there for six months.
Lord Bach: My Lords, would the asylum seekers be free to come and go as they please? That is the question that the noble Lord has to answer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not the maker of policy on the hoof. The question is whether people should be kept in an area where it is possible to minister to their needs and make judgments about them simply or whether they should be dispersed around the country. I would not rule out housing them in concentrated areas. We are in an area of very evocative language. Merely using the word "concentrated" tempts the noble Lord to talk about concentration camps. In talking about "locking up" one is thinking about detention centres. I am entirely against keeping them in Rochester prison, which is where many of them are kept now.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I did not use the phrase "concentration camps". I would not even have thought about using them. The noble Lord should withdraw that if he believes that that is an expression I was coming to. I do not believe that the words "reception centre" are correct. I believe that the words "detention centres" are more appropriate. It is not a question of whether they take it or leave it or whether they come and go. The policy of the Official Opposition is that these people, whether justified or not as asylum seekers, should be locked up and not free

915
to come and go until decisions are reached. That is the policy. I was merely asking whether the noble Lord supported that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me to withdraw something which I did not say. I did not say that he was talking about concentration camps. I said that we were in an evocative area in which the media are all-powerful. The fact that I used the word "concentrated" invites an article about Tory concentration camps, which is dangerous and not what is proposed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the exchange really should have been with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I say straightaway that the application form is in English. We anticipate that in the vast majority of cases—it is happening already—there will be an assistant from an established group for filling in the form. Normally there will be a one-stop service. There will be a voluntary sector service at reception areas. Someone will assist the applicant in filling in the form.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had fun with the application form—and who cannot have fun with any application form—I must tell the House that it won the Plain English Campaign's Crystal Mark for Clarity. I am not sure that all speeches in this House would necessarily win it. So far, there have been no problems in practice.
I have been asked to explain on behalf of the Government why these steps are being taken. The aim of the scheme is to maintain our international obligations and provide adequate support for destitute asylum seekers, but also to deter those who seek to use the asylum system simply, if understandably, to obtain a better standard of living than they could have in their own country. If something is not done to try to prevent people doing that, the time it will take for real asylum seekers—those who have a justified claim for asylum—to have the asylum that they deserve will take correspondingly longer.
We believe that cash is a strong pull factor. I say that in particular to the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. While there are genuine asylum seekers, a large number are economic migrants, sadly, often assisted by those who cynically deal in human traffic and view the social security benefits as attractive. It is our belief that to pay in cash, and at the rate of social security income benefit for adults would attract even more false claims for asylum. We may be right or we may be wrong, but the legislation having been passed and these rules appearing under it, it is important to see whether it works.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked a number of questions and made a number of comments. I am advised that a family on income support would have to pay for utilities—gas, electricity and water—and would have to purchase household goods and utensils—bedding, pots and pans, cutlery and crockery—but that those will be provided for asylum
916
seekers. Therefore, we contend that the difference in the amount between income support and that obtainable under our system is accounted for by the provision which asylum seekers' families will receive in kind.
Furthermore, all applications for state provision to meet special needs will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The table in Regulation No. 10 sets out only what can be expected to be provided as a general rule. The noble Lord also asked what would happen if an asylum seeker were unfortunately to die. Where such a person dies and his dependants are being supported by the scheme, the dependants must notify NASS of that obviously relevant change of circumstance.
The noble Lord also referred to the letter which asylum seekers receive indicating that support will be removed before reasons for refusing asylum have been given. I am advised that that is not so. No support will be withdrawn until an asylum seeker has been properly refused. Only at that point does the 14-day grace period begin. Support would terminate 14 days afterwards.
The noble Lord spoke about violence and threats of violence and the regulations making no allowance for inadequate accommodation where there are threats of non-domestic violence. Again, I must tell him that that is not so. Note 6b on page 30 of the regulations states that where there is violence or racial, religious or sexual harassment, it may not be reasonable for asylum seekers to stay in their current accommodation.
My noble friend Lord Judd, in a very powerful contribution—of course, his experience and expertise in this field is renowned—asked why we extend the indignity of those who will qualify as asylum seekers. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to that point, too. We are aiming to make decisions within two months in most cases. We are already achieving that for families. The large majority of those who are recognised as refugees will receive a decision within two months. That is our belief. We believe that the asylum support system is entirely reasonable for that period. It provides safety, security and support, which we believe are some of the requirements of those fleeing persecution. Of course, those who are genuinely fleeing persecution need to know as soon as possible that they will be allowed to stay in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked questions relating to English language. I believe that I have already made the point that those who apply for support are referred to reception assistants from voluntary organisations who will help them to fill in the form, or will fill it in on their behalf. I must stress that, where necessary, interpreters will be made available.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asked about claimants who remain on support for 14 days after receiving notification of refusal. He asked what would happen if such a claimant appealed against a refusal. I am advised that, since notice of appeal itself must be made within seven days at most,

917
14 days' grace should be ample. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the 14 days' grace period begins only after the time limit for a further appeal has expired. It may be that it will be worth my writing to the right reverend Prelate with a fuller answer on that important point. However, I hope that, to some extent, my answer will at least put his anxieties to rest.
I should deal briefly, if I can, with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, concerning toys. It is important that noble Lords understand what we are saying in this regard. The support system is intended to meet the essential living needs of destitute asylum seekers on a short-term basis. Toys cannot be considered as an essential living need. Thus, they have been excluded by the regulations.
As the noble Lord knows, the provision for children stands at the same value as the equivalent income support personal allowance. We are satisfied that that level of provision for children is reasonable. It is up to individuals—granted, they will not have a huge amount of money—to decide on what they spend their vouchers. We are satisfied that the level of support provided to asylum-seeking families does not infringe our obligations under the article to which he referred. Toys and recreational items are not to be treated as an essential living need under the new scheme, but that does not preclude children from engaging in play and recreational activities. There has been a suggestion—
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what children should play with if they do not have toys? Why cannot discretion be given to the officials who are dealing with the case, as it would be if they were applying social security?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop a charity giving toys. However, the regulations are concerned with essential living expenses. They exclude a large number of items. They exclude books; they exclude toys. It would be surprising if they included toys. I do not claim for a moment that the amount of money that is being given means that there is huge spending power; of course there is not. That is part of the point of the exercise. Claimants have a discretion to buy toys if that is what they want to do. It is not considered to be an essential living need. If noble Lords consider the matter—
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He is giving us an extremely considered reply and I do not want to raise hares. But does he not agree that the tremendous emphasis that he is placing on "living" demeans the word and that, in fact, he is talking about survival expenses?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not accept that. I ask my noble friend to remember the point behind the exercise, which is to try and get decisions made in those human cases as soon as possible, but not to encourage people to come to this country when they have no real chance of achieving asylum status.
918
We do not believe that these regulations are in contravention of Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the point about toys. He says that there is nothing to stop a charity giving toys. If it did, would that in any way be taken off the benefits, the voucher system, of the people concerned? Would there be any question about the value of the toys exceeding a certain limit?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer to the right reverend Prelate is no and no. I do not mean to sound peremptory but the answer is no. Charities can and no doubt will give toys. Members of the public may seek to do that also. I am trying to explain why that is not a special living expense. In my submission, it makes reasonable sense.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and thank him for giving way. The Minister probably saw that I had my nose buried in an envelope which contains within it an e-mail which I have just received from the Diocese of Brentwood. It has asked me how far support given by a church or other charity for a refugee family—in this case, a family referred to it by the social services department of the Borough of Brentwood—would be taken into account in relation to levels of support. It has been asked to assist a family with an amputee 13 year-old girl with a new baby on the way. There is a belief and fear that such support may come straight off the support which exists under the ASS.
Lord Bach: My Lords, obviously, I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer about that particular case and I do not seek to do so. Clearly, where there are disabilities and extra difficulties, exceptional circumstances, the scheme is flexible and not as rigid as the regulations seem to have been interpreted by noble Lords this evening. However, I invite the noble Baroness to refer that case immediately to the Home Office and we shall try to get her an answer in a very short period of time.
I take issue with the noble Baroness when she says that the Government made promises during the passage of the Bill which, somehow, they have just thrown away. Her first example was in relation to the two-month period but no more than six months. We are still striving to achieve that. That is not a fair example of the Government going against their word.
The noble Baroness will know that many more people are now employed in the business of trying to make those difficult decisions on individual asylum cases. Each one must be decided individually. That is still the Government's aim. We want a two-month turnround. Of course, we shall not achieve that immediately but I ask the noble Baroness to be patient and moderate with her criticism, as she always is, in relation to that matter.

919
I need to deal with the issue of access to lawyers because it has been raised by a number of noble Lords and it is important. We are now prepared to fund travel expenses incurred in connection with bail applications and asylum interviews. That provision is in Section 96(1) of the Act. To that limited degree, those travel expenses will be paid. I have limited the degree, but I must add that the Legal Services Commission will fund practitioners to visit clients or hold surgeries in cluster areas. I do not suppose that that meets all the criticisms made, but that will be the position. Noble Lords will know that more firms specialising in that kind of work have been given contracts in the course of the past few weeks. Those that are of the quality to receive contracts have received them. There has been an increase in the remuneration such firms can receive under what used to be called Legal Aid, then the Legal Aid Board, but now—from 1st April—is called the Legal Services Commission.
I am conscious of the time. I have spoken for a long time, but I hope that that demonstrates that the Government do at least take seriously what has been said today. Of course there are concerns about the scheme we have just started to implement. I hope that my comments have met some of them. The main features of the scheme are not negotiable; they form part and parcel of our policy aimed at making the system faster, fairer and firmer, hopefully to give pause to those who wish to come here for a better standard of living than they can enjoy in their own country. The strategy was set out in the White Paper as long ago as July 1998. Its key legislative provisions were included in the Act last year.
The present regulations provide the framework for the support scheme outlined in the Act and reflect the policy of the Government that asylum seekers in need of support should receive it pending determination of their claims, but that it should not be provided in a way which encourages people to use the asylum system for purposes for which it was never intended.
Before I sit down, I promised the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that I would give him some figures. At the close of play yesterday, Wednesday 19th April, 440 applications had been received; 289 applications had been dealt with and the number of claimants dispersed was 232, including dependants. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will withdraw his prayer to annul.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am not sure that I have heard a categorical assurance about the role of charities and the way in which the Government are to take account
920
of contributions made by charities. Perhaps he could undertake to write to me and I shall convey the information to the organisations concerned.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. In shorthand, gifts in kind, such as toys—to use an example that we discussed a few minutes ago—will not have any effect on the vouchers. Gifts in cash would have such an effect. I accept that that is a shorthand answer. I shall write to the noble Earl and make sure that all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate receive a copy of the letter.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to almost all noble Lords who have spoken and expressed their concern about the regulations. For the purpose of clarity and for the record, perhaps I may clear up one issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the position of the Liberal Democrats in relation to detaining people. Our home affairs spokesman was reported to have said:
"The responsibility for asylum seekers should be the state's and not that of local government. There is logic in having respectable, reasonable, decent places which are not detention centres, not custodial, where asylum seekers can come, where they can have people who speak their own language who can process their cases. If you want to call them reception centres, if that can become a politically neutral word agreed between the parties, I am comfortable about that".
That is the position of the Liberal Democrats.
This is not the time to go into the large number of arguments that have been put forward in the debate. I plead with the Minister to look at what has been said. I do not believe that all the legislators in this Chamber are wrong about their interpretation. It may be that the regulations have not had much time to take effect.
I can promise that we shall keep a close eye on this matter. A large number of decent people and refugee organisations are working hard to try to make this process more humane than it is at the moment. Will the Minister undertake to consult those organisations on a regular basis to ensure that the correct interpretation is made and to see how we can improve on it?
I could dispute what the Minister has said in a number of areas, but this is not the time at which to do so. However, perhaps I may quote from a letter from the Diocese of Brentwood Refugee Development Project which says:
"The churches are being placed in an impossible position; where compassionate activity for and with asylum seekers could be perceived by authorities as fulfilling their statutory obligations".
I believe that concerns how matters are perceived and what others should do. My advice is, please consult and please look carefully at the debate. In the meantime a number of issues need a reply. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at twenty-three minutes before six o'clock until Tuesday, 2nd May next.

  Act of Union: Bicentenary
  Act of Union: Bicentenary
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Danube Bridges: Clearance
  Danube Bridges: Clearance
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Municipal Elections
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Municipal Elections
  Criminal Justice: Royal Commission's Recommendations
  Criminal Justice: Royal Commission's Recommendations
  Freedom of Information Bill: Public Bodies
  Freedom of Information Bill: Public Bodies
  Freedom of Information Bill
  Freedom of Information Bill
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Illegal Immigrants: Country of Origin
  Illegal Immigrants: Country of Origin
  Kevin Chambers
  Kevin Chambers
  Sex Offenders: Procedures on Release
  Sex Offenders: Procedures on Release
  Official Documents: Classification
  Official Documents: Classification
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation
  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations: Implementation
  Magistrates' Courts: Civil Proceedings
  Magistrates' Courts: Civil Proceedings
  Asylum Appeals: Disposal Rate
  Asylum Appeals: Disposal Rate
  River Thames: Strategic Planning Guidance
  River Thames: Strategic Planning Guidance
  Post Offices: Benefit Payments
  Post Offices: Benefit Payments
  Child Support Act 1991: Reduced Benefit Directions
  Child Support Act 1991: Reduced Benefit Directions
  Generic Medicines: Pricing Policy
  Generic Medicines: Pricing Policy
  "Envoy" and "Czar": Status
  "Envoy" and "Czar": Status
  Prime Minister's Official Spokesman: Strategic Communications Unit
  Prime Minister's Official Spokesman: Strategic Communications Unit
  Prime Minister's Official Spokesman: No. 10 Internet Site
  Prime Minister's Official Spokesman: No. 10 Internet Site
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Special Advisers: Commercial Interests
  Special Advisers: Commercial Interests
  UK Online Initiative
  UK Online Initiative
  Central Government Audit
  Central Government Audit
  Hotel Accommodation: VAT
  Hotel Accommodation: VAT
  ECOFIN Exchange Rate Discussions
  ECOFIN Exchange Rate Discussions
  Industry: Gross Output Figures 1948–99
  Industry: Gross Output Figures 1948–99
  Employment Changes 1948–98, by Industry
  Employment Changes 1948–98, by Industry
  A.80 Motorway
  A.80 Motorway